hey guys and gals
your brothers and sisters at abate local 17 vacaville are inviting
you to our poker run
march 2nd 9:00 am at miss darlas to support the fight for your right
to ride

ron

(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> hey guys and gals
> your brothers and sisters at abate local 17 vacaville are inviting
> you to our poker run
> march 2nd 9:00 am at miss darlas to support the fight for your right
> to ride
>
> ron

Right to be a moron, that is. ABATE is about opposition to helmet laws,
IIRC. People who don't wear helmets apparently assume they'll never fall
off. Even if you never screw up, the guy in the car coming the other way
might, and I'd much rather have my helmet get dented and ground up than
my head, thank you very much.

Nivlem wrote:

>(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>> hey guys and gals
>> your brothers and sisters at abate local 17 vacaville are inviting
>> you to our poker run
>> march 2nd 9:00 am at miss darlas to support the fight for your right
>> to ride
>>
>> ron
>
>Right to be a moron, that is. ABATE is about opposition to helmet laws,
>IIRC. People who don't wear helmets apparently assume they'll never fall
>off. Even if you never screw up, the guy in the car coming the other way
>might, and I'd much rather have my helmet get dented and ground up than
>my head, thank you very much.

I completely agree that motorcyclists should wear helmets. What I
find moronic, though, is thinking that this justifies laws requiring
motorcyclists to wear helmets when riding.

Our government continually erodes its citizens' personal freedoms and
accepting helmet laws without dissent only invites the government to
further restrict riders' choices. This could result, eventually, in
the government deciding that motorcycles are too dangerous to allow
them to be used on public roads. (Before you insist that this could
never happen, please consider how likely you may have thought, as
little as, say, 25 years ago, that it would one day be illegal to
smoke tobacco in public places.)

Yes, ABATE's agenda is largely centered around opposing helmet laws
and some of its members' debate technique is sometimes less than
brilliantly articulate, but the organization's mission is about
maintaining the freedom to ride.

Or, if you're already convinced that wearing helemts is a good idea,
why do you need your government to tell you to wear yours?

--
================================================== ======================
Michael Kesti | "And like, one and one don't make
| two, one and one make one."
mrkesti at hotmail dot com | - The Who, Bargain

"Michael R. Kesti" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> Nivlem wrote:
>
> >(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> >> hey guys and gals
> >> your brothers and sisters at abate local 17 vacaville are inviting
> >> you to our poker run
> >> march 2nd 9:00 am at miss darlas to support the fight for your right
> >> to ride
> >>
> >> ron
> >
> >Right to be a moron, that is. ABATE is about opposition to helmet laws,
> >IIRC. People who don't wear helmets apparently assume they'll never fall
> >off. Even if you never screw up, the guy in the car coming the other way
> >might, and I'd much rather have my helmet get dented and ground up than
> >my head, thank you very much.
>
> I completely agree that motorcyclists should wear helmets. What I
> find moronic, though, is thinking that this justifies laws requiring
> motorcyclists to wear helmets when riding.
>
> Our government continually erodes its citizens' personal freedoms and
> accepting helmet laws without dissent only invites the government to
> further restrict riders' choices. This could result, eventually, in
> the government deciding that motorcycles are too dangerous to allow
> them to be used on public roads. (Before you insist that this could
> never happen, please consider how likely you may have thought, as
> little as, say, 25 years ago, that it would one day be illegal to
> smoke tobacco in public places.)
>
> Yes, ABATE's agenda is largely centered around opposing helmet laws
> and some of its members' debate technique is sometimes less than
> brilliantly articulate, but the organization's mission is about
> maintaining the freedom to ride.
>
> Or, if you're already convinced that wearing helemts is a good idea,
> why do you need your government to tell you to wear yours?
>

Motorcyclist who don't wear helmets are "irresponsible", so are less
likely to take care of their own medical expenses, so the helmet laws
are protecting public health care money. I favor repealing helmet
laws, and limiting publicly-funded health care to those people. "no
helmet, no health insurance, no treatment". Of course, that leads to
increased cost of health insurance (or none available) for hazardous
behavior, and the inclusion of riding a motorcycle in that category.

Another possibility would be requiring either a helmet or proof of
appropriate medical coverage.

Me, I'm ATGATT, and have medical insurance.

73, doug

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Doug Faunt N6TQS +1-510-655-8604 <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Motorcyclist who don't wear helmets are "irresponsible", so are less
> likely to take care of their own medical expenses, so the helmet laws
> are protecting public health care money. I favor repealing helmet
> laws, and limiting publicly-funded health care to those people. "no
> helmet, no health insurance, no treatment". Of course, that leads to
> increased cost of health insurance (or none available) for hazardous
> behavior, and the inclusion of riding a motorcycle in that category.

Unbelievable.

What is "irresponsible" is your belief that you or your cronies have
the ability to define responsible behavior, and then deny humane
treatment to anyone who falls outside your prejudiced belief system.

What an incredibly irrational jump, to decide that someone who doesn't
wear a helmet is going to also be uninsured.

>
> Another possibility would be requiring either a helmet or proof of
> appropriate medical coverage.

How about, "ride a motorcycle, no insurance coverage." This is a very
real problem, and is occurring all over the country. A direct result
of the kind of irresponsible boneheaded thinking that seems to be more
and more prevalent.

>
> Me, I'm ATGATT, and have medical insurance.

Are you sure you have medical coverage for a motorcycle injury?

Should we deny all medical coverage for smokers? Smoking seems
irresponsible to me.

How about coffee drinkers?

People who lead sedentary lives?

Meat eaters?

Vegans?

Roller hockey players?

Teen-aged soccer players?

Hmm. All these activities could be considered irresponsible. Make me
the responsibility czar and I'll save all kinds of health care money
for those of us who lead safe and tidy little lives.


No thanks.

--
Charles
'99 YZ250

Doug Faunt N6TQS +1-510-655-8604 wrote:
> "Michael R. Kesti" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>
>> Nivlem wrote:
>>
>>> (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>>>> hey guys and gals
>>>> your brothers and sisters at abate local 17 vacaville are inviting
>>>> you to our poker run
>>>> march 2nd 9:00 am at miss darlas to support the fight for your right
>>>> to ride
>>>>
>>>> ron
>>> Right to be a moron, that is. ABATE is about opposition to helmet laws,
>>> IIRC. People who don't wear helmets apparently assume they'll never fall
>>> off. Even if you never screw up, the guy in the car coming the other way
>>> might, and I'd much rather have my helmet get dented and ground up than
>>> my head, thank you very much.
>> I completely agree that motorcyclists should wear helmets. What I
>> find moronic, though, is thinking that this justifies laws requiring
>> motorcyclists to wear helmets when riding.
>>
>> Our government continually erodes its citizens' personal freedoms and
>> accepting helmet laws without dissent only invites the government to
>> further restrict riders' choices. This could result, eventually, in
>> the government deciding that motorcycles are too dangerous to allow
>> them to be used on public roads. (Before you insist that this could
>> never happen, please consider how likely you may have thought, as
>> little as, say, 25 years ago, that it would one day be illegal to
>> smoke tobacco in public places.)
>>
>> Yes, ABATE's agenda is largely centered around opposing helmet laws
>> and some of its members' debate technique is sometimes less than
>> brilliantly articulate, but the organization's mission is about
>> maintaining the freedom to ride.
>>
>> Or, if you're already convinced that wearing helemts is a good idea,
>> why do you need your government to tell you to wear yours?
>>
>
> Motorcyclist who don't wear helmets are "irresponsible", so are less
> likely to take care of their own medical expenses, so the helmet laws
> are protecting public health care money. I favor repealing helmet
> laws, and limiting publicly-funded health care to those people. "no
> helmet, no health insurance, no treatment". Of course, that leads to
> increased cost of health insurance (or none available) for hazardous
> behavior, and the inclusion of riding a motorcycle in that category.
>
> Another possibility would be requiring either a helmet or proof of
> appropriate medical coverage.
>
> Me, I'm ATGATT, and have medical insurance.
>
> 73, doug
>
>
Motorcyclists who don't wear helmets are more likely to be DOA, and cost
public health funds a good deal less than those who wear them but
cannot get (or cannot afford) health insurance.

Allowing social insurance costs (formal or informal) to shape public
policy decisions violates the basic rationale of social insurance (that
the body politic assumes the moral hazards of the insured risk), and
encourages perverse policies like promoting smoking to cut the cost of
old-age pensions.

Rich, Urban Biker

P. Roehling wrote:
> "Nivlem" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
>
>> Right to be a moron, that is. ABATE is about opposition to helmet laws,
>> IIRC. People who don't wear helmets apparently assume they'll never fall
>> off. Even if you never screw up, the guy in the car coming the other way
>> might, and I'd much rather have my helmet get dented and ground up than my
>> head, thank you very much.
>
> You're confused. ABATE doesn't want to outlaw helmets, and they're
> perfectly willing to let you -and anyone else who wants to- continue to wear
> your helmets whenever you feel like it. After all it's *your* head. (Heck,
> if you want to wear your helmet in the shower in case you fear you might
> slip and sustain a skull fracture, ABATE won't say a word.)
>
> What they object to, and rightly so, is the Nanny State telling grown-up
> adults what risks they are allowed to take with their own lives.
>
> Now, if you think that you are -and should rightfully be- the property of
> the State from the moment you're born until the day they plant you, then I
> suppose that it's logical that you think that anything the State orders you
> to do must be for your own good: after all, that's what the State tells us,
> right? Everything they do is for our own good?
>
> But those of us who still feel that the State is supposed to belong to the
> people rather than the other way around think that we're able to make these
> life-and-death decisions for ourselves, that in fact we belong to
> *ourselves*, not to the State, and that we neither want nor need someone
> sitting in Sacramento (or Washington D.C.) to take said decisions out of our
> hands, even when they claim to be doing us all a favor. (As someone who'd
> obviously dealt with bureaucracies once said, "The most frightening ten
> words in the English language are 'I'm from the Government, and I'm here to
> help you.'")
>
I recall hearing those words from Ronald Reagan, though I doubt that he
originated the quotation.


> In fact, the State has absolutely *no* business telling a free citizen what
> risks they should be able to take with their own lives, and that includes
> potentially hazardous undertakings such as sky-diving, rock-climbing,
> surfing, or even (gasp) riding a motorcycle without a helmet.
>
> If ABATE gets their wish, will some of 'em die in motorcycle crashes that
> wouldn't have been deadly if only they'd been wearing helmets? Yup. Beyond a
> shadow of a doubt.
>
> But that's *their* decision to make. Not yours. Not mine. And damn sure not
> the State's.
>
>
Amen. With one caveat: no one has the right to impose costs on another
citizen. The heirs of those who die without helmets should be barred
from bringing tort claims of wrongful death.


Rich, Urban Biker

Rich wrote:
> P. Roehling wrote:
>> "Nivlem" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
>>
>>> Right to be a moron, that is. ABATE is about opposition to helmet
>>> laws, IIRC. People who don't wear helmets apparently assume they'll
>>> never fall off. Even if you never screw up, the guy in the car coming
>>> the other way might, and I'd much rather have my helmet get dented
>>> and ground up than my head, thank you very much.
>>
>> You're confused. ABATE doesn't want to outlaw helmets, and they're
>> perfectly willing to let you -and anyone else who wants to- continue
>> to wear your helmets whenever you feel like it. After all it's *your*
>> head. (Heck, if you want to wear your helmet in the shower in case
>> you fear you might slip and sustain a skull fracture, ABATE won't say
>> a word.)
>>
>> What they object to, and rightly so, is the Nanny State telling
>> grown-up adults what risks they are allowed to take with their own lives.
>>
>> Now, if you think that you are -and should rightfully be- the property
>> of the State from the moment you're born until the day they plant you,
>> then I suppose that it's logical that you think that anything the
>> State orders you to do must be for your own good: after all, that's
>> what the State tells us, right? Everything they do is for our own good?
>>
>> But those of us who still feel that the State is supposed to belong to
>> the people rather than the other way around think that we're able to
>> make these life-and-death decisions for ourselves, that in fact we
>> belong to *ourselves*, not to the State, and that we neither want nor
>> need someone sitting in Sacramento (or Washington D.C.) to take said
>> decisions out of our hands, even when they claim to be doing us all a
>> favor. (As someone who'd obviously dealt with bureaucracies once said,
>> "The most frightening ten words in the English language are 'I'm from
>> the Government, and I'm here to help you.'")
>>
> I recall hearing those words from Ronald Reagan, though I doubt that he
> originated the quotation.
>
>
>> In fact, the State has absolutely *no* business telling a free citizen
>> what risks they should be able to take with their own lives, and that
>> includes potentially hazardous undertakings such as sky-diving,
>> rock-climbing, surfing, or even (gasp) riding a motorcycle without a
>> helmet.
>>
>> If ABATE gets their wish, will some of 'em die in motorcycle crashes
>> that wouldn't have been deadly if only they'd been wearing helmets?
>> Yup. Beyond a shadow of a doubt.
>>
>> But that's *their* decision to make. Not yours. Not mine. And damn
>> sure not the State's.
>>
>>
> Amen. With one caveat: no one has the right to impose costs on another
> citizen. The heirs of those who die without helmets should be barred
> from bringing tort claims of wrongful death.
>
>
> Rich, Urban Biker

Even if they're centerpunched by a drunk cager at an intersection?

--
barb
Chaplain, ARSCCwdne

buy my book!
http://stores.lulu.com/store.php?fAcctID=1198812

read my page! (thanks, R. Hill!)
http://www.xenu-directory.net/critics/graham1.html

visit my store!
http://www.cafepress.com/birdville

P. Roehling wrote:
> "Nivlem" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
>
>> Right to be a moron, that is. ABATE is about opposition to helmet laws,
>> IIRC. People who don't wear helmets apparently assume they'll never fall
>> off. Even if you never screw up, the guy in the car coming the other way
>> might, and I'd much rather have my helmet get dented and ground up than my
>> head, thank you very much.
>
> You're confused. ABATE doesn't want to outlaw helmets, and they're
> perfectly willing to let you -and anyone else who wants to- continue to wear
> your helmets whenever you feel like it. After all it's *your* head. (Heck,
> if you want to wear your helmet in the shower in case you fear you might
> slip and sustain a skull fracture, ABATE won't say a word.)
>
> What they object to, and rightly so, is the Nanny State telling grown-up
> adults what risks they are allowed to take with their own lives.
>
> Now, if you think that you are -and should rightfully be- the property of
> the State from the moment you're born until the day they plant you, then I
> suppose that it's logical that you think that anything the State orders you
> to do must be for your own good: after all, that's what the State tells us,
> right? Everything they do is for our own good?
>
> But those of us who still feel that the State is supposed to belong to the
> people rather than the other way around think that we're able to make these
> life-and-death decisions for ourselves, that in fact we belong to
> *ourselves*, not to the State, and that we neither want nor need someone
> sitting in Sacramento (or Washington D.C.) to take said decisions out of our
> hands, even when they claim to be doing us all a favor. (As someone who'd
> obviously dealt with bureaucracies once said, "The most frightening ten
> words in the English language are 'I'm from the Government, and I'm here to
> help you.'")
>
> In fact, the State has absolutely *no* business telling a free citizen what
> risks they should be able to take with their own lives, and that includes
> potentially hazardous undertakings such as sky-diving, rock-climbing,
> surfing, or even (gasp) riding a motorcycle without a helmet.
>
> If ABATE gets their wish, will some of 'em die in motorcycle crashes that
> wouldn't have been deadly if only they'd been wearing helmets? Yup. Beyond a
> shadow of a doubt.
>
> But that's *their* decision to make. Not yours. Not mine. And damn sure not
> the State's.
>
>
>

Well said!

What's to stop the state from determining two wheeled vehicles are too
dangerous for its citizens to ride?

--
barb "l'etat, c'est moi!"
Chaplain, ARSCCwdne

buy my book!
http://stores.lulu.com/store.php?fAcctID=1198812

read my page! (thanks, R. Hill!)
http://www.xenu-directory.net/critics/graham1.html

visit my store!
http://www.cafepress.com/birdville

P. Roehling wrote:
> "Rich" <jaguar943-(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
>
>> I recall hearing those words from Ronald Reagan, though I doubt that he
>> originated the quotation.
>
> I'm *sure* he didn't. I remember hearing it somewhere clear back in the
> '60s.
>
>>> In fact, the State has absolutely *no* business telling a free citizen
>>> what risks they should be able to take with their own lives, and that
>>> includes potentially hazardous undertakings such as sky-diving,
>>> rock-climbing, surfing, or even (gasp) riding a motorcycle without a
>>> helmet.
>>>
>>> If ABATE gets their wish, will some of 'em die in motorcycle crashes that
>>> wouldn't have been deadly if only they'd been wearing helmets? Yup.
>>> Beyond a shadow of a doubt.
>>>
>>> But that's *their* decision to make. Not yours. Not mine. And damn sure
>>> not the State's.
>>>
>>>
>> Amen. With one caveat: no one has the right to impose costs on another
>> citizen. The heirs of those who die without helmets should be barred from
>> bringing tort claims of wrongful death.
>
> You go too far. If some doofus who's in the wrong lane takes you out in a
> head-on accident, your survivors should *still* be able to sue the sox off
> of said doofus, and it matters not that you weren't wearing a helmet: it
> wouldn't have saved your life anyway.
>
>
It's arguable. If licensed drivers can be forced by implied consent
laws to give up their privilege against self-incrimination with respect
to DUI, I don't see why lidless riders can't be compelled to give up
their rights in potential tort cases. Better than compelling them to
wear lids IMHO.