Stop Helmet Laws Now...

A federally mandated law is in your future... the more bare headed
brains on the pavement the more people are sold on prevention across
state lines... and no amount of flag waving or freedom crying will halt
it... the only way out is simple... wear a helmet... no need for a
helmet law if everyone dons a helmet now is there???

Bare headed bikers fuel the fires for helmet laws whereas helmeted
riders are the solution in extinguishing the fires...

Out smart politicians... wear a helmet... before it's too late...

Larry L
94 RC45 #2
Have a wheelie NICE day...
Lean & Mean it... the extended warranty in every corner of your life...
If it wasn't for us the fast lane would rust...
V4'S are music to the seat of my pants...
1952 De Havilland Chipmunk...
Yank and bank your brains loose...
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/-xlax-/
http://home.comcast.net/~netters2/

 

We need to post a list of all these anti freedom polititicians and
vote them out of office.


Mike

 

Having a hard time letting go of this, aren'tcha Larry? Seek professional
help. Maybe you can trade some of your exquisite machining time for some time
on the couch....

 

No politicians are calling for a federally mandated helmet law; only Larry.
Unfortunately, you can't vote Larry out of office because he doesn't hold any
office!

 

To this point , I have treated your premise as true. I find that the
NHTSA has been lobbying State Legislatures (which they ought not to be
doing) for State laws [1], but not much on a movement for a Federal
law. Some evidence of support would be appreciated as the previous
federal helmet legislation was repealed in 1995. [2]

Unfortunatey, "need" has never been a requirement for any legislative
body to pass a law. But I definitely agree, a little self-regulation
will go a LONG way here. To that end, the AMA and MSF have supported,
and provided, education and training to motorcyclists for years and
have been very clear on their support for helmet use.

As for preventing injuries, educating riders in the skills needed to
manage risk more effectivley will reduce the need to test the efficacy
of helmets and so further reducing motorcycle-related injuries. [3]

And please do try and see the distinction: I have no issue with a
State passing a mandatory helmet law. It is the State and it's
citizens that bear the cost of needless injuries. The Federal
Government, however, has no business passing such a law.




[1] http://www.americanmotor.com/news.cfm?newsid=40

http://www.abate-of-maryland.org/NHTSAJul99SB239.html


http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/nhtsa/whatsup/tea21/GrantMan/HTML/05d_LobbyMemo_2_7_00.html


[2]
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d104:SN00440:/bss/d104query.html


[3] http://www.amadirectlink.com/legisltn/positions/ridered.asp


Regards,

--

John
Apple Valley, MN
'02 FZ1
'73 RD350

 

Accomplished by duress? You have an odd sense of what freedom is,
Larry.

At some point (and I think we passed it, some time ago), people have
to tell the government to stop looking for new excuses to meddle in
every aspect of their lives.

If you were really concerned about promoting what's right [1], you'd
push for that; not encourage people to think even more along the lines
of dependency; having the government do all their thinking for them.

In a sense, unhelmeted riders could be regarded as the unbowed
vanguard, returning people back to their roots; roots that used to
promote values of independence, tolerance and taking responsibility
for one's own actions.

That's what the image of an unhelmeted rider (with middle finger
raised) says and it's a powerful, meaning-laden cultural image that,
on it's own, exerts quite a molding force on the national psychy.

In short, this is not really a helmet/safety issue at all. It's that
image (referred to above) that really scares the social engineers,
eggheads and cultural elite because their plans to mold everyone into
polite, docile copies of themselves will never work while such people
continue to roam the landscape free.

Deep down, they feel threatened by and hate such people. That makes
this, essentially, a question of how tolerant we want to be, as
societies.

Also, in it's special way, this issue unmasks that deep-seated
intolerance Liberals feel towards others because it is so perfectly
clear that it affects no one other than the rider him/herself (making
it no business of others).

Liberals need people become more dependent on the government and the
unhelmeted rider represents to them everything that must be
extinguished from our thinking. Because they are associated with the
image, the recent popularity of Harley Davidson might even be party a
result of a backlash that is building against such trends. Maybe that
partly explains why the feelings for-and-against this category of
motorcycles tends to be so heated.

Want to talk about what the people will do, Larry? Well, my guess is
that people simply will not continue to take your type of meddling any
longer. That's what the *real* trend is.

Well, at least I sure hope it is...


[1] As opposed to dwelling on what the levers of power might permit
you (and your like-minded friends) to accomplish by legislative force.

--
Instead of weaving, I should have been reloading
(remove _NO_SPAM_ to reply)

98 FLTRI
83 Nighthawk

Share yourself: http://xidos.ca/XManager/ReekyLogin.asp
To register: http://xidos.ca/OrgUserEdit.asp?OrgCode=REEKY_MOTO
Home page: http://xidos.ca/scripts/Personal/
Alaska trip: http://xidos.ca/scripts/Personal/Alaska/

 

I thought idiots squid shotting through traffic was the cause for the
downfall of all things sportbikey?

 

I hope Larry wrote that post from a sarcastic point of view.
That's the way I took it....

A well written point Don, I share your sentiments.

Drinks are on me across the street.

RickB

 

May be we could have a recall and vote him into office similar to
Ahnold. Would he then be called the "Brain Bucketinator? - HPT

 

Since no politicians calling for a mandatory helmet law, it looks like
you're out of luck. It won't happen, it can't happen.

--
Odinn

'03 FLHTI ........... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/ElectraGlide
'97 VN1500D ......... http://odinn-frigga.tripod.com/scoot
Atlanta Biker Net ... http://www.atlantabiker.net
Personal Homepage ... http://odinn-frigga.tripod.com
Vulcan Riders Assoc . http://www.vulcanriders.org

Fill in the blanks to reply

 

Is RMH across the street? ;-)
-HPT

 

This may ring true as far as your biker buddies can see... but in the
real world of the general public's eye... both right and left...
unhelmeted bikers may been seen as trash... riding bare headed defiantly
with little regard for their own personal safety... practice off the
wall behavior by flipping the bird... you may just conjure up images of
anti social types needing to get in step with the current seat belt
times...

That's the perfect image politicians will use to cement a national
helmet law... you'll end up on the cover of their hand outs... "Here's
what bikers think of safety"...

Bingo!!! bare headed riding is all about IMAGE without regard to
safety... and you know that's mere throw back thinking to a bygone age...


because it is so perfectly

Cagers are scared of not seeing a biker... their fearful of being the
cause of a biker's crack crania cavity... their most fearful of loosing
everything in wrongful death suit brought on by the surviving family
members... these are the real fears that could drive home a politician's
argument that a national helmet law is a good idea... for it may save a
errant cager from fear of embarrassment... fear of jail and fear of lost
income...

You know our culture is all about more... more power... more comfort...
more money... etc... so how can you blame me for foreseeing more safety
in your future???

Larry L
94 RC45 #2
Have a wheelie NICE day...
Lean & Mean it... the extended warranty in every corner of your life...
If it wasn't for us the fast lane would rust...
V4'S are music to the seat of my pants...
1952 De Havilland Chipmunk...
Yank and bank your brains loose...
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/-xlax-/
http://home.comcast.net/~netters2/

 

Thanks Rick.

Unfortunately, I think Larry is serious!

--
Instead of weaving, I should have been reloading
(remove _NO_SPAM_ to reply)

98 FLTRI
83 Nighthawk

Share yourself: http://xidos.ca/XManager/ReekyLogin.asp
To register: http://xidos.ca/OrgUserEdit.asp?OrgCode=REEKY_MOTO
Home page: http://xidos.ca/scripts/Personal/
Alaska trip: http://xidos.ca/scripts/Personal/Alaska/

 

If safety is the issue, let's just ban motorcycles and be done with it.

ab

 

Sure, but you only point out the negative when, in reality, there's a
mixture of feelings - often within the same individuals. If you
believe (as I do) that people are getting increasingly fed up with
government interferring in their lives, the net effect is still more
positive than negative.

It's freedom, baby! Don't underestimate the power of it.

Or, "Here's what bikers think of the meddling beaurocrats trying to
run our lives."

The same image can be interpreted either of these two ways, depending
on your inclination. The *real* question to ask is, which of these
interpretations has the stronger foothold? In spite of all the
hand-wringing I hear from certain people, I'll place my bets that the
majority still goes more with the latter.

People often wrongly assume that everyone thinks it's automatically
wrong, harking back to some values held in the past.

I suppose that's because they blindly accept the belief that
*everything* that has changed since then has been for the better.
That's a narrow (even conceited) assumption, in my opinion.

Oh, come on! That's a really desperate argument, if I ever heard one.

Amonst some riders, some want helmet laws because they lack the inner
fortitude to be seen wearing a helmet when everyone else around them
isn't. That's what's really going on. They are weak, they need the
support of numbers and see mandatory laws as the only way to avoid
having to stand up on their own hind legs as individuals and do what
they believe is right for themselves.

Imagine that. Being so weak that you can't even do what you believe
is important to save your own life, when you feel it's endangered;
because people might laugh at you. That's real pathetic, if you ask
me.

Sorry, but I think people should be forced to make decisions like that
one for _themselves_. It's what ought to come with being a
functioning, mature citizen. But the way you make it out to be, it's
the under-developed citizens that should be rewarded and encouraged to
continue avoiding their responsibilities for their own actions.

Say, that gives me an idea, Larry. Maybe we should create a new,
special category of citizens. The "I just cannot hack it" category.
Unable to meet the standards of other fully-developed, mature
citizens, this new category could sign a special agreement, admitting
that they are incompetent when it comes to running their own lives and
handing over authority to the government to do it for them, since the
government knows better. That way, we could make everyone happy!

Yes, power might be the keyword here. But there's few things more
empowering than to be given freedom choose for yourself how to conduct
your own affairs; especially when it shouldn't be anyone else's
business what you're doing.

The real thing whose safety is endangered is the old, over-used
argument of, "If it saves just *one* life!" It will, of course, make
a lot of stink and commotion as it goes through its death-throes, but
die it will.

--
Instead of weaving, I should have been reloading
(remove _NO_SPAM_ to reply)

98 FLTRI
83 Nighthawk

Share yourself: http://xidos.ca/XManager/ReekyLogin.asp
To register: http://xidos.ca/OrgUserEdit.asp?OrgCode=REEKY_MOTO
Home page: http://xidos.ca/scripts/Personal/
Alaska trip: http://xidos.ca/scripts/Personal/Alaska/

 

So,
If you don't want to wear a helmet, wear a helmet so you don't have to wear
a helmet.

 

The issue isn't "safety", it is cost. If a motorcyclist without a
helmet goes down, he or she becomes an expensive open brain surgery; a
quadriplegic; a coma candidate, and so on. The expense to the public
hospital system becomes overwhelming, particularly in times of economic
downturn for hospitals, and public funding for medical care.

This is the same theory that led to "seatbelt" laws, airbags, bumper height
standards, and other federal and state laws. This form of regulation is
not new.

Perhaps a different answer would be to have an insurance company sponsored
funding pool for helmetless rider injuries. A surcharge could be put on
the motorcycle insurance of anyone who wishes to take on the increased risk
of riding without a helmet. In California, there is already a law
requiring insurance, and without proof of insurance, license renewals will
ultimately be withheld.
If someone DOESN'T elect to pay the surcharge, and is subsequently found to
be riding without a helmet, that would be grounds for cancelling their
insurance or suspending their license. If someone riding without a helmet
is able to produce an insurance coverage certificate WITH the helmetless
endorsement, then they would be perfectly legal.

This way the rider is allowed to determine his or her level of risk, and pay
for it, without allowing their freedom to become the financial burden of the
rest of us who do not want to pay for the "freedom" of another to suffer
expensive personal injury.

I doubt most safety laws have anything to do with actual safety, or
bicycles, motorcycles, skateboards, snow boards, skis, water skis, mountain
scaling equipment, paintball, firearms, home fireplaces, electric
appliances, power saws, power drills, chain saws, pruning shears, sharp
sticks, and scissors would all be against the law. I think the issue is
cost management for society.

 

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 21:10:48 +0000, Road Glidin' Don wrote:

[snippage]

I think you finally hit the nail on the head. Larry is afraid he wouldn't
wear a helmet if there wasn't a helmet law and needs to be told what to
do, and when to do it.

--
Odinn

'03 FLHTI ........... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/ElectraGlide
'97 VN1500D ......... http://odinn-frigga.tripod.com/scoot
Atlanta Biker Net ... http://www.atlantabiker.net
Personal Homepage ... http://odinn-frigga.tripod.com
Vulcan Riders Assoc . http://www.vulcanriders.org

Fill in the blanks to reply

 

Yes, Larry's something of a dingbat. That's why I've killfiled him. On

the real issue here is one of fiscal responsibility. who pays for
emergency medical care for the vegetable with the cracked skull? right
now, emergency rooms are mandated to deal with any serious life
threatening emergencies that are dumped on them, regardless of ability to
pay...

should emergency rooms in fact determine fiscal responsibility prior to
beginning triage? so the rich or well insured can get taken care of,
while those who are poor or underinsured get left out on the street to
bleed to death?

the same thing applies to mandantory seatbelt laws... just the other day
locally there was a multiple SUV rollover accident on a freeway near here,
those with belts on had minor-to-moderate injuries, several without belts
got ejected from their cars and either killed on the spot or severely
injured and put on the critical list.

its a moral quagmire. as it is now, everyone else gets to pay for those
who severely injure themselves without being able to pay for it, hence, we
all have some interest in reducing serious injuries by mandating prudent
and appropriate safety equipment such as seatbelts and helmets. While the
'personal freedom' sounds attractive to someone like myself that generally
believes in 'less government', I must weigh that against the cost to
society. Public hospitals are going broke, and private ones aren't taking
emergency patients.

 

would be an interesting to see where such a system leads... one would
suspect those 'helmetless' certificates would be $$$$$$ and in fact
unobtanium.

anyways, I'm afraid the insurance companies are all ready controlling too
many aspects of our lives, and they are more insidious and dangerous than
the government as they can make up their own rules as they go along.