Bikers... Please read and be carefull out there

[bofh]

Two short things.

Um no. Because maybe they were wearing a helmet and it got removed? Maybe they are wearing ahelmet but don't have insurance. Maybe they weren't wearing a helmet but do have insurance that will cover them.

This was in response to Muzikman's idea of denying insurnace to un-helmeted riders. (Which I think is a silly idea, but whatever.) In any accident, the public gets stuck with paying the uninsured's bills. Helmet or no helmet, motorcycle or car. Unless you'd like to solve the problem of EMT's treating people without insurance, like pedestrians or bicyclists, or under-insured passengers in cars.

In any case, you've got to have the public to pay for EMS services in sufficient numbers to cover the probability and risk factor of unhelmeted riders.

In the unhelmeted accidents I've seen, which is not many, honestly. Not wearing a helmet normally makes an EMT's job pretty easy, they don't spend a lot of time on the dead people.

How would not wearing a helmet increase the number of accidents, BTW? Would unhelmeted riders cause more accidents, requiring more EMT repsonses?

[bofh]

Okay, so you tell me then. Where is the government supposed to get revenue now that we have eliminated their fining us for violations AND ended taxes?

hasty8, if you read up, and understood all them small like words. You might understand that I was repsonding to SBF's response to making the helmet/seatbelt law an arrestable offense. Which was my idea, since "won't sombody think of the children" and it's a vital public saftey law. then again, you might not.

Cphillip, hehe, somehow I don't think that was in the top 10 ideas that hasty8 was going to think of.

[FactsOfLife]

Unfortunately this point is lost on those who are more concerned about their own "personal freedom".

omg...

[Hasty8]

Thats an easy one Hasty! Make em get SMALLER!!!!

We tried that already once. Unfortunately a smaller government was a greater detriment to the working class or did somebody sleep through history class and the lesson we learned about old Teddy the Trustbuster?

[Hasty8]

hasty8, if you read up, and understood all them small like words. You might understand that I was repsonding to SBF's response to making the helmet/seatbelt law an arrestable offense. Which was my idea, since "won't sombody think of the children" and it's a vital public saftey law. then again, you might not.

Cphillip, hehe, somehow I don't think that was in the top 10 ideas that hasty8 was going to think of.

I fully understand your tiny words but apparently you did not understand mine. I'll try to use smaller words this time. Hopefully you will understand.

Raising the penatly of not wearing a helmet to an arrestable offense would eliminate a source of much needed revenue to the local government.

So again, I ask you, "How will those lost revenues be replaced?"

[cphilip]

Actually we tried TO DO it but never did succeed... about the only thing we ever made smaller was the little guys that did all the work and the Military... making something smaller means cutting down on what is Nationaly done from top to bottom and putting it back in the states hands to do. We never accomplished that. Never. The thought is nothing new. The implementation just never really occurs. Soon as we do push the authority down....Congress passes linked budget laws to force states to pass things into law they gave up national control over! Highway funds are held hostage. etc....Linking funds to passing state laws! Nothing changes but the method! No one loses their Federal Job and goes to work at the state level. Never happened! Calling it a failed idea is to ignore the obvious. All ever has been tried was scuttled at the Federal Level. Never allowed to succeed.

[bofh]

I fully understand your tiny words but apparently you did not understand mine. I'll try to use smaller words this time. Hopefully you will understand.

Raising the penatly of not wearing a helmet to an arrestable offense would eliminate a source of much needed revenue to the local government.

So again, I ask you, "How will those lost revenues be replaced?"

Ah, so you admit that the Helmet and Seltbelt law is nothing more than revenue generator.

I'll go ask the 31 states without Full Helmet laws on how they manage, without making up unjust laws. BRB.

[cphilip]

I fully understand your tiny words but apparently you did not understand mine. I'll try to use smaller words this time. Hopefully you will understand.

Hopefully you will understand when I point out to you that talking down to people and concietedly snotty remarks like that pretty much kill anything you have to say... And I mean that as a friend and not as a flame.

[Hasty8]

Hopefully you will understand when I point out to you that talking down to people and concietedly snotty remarks like that pretty much kill anything you have to say... And I mean that as a friend and not as a flame.

hasty8, if you read up, and understood all them small like words. You might understand that I was repsonding to SBF's

When I get talked down too I talk down right back at 'em.

Look, let's face the facts the all sides have their views and we are not going to change anyone's views. I still feel, and always, will that the government has some right to dictate how it's citizens conduct their daily lives whether it be governing how we drive, at what age we can drink or smoke or what protective devices are required in order to operate a moving vehicle.

Yes, I do concur that helmet and seatbelt laws help to generate revenue but I never, ever once said that it is their sole purpose to do so and to take my words as such is just plain silly.

Ah, so you admit that the Helmet and Seltbelt law is nothing more than revenue generator.

I'll go ask the 31 states without Full Helmet laws on how they manage, without making up unjust laws. BRB.

The day you can show me that laws designed to protect people are "unjust" I will pledge allegiance to you. Until then...

With that said, I bid this particular thread adieu!

[bofh]

The day you can show me that laws designed to protect people are "unjust" I will pledge allegiance to you. Until then...

My point was, if the law was for safety, it should be an arrestable offense, with a clearly defined, safe, list of approved helmets. As it is, in NJ it's $25 fine, with no points, with no list of approved helmets. That is not a law for safety, that is a nuisance law, which infringes on personal freedom, which in my book, in unjust.

[cphilip]

Two wrongs don't make a right Hasty.

If you want to use that argument then you are admitting you are lowering yourself to that level. And there is never an excuse for that. Be the bigger man and debate honestly and emotionaly stable and let others embarass themselves.

[Hasty8]

Two wrongs don't make a right Hasty.

If you want to use that argument then you are admitting you are lowering yourself to that level. And there is never an excuse for that. Be the bigger man and debate honestly and emotionaly stable and let others embarass themselves.

Yeah, well, sometimes even the great stumble. I'm not sure if it's me since I was away for a while or whatever but there seems to be a few posters here who are very hostile towards divergent POV's.

It seems as if AO has lost a lot of it's friendlier side and suddenly if you post something that these few bad apples don't like you get insulted, called a tool and essentially vilified for having an opinion of your own.

[Hasty8]

My point was, if the law was for safety, it should be an arrestable offense, with a clearly defined, safe, list of approved helmets. As it is, in NJ it's $25 fine, with no points, with no list of approved helmets. That is not a law for safety, that is a nuisance law, which infringes on personal freedom, which in my book, in unjust.

bofh, punishments for breaking the law is dependant on the severity of the crime. If I speed just 5 miles over the speed limit I get a fine but if I speed 30 miles over I get arrested for a misdemeanor. By your logic someone going 1 mile over the speed limit is equivalent to someone who is going 40 miles over and that is simply irresponsible thinking.

Whether you, or anyone else on these boards, like it or not, the government has a right and a responsibility to dictate, within reason, how we conduct ourselves in public.

This is why there are decenty laws. Laws on how pornorgraphy can be and who it can be distributed to and where. LAws on who can and how they can smoke or consume alcohol.

By your logic drugs should be legal for all because, I assume, that in your opinion drugs only effect the end user.

You do not get the same punishment for accidentally killing someone as you do for intentionally planning and executing that plan to kill.

DUI is a more serious offense because it has a greater potential to effect other driver.

Helmets laws are there to protect the stupid. If that makes you feel better about them then leave it at that.

[cphilip]

Yeah, well, sometimes even the great stumble. I'm not sure if it's me since I was away for a while or whatever but there seems to be a few posters here who are very hostile towards divergent POV's.

It seems as if AO has lost a lot of it's friendlier side and suddenly if you post something that these few bad apples don't like you get insulted, called a tool and essentially vilified for having an opinion of your own.

Thats not what I see. What I see is you chose to take an unpopular veiwpoint and then become irritated when people do not agree with you. While I like seeing someone argue the apposing viewpoint I hate to see it turn personal. Its the internet for gosh sakes. Keep it in perspective. Keep it friendly as possible. Its not worth it.

[bofh]

Whether you, or anyone else on these boards, like it or not, the government has a right and a responsibility to dictate, within reason, how we conduct ourselves in public.

AS I said before, once you believe the Goverment has a "RIGHT" to dictate our behavior, on how we conduct ourselves in ways that don't affect other people, You have lost. You have choosen to defend the indefensible. Otherwise, please point to the area in the Bill of Rights that says so, or try to link Hemlet wearing to the "Public Good"

This is why there are decenty laws. Laws on how pornorgraphy can be and who it can be distributed to and where. LAws on who can and how they can smoke or consume alcohol.

Most of which oddly go away at the age of majority. Your point there was? I can buy any alcohol, Cigs' or pron that's for sale. Again, you have made another bad conclusion, There are 31 States that don't have full Helmet laws, you saying that they are full of Alcoholic, chain smoking, pedophiles?

By your logic drugs should be legal for all because, I assume, that in your opinion drugs only effect the end user.

You know, that's a bad conclusion, and yet you bring it up. How's this, prove not having a helmet law affects you. Stop deflecting.

Helmets laws are there to protect the stupid. If that makes you feel better about them then leave it at that.

It seems that you're for a Nanny State. You'd like the goverment to tell you how to tie your shoes, or dictate that you must wear velco shoes, for the common good, perhaps?