Bikers... Please read and be carefull out there

[Hasty8]

bofh, you are taking my argument to the extreme and you know it. While I feel that the government has the right and responsibility to dictate certain aspects of our lives they obviously do not have full control and of course this is going to lead to issues. What one person may find acceptable (me) another would find as too controlling (you). Hence we have this wonderful thing called discourse.

I'm really starting to take offense at you continued insistance that I am "unreasonable" simply becuase I am sticking to my guns about my opinions. Would it be fair to call you similar terms because you too are so sure of yourself.

Yes, the 10th amendment was written that way, but that was over 200 years ago. The Constitution was also written on the point that times change and as times change the document will need to change. That's what separates it from every other piece of governmental literature that ever came before it.

Yes, the NJ laws in regards to helemt use are ambigious.
Yes, you support the use of helmets.
No, I do not think that the choice to use should be left up to the individual. If you are going to ride a bike then you should be required to wear a helmet. Should the punishment be more sever? Possibly, but the potential for a fairly hefty fine should not be removed. Make that fine to hefty and people will actually obey the law and that will reduce generated revenue for the municipality.

Yes, they are generating revenue. They need to in order to survive. As long as this world idolizes that allmighty dollar that's just gonna be a fact of life.

Does the government have the right to dictate certain aspects of our lives? Absotively and Posolutely!

An 18 year old kid, full of testosterone simply cannot be expected to make rational choices. While you argue that failure to wear a helmet effects only the rider I wholly disagree with that as it could have ramifications far beyond the individual rider.

First, it will effect his immediate frinds and family.

Second, it could greatly effect the driver of the other vehicle should there be one involved.

Third, it effects other motorcycle drivers as it could cause their insurance to go up in order to cover the expense of payment for idiots who ride without protection. It could also cause my regular health benefits to increase even though I am not a rider. Assume a motorcycle rider goes down and gets seriously hurt. The insurance company, in an effort to reign in offending policy holder who do not use helemts, refuses to pay the hospital the costs. The hospital is then forced to spread the cost of the moneis involved to other patients there, thereby causing my insurance costs to go up.

Why do you think an asprin costs around 5 dollars a pill at North Shore University Hospital?

The government has the right to dictate who can vote, who can fight a war, who can smoke and who can drink. They determine how fast we can drive our vehicles and where. They also determine what safety devices are required in order to legally drive on their roads.

[cphilip]

Now, maybe I'll go look at the links Cphillip psted. Perhaps they have something to do with helmets.

Oh yea your going to love that anti Helmet site!!!!!

[SlartyBartFast]

A REALY good helmet debate site:

http://www.usff.com/hldlhome.html

That ain't a debate. It's a manifesto.

By a lot of the arguments in there I suppose the F1, NASCAR, Indy and other racers should abandon helmets. After all, they're DANGEROUS!

[Hasty8]

Ok boys.... lets discuss this calmly.

Been some good points on both sides


Here is another link for ya. Its a list of Helmet laws by state

http://www.hwysafety.org/safety_facts/state_laws/helmet_use.htm

Here is a link to Motorcycle Laws per state:

http://home.ama-cycle.org/amaccess/laws/result.asp?state=FL

A REALY good helmet debate site:

http://www.usff.com/hldlhome.html

The Motorcycle Safety Foundation Site

http://www.msf-usa.org/

Thanks for the links Phil but I just don't understand one thing regarding the usff.com site. I'll read it in full later but I'm going into the tradeshow soon.

Do they want to repeal the helmet laws because they feel they are "unjust" as bofh does or do they just want them removed becasue they don't want to wear helmets?

I truly hope it's the former becasue I cannot imagine a single argument that would show that riding without any head protection is better than riding with. Hell, I wear a helmet when I kayak and I'm not even going over 5 mph on the river!

[bofh]

This quoting stuff is getting big :) I'm out of town for a few days shortly, so I'll hit on the major points. fast food aside. :)

Actualy, this is the heart of the matter and where we currently stand in our discussion. My over-the-top examples are just that, over the top, but in the same vein as the goverment restrict my personal choice for things that do not directly effect other people, but do effect them indirectly.

I agree here.

The goverments role in regulating speed, and most traffic laws are to reduce accidents. While speeding, weaving, (or a host of other things) you are a direct danger to other motorists.

As I have maintained, helmet use, either way, does not make me a direct danger to other motorists, and therefore is not the same as activity that presents a direct danger. Such as speeding.

Well Hasty, neither of our countries was founded on ABSOLUTE freedom. Because that is anarchy. However, both our countries (and many others) are founded on balancing the freedoms, rights, and responsibilities of individuals with the freedoms, rights, and responsibilities of other individuals and society at large.

And here is the core issue. I believe that balance should lean towards more personal responsibility, and you believe it should lean the other way.


I've read some of their posts... I'd rather not talk to them, if you don't mind. :)

All that at not one single thing that applies to the thread or helmet laws.

Actually, this was most likey more productive than more of them. :)

Now, maybe I'll go look at the links Cphillip psted. Perhaps they have something to do with helmets.

I haven't read all those links, but I'd bet that they have good info.

[cphilip]

They indeed do make you think. Make sure you read them all and all the legal responses from NHTSA about what is or is not an approved helmet.

Now here is a copy of one that even non Motorcyclists should read. It is copied with permission as you will note I included the bottom paragraph as requested


Bikers, Cages and Helmets Surprising Safety Statistics


There are certain things that all motorists know. For example, a "Stop" sign requires the motorist to bring his vehicle to a complete stop before proceeding further. So does a red light. It is unlawful to drive a motor vehicle while under the influence of liquor or other drugs. Drivers must yield to pedestrians in marked crosswalks. Drivers must yield to emergency vehicles with emergency lights and siren in operation. Drivers must signal their intent to make a turn or slow their vehicle.

The fact that all motorists know these things does not necessarily mean that all motorists will adhere to those rules. If you are on the road an hour or more each day and pay close attention, chances are good that you will witness at least one occasion in which one of those most basic laws is violated. It happens all the time, and each time there is a potential for serious injury or death, not only to the violator, but others as well.

Frequently the violator is an experienced driver. In such situations, it may be the "experience" which helps to create the problem. A novice driver may be painfully aware of the fact that he is guiding several thousand pounds of metal at 40 miles per hour through a single lane of traffic bordered by other lanes of traffic occupied by other drivers and vehicles. The "experienced" driver takes it all for granted and may thus be less alert to his surroundings. Again, the "experienced" driver may rely on his "experience" to pull him through a tight situation and take chances, while a novice driver would be inclined to forego any added risk, knowing that his ability to handle a sudden emergency is limited and untested.

The Associated Press recently reviewed computer records of the Arizona Department of Transportation and concluded with detailed statistics, some of which may surprise you. As you read these, think "motorcycle."

The one-car crash has the highest fatality rate (60%), and the most common victims of fatal accidents are pedestrians and bicyclists. Angle and T-bone accidents were second most fatal (12.9%) and head-on accidents placed third (8.6%).

In fatal accidents, male drivers (71.1%) outnumbered women (25%) 3-to-1, and that ratio went to 5-to-1 in fatal accidents (84% male drivers) that were alcohol related (the sex of 4.2% of drivers in fatal accidents was not reported). Officials were quick to add this does not mean men are more dangerous behind the wheel, but the figure is tied to the fact that men tend to drive more miles each year than women; if a male and female are in a car, typically the male is driving; and men are more often on the road while they are working. Men tend to take more risks while driving.

Age-wise, more than 1/3 of the drivers in alcohol-related accidents were 25-34. This comes as no surprise, since census figures show that age group represents the highest percentage of Arizona's population. The age group with the second highest number of drivers involved in alcohol-related accidents was 15-24 (27.9%), followed by 35-44 (22.2%).These latter two groups represent the next largest segments of arizona's population, leading to the conclusion that age is not a tremendously significant factor in alcohol-related accidents.

Are you still thinking "motorcycle?" Are you surprised that the statistics are not over-run with motorcycle fatalities?

How do you perceive "bikers" and motorcycles? If you belong to the great majority of individuals who have never owned and ridden a motorcycle, my bet is that you have many preconceived notions of motorcycles and the people who ride them. No doubt you think of motorcycles as being inherently unsafe, and you pre-judge all "bikers" as being a bunch of low-life, whisky-swilling, grease-stained tough-guy marauders in black leather who ride in gangs to loot and pillage every town, rape all its women and leave a bunch of burning buildings behind as they ride on to the next town to inflict more damage. Bikers in numbers may intimidate you.

Brace yourself. For the most part, that image is a lot of Hollywood hype, created back in the fifties by the likes of James Dean and Marlon Brando. Those bikers are exactly what James Dean and Marlon Brando are today: dead, or fat and balding old men in their 70's.

Consider the fact that even a used American-made motorcycle in poor condition is likely to cost over $5,000; in good condition, upwards of $10,000; a new dresser around $17,000 and customized, chromed bikes start at $20,000 and rise rapidly. The price tag alone rules out "low life."

Look around at who's been seen on these bikes: famous personalities such as Cher, Elizabeth Taylor, the late Malcolm Forbes, Jay Leno, Peter Fonda, Lorenzo Lamas and U.S. Senator Sam Ironhorse Campbell. Bikes are becoming more popular among those who are employed as lawyers, physicians, accountants, pharmacists, college professors, engineers and other well-paid individuals who can afford the price of a good motor. A spinoff industry has developed for such individuals, making available temporary tattoos, fake facial hair, etc., as they attempt to mimic the real thing.

You label those of us who ride as "bikers." That's OK, because we acknowledge the label and are proud of it. You may not be aware of the fact that we have a label for you, too: We call you "cagers," denoting that you ride around in two-ton steel cages with the windows rolled up to allow the air-conditioning to control your climate. You enjoy am/fm stereo music with cassettes amd compact discs, and you have a brand new cellular phone that ties up one of your hands and half of your brain. You are fastened in by lap and chest harnesses and have the added comfort of knowing there is an air bag in front of you, waiting for an accident to happen. Your children are protected by molded seat restraints. You have a padded dash with no sharp edges anywhere; even the windows are made of safety glass. Top it off with cruise control so you don't need to watch your speed, and add an automatic dimmer switch so there will no longer be any need to pay attention to whether your lights are on high or low beam.

Despite all these features, cagers continue to run into each other and take lives. In fact, according to the figures quoted above, you don't even need another motorist to have an accident - chances are good that you'll kill yourself (and those riding with you) in a one-car accident. You guys are the ones making the statistics!

You're a major threat to your own kind, not to mention me. Put a bike and a cage together in a collison and the cage will win every time. Bikers know that. We're wary of you.

And the stories you tell when you hit one of us! If you think about it, you'll realize how silly they are. "He came out of Nowhere." "He was invisible." "No one was coming."

Why don't accident statistics show motorcycles to be dangerous instrumentalities, especially in Arizona where the law does not require adult cyclists or their adult passengers to wear helmets? Consider the plight of the average biker: he sits astride a powerful motor, two wheels and some metal, fully exposed to the elements, able to make complete use of all his senses. Almost instinctively, he regards every cager with extreme caution. Like the prey of an unseen great predator, his senses are are in full operation and he is on total alert. Unlike the cager, he must be careful to avoid any obstruction that may suddenly appear in his path. Something as small as a bottle could cause him to overturn. He is sensitive to thermoclines and can literally feel small changes in altitude or topography; his sense of smell differentiates between heavy traffic and open country; the wind on his face helps him to gauge his speed, and he must also be prepared to maintain control even when there is the sudden, unexpected pain of being struck in the head by a bee or other large insect at 70 miles per hour. because his senses are so keen, his reaction time is faster than that of the cager; because his vehicle weighs substantially less than the cage, it responds sooner. Yes, the biker can almost literally "stop on a dime." He knows the cager cannot, and he has legitimate reason for concern and anger when the cage is so close behind him that he can feel the heat of the cager's engine on his back.

In the years past, Arizona has taken what I call a "Clintonesque" position, waffling on requiring motorcyclists to wear helmets. First there was no such law; then there was such a law; then the law was repealed; then it was enacted again, then repealed. The issue is a heated one among politicians and, to some extent, among bikers themselves. I have a friend who is an obstetrician-gynecologist and an occasional rider who swears by helmets after he was involved in an accident and walked away unscathed. He credits the helmet for his good fortune. I have another friend who is a died-in-the-wool, true-blue and full-time biker who is owner of a store that sells and repairs used US-made motorcycles, and he, too, swears by helmets. He claims some 20 years' experience. And then you come across people like me. I've been a biker for nearly 40 years and I have been in some bad accidents, only to walk away from every one of them. What is more important is that I have been in an even greater number of "near accidents" and have avoided them.

The "How" and "Why" of avoidance is what is important. As indicated, when I am riding, my senses are all at peak performance. Sight is unimpaired by door posts, doors, roof, back seat, etc., thus expanding my peripheral vision far beyond anything known to a cager. Hearing is not affected by closed windows, the blower on a heater or air conditioner, or a cellular phone. Unlike a cager, I am limited to one passenger, so the likelihood of a lot of conversation is reduced. My AM/FM stereo and CB are all regulated by ambient sounds so that when I am at a complete stop in traffic, the volume is reduced. This enables me to better sense an oncoming cager approaching from the rear who somehow thinks I'm invisible and is about to drive right up my behind. This has occurred at least a dozen times in my riding career, and each time I was able to pull out of the way and escape a rear-end collision.

Now you know why I belong to the group of bikers that oppose mandatory helmet laws. When you order me to put a helmet on my head, you are ordering me to restrict my senses and substantially reduce my peripheral vision and hearing. You are trying to create the same environment for me that the cager has, and the statistics show that the cager and his passengers are the most likely to die in a one-car accident. Why do you want to do that to me? You increase my chances of being struck from the rear and shoved into another cage up front, or perhaps being knocked into an intersection presently in use by other traffic.

If that seems like far-fetched reasoning to you, let me tell you of an event that occurred April 28, 1996, in Tucson. Picture a 23-year-old male biker headed south on a six-lane highway (3 lanes southbound, 3 lanes north, divided by a concrete median of curb height and approximately 2 feet wide). He is riding on the inside lane. It's a bright, sunny afternoon about 4:30 p.m., and the pavement is dry and level. Suddenly all hell breaks loose. A 20-ton fire truck is approaching, northbound on the inside lane, emergency lights flashing, siren wailing, diesel horn trumpeting. Traffic slows and is coming to a stop. The cage in front of our biker has stopped, and biker stops immediately behind him. Now, here comes a 42-year-old male driving south in a cage with faulty brakes. BAM! The biker is struck from the rear, shoving his bike under the car in front of him and sending the biker airborn, across the median and into the path of the firetruck, which strikes and kills the biker instantly. The 42-year-old was cited for one minor misdemeanor and two civil traffic violations. even though a life was taken, and taken wrongfully, the perpetrator gets away with a slap on the wrist. Forget manslaughter. The man that died was "just a biker."

Don't misunderstand me. Every time I have actually been in an accident, after wishing I was somewhere else at that very moment, I wish I had a helmet. I am not opposed to helmets, I am opposed to laws mandating helmets for those who operate motorcycles. I have no problem with putting a helmet on my passenger.

Perhaps my training in martial arts has saved me from head injuries in accidents, because one of the first things you learn is how to fall without injury. I do not deny that a helmet affords wonderful protection against serious head injury - but it doesn't do a damned thing to protect the rest of me. Thus, my first priority is to avoid accidents altogether, and that is something I do best when I am not wearing a helmet. Being "macho" or "presenting an image" has nothing to do with it. I'm openly admitting that cagers scare me. I'm not trying to appear bold and brave. I'm trying to increase my chances of avoiding an accident and remaining injury-free.

There are many others who oppose legislation requiring helmets. If you're interested in learning more, bookmark this page, then go check out Harley Mom's Testimony; then get more info from Helmet Facts; and for a list of A.B.A.T.E. chapters, click here.

An interesting sideline: Plans are in the works to provide airbags for bikers. The problem is, the prototypes in existence at this time have a strong tendency to break the rider's neck.

Anytime I write an article for this column, I attempt to offer some sort of solution to the problem under discussion. This article is no exception. As I re-consider the fatality-accident statistics compiled by the Department of Transportation, I am inclined to say that if the legislature wants to require motorists to wear helmets, then it should be the cagers, not the bikers, who are required to comply. The statistics show the cager is in far greater need of protection. Moreover, when a biker refuses to wear a helmet and becomes involved in an accident resulting in a head injury, he only hurts himself; but when a cager becomes involved in an accident, he can wipe out several people in his vehicle as well as several more in other vehicles. The cagers are killing themselves and others at rates that far surpass any damage done by the bikers, so let's see a law requiring that all cagers and their passengers wear helmets! Yeah, that's the ticket!

Guess how the cagers would respond: "I can't hear my stereo," and "I can't use my cellular phone," and "it restricts my peripheral vision," and "it's too hot, it's uncomfortable."

Get the point? If it's good for bikers, it's good and perhaps better for cagers.

We can live without helmet laws. Help me keep the government off my bike, and I'll help you keep them out of your car.

(End.)
Copyright, 1996, Polaris Publishing Group, Ltd.
All rights reserved.
Permission to copy this article is freely given, provided that it is copied in its entirety and includes this paragraph giving the author's name, address and place of publication: Col. Harry S. Bachstein

[bofh]

Yes, the 10th amendment was written that way, but that was over 200 years ago. The Constitution was also written on the point that times change and as times change the document will need to change. That's what separates it from every other piece of governmental literature that ever came before it.

So, the Constitution is old, and yes it was writen a long ago, when things where different, and yes it HAS been changed. But, just because you think it's too old doesn't make it invalid.

But you know what? That amendment has not been changed. In the 17 times we've added or taken away from the constitution it since number 10, it's remained unchanged. Neat, huh? The last time we updated that document? 1992.

[bofh]

They indeed do make you think. Make sure you read them all and all the legal responses from NHTSA about what is or is not an approved helmet.

As always, there's gonna be someone on the internet who says it better than me :)

[SlartyBartFast]

They indeed do make you think.

But a lot of their argumentation depends on you not thinking too hard.

One of the cases they make to prove helemts are dangerous is a fellow that fell from his bike riding a mere 10mph and ended up paralysed and requiring a resperator to breath. The reason is the helmet caused two vertabrae to snap. Sounds awful, but think it through.

How fast is an object dropped from 5ft going when it hits the ground. v=sqrt(2gh) Which gives 17ft/s which is about 10 mph. What kind of injury would he have had landing on his unprotected head at that speed? I bet the problem isn't that he was wearing a helmet that snapped his neck. The problem is that he landed on his head. In this case he fell on his face, I'm asuming.

Don't know about you, but I wouldn't want to try falling on my face.

[cphilip]

You have not read them all yet.... There are more with some studies done by some fairly impressive credentials. Read on...


A lot of their arguments are that they are being required to wear what they call "unsafe" helmets by law. Note the inclusion of neck protectors in there by helmet manufactuers and the statistics on neck injuries verses the test methods. None required. No testing is or has been designed to test that. And no one seems to know what manufacturers meet or do not meet even the DOT standard. And even SNELL does not test for affects on the body. And the statistics of accidents and all do not seem to support helmetless riders are in any more accidents than helmeted ones. In fact the opposite is proving to be the case. The statistics are impressive that there is something wrong with what helmets we are being presented with and what is being done to insure they are safe and not unsafe. There is a clear lack of action by Goverment to assure they are safe but PLENTY of action by Government to make us wear them anyway. This is the crux of their position: You "Mr Government" are making me place upon my head, by law,something you cannot assure will not do me more harm than good. Thats their position. And a valid one too.

[SlartyBartFast]

Bikers, Cages and Helmets Surprising Safety Statistics

Lies, damn lies, and statistics. Lots of meaningless numbers that don't address the issue in any way. Cars are what percentage of the number of vehicles on the road? No wonder they account for 80% or more of the fatalities.

Nothing said gives anything to analyse as to how much more survivable a cycle accident is or isn't wihtout a helmet.

Then the whole senses thing. Give me break. If I can't hear myself think while a biker buzzes past me a twice the speed limit, there's no chance in hell he's aware of his surroundings. One of the most laughable anti-helmet arguments on that website is that full head helmets cut your hearing. Phhh. What the heck is there to hear above the noise of some of the bikes on the road.

I'd actually like to be in a situation where they argue that and agree with them and refuse to implement a helmet law. Then dase on their arguments, we'll legislate the maximum engine and wind noise allowed from the riders perspective to protect their hearing.

Then the argumentation Car drivers should wear a helmet? Sure if the statistics showed that they were dieing of head injuries that were impossible to avoid by any other means (redesign of the car interior or structure).

The idiot even goes so far as to say everytime he's been in an accident he wished he had a helmet. Suppose he's like one of the idiot smokers who even with a lung removed wish they had quit when it comes time for the heart attack and will swear that they admire the smokers that quit but don't need to themselves. They've been lucky and are still alive and repeated brushes with death still won't open their eyes.

Oh well.

[cphilip]

Ok on top of that here is thier list of facts

* Department of Transportation tests helmets by a 6-foot vertical drop impacting at 13.66 mph. Even at those low impacts, 52% of all helmets tested by DOT have failed and only one helmet has passed since 1984. (DOT Helmet Test Reports 1974-1980)

* Of the top 12 states with the best motorcycle safety records (fatalities per 10,000 registrations), only one has a helmet law. On the other hand, fully half of the worst safety records are helmet law states. (MSF and Motorcycle Industry Council data from 1986)

* A Kansas Health and Environment report to NHTSA stated "... we have found no evidence that the death rate for motorcycle accidents has increased in Kansas as a result of the repeal of the helmet law. We also have found no such evidence on a national basis."

* "WARNING: No protective head gear can protect the wearer against foreseeable impacts. This helmet is Not designed to provide neck or lower head protection. This helmet exceeds Federal Standard FMVSS218: Even so, death or severe injury may result from impacts at speeds as low as 15 mph while wearing a helmet." (Label inside new helmet, 1990)

* "It is concluded that: 1) motorcycle helmets have no statistically significant effect on probability of fatality, and 2) past a critical impact speed, helmets increase the severity of neck injury." (Dr. Jonathan Goldstein, Bowdoin College)

In addition one should note that at one time the Federal Government tied distribution of Highway funds for education..... to states enacting a helmet law. I do not think they do now but most of the current Helmet states are so in result of that.

[Webmaster]

Man - personally I think Motorcycles are death traps on wheels. Helmet or not, they are unsafe that function way less better in bad weather and adverse conditions as a car. They offer near zero protection in any kind of accident.

That said - its a personal freedom to go out and ride these evil contraptions.

I also think we should REPEAL all of these "saftey laws". This isnt 1950 where people dont realize seat belts save livers, or that they are supposed to buckle their kid in a car seat. People know how to protect THEMSELVES and thier kids. If they dont, thats thier call.

All that helmet and other safetly laws do is just hinder Darwin from catching up to the truely moronic.

As one poster said about the hot-rodding cycelist, I too have see dumbasses on the road, doing that trick where you put your handson the seat and fly your feet out. Whats funny is - you screw up, then the cars behind you hit your dumb *** - or worse yet - they swerve, go across the median, and hit something head on - dying because of you.

Course the guys I saw had helmets - even had nice protective clothing. But all that didnt make them any smarter or any wiser.

So - I say to each his own. You want to be an idiot and get your brains splattered on the pavement - GO FOR IT! I dont need the government to NANNY me. Keep "zee Germans" from invading me. Thats the level of protection I need from the Government. I can make the choice to buckle up or not, wear a helmet, etc etc.

PS
Hasty8 - give it up. Bofh is all over you like stink on a pig.

[FactsOfLife]

Yes, the 10th amendment was written that way, but that was over 200 years ago. The Constitution was also written on the point that times change and as times change the document will need to change. That's what separates it from every other piece of governmental literature that ever came before it.

Does the government have the right to dictate certain aspects of our lives? Absotively and Posolutely!

The government has the right to dictate who can vote, who can fight a war, who can smoke and who can drink. They determine how fast we can drive our vehicles and where. They also determine what safety devices are required in order to legally drive on their roads.

I have news for you, the US Constitution is NOT a "living document" subject to your whims of interpretation and re-writing.

It is YOUR job to adapt to IT, not the other way around.

[Hasty8]

I have news for you, the US Constitution is NOT a "living document" subject to your whims of interpretation and re-writing.

It is YOUR job to adapt to IT, not the other way around.

Right, so all those things called Amendments are what? Just random offshoots of the Constitution that we must all "adapt" to or are they changes brought to our highest governing document that relfects changes in values and morals in our current society?

Man, this is, so far, the stupidest post you have put up yet.

It's not open to re-writing, eh? So what are the Amendments begining Prohibition and ending Prohibition? Random mutations?

Also, I NEVER said it was a "living document". I did imply that the Constitution changes with the times. It's often 50-60 yers behind the times but I think that's a good thing. I did not mean to, and never did, imply that the Constitution is to be re-interpreted when needed. I think I made my point fairly well that the Constitution does change to fit into our new society when needed.

Take for example this who FMA crap. Some closed-minded biggots want to define marriage as being only alloweable between a man and a woman. Some felt this way so strongly that they were willing to try and have the Constitution amended. Not an easy prospect in and of itself.

The Constitution changes, very clowly, but it does. This makes it a "living document" of a sort. Just not they way you tried to make it seem like I was saying it was.