Bikers... Please read and be carefull out there

[bofh]

Helmets do increase the chance of survival of one of the main causes of fatality in a motorcycle accident and thats brain injury.

We can all agree on that.

Indeed, I agree... however...

Helmets also contribute to increased neck injury, also a main cause of fatality in motorcycle accidents.

We can also agree on that?

[cphilip]

Yes, I would have to say this has been shown.

And other safety equipment might also lessen or eliminate a few injuries or fatalities as well. And even contibute to a few at the same time.

Seat belts and airbags contribute to a few injuries and deaths too.

[SlartyBartFast]

And why would I want to penalize a person when they are only a risk to themselves? But you argued that a helmet-less motorcyclist is a danger/burden to everybody. Therefore why no points then?

I NEVER argued that helmet-less drivers are a danger to others. They ARE a risk factor and financial burden to everyone.

Most arrestable offenses also carry fines.

But do those fines cover all costs? Personally, I think the system should turn a profit so that the courts would be self-financing. One of the reasons for decriminalising certain activities is remove the expense and burden of the criminal justice system that either adds no extra deterrent or produces undue/harsh punishment (criminal record for simple possession say). Why spend thousands to process ever case through criminal court to get back a few hundred in fines and process all the paperwork for a criminal record when the whole thing can be dealt with a fine that will in most cases be paid uncontested and when contested can be dealt with in a much more efficient manner by municipal/traffic court.

I actually haven't argue that police shouldn't be funded, I've maintaned that helmet laws are unjust, and shouldn't be used as revenue.

Two questions, Do you believe that helmet laws reduce the number of accidents? And I'm not following your logic. EMT gets called for an motorcycle accident, how many more units will get called if there's an unhelmeted motorcyclist? Where do these costs come from now? Motorcycle accidents in general are more dangerous than cars, it's a fact that cycleists have to deal with.

Sure it's not an biased source, but looking thru the numbers, Helmet laws do not make the roads safer. Read that twice, Helmet LAWS do not make the roads safer.

[SlartyBartFast]

Seat belts and airbags contribute to a few injuries and deaths too.

[bofh]

This is the easiest to dismiss arguement, with these wonderfully absurd extensions of your logic.

Smoking: bad for you, tens of thousands each year die from it. What it's still not outlawed?
Heart Disease: oh that's really bad, over a half million dead each year, and yet McDonald's isn't mandated to sell only broccoli.
Absenteeism costs our economy money, so now it's illegal to take a day off.
Make your millions already? You legally can't retire, because it would hurt the economy.
What you have millions? Other people could use that money... Gimme

Where does your personal freedom end? Maybe it's a different answer when the goverment pays your medical bills.

Actually 31 states have no full helmet laws. PA just rid of theirs last year, that's what democracy is about.

[bofh]

And other members of the insurance policy.

You have to realize that the insurance company's make the money used to pay off claims by our monthly dues. To many accident claims and our rates go up.

Really? You have motorcycle insurance? Our monthly dues?

[bofh]

I NEVER argued that helmet-less drivers are a danger to others. They ARE a risk factor and financial burden to everyone.

Read the part after "danger", it says burden. You DO equate, being a burden with, being a danger to society. You DO say that people shouldn't do this, because it impacts you wallet. So if it's so bad why isn't it a more stiff fine? Some places think it's so horrible that you CAN be arrested. and yet in NJ, it's $25 max.

Spurious argument. Prove that the revenue from helmet fines are greater than the costs of enforcement.

How's this, they aren't, therefore they should be abolished. Happy?


Death rate per accident is down, accident per motorcycle is down.
What more statistics would you like? Or would you like to assume that because you THINK so, everything dire you can think of, is true. Get some numbers and then come back.

[SlartyBartFast]

This is the easiest to dismiss arguement, with these wonderfully absurd extensions of your logic.
Smoking: bad for you, tens of thousands each year die from it. What it's still not outlawed?

Smoking may be outlawed soon. You can't smoke in public places in many jurisdictions already. The tobacco companies are being held responsible in some cases as well. Private insurance punishes you severely if you're a smoker. Your argument holds no water.

Heart Disease: oh that's really bad, over a half million dead each year, and yet McDonald's isn't mandated to sell only broccoli.

McDonald's IS changing due to health reports. However, the simple use of junk food cannot be held responsible for heart disease. If I want to eat the ocassional giant smoked meat poutine, that's my business. If I want to do like the idiot in the documentary "Supersize Me" well, I'd deserve what I got.

Absenteeism costs our economy money, so now it's illegal to take a day off.

Absenteeism isn't planned days off. Absenteeism is UNPLANNED days/time off. DUH!
Companies take care of limiting your planned days off through simple greed.

Make your millions already? You legally can't retire, because it would hurt the economy.

Mandatory retirement was put in place to held the job market for younger workers. Now, with the increasing age of the population, many places are talking about abolishing the mandatory retirement age. DUH! another foundless argument.

What you have millions? Other people could use that money...

Taxing millions away from people? Well, except for the stupidity of Reagan making the top richest echelons even richer while straining the middle class or G.W. Bush making the middle class pay for massively generous tax cuts to the richest 1% of American society, as a rule governemtn does exactly that. Unless you're in a state that has a flat tax rate. If you have no income tax, consumption taxes effectively tax the rich far more than the poor as they spend more on the item that are taxable.

Actually 31 states have no full helmet laws. PA just rid of theirs last year, that's what democracy is about.

So, on that you agree with me.

Shall we continue?

[Hasty8]

Really? You have motorcycle insurance? Our monthly dues?

Okay, I'm not a part of that group but that still does not negate the argument.

Those who do not wear helmets will make coverage go up for those who do.

[SlartyBartFast]

Read the part after "danger", it says burden. You DO equate, being a burden with, being a danger to society. You DO say that people shouldn't do this, because it impacts you wallet. So if it's so bad why isn't it a more stiff fine? Some places think it's so horrible that you CAN be arrested. and yet in NJ, it's $25 max.

Buddy, take a chill pill. I agree with you on that. The fine is rediculously low! Obviously the fact that they're being light on you and hoping that a slap on the wrist and the inconvenience of being pulled over would be enough for you to respect the law isn't enough.

How's this, they aren't, therefore they should be abolished. Happy?

Not happy. I think that the fine should be ten times what it is and you should be dragged by the cop to the nearest bike shop and forced to purchace a legal (and non-refundable) helmet.

Death rate per accident is down, accident per motorcycle is down.
What more statistics would you like? Or would you like to assume that because you THINK so, everything dire you can think of, is true. Get some numbers and then come back.

I'm on the side of those supporting helmet laws. My jurisdiction HAS helmet laws. They suck in a number of ways that I would support being changed, but the onus is on those that want to not wear helmets to prove to ME that they needn't seeing as the governemnt has already seen the data at some point and put the helmet law in-place to begin with.

[bofh]

Shall we continue?

Sure, I'm game.

Smoking may be outlawed soon. You can't smoke in public places in many jurisdictions already. The tobacco companies are being held responsible in some cases as well. Private insurance punishes you severely if you're a smoker. Your argument holds no water.

Smoking kills more people that motorcycles could ever hope too. Goverment does not keep you from smoking. Govetment can keep you from smoking where other people are, just like it can keep me from using an airhorn in a mall, because I'm annoying other people. If an insurance company wants to charge more for smokers or non-helmet wearers, let them, that's the price of freedom and choice, insurance companies aren't the goverment. Smoking is a known dangerous item, that your public health care pays for. Large numbers of real dollars. Your counter arguement does not address that fact the goverment, (the one that makes the laws) does not place fines on smoking, or outlaw it. Therefore smokers are public burden on the health system, like you contest motorcyclists are. How does that not hold water?

McDonald's IS changing due to health reports. However, the simple use of junk food cannot be held responsible for heart disease. If I want to eat the ocassional giant smoked meat poutine, that's my business. If I want to do like the idiot in the documentary "Supersize Me" well, I'd deserve what I got.:

The single use of helmet cannot be the sole reason for surviving a motorcycle accident. But, imagine I didn't say just junk food. Imagine I said all food. McDonalds is not changing from Goverment laws, people are choosing to eat healthy (and low carb too boot! ) perhaps encouraged from that movie. Diet is a contributing factor in heart disease, much like motorcycle helmets. Would you be for a goverment mandated diet? Obesity is a contributing factor to heart disease, perhaps a goverment manadated weight? What if you were legally prevented from being stupid and deserving what you get? Goverment is not legally requiring diet change, the are requiring helmets.

If I want to eat the ocassional giant smoked meat poutine, that's my business.

Actually, this statment requires examination. So you can do stupid health related things, when it's you eating cheese and gravy fries, while you know it's a health risk, but it's different for a wearing a helmet? How are these different?

Absenteeism isn't planned days off. Absenteeism is UNPLANNED days/time off. DUH!
Companies take care of limiting your planned days off through simple greed. :

Unplanned on the companies side. You've never called in sick to work, when you were just tired? Or hungover? Never played hooky to play hockey? Does the goverment interfer in anyway in absenteeism? Do you want the goverment to take action against absenteeism, in the interest of the public good? Do you think the goverment should fine or jail you if you don't show up to work? If so, better make sure you have a doctor's note for that nasty cough during flu season.

Mandatory retirement was put in place to held the job market for younger workers. Now, with the increasing age of the population, many places are talking about abolishing the mandatory retirement age. DUH! another foundless argument.:

I was talking about retiring early, if you already made your milions and wish to stop working. Say at the age of 35. Do you want the goverment to say that you can or cannot work, in the interest of the public good? How foundless is that?

Taxing millions away from people? Well, except for the stupidity of Reagan making the top richest echelons even richer while straining the middle class or G.W. Bush making the middle class pay for massively generous tax cuts to the richest 1% of American society, as a rule governemtn does exactly that. Unless you're in a state that has a flat tax rate. If you have no income tax, consumption taxes effectively tax the rich far more than the poor as they spend more on the item that are taxable.:

hmmm, I seem to have fallen flat on that last example, since the rich are already taxed heavily. But taxed is not completely "taken." There still is a incentive to earn more, and not have all of your earning redistrubuted in the interest of public good. In your reasoning, why shouldn't the goverment take everything, and redistribute it where other people can use it?


Remember, we're talking about the goverment restricting you ability to do what you choose, even if it leads to potenial self harm. Corporations aren't the Goverment, nor do they make laws.

So have at it.

[Hasty8]

The simple fact is that your need for "personal freedom" does not prempt the government's right and responsibility to ensure our safety.

By you very logic you could argue the speed laws are a nuisance because it infringes on your personal freedom.

This country was never based of personal freedom over government. That's anarchy.

I understand the argument for the need of an "approved list" and did not know that in NJ there was no such list. So in this case I would have to say that the laws need to be rewritten, not ignored.

[bofh]

The simple fact is that your need for "personal freedom" does not prempt the government's right and responsibility to ensure our safety.

Our safety from others, not from ourselves. You've already proven that you cannot be reasoned with this statement below.

The government has the right to doctate what you do to yourself.

See this statment above? You said that. That puts you in the camp of the unreasonable. Deal with it.

By you very logic you could argue the speed laws are a nuisance because it infringes on your personal freedom.

Ah, you haven't listened at all, and keep respouting the same arguement. Speeding endangers other people. Helmet use laws do not. Try to make them equal.

This country was never based of personal freedom over government. That's anarchy.

Ah, why don't you re-read the Bill of Rights? Try number 10. What, it's not the goverment's buisness what I do that effects only myself? Well, maybe the copy in your libary is different.

Oh, and I thought you said you were leaving? you see, I'm having a reasonable dicussion with a reasonable person (slartybartfast), and you aren't helping him any, with your socialist leanings.(see above quote)

{edit} Actually, you could be a facist instead, I suppose, Maybe Bi-Polar. Doesn't matter to me which one. You're still not helping.

[cphilip]

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/

[SlartyBartFast]

Smoking kills more people that motorcycles could ever hope too. Government does not keep you from smoking. Government can keep you from smoking where other people are, just like it can keep me from using an airhorn in a mall, because I'm annoying other people.

So you can do stupid health related things, when it's you eating cheese and gravy fries, while you know it's a health risk, but it's different for a wearing a helmet? How are these different?

I was talking about retiring early, if you already made your millions and wish to stop working. Say at the age of 35. Do you want the government to say that you can or cannot work, in the interest of the public good? How foundless is that?

In your reasoning, why shouldn't the government take everything, and redistribute it where other people can use it?

Remember, we're talking about the government restricting you ability to do what you choose, even if it leads to potential self harm. Corporations aren't the Government, nor do they make laws.

By you very logic you could argue the speed laws are a nuisance because it infringes on your personal freedom.

Speeding endangers other people.

This country was never based of personal freedom over government. That's anarchy.

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.

I'm having a reasonable discussion with a reasonable person (slartybartfast)