|
Yet Another Tragic Case......
|
Yet Another Tragic Case......
On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 13:26:31 -0400, "Don White"
wrote: "HK" wrote in message ... Nice try, a**hole. No, it is not directed at SW, Eisboch, or any of the other responsible righties here. But nice try. Oh. Whatever your politics, it is directed at you. Boy... JohnH & Waylon sure act like the Bobsy twins. They are desperate to drag the more moderate posters into their foolishness. Maybe they need someone to hold their hands while they do their instigating, facilitating etc. How's your mom, Don? Let's see, I've not been here for a couple days, but you find it necessary to drag me into some of Harry's crap. -- John H |
Yet Another Tragic Case......
On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 16:04:23 -0500, HK wrote:
Eisboch wrote: wrote in message ... There is, in fact, a national motorcycle helmet law in effect already. It only applies to people with something worth protecting. Please provide a cite. A while back the Fed refused money for road system maintenance if the state did not have a helmet law .... similar to the 55 mph speed limit of the 70's. But that is changing. Every year more states are changing the law or modifying it based on real data. Florida is a good example and reflects some common sense. There *is* a helmet law, but you are not required to wear one if over 21 years of age and can prove that you have at least some minimum amount of personal health insurance. There are more states that riding without a helmet is legal today than there were 20 years ago. Eisboch More regression. Agreed. -- John H |
Yet Another Tragic Case......
On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 21:07:58 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote: "HK" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: wrote in message ... There is, in fact, a national motorcycle helmet law in effect already. It only applies to people with something worth protecting. Please provide a cite. A while back the Fed refused money for road system maintenance if the state did not have a helmet law .... similar to the 55 mph speed limit of the 70's. But that is changing. Every year more states are changing the law or modifying it based on real data. Florida is a good example and reflects some common sense. There *is* a helmet law, but you are not required to wear one if over 21 years of age and can prove that you have at least some minimum amount of personal health insurance. There are more states that riding without a helmet is legal today than there were 20 years ago. Eisboch More regression. Why? If some moron wants to ride a motorcycle without a helmet, who cares? If you're stupid enough to think you're immune to head injuries, the gene pool is better off without you. Give this 200 years and the 54% might shrink a bit. I care if his death or injury results in higher taxes or insurance premiums. Helmet laws exist for the same reason any other law protecting the mentally disable exists. -- John H |
Yet Another Tragic Case......
On Dec 2, 8:54 am, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 21:07:58 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "HK" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: wrote in message ... There is, in fact, a national motorcycle helmet law in effect already. It only applies to people with something worth protecting. Please provide a cite. A while back the Fed refused money for road system maintenance if the state did not have a helmet law .... similar to the 55 mph speed limit of the 70's. But that is changing. Every year more states are changing the law or modifying it based on real data. Florida is a good example and reflects some common sense. There *is* a helmet law, but you are not required to wear one if over 21 years of age and can prove that you have at least some minimum amount of personal health insurance. There are more states that riding without a helmet is legal today than there were 20 years ago. Eisboch More regression. Why? If some moron wants to ride a motorcycle without a helmet, who cares? If you're stupid enough to think you're immune to head injuries, the gene pool is better off without you. Give this 200 years and the 54% might shrink a bit. I care if his death or injury results in higher taxes or insurance premiums. Helmet laws exist for the same reason any other law protecting the mentally disable exists. -- John H- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Well, I may be simple, but not disabled I don't think. I rarely wore a brain bucket..... of course back then, it would have been considered "waste basket" ;) |
Yet Another Tragic Case......
|
Yet Another Tragic Case......
On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 09:21:19 -0500, HK wrote:
wrote: On Dec 2, 8:54 am, John H. wrote: On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 21:07:58 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "HK" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: wrote in message ... There is, in fact, a national motorcycle helmet law in effect already. It only applies to people with something worth protecting. Please provide a cite. A while back the Fed refused money for road system maintenance if the state did not have a helmet law .... similar to the 55 mph speed limit of the 70's. But that is changing. Every year more states are changing the law or modifying it based on real data. Florida is a good example and reflects some common sense. There *is* a helmet law, but you are not required to wear one if over 21 years of age and can prove that you have at least some minimum amount of personal health insurance. There are more states that riding without a helmet is legal today than there were 20 years ago. Eisboch More regression. Why? If some moron wants to ride a motorcycle without a helmet, who cares? If you're stupid enough to think you're immune to head injuries, the gene pool is better off without you. Give this 200 years and the 54% might shrink a bit. I care if his death or injury results in higher taxes or insurance premiums. Helmet laws exist for the same reason any other law protecting the mentally disable exists. -- John H- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Well, I may be simple, but not disabled I don't think. I rarely wore a brain bucket..... of course back then, it would have been considered "waste basket" ;) See, we do agree. :} My opinion is that one has to be *really stupid* to ride a motorcycle without wearing a real safety helmet. You say 'really stupid', I say 'mentally disabled'. Same, same. -- John H |
Yet Another Tragic Case......
"John H." wrote in message ... On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 21:07:58 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: Why? If some moron wants to ride a motorcycle without a helmet, who cares? If you're stupid enough to think you're immune to head injuries, the gene pool is better off without you. Give this 200 years and the 54% might shrink a bit. I care if his death or injury results in higher taxes or insurance premiums. If a law went into effect tomorrow that mandated helmets in every state, by how much would your current taxes, vehicle insurance and health insurance premiums be reduced by? Eisboch |
Yet Another Tragic Case......
On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 10:08:22 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:
If a law went into effect tomorrow that mandated helmets in every state, by how much would your current taxes, vehicle insurance and health insurance premiums be reduced by? I agree with you on this - it wouldn't make a whit of difference. My argument is that the same logic behind no helmet laws should also be applied to seat belts - personal choice. And the odd thing is that the "safety" statistics for seat belt use being more safe than not is highly fabricated and, frankly, false. |
Yet Another Tragic Case......
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 10:08:22 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: If a law went into effect tomorrow that mandated helmets in every state, by how much would your current taxes, vehicle insurance and health insurance premiums be reduced by? I agree with you on this - it wouldn't make a whit of difference. My argument is that the same logic behind no helmet laws should also be applied to seat belts - personal choice. And the odd thing is that the "safety" statistics for seat belt use being more safe than not is highly fabricated and, frankly, false. There is NO logic behind "No Helmet" laws. |
Yet Another Tragic Case......
"HK" wrote in message . .. There is NO logic behind "No Helmet" laws. No. There aren't any "No Helmet" laws that I know of. There *are* many states .... about half .... that have some form of "Helmet Law", although they are slowly being repealed, state by state. I don't know this for a fact, so it's pure speculation on my part, but I suspect that the majority of people that support helmet laws .... don't ride motorcycles. Eisboch |
Yet Another Tragic Case......
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 10:08:22 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: If a law went into effect tomorrow that mandated helmets in every state, by how much would your current taxes, vehicle insurance and health insurance premiums be reduced by? I agree with you on this - it wouldn't make a whit of difference. My argument is that the same logic behind no helmet laws should also be applied to seat belts - personal choice. And the odd thing is that the "safety" statistics for seat belt use being more safe than not is highly fabricated and, frankly, false. I really don't care one way or another. I have no idea what the data shows. Why are there such laws in place if it doesn't help? Not trying to argue, just get some points of view. |
Yet Another Tragic Case......
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message . .. There is NO logic behind "No Helmet" laws. No. There aren't any "No Helmet" laws that I know of. There *are* many states .... about half .... that have some form of "Helmet Law", although they are slowly being repealed, state by state. I don't know this for a fact, so it's pure speculation on my part, but I suspect that the majority of people that support helmet laws .... don't ride motorcycles. Eisboch It should be mandatory. Period. |
Yet Another Tragic Case......
"Eisboch" wrote in message
... "HK" wrote in message . .. There is NO logic behind "No Helmet" laws. No. There aren't any "No Helmet" laws that I know of. There *are* many states .... about half .... that have some form of "Helmet Law", although they are slowly being repealed, state by state. I don't know this for a fact, so it's pure speculation on my part, but I suspect that the majority of people that support helmet laws .... don't ride motorcycles. Eisboch Maybe this will help: http://usff.com/hldl/frames/50state.html Or not. |
Yet Another Tragic Case......
"D.Duck" wrote in message
... "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 10:08:22 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: If a law went into effect tomorrow that mandated helmets in every state, by how much would your current taxes, vehicle insurance and health insurance premiums be reduced by? I agree with you on this - it wouldn't make a whit of difference. My argument is that the same logic behind no helmet laws should also be applied to seat belts - personal choice. And the odd thing is that the "safety" statistics for seat belt use being more safe than not is highly fabricated and, frankly, false. I really don't care one way or another. I have no idea what the data shows. Why are there such laws in place if it doesn't help? Not trying to argue, just get some points of view. It does help. Someone is just being a turkey, in order to keep the discussion going like a slowly dripping faucet. |
Yet Another Tragic Case......
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"D.Duck" wrote in message ... "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 10:08:22 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: If a law went into effect tomorrow that mandated helmets in every state, by how much would your current taxes, vehicle insurance and health insurance premiums be reduced by? I agree with you on this - it wouldn't make a whit of difference. My argument is that the same logic behind no helmet laws should also be applied to seat belts - personal choice. And the odd thing is that the "safety" statistics for seat belt use being more safe than not is highly fabricated and, frankly, false. I really don't care one way or another. I have no idea what the data shows. Why are there such laws in place if it doesn't help? Not trying to argue, just get some points of view. It does help. Someone is just being a turkey, in order to keep the discussion going like a slowly dripping faucet. It's RonPaulism, as it were. |
Yet Another Tragic Case......
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "Eisboch" wrote in message ... No. There aren't any "No Helmet" laws that I know of. There *are* many states .... about half .... that have some form of "Helmet Law", although they are slowly being repealed, state by state. I don't know this for a fact, so it's pure speculation on my part, but I suspect that the majority of people that support helmet laws .... don't ride motorcycles. Eisboch Maybe this will help: http://usff.com/hldl/frames/50state.html Or not. Did you notice that only 20 states had a full, mandatory helmet law? That leaves 30 that have modified and loosened their laws since the Fed tried to strong arm all states to enact a helmet law or lose highway funding. At one point almost all states had a full helmet law due to pressure from the Fed. I am not against wearing a helmet .... in fact I do on a regular basis. My state has a full law and I obey it. I also often wear a helmet even in states that don't require one. It all depends on where we are riding, when, and what the weather and traffic conditions are. When I deem it safe, (whether anybody else agrees or not) I sometimes take a ride without one. I think Florida's revised law is reasonable and fair. If you are over 18 or 21 (forget which) and can prove that you have a personal health insurance policy that will cover you in the event of an accident, no helmet is required by law. It's your choice. Again, I am willing to bet that the loudest advocates of helmet laws don't own a motorcycle. Eisboch |
Yet Another Tragic Case......
"Eisboch" wrote in message
... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "Eisboch" wrote in message ... No. There aren't any "No Helmet" laws that I know of. There *are* many states .... about half .... that have some form of "Helmet Law", although they are slowly being repealed, state by state. I don't know this for a fact, so it's pure speculation on my part, but I suspect that the majority of people that support helmet laws .... don't ride motorcycles. Eisboch Maybe this will help: http://usff.com/hldl/frames/50state.html Or not. Did you notice that only 20 states had a full, mandatory helmet law? That leaves 30 that have modified and loosened their laws since the Fed tried to strong arm all states to enact a helmet law or lose highway funding. At one point almost all states had a full helmet law due to pressure from the Fed. I am not against wearing a helmet .... in fact I do on a regular basis. My state has a full law and I obey it. I also often wear a helmet even in states that don't require one. It all depends on where we are riding, when, and what the weather and traffic conditions are. When I deem it safe, (whether anybody else agrees or not) I sometimes take a ride without one. I think Florida's revised law is reasonable and fair. If you are over 18 or 21 (forget which) and can prove that you have a personal health insurance policy that will cover you in the event of an accident, no helmet is required by law. It's your choice. Just be careful. The last thing we need right now is yet another presidential candidate. |
Yet Another Tragic Case......
On Dec 2, 9:21 am, HK wrote:
wrote: On Dec 2, 8:54 am, John H. wrote: On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 21:07:58 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "HK" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: wrote in message om... There is, in fact, a national motorcycle helmet law in effect already. It only applies to people with something worth protecting. Please provide a cite. A while back the Fed refused money for road system maintenance if the state did not have a helmet law .... similar to the 55 mph speed limit of the 70's. But that is changing. Every year more states are changing the law or modifying it based on real data. Florida is a good example and reflects some common sense. There *is* a helmet law, but you are not required to wear one if over 21 years of age and can prove that you have at least some minimum amount of personal health insurance. There are more states that riding without a helmet is legal today than there were 20 years ago. Eisboch More regression. Why? If some moron wants to ride a motorcycle without a helmet, who cares? If you're stupid enough to think you're immune to head injuries, the gene pool is better off without you. Give this 200 years and the 54% might shrink a bit. I care if his death or injury results in higher taxes or insurance premiums. Helmet laws exist for the same reason any other law protecting the mentally disable exists. -- John H- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Well, I may be simple, but not disabled I don't think. I rarely wore a brain bucket..... of course back then, it would have been considered "waste basket" ;) See, we do agree. :} My opinion is that one has to be *really stupid* to ride a motorcycle without wearing a real safety helmet.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I wonder what the figures say, more deaths of riders with no helmet, or swamping deaths with low transom boats that have no business in open water?? |
Yet Another Tragic Case......
On Dec 2, 11:25 am, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote: On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 10:08:22 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: If a law went into effect tomorrow that mandated helmets in every state, by how much would your current taxes, vehicle insurance and health insurance premiums be reduced by? I agree with you on this - it wouldn't make a whit of difference. My argument is that the same logic behind no helmet laws should also be applied to seat belts - personal choice. And the odd thing is that the "safety" statistics for seat belt use being more safe than not is highly fabricated and, frankly, false. Every wreck I have been in I have seen seatbelts keep folks in place, in the vehicle and away from the windows.. As a wrecker driver for many years, the only ejections I ever saw were folks with no belts on... |
Yet Another Tragic Case......
"HK" wrote in message . .. JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "D.Duck" wrote in message ... Not trying to argue, just get some points of view. It does help. Someone is just being a turkey, in order to keep the discussion going like a slowly dripping faucet. It's RonPaulism, as it were. Heh. I got in a debate with my newest, *very* liberal daughter-in-law a couple of weeks ago. I admit that I engaged more for the fun of it, watching her turn shades of red. But ... I hesitate to mention this subject because I am not looking for a debate here. But the jist of the rational behind some of the arguments are similar to the motorcycle helmet law thing .... meaning people get on a bandwagon and don't know the facts. So, that said, and again, not trying to introduce this very controversial and personal subject: My daughter-in-law thinks I am closely related to Archie Bunker and, for fun, I sometimes play the part. We were discussing a wide range of issues and suddenly she said, "I suppose you oppose abortion as well". I said yup. Well, she went off on me like stink on you know what. While she ranted, I looked over to the other family members who were present and quietly said, "The next words out of her mouth will be, "What about rape?" Sure enough. Now I had her because I happened to have recently looked up these statistics: 1% of abortions are done as a result of rape or incest. 6% are done because of a life threatening health issue to mother or unborn child. 93% are done because the child is not wanted or is inconvenient. These statistics are from a pro-abortion, planned parenthood organization, by the way. Point is ..... people should know the facts before making absolute statements like, in the case of helmet laws, that they are paying more in insurance and health programs because a small minority of people like to ride without a helmet. Said my piece. Eisboch |
Yet Another Tragic Case......
D.Duck wrote:
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 10:08:22 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: If a law went into effect tomorrow that mandated helmets in every state, by how much would your current taxes, vehicle insurance and health insurance premiums be reduced by? I agree with you on this - it wouldn't make a whit of difference. My argument is that the same logic behind no helmet laws should also be applied to seat belts - personal choice. And the odd thing is that the "safety" statistics for seat belt use being more safe than not is highly fabricated and, frankly, false. I really don't care one way or another. I have no idea what the data shows. Why are there such laws in place if it doesn't help? Not trying to argue, just get some points of view. I find it hard to believe that insurance companies, who actually know the cost, would promote anything that would cost them more money. If seat belts and helmets were not safer, insurance companies would aggressively fight against the laws. |
Yet Another Tragic Case......
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... Just be careful. The last thing we need right now is yet another presidential candidate. I will not seek, nor will I accept .... Eisboch |
Yet Another Tragic Case......
On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 13:02:58 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:
Again, I am willing to bet that the loudest advocates of helmet laws don't own a motorcycle. Most likely the loudest advocates are relatives of dead or brain-damaged former motorcycle owners. That's usually how it works, ala MADD. --Vic |
Yet Another Tragic Case......
On Dec 2, 1:31 pm, Vic Smith wrote:
On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 13:02:58 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: Again, I am willing to bet that the loudest advocates of helmet laws don't own a motorcycle. Most likely the loudest advocates are relatives of dead or brain-damaged former motorcycle owners. That's usually how it works, ala MADD. --Vic What percentage of members of MADD do you suppose meet your stated specifics? One quarter of one percent mabey?? |
Yet Another Tragic Case......
"Vic Smith" wrote in message ... On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 13:02:58 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: Again, I am willing to bet that the loudest advocates of helmet laws don't own a motorcycle. Most likely the loudest advocates are relatives of dead or brain-damaged former motorcycle owners. That's usually how it works, ala MADD. --Vic I understand and am sympathetic to their loss. But you have to realize that for every death or serious injury, there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, that never crash or have an accident. Eisboch |
Yet Another Tragic Case......
"Eisboch" wrote in message
... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... Just be careful. The last thing we need right now is yet another presidential candidate. I will not seek, nor will I accept .... Eisboch If you're a human vegetable, you have no choice. You're drafted. You get a free presidential dog, a speech writer recruited from the rec.guns newsgroup, and you start calling everyone "folks". Please be careful. |
Yet Another Tragic Case......
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
... On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 10:08:22 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: If a law went into effect tomorrow that mandated helmets in every state, by how much would your current taxes, vehicle insurance and health insurance premiums be reduced by? I agree with you on this - it wouldn't make a whit of difference. My argument is that the same logic behind no helmet laws should also be applied to seat belts - personal choice. And the odd thing is that the "safety" statistics for seat belt use being more safe than not is highly fabricated and, frankly, false. Fabricated in what way and for what purpose? |
Yet Another Tragic Case......
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "Eisboch" wrote in message ... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... Just be careful. The last thing we need right now is yet another presidential candidate. I will not seek, nor will I accept .... Eisboch If you're a human vegetable, you have no choice. You're drafted. You get a free presidential dog, a speech writer recruited from the rec.guns newsgroup, and you start calling everyone "folks". Please be careful. I am. And will be. I am 58 years old, raised three kids, am a law-abiding citizen, pay my taxes, married for 38 years or something .... All I want to do is ride my bike sometimes with the wind blowin' thru my thinning hair .... Is *that* really too much to ask ...? Eisboch |
Yet Another Tragic Case......
"Eisboch" wrote in message
... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "Eisboch" wrote in message ... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... Just be careful. The last thing we need right now is yet another presidential candidate. I will not seek, nor will I accept .... Eisboch If you're a human vegetable, you have no choice. You're drafted. You get a free presidential dog, a speech writer recruited from the rec.guns newsgroup, and you start calling everyone "folks". Please be careful. I am. And will be. I am 58 years old, raised three kids, am a law-abiding citizen, pay my taxes, married for 38 years or something .... All I want to do is ride my bike sometimes with the wind blowin' thru my thinning hair .... Is *that* really too much to ask ...? Eisboch Not at all. Just don't go splat on MY car, or your family's paying for the wash, wax & detail job, and I'm talkin' same day, pal. |
Yet Another Tragic Case......
On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 13:39:19 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:
"Vic Smith" wrote in message .. . On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 13:02:58 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: Again, I am willing to bet that the loudest advocates of helmet laws don't own a motorcycle. Most likely the loudest advocates are relatives of dead or brain-damaged former motorcycle owners. That's usually how it works, ala MADD. --Vic I understand and am sympathetic to their loss. But you have to realize that for every death or serious injury, there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, that never crash or have an accident. I just proposed a possibility of who is behind pushing the laws. Personally, I don't like being told to wear a helmet. But, again personally, I don't ride. --Vic how these laws get |
Yet Another Tragic Case......
|
Yet Another Tragic Case......
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "Eisboch" wrote in message ... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "Eisboch" wrote in message ... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... Just be careful. The last thing we need right now is yet another presidential candidate. I will not seek, nor will I accept .... Eisboch If you're a human vegetable, you have no choice. You're drafted. You get a free presidential dog, a speech writer recruited from the rec.guns newsgroup, and you start calling everyone "folks". Please be careful. I am. And will be. I am 58 years old, raised three kids, am a law-abiding citizen, pay my taxes, married for 38 years or something .... All I want to do is ride my bike sometimes with the wind blowin' thru my thinning hair .... Is *that* really too much to ask ...? Eisboch Not at all. Just don't go splat on MY car, or your family's paying for the wash, wax & detail job, and I'm talkin' same day, pal. LOL. Deal. Eisboch |
Yet Another Tragic Case......
"Vic Smith" wrote in message ... On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 10:37:54 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Dec 2, 1:31 pm, Vic Smith wrote: On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 13:02:58 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: Again, I am willing to bet that the loudest advocates of helmet laws don't own a motorcycle. Most likely the loudest advocates are relatives of dead or brain-damaged former motorcycle owners. That's usually how it works, ala MADD. --Vic What percentage of members of MADD do you suppose meet your stated specifics? One quarter of one percent mabey?? Doesn't matter if that percent pushes legislation and gets it passed. That's just how it works. --Vic Exactly. And that's why it has taken 20 years for motorcycle enthusiasts to slowly counteract the well meaning, but minority opinion that got the politician's ears. Eisboch |
Yet Another Tragic Case......
"Eisboch" wrote in message ... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "Eisboch" wrote in message ... No. There aren't any "No Helmet" laws that I know of. There *are* many states .... about half .... that have some form of "Helmet Law", although they are slowly being repealed, state by state. I don't know this for a fact, so it's pure speculation on my part, but I suspect that the majority of people that support helmet laws .... don't ride motorcycles. Eisboch Maybe this will help: http://usff.com/hldl/frames/50state.html Or not. Did you notice that only 20 states had a full, mandatory helmet law? That leaves 30 that have modified and loosened their laws since the Fed tried to strong arm all states to enact a helmet law or lose highway funding. At one point almost all states had a full helmet law due to pressure from the Fed. I am not against wearing a helmet .... in fact I do on a regular basis. My state has a full law and I obey it. I also often wear a helmet even in states that don't require one. It all depends on where we are riding, when, and what the weather and traffic conditions are. When I deem it safe, (whether anybody else agrees or not) I sometimes take a ride without one. I think Florida's revised law is reasonable and fair. If you are over 18 or 21 (forget which) and can prove that you have a personal health insurance policy that will cover you in the event of an accident, no helmet is required by law. It's your choice. Again, I am willing to bet that the loudest advocates of helmet laws don't own a motorcycle. Eisboch I always wore a helmet when I rode, but I feel that it is a protective device. I also feel that we have lost a lot of freedoms in this country (HK will chime in here. Lots more than HK will refer to.) Is also a tax and control law. Buddies, a lot of years ago, while riding in Oregon on a road trip, saw that the entrance was on the other side of the diner and they could not see their bikes with all the stuff on them where they were parked. Moving the bikes from one side of the diner to the other, they got tickets for no helmets. I also ware seatbelts, but that comes both from racing cars and also when I was in high school I was sideswiped on 101 in Marin County. The days when we did not have seat belts and I was knocked out of the drivers seat and could not get control of the car until it was straddling a ditch on the opposite side of the freeway. Also no barrier in the middle of the road. Caused a lot of damage to car, the sideswipe did minimal damage, but the crash did lots. Was a convertible, and luckily did not roll. |
Yet Another Tragic Case......
"Vic Smith" wrote in message ... Doesn't matter if that percent pushes legislation and gets it passed. That's just how it works. --Vic BTW .... (and I am not accusing you ..... just using your post as a source to reply) ... There's a direct corollary to boating here. There are minority interest groups constantly trying to restrict or ban boater's right to enjoy their interests. Some are well founded, but many are simply attempts to restrict boaters because "they" don't share the same interest. Eisboch |
Yet Another Tragic Case......
"Eisboch" wrote in message
... "Vic Smith" wrote in message ... On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 10:37:54 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Dec 2, 1:31 pm, Vic Smith wrote: On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 13:02:58 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: Again, I am willing to bet that the loudest advocates of helmet laws don't own a motorcycle. Most likely the loudest advocates are relatives of dead or brain-damaged former motorcycle owners. That's usually how it works, ala MADD. --Vic What percentage of members of MADD do you suppose meet your stated specifics? One quarter of one percent mabey?? Doesn't matter if that percent pushes legislation and gets it passed. That's just how it works. --Vic Exactly. And that's why it has taken 20 years for motorcycle enthusiasts to slowly counteract the well meaning, but minority opinion that got the politician's ears. Eisboch The minority probably reacts to losing one of the adults in the family, which may make them dependent on outside sources of support. We all know what that means: Demonized by certain "types". The 54%, in other words. |
Yet Another Tragic Case......
"Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in message . .. D.Duck wrote: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 10:08:22 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: If a law went into effect tomorrow that mandated helmets in every state, by how much would your current taxes, vehicle insurance and health insurance premiums be reduced by? I agree with you on this - it wouldn't make a whit of difference. My argument is that the same logic behind no helmet laws should also be applied to seat belts - personal choice. And the odd thing is that the "safety" statistics for seat belt use being more safe than not is highly fabricated and, frankly, false. I really don't care one way or another. I have no idea what the data shows. Why are there such laws in place if it doesn't help? Not trying to argue, just get some points of view. I find it hard to believe that insurance companies, who actually know the cost, would promote anything that would cost them more money. If seat belts and helmets were not safer, insurance companies would aggressively fight against the laws. Insurance companies make more money when they pay out more money. Sounds strange, but everytine they have to pay out more money they raise rates, and they make a percentage of the rates as profit. Higher rates, higher profit. |
Yet Another Tragic Case......
On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 10:08:22 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:
"John H." wrote in message .. . On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 21:07:58 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: Why? If some moron wants to ride a motorcycle without a helmet, who cares? If you're stupid enough to think you're immune to head injuries, the gene pool is better off without you. Give this 200 years and the 54% might shrink a bit. I care if his death or injury results in higher taxes or insurance premiums. If a law went into effect tomorrow that mandated helmets in every state, by how much would your current taxes, vehicle insurance and health insurance premiums be reduced by? Eisboch I don't know. But I believe the number of severe head injuries due to motorcycle accidents would go down. -- John H |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:53 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com