On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 13:49:47 GMT, wrote:

On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 01:42:14 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 01:32:55 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 18:51:03 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

I *do* have a problem with mandatory helmet laws. All the arguements
about
beoming a burden to society due to medical costs and increased insurance
premiums for all just don't hold up under close scrutiny.

Not to take this in a different direction, but I'm of the opinion that
if I am required to wear a seatbelt under the dubious rational that it
will "save" my life and reduce medical costs, then helmets should also
be required along with full leathers and body armor for motorcycle
riders.

The stated rational for seatbelts is BS for a number of reasons, but
the most important is that seatbelt use is over stated and over
reported in vehicle accidents resulting in skewed "safety" statistics.

Let's consider the opposite: In the subset consisting of people ejected
from their vehicles during an accident, what percentage survive?

If I were a betting man, I would say, proportionally, about the same
as a motorcycle rider's.

However, the more important question is how many major accidents
result in ejection? Probably about the same number as high speed
motorcycle accidents.

FAR more people suffer tramatic brain injury or death from head injuries in cars
than on motorcycles. If you aren't wearing a helmet when in a car, you are
simply asking for it!


Proportionally? I've never heard that.
--
John H

On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 10:15:18 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

HK wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote:
wrote:
On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 01:42:14 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing

wrote:

On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 01:32:55 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 18:51:03 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:

I *do* have a problem with mandatory helmet laws. All the
arguements about
beoming a burden to society due to medical costs and increased
insurance
premiums for all just don't hold up under close scrutiny.
Not to take this in a different direction, but I'm of the opinion
that
if I am required to wear a seatbelt under the dubious rational
that it
will "save" my life and reduce medical costs, then helmets should
also
be required along with full leathers and body armor for motorcycle
riders.

The stated rational for seatbelts is BS for a number of reasons, but
the most important is that seatbelt use is over stated and over
reported in vehicle accidents resulting in skewed "safety"
statistics.
Let's consider the opposite: In the subset consisting of people
ejected
from their vehicles during an accident, what percentage survive?

If I were a betting man, I would say, proportionally, about the same
as a motorcycle rider's.

However, the more important question is how many major accidents
result in ejection? Probably about the same number as high speed
motorcycle accidents.

FAR more people suffer tramatic brain injury or death from head
injuries in cars
than on motorcycles. If you aren't wearing a helmet when in a car,
you are
simply asking for it!




I always urge all rightwingers everywhere to ride their motorcycles
in as macho a fashion as possible and without helmets or other
protective gear, and, whenever possible, to make sure at least one of
their fertile family members is on the back seat. Oh. And make sure a
handgun is in the saddlebag.


Is that directed towards SWF? I think he would be considered a
rightwinger? He is definitely right of my political views. While I
disagree with many individual's politics and/or religious viewpoints,
I know I would wish ill will on them. I am glad you are not
reflective of most people I have meet.


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.

What makes someone a responsible righties?

Not disagreeing with Harry. And, never trying to correct his behavior
although jumping quickly on the same behavior by others.
--
John H

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

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

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

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"

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.

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

"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

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.