+1 Conright...

At least he had time to type all that!

 

I could not say that any better...

 

Okay, if you want to debate something, don't A) put words into my mouth, or B) personally attack. And here's why I say that:

Anyway...

Once again, I understand the point you were making about government protecting its people. But the point I was trying to make was that your words quite literally contradicted each other. You can't say a government's job is to protect its people (as a whole, those exact words), but not protect its people from themselves (which would be part of that whole). Yes, it's semantics, but I don't think it was understood. Grammar ****, pretty much. Moving on...

You're right that in my particular example, the motorcyclist is definitely a victim. Perhaps not the best choice of defense. Either way, a "victimless crime" is still a shoddy argument. Take into account the actual definition of "victim":

Choosing to not wear a helmet makes YOU the victim in ANY circumstance. Obviously I understand who is at fault if someone hits a motorcyclist. And yes, I agree that a rider not wearing a helmet certainly has an amount of negligence in a given situation (good luck finding a lawyer moronic enough to try and use that as a defense for the victim, though). But perhaps if the rider was wearing a helmet, it wouldn't be a case of vehicular manslaughter at all. Hell, you can be severely injured or killed with the right head injury in even the most minor of accidents. It's quite possible that the rider might've walked away merely scratched and bruised had they been wearing a helmet, leaving the entire matter to a simple insurance claim.

Well if you continued with that argument, there'd be no cars, either. Or alcohol. Or junk food. Or going outside in the sun. See where this is going? This isn't my argument.

1) You can't compare helmet laws to this. A helmet does not affect operating the motorcycle. Wearing one does not alter or reduce your knowledge or ability.

2) Negligence is the number one cause of accidents ever, period. Even if drivers are dumber these days, a lot fewer of them are being injured or dying.

3) "people, in our country, whether you like it or not, have the right to be dumb." You said it yourself: it's perfectly okay that drivers are dumber.

Another complete contradiction.

I totally agree that education is important. I'm all for better education and stricter testing for motorists, both car and motorcycle. I think adults need regular driving tests, especially as they get to be senior citizens (we all love our grandparents, but lets face it, some of them are doing NO good out there).

The problem is, focusing on education to better safety is unrealistic. It sucks, but it's how things are. Safety laws might be a bandaid for the overall problem of people being idiots, but it's a LOT easier and faster to save those idiots' lives by implementing things like seat belt laws, helmet laws, stricter safety standards for vehicle manufacturers, etc.

Uh, I can think of one major pro that the helmet law succeeded in doing: saving lives. Which is the whole bloody point of the law in the first place, isn't it?!

Given how ridiculously hard it would be to compile any kind of data regarding actual costs of accidents, both private party and tax payer, we can't really say who's right and wrong. But, even if costs do not change with or without a helmet law, fewer lives will still be lost. And once again, that's the point of the law in the first place. Fewer parents and children will need to leave sad families behind, and that's the ultimate goal.

No offense (again, just having fun arguing), but this is why I hate people like you. To you, these law makers and such are just dumb asses who don't know anything, that are just out to make your life more difficult. "Take away your freedoms, telling you how to live your life." It's the same broken record over and over. The only freedom a helmet law is taking away from you is the freedom to pick bugs out of your teeth after a ride. Taking away your motorcycle would be taking away your freedom. Instead, they're trying to help you KEEP your freedoms by helping to keep you ALIVE. (And just in case, I know you encourage helmet use so I'm not using "you" as you specifically.)

Sorry, but heroin and rocket launchers are illegal already, too. Haha

 

I've posted my opinion , which is as valid as anyone elses so no sense with the back and forth. Its like politics, people will believe what they want and disregard the rest.

But I just want to state , I know that this is just a forum and you don't really know anyone for real but I thought I 'knew' some of you.

The simple un-arguable fact is that the helmet law (here) saved more lives than without it, it wasn't even 'close' its a significant number of lives @ 55% increase in DEATH It was a perfect real world example. We had it and we lifted it. No angle to spin.....dramatically more people died than would have NOT died a year earlier. And just a quick politics lesson for some of you do not live in a 100% dependant tourist town. I promise you and I can 100% back it up with documents 'off the record' that the increase was WAY more than 55% that was reported but thats another thread. If you want to hear about the actual crime,rape and death statistics at Disney, I can shock your world there again.

The point is I'm shocked that a forum so hell bent on preaching has this many people that can so easily disregard dead riders and/or pass it off as 'only' and speak like there's an acceptable amount of people who can die for no reason. I am truly shocked............

 

Don't generalize. ;-) A few opinions don't represent the entire membership.

 

I said "Some" silly.

 

i didn't put any words into your mouth and didn't personally attack you. i didn't mean to if you feel like i did. but i didn't say things like "this is why i hate people like you"





it's nothing of semantics, it's actually different. if you don't understand that - fine. but that's what makes our country different from anywhere else in the world in most ways. once again, it's about the freedoms and rights of an individual (man) vs the freedom and rights of individuals or the public (men). our country focuses on former whereas most other countries (and most civilizations in history) are concerned with the later. but not ours, because our forefathers were smart enough to understand that if protect every individual's rights, the whole collectively wins as a result

if you really disagree with that, by all means, disagree, but what makes our country great is that we can debate and argue as much as we like, and there doesn't have to be a winner and one or the other cannot force their views upon the other legally (as long as no rights of another individual are interfered with)




actually, i pulled the negligence part from a vehicular manslaughter specialty lawyer's website - and if you think about it, it holds a lot of water. actually, its used quite often and works. look, you're trying to argue that the use of a helmet could make someone not a victim, and what i'm saying is - that isn't the case. take any example you want, ANY, the fact that a rider was not wearing a helmet does not make him more or less of a victim. it just changes the outcome or charges brought upon the wrong. if i choose to not wear a helmet and make it from point a to point b unharmed - i'm not a victim. if i choose to wear a helmet and die from any circumstance other than my own - i'm still a victim

the helmet is not a factor in determining whether or not someone is a victim. if he walks away scratched and bruised - he's still the victim. you have to understand how insurance works, the motorcycle insurance company still sues the driver's insurance company for the cost of damage. whether he's alive or dead. it happens either way



look at the laws that they are implementing and the progression of rules. 50 years ago, it'd be unheard of to say "motorcycles shouldn't be allowed on the road". now, with some portion of the public and even some politicians, this is a belief they actually have. people need to get around, so at some point, there'd still have to be some form of transportation. it'd be hard to find a majority of politicians willing enough to sacrifice that need to pass a "no cars law"...

but you could drive a car just as easily as a motorcycle to get around, so it's a little different than any example you mentioned



it increases the risk of neck and spinal injures - proven

not true

more people are dying unnecessarily then ever. same thing for being injured.

i put words in your mouth? hahaha. being dumb is okay - or at least , not illegal. but being neglegent is NOT okay. its not legal to be negligent





actually, have you ever looked at drivers education in finland? just look it up. and then look up their statistics. it's not unrealistic at all.




once again, i want all lives to be saved. but i'm never and i do mean never think that you should legislate it. most motorcycle accidents involve alcohol, maybe we should try to fix that? but nope - all the focus is on helmets.



that's a happy thought, but that's not reason for the bill. its to save money to the public because once again, it's not the gov't's job to keep you safe from yourself. and while you see the benefits of a government having to tell someone how to live in a minor and basic way, i see a power grab.

it's just a difference of opinion.


they are dumbasses who don't know a thing about what they debate and enact into law *most of the time* do you feel like a healthy majority of politicians ride motorcycles? do you think the majority of them have cleaned up the brains of our fallen riders?

and believe me, your "the government has the answers, they'll save me" is awful broken record over and over again to me.

keeping me alive has nothing to do with freedom. it just doesn't. if it did, there wouldn't be any alcohol, there wouldn't be junk food (no fried chicken, ah!). keeping someone alive has nothing to do with freedom, and in most cases, keeping people alive or safe takes away from freedoms.

we can disagree, that's fine by me. i won't convince you, and you won't convince me.



it is? when the hell did that happen? no, i know, but it was a point through a joke- if you do something that makes you happy, as long as it doesn't hurt me or my family or someone else, i would NEVER think of telling you to stop.

so now i'm the guy who could care less about dead riders?

i don't disregard dead riders or injured riders. just because you and i want to go about trying to saving them in a very very different way doesnt mean i care any less about them. i just don't think that government does a single thing well. - except taxing and messing things up.


my feeling is - LIFE IS DANGEROUS, YOU COULD DIE FROM IT


so let me guess, i'm sure you're against the running of the isle of man tt too? it's same arguement. not a single one of those riders deserve to die, but some, unfortunately do. it's very dangerous to race there, a lot more dangerous than designated race courses, and many more have died as a result

and it's sad that you have such a bad outlook on me now. i didn't mean to cause that. it's sad that we can't disagree about something and still *somewhat* get along - but that's what happens. its too bad too, i thought you were a guy who had a wealth of knowledge about motorcycles.

it's too bad we can't even have the debate anymore.

just so everyone is clear, i want every motorcyclist to come home every night to their families. i want everyone to ride safe and wear all the appropriate gear.

 

Absolutely.

 

First of all, I didn't think I needed to further establish my overall views on this whole thing, but since you're assuming things again, I'll be more clear. I do not think the government knows best for everyone and will "save me". I do not want helmet laws in the first place, but only for the reason that they shouldn't be necessary, as people should hold a higher regard for their own lives. I do not sit back and assume that everything about this country is appropriate and correct, because it isn't - anyone with half a brain knows that.

But I understand that, unless I want to actually become a politician or voice for the public, I can't do anything about it. Except for voting for people or things that I support, and expressing concern in various ways when appropriate. For example, the SOPA/PIPA bills recently proposed. I signed petitions, emailed my representative, and spread the word on the internet.

Some of the arguments I make in this thread I don't even agree with. So again, I don't like the particular personal defining words you choose, that make me seem like I automatically hold a similar opinion in a different topic, or am a part of a group you clearly oppose. Debate your opinions, fine, but don't put words in my mouth.

1) That statement is about a broader group of people, not just yourself.
2) It's an opinion, not stated like a fact.
3) Context is everything - I clearly stated "just having fun arguing" before it. Consider it the smiley at the end of a derogatory statement from a friend - it's just a bit of light hearted words. I could've said it differently, but I didn't think that was necessary, since I'm trying to keep some air of friendliness here.

1) How is that NOT personal again? Sheesh.
2) It's everything of semantics. Let me be 100% clear - YOUR GRAMMAR WAS WRONG. I'm not debating the point you made, I understand it completely. I'm telling you to write Engrish more better if you want to argue something. (Of course, this means I'm going to have typos or something in this post, so someone else can point it out, haha.)

You're right, that's what does make our country great. But how is that any different from any other modernized country out there? Canada, France, UK, Italy, Spain, etc. They're all just as free as we are, but with a few more laws governing safety. Doesn't seem like such a big deal to me.

I'm not arguing against the motorcyclist being a victim - they are always the victim in that situation.

YES, this is exactly what I'm saying. Obviously a helmet does not change the fault of the person who caused it. But that fault could be far less detrimental if the motorcyclist victim was okay, rather than dead. Given the definition of victim, I'll retract in saying that the person at fault could be a victim. But it is still an example of how the rider's choice can affect someone else, even if the rider had zero control over a given situation. And maybe it can be used successfully in defense for the wrong (I personally find it unlikely, but that's just me). But it's still avoidable. A helmet law provides the best possible outcome for all situations and parties involved (statistically - not 100% of the time, of course).

Yes, transportation is very different from the examples I made. But that's why I made them. If these types of laws are only precursors to taking away anything that statistically harms people, then all of those things should be removed, along with so much more. But they won't be, which is why that argument is irrelevant.

That has nothing to do with what I said there. You cannot compare the current status of automobiles and their reduction of human knowledge to wearing a helmet, because wearing a helmet does not reduce your knowledge or ability in any way. And if anyone here tries to say that helmets reduce your vision and that sort of crap, I will never take you seriously again.

WHAT?! Give me ONE shred of proof that says that human error was NOT the #1 reason behind crashes.

The only reason I can think that you would have this argument is that you and I have a difference in opinion as to the meaning of negligence. To clarify, I equate negligence to human error. When you neglect to drive properly, you cause an accident. And that is and has been the #1 cause of accidents since cars were put on the street.

That could very well be true. And like I said, I completely agree with the need for better driver education and awareness and such. But it doesn't change the fact that safety laws and standards still save more lives.

Hey, you said it, not me!

1) No, I haven't. It's your argument, so you should share statistics if you want people to see them.

2) Implementing driver education is unrealistic, because it is such a large change to a growing industry. I don't know about the entire country, but in Wisconsin, driver education is mostly privatized, and a sliver done by public school systems. The state has little to no involvement with the education process. And until it DOES, things are unlikely to change. That's why it is unrealistic - there needs to either be government intervention (federal or state level), or a willingness for individuals to reform and improve. And let's face it, both of those are highly unlikely in the near future.

Murder is against the law, and its sole purpose is to save lives. Should it not be a law as well? Too broad of a statement to make, IMO.

As for alcohol, it's quite true that public intervention would prevent lawmakers from getting anywhere near making it illegal. And that's an iffy argument from me, because I'm 100% against cigarettes for the same reasons that others oppose alcohol. So I'm hypocritical when it comes to those things, so I stay away from arguing them.

How do you know the exact reasons for the bill? How does ANYONE know (unfortunately)? Sometimes the simplest answer is the correct answer. Seat belts save lives. Helmets save lives. Pretty rational assumption that the purpose of the bill is to save lives.

You're right that we do have different opinions on how these laws affect (or "control") our lives and "freedoms". And I certainly don't consider your opinion wrong. And obviously a lot of people feel the same way. I just don't see why these things are so important (or why they are supposedly dangerous "gateway" laws) to you and others. Seat belt laws have been in America in various ways since the early 1960s. How has that lead to a worse quality of life since then?

Again, not my opinion or my argument.

If you aren't alive, you're not around to enjoy any type of freedom. To me, that makes your safety completely relevant.

Oh I concur. I have no expectations of changing your mind at all, lol. Debating as a way of encouraging thought, testing your mind to see if you really do think a certain way, or if another perspective can change that. And as we can both agree, people are dumb. Debating can show you that there are smart people in the world still.

Amen.