Like I-5 at 4am. It's just me and the truckers and your flashing lights.

 

ha, try 395 through the desert; you can drive for an hour without even seeing another car. and i really think i was making headway on just getting a warning until he noticed the CBR1000RR on my insurance card - he even muttered some backhanded crack about it. still do 80 on the 101 on a daily basis and nobody freaking cares.

 

Anyone in So. Fla or SW Fla knows on I-95 and I-75, you're doing 90+ flow of traffic.


There should only be two road laws: 1) Reckless driving and 2) Registration error



They'll each have different degrees of punishment to be levied out by the judge similar to the system we have in place now with civil law. Those two laws encompass everything. And since reckless is discretionary - it will give citizens the edge in battling traffic tickets in court. As well, cops will finally only have incentives to pull people over who ARE being reckless because of the fact that it will be harder to prove who is actually reckless or not in court. Cops won't want to be tied up in court with a bunch of tickets that might get over-turned.


It'd never happen because it's a revenue stream, but that's a tangent for you.

 

I'm an inexperienced rider, but I refuse to get on a bike without a helmet. I can see why others might not want to wear one, but to me it's a personal preference.
I don't see how it can impact anyone else (aside from maybe something hitting your eye and causing you to lose control or something weird like that, but that's why there are protective eye wear laws) so I fail to see why it's a requirement.

 

The Case Against Motorcycle Helmet Laws - Reason.com

Motorcycle Helmet Laws Save Lives, but Not Very Many - Hit & Run : Reason.com



To everyone who's argument for helmet laws are about the drag on society and the increased cost to tax payers (socialized medicine or not), I'd argue with those 2 links above. When do you draw the line in the sand about what life choices the government (through laws) can and cannot force you to make? Are we going to start keeping track about how many lovers one is allowed to have because of the increased risk of STDs, pregnancy, and sexual violence?


In the last helmet debate, I was told that I don't care about motorcyclist lives because I wasn't in favor of a helmet law. Nothing could be further from the truth. I want EVERY rider to make it home to his/her family every night, but I will not let the emotional factor interfere with the logical facts. Unfortunately, some riders aren't as lucky, and as much as I hate to see death happen...the only way to completely avoid all motorcyclist deaths is to eliminate the motorcycle. If the argument is "It's worth it if it saves one life", then it WILL lead to outlawing motorcycles, because, "hey, if it can save one more life, or one more tax dollar..."




And as far as people saying that it doesn't lead to more intrusive laws and you aren't "slaves" to your government - Look at what the EU tried to do last year. They almost passed an anti-tampering ban, one so strict, it would have even made using different tire profiles illegal, let alone any K&N filters, end-cans, or Power Commanders. It was all offered up under the guise of rider-safety. Now they're trying to make Hi-Viz clothing mandatory. I'm happy that all of the protests and rider rallies made the EU change the law, but they only barely beat it THIS time.

So, we need to dig our heels in on helmet laws in order to stop all of the legislation coming our way. I want every rider to make the decision to wear a helmet though - and a jacket, gloves, boots, and pants for that matter. But I won't force it on anyone. Okay, I'm done now.

 

Allowing lawmakers to pass things that strip you of your individual freedoms, it becomes a very slippery slope.
Sure, you wear your helmet all the time, so it doesn't affect you, but what will be on the table next? Will it affect other people?
We have to stick together, I've seen this happen time and time again when it comes to firearms; if you don't care about it just because THIS law doesn't apply to you, when they go to change something you care about, you may not have the others on your side.

 

I dislike the "freedom" position. In many debates, not just this one. I dislike it because in many cases it ignores or doesn't acknowledge the thing in question is a privilege, not a right. And therefore some privileges have a cost.

Riding a motorcycle is a privilege. The right of travel is guaranteed. But not the means. I'm not saying I support a law mandating the use of helmets. But I do have to say that if a law were passed, people would still have the real freedom which is guaranteed: choice. They can choose not to ride.

But if they want to enjoy the privilege of riding, they will have to agree to the costs of that privilege.

 

No offense Kuro...

But it's going to be pretty ironic if they mandate a hp limit/anti-tampering ban on bikes here and you can't ride your HP4 anymore. I hope you're okay with that cost of the privilege. It's the same thing. When the helmet law won't save enough money or lives (because it won't if you look at the articles I posted), they'll look elsewhere to impose new restrictions on the "privilege" of riding a motorcycle. I have no idea what those other laws will be - but if you look at the American government - when we start to regulate, we regulate big.

I hope you stay consistent and won't feel like your right to own a 1000cc, or extremely powerful bike, or modified bike (with your akro and other mods) has been infringed upon.


And let's not forget Kuro, it will most likely be UNelected officials that levy this sort of law. You can't "agree" (as you put it) to those costs of the privileges in that situation. We don't vote on who runs the DOT.

 

Conrice, as I said my problem is with people saying it's their right. Riding without a helmet is not a practice I support. But I try not to lecture beyond saying "you really should get a lid". So when people ask for my support of a practice I don't believe in because it's their right it irks me. Especially when (and I won't go into details so we don't get political) other people are still fighting for real rights which are being denied due to morality or prejudice.

As for the govt coming after Sersi, would I like it? Hell no. Would I try to fight it? Hell yes. But would I say because it's my right to ride a race bike on the street? No. I would point out I purchased the bike prior to the enactment of the regulation. And since the govt is the one insisting on the restriction they are responsible in some part for the extremely costly process of installing such restrictions (as in there are no restrictors designed for the s1000rr and the dealer would charge about 2hrs labor to get to the airbox to install any). So it'd be highly likely my HP4 would be grandfathered from any regulation. For future bike purchases, I would hope that would give manufacturers incentive to start sharing the tech advances with the smaller displacement bikes. If BMW announced a 600cc bike with DTC, DDC and ABS at the same time as the HP4 I'd have been torn down the middle on which to buy.

Sersi is that overpowered on the street and I don't delude myself into thinking she's just fine there. It's a pita to find a long enough and empty enough stretch of road to make her happiest (only in the upper revs does she sing)

 

P.S.

And if anyone dares to say helmets don't save lives I'd want to smack the chit out of them if I could. I held my friend's helmet in my hands while visiting him in the hospital. If it weren't for that helmet, I'd prolly not be able to attend to funeral out of respect for his family and being a rider