| Author | Message | ||
     Mmmi_grad |
There was some warning about this in this months Indiana's AMA monthly rag. Anyone else believe it? | ||
| Bikertrash05 |
If Obamacare passes, they will be able to regulate and/or ban anything they want because of health/safety reasons. Ever see Demolition Man? | ||
| Americanmadexb |
No i haven't read it, but whats the problem? I wish Indiana would do this! | ||
| Jimduncan69 |
| ||
| Ferris_von_bueller |
I always wondered how the three seashells worked | ||
| Bikertrash05 |
| ||
| Alchemy |
Helmets are good. I don't see any mandatory helmets coming but I could see riders who promise to wear FF helmets paying less for insurance. I can't see how the healthcare bill changes anything in that the Gov't has always had the right to regulate the roadways - speed limits , inspections etc. Here in PA they used to have a law and recently loosened it but they are doing a lot more rider education which is good. | ||
| Cityxslicker |
Your health insurance has always limited coverage for incidents involving motorcycles, cars, racing, and any recreational activity. Its been in every policy that I have underwrtitten and serviced for the last 15 years. You havent been paying attention. It is not the job of your employers health care insurance to cover you for stuff that happens out on the track/street/slope. And most of your life policies have similar exclusions and are rated as such, just try and get a policy letting your agent know that you skydive regularly. You will be shocked by the premium amount. | ||
| Crusty |
Insurance Companies exist to take in as much money as possible, while paying out as little as possible. The Insurance industry (under the guise of the IIHS) has been trying to make motorcyclists pay extra for years. No health coverage if the rider wasn't wearing a helmet. Outrageously high premiums for "Race type" motorcycles like GSXRs and BMW K 100 R/Ts. If you think the government will be any worse than the Insurance industry, you are very wrong. | ||
| Jpl9sx |
"If you think the government will be any worse than the Insurance industry, you are very wrong." Insurance companies can only raise my rates, cancel my policy, or refuse to cover me. The government can take my money, property, freedom, and life. No comparison. | ||
| Redbuelljunkie |
No health coverage if the rider wasn't wearing a helmet. Sounds reasonable to me... same for not wearing full-coverage armored clothing. If riders don't take their safety seriously, the insurance companies shouldn't have pay for the consequences of a dumb choice. There's a price to pay for stupidity, but personal responsibility is priceless. | ||
| Aesquire |
For all of my decrepit adult life, Insurance companies have pushed all sorts of good things into law with the promise each time that it would lower insurance rates if we would only be forced by law to do X. Now X is usually a real good idea. Helmets, seatbelts, cholesterol rich foods, fatty foods, foods that taste good, high performance machines, anything involving risk, fun, etc. have all come under actuarial scrutiny, and then been banned, required, or controlled by laws. Laws passed by congress's that were bribed large sums of money to pass. Now, I wear seatbelts &/or a helmet in more than one silly activity ( motorcycles, cars, bicycles, gliders, martial arts, etc. I've even been an enforcer of safety rules in more than one of these..not always with happy cooperation from the participants. But, I've never seen the prices on Insurance go down because of helmet laws, etc. So, I'm not usually joyful when a new one gets passed. And the Govt. as noted above can not only charge you more money for risky fun, they can imprison you for actions that harm no one else. When these things come up, Think libertarian, not nanny state, please. Thousands of lives could be saved each year by making full face helmets mandatory in cars. (Message edited by aesquire on November 29, 2009) | ||
| Bikertrash05 |
Insurance companies can only raise my rates, cancel my policy, or refuse to cover me. The government can take my money, property, freedom, and life. No comparison. Amen. | ||
| Technomad |
Big Business may be bad, but Big Government is even worse. | ||
| Redbuelljunkie |
Think libertarian Amen... registered Libertarian over a decade ago. Of course, the difference here is operating a vehicle on public roads is a privilege- not a right. Wearing full safety equipment has nothing to do with lowering insurance rates- it's just the smart thing to do. If riders insist on not doing the smart thing, then they should be penalized by fines/points/suspensions/revocation of privilege by the state, and penalized by higher premiums/revocation of coverage by insurers. There has never been an accident that only affected one person- "harming only oneself' is impossible. I have heard innumerable excuses for not wearing proper safety equipment (most boil down to ego), but I have never heard one single good reason to not wear your gear every time you ride. It's sad, really... why is there such fervor to be really stupid? I believe in the basic human right of stupidity, but if you want the privilege of operating a motor vehicle on public roads then you have to follow rules- and they should include "no-brainer" basics like dressing properly every time you ride. Why anyone would argue against rider safety is anathema to me. | ||
| Froggy |
You haven't seen me crash then  | ||
| Cityxslicker |
drunks crash into telephone polls with such regularity, I dont see how you can make that stick. and suicide is pretty much a one party event, somebody else comes for the deal then it gets to be a murder, homocide, or manslaughter. (ok ok, I will grant you wacko cult group suicides as a caveat) | ||
| Aeholton |
Sounds reasonable to me... same for not wearing full-coverage armored clothing. If riders don't take their safety seriously, the insurance companies shouldn't have pay for the consequences of a dumb choice. There's a price to pay for stupidity, but personal responsibility is priceless. One problem with your logic: Motorcyclists are more inclined to be hurt in a crash than those riding in a cage (car) with seat belts and airbags. Therefore the new "government" run health care will deem these vehicles too dangerous. Non-riders (majority) believe it is reasonable to outlaw motorcycles, since they are too dangerous. No more motorcycles! Be careful about giving up freedoms for "reasonable" arguments. It is a slippery slope. | ||
| Redbuelljunkie |
and suicide is pretty much a one party event It depends upon your definition of "harm"- every death has an affect, an effect, a cost, and a consequence. Therefore the new "government" run health care will deem these vehicles too dangerous. Be careful about giving up freedoms for "reasonable" arguments. Neither are part of my argument at all. Logically, taking basic safety seriously and banning something for political reasons have no connection what so ever. I posited that the privilege of operating a motor vehicle necessitates following rules designed to reduce injury, death, and the associated costs. The leap to a socialistic "nanny state" revoking the privilege to operate certain forms of motor vehicle based on a "perceived danger" is a totally different can of worms. I will say again- why do people want to argue against mandatory safety equipment? Where is the logic in saying that if motorcyclists are required to dress properly it will lead to banning motorcycles, but allowing them to continue to make idiotic safety choices will provide a better result. Basic safety requirements and possible socialistic government actions are two different issues, and should be dealt with in different ways. Anyone who has a problem with "big brother", left-wing socialist "nanny state" government gets 100% of my support- we have the right and responsibility as Americans to stop this form of government. However, anyone who supports the idea that motorcyclists have the "right" to disregard the most basic safety rules of motorcycle operation and expect to retain their privilege to operate a motorcycle on pubic roads will never get my support. I'm still waiting for the "good argument" to not wear safety equipment... | ||
| Bikertrash05 |
I'm still waiting for the "good argument" to not wear safety equipment... The argument is about the "requirement" to wear safety equipment, and it is a slippery slope. Reminds me of the saying "Give them an inch, they will take a mile". First, regulate the rider to death (pun intended), then go after the bikes, and that almost happened, but the AMA fought it and won. This is what CAN happen if the government runs our lives:  I would love to see all the HD riders forced to wear a helmet, but that would be against personal freedom. | ||
| Ratbuell |
I would love to see all the HD riders forced to wear a helmet, but that would be against personal freedom. And it would ruin the fashion show. | ||
| 86129squids |
Wow- I'd love to see various other angles/pictures of the NHTSA "Idiot Glide"!! Obviously they sacrificed an AMF-era Shovelhead to create that monstrosity- I'd LOVE to see before and after photos! Now I've gotta go outside and hug my old greasy/leaky/obsolete '77 Lowrider, just to get that NHTSA bike out of my head.... | ||
| Jb2 |
>> And it would ruin the fashion show. Amen to that!!! Hey I got pulled over in Indiana for wearing a helmet! It was in '93 and I was on a new Sporty and it was after dark. The State Trooper explained he pulled me over was because NO ONE on a Harley wears a helmet and his reasoning led him to believe that I might be riding on a permit. In Indiana, while holding a temporary permit, you are required to wear a helmet and you cannot ride after dark. Since it was after dark and I was riding a Harley with a helmet he concluded I MUST be on a permit. Imagine his dismay when he found out the opposite truth. This will really fu<k things up for the Indiana State Police when they're profiling Harley riders. Damn glad I got over the Harley habit! Nuttin' but a bunch of pirate FAGS!  JB2 | ||
| Xb12xmike |
If that is passed... Then BAN BARE FEET as well. Your feet and their delicate bones thump onto the ground hundreds or thousands of times a day. You should not be allowed out of your home without shoes or some kind of footwear. That means no barefoot walking/running skipping or jumping on sidewalks, beaches or swimming in the ocean either. Do you have any idea how many foot cuts were stitched up in 2008 alone? How many stubbed big toes?? It is unbelievable. I fkin hate libertarian aholes telling me what to do. | ||
| Dcc46 |
thank you for deciding what i should or shouldnt wear when i ride, why have any personal responsibility. screw it regulate everything we do. | ||
| Aesquire |
Redbuelljunkie. While I'm all for safety gear, ( though I admit to jeans most of the summer ) regulations for same? It comes down to 2 simple things. 1. Helmetless riders are a prime source of organs for transplant. Who has a less messed up liver/heart/etc.? A 18 year old Ninja rider, or a 45 year old car driver? More importantly, helmetless riders tend to die without messing up the nice transplantable organs, since brain injuries compounds minor ones to a great degree. You get the best parts from some guy brought in to the hospital in an irreversible coma, heart still thumping away. ( the above paragraph is only partly serious....the next paragraphs are serious ) 2: While it is true that very few actions in life touch no one else, there is a slippery slope aspect here to consider. Yes, a rider without safety gear tends to have more serious injuries, that take more resources to treat. likewise, a fellow without health/vehicle insurance places a burden on the ones who do. Since the medicines and care must be paid for, and the cost of "free" treatment for those without insurance or illegal aliens comes out as higher prices. True, true, true. No argument. But this line of reasoning has no end point. It is without a doubt that wearing safety gear saves lives. SO...we should make helmet use mandatory in cars. Thousands of lives could be saved. Do you draw the line at gear? behavior? Who decides? I completely agree that it's smarter to wear a helmet. I will stand with you and mock the guys with bandannas. Since ( fill in your sport...say, Hang Gliders ) have more accidents per person than those who hide in bunkers, is that behavior to be legislated? They cost society more in helicopter rescues than most pedestrians. Same with wilderness hikers. Motorcycle riders, are a visible target for nanny state regulation. the difference between "you must not ride without a helmet: or be arrested" and "you must not ride.." is large to you & I, but very small to old fat guys in Congress who have never known the joy of riding, and just get told by the insurance company guys who bribe them how evil we are, because of our effect on society. Where do you say stop? | ||
| Cityxslicker |
Friggen Nanny state. | ||
| Wilcom |
Give up no FREEDOM to logic... They are gobbling up our freedoms left and right. Yes it's only logical that you would ride with a helmet, but I will defend your right to NOT wear one, that's your business not mine. Seat belts in a car is a good law for the manufactures because they pass the product on to someone else and the GOV has the right to make product as safe as possible for the unsuspecting buyer. But it is a another ball game when they force you to wear it, That's my business and my business alone. Pass a law that makes me buckle up my kids, sure I'm all for it , protect them from me that might not do it on my own, but don't make me wear one if I don't feel I need to. I always wear a helemt and I always buckle up in a car but don't shove it up my ass with a damn law as the only one hurt by my decision or stupidity is me and only me. Don't give me this liberal crap about "there is never only one person hurt" either. I'm sure some one is effected every time I do anything, even going to the store for god's sake, but don't write a law about it. | ||
| Redbuelljunkie |
As I stated earlier- the egos always mark their territory. The error being made here is confusing the safety equipment argument with the "slippery slope" fallacy. Until I am provided with the "good reason" to not wear safety equipment I maintain that there is not one. Given that, all motorcyclists should be required (as part of the privilege of operating a motorcycle on public roads) to wear full protective safety equipment. Why would there be an argument to the contrary? It is no different than requiring drivers to wear seat belts, and not use a cell phone, or text, or read a book, or watch a movie, and the myriad of other idiotic things people shouldn't be doing while operating a motor vehicle. And for those of you vacant enough to have problems with the rules mentioned above, have faith- just because there's a law against something doesn't limit your freedom to wantonly disregard the rules whenever you see fit. Of course, there will be a penalty to pay for your lack of judgment. The "slippery slope" fallacy always seems to come up when intelligent people realize that certain groups could use information to control others. Unfortunately, that is how it has always been, and will always be- because it is the nature of humans. It should not be used, however, to stop intelligent choices because of the fear of a "possible" future outcome. Does anyone here really want to argue against the implementation of seat belts, air bags, anti-lock brakes, traction control, crumple zones, and all the other safety devices designed to reduce injury and death in cars? For motorcyclists, the simplest and best external safety devices are what we wear- and should not be optional. Arguing against dressing properly today because somehow, someday, someone "may" try to use it against us in the future is specious. This isn't a question of freedom, it's about safety, responsibility, maturity, humility, intelligence, and the bigger picture. It's sad when so many refuse to consider anything outside of their own mental comfort zone- where the seeds of tragedy germinate. | ||
| Xb12xmike |
I would only agree with your opinions on these nanny laws, as long as at the same time ... speed limits were removed or at least the enforcement of speeding were relaxed especially in non-residential areas. Maybe we can use jackets/pants/helmets with airbags built-in. Shit..how about a sumo suit? Oh crap!! lol!! that wont work.. could get caught on something or worse... bounce off something... hmmm maybe put a seatbelt on the bike.. THEN we can have airbags built into the bike itself with some kind of rollcage too. Even dirt bikes would have to have this new design. Sound good?? Or maybe make EVERYONE wear Neon green helmets..like this one:  fyi: I do wear armored gear 99% of the time. FF helmet, armored: pants, jacket, gloves & boots. (1% is jeans) (Message edited by xb12xmike on December 01, 2009) |
