| Author | Message | ||
     Mmmi_grad |
Its called something like " We the people " As in its what America voted for or against that is. The national helmet law was repealed along time ago. There is really no argument. It has been argued and ruled on. NO MORE MANDATORY HELMET LAWS Esp a national law. Actually States have been dropping all kinds or laws and ordinance's on helmets. The people do not want more helmet laws, its that simple. (Message edited by mmmi_grad on December 03, 2009) | ||
| Redbuelljunkie |
Using small words- I answered your question. The issue at hand is whether or not the safety equipment that is universally accepted as proper for motorcycle operation (excepting Mmmi grad- and there's always one making that fatuous claim) should be suggested or required. What other "hobbies" are dangerous and would/should/could come under the scrutiny of "big brother" has no bearing on the topic at hand. B.A. Philosophy, University of South Carolina, December 1991 | ||
| Easy_rider |
already available Doesn't mean that everyone should be forced to wear it. Brussels sprouts are readily available, too. Very good for you. I ain't touchin' 'em!! It's a choice I've made.... | ||
| Aesquire |
Thank you. You go a bit farther than I usually ride with, ( jeans vs. leg armor ) and quite a lot further than I prefer the laws to be, ( helmet/DOT approved vs. full gear ) so the argument there is minor. ( real, if we were testifying before a committee, but minor. I'd end up with "good idea, please don't make it law" while agreeing with you that it's a good idea. ) I think WE can with good will argue the edges of lawful control, and not be too far apart, but..... we are not the ones that I fear will get dictatorial powers over us all by the gimmick of "health care reform" "good for you" regulations. Resume mocking the helmetless..... I always loved the line from Gary Busey. Years after his accident ( head into curb w/out helmet ) he promotes helmet use. When asked about his disparaging remarks made right after the accident, he replied, "I was brain damaged!..." | ||
| Redbuelljunkie |
"I was brain damaged!..." Hmm, interesting argument that would explain a lot- you might be on to something there...  | ||
| Chellem |
Even smaller words. I, if you would refer above, temporarily conceded your first point, and then, as a follow up, proposed the question. Which you STILL have not answered, relevant or not. Perhaps, once you decide to answer, we can discuss the relevance. In the meantime, a person with a philosophy degree should be able to follow my thread of logic, even if he believes it's flawed. So please, for me, just answer the damn question? OK? If mandatory safety equipment will save lives, why is that you will demand its use with motorcycles, but will not do so with other hobbies, simply because they are not (yet) regulated by some government agency? Lives saved are lives saved, regulatory agency or not, right? And as a follow up, if suddenly, lets say, horseback riding required a license, would you suddenly decree that all safety equipment should now be mandatory? And if so, why not now? The main difference being some writing on some paper signed by some government bureaucrat? Or do philosophy majors not discuss hypotheticals all of a sudden? | ||
| Phelan |
Do you realize that the majority of the textile gear market uses a large percentage of polyester in their gear, which can actually melt and burn into the skin in a slide, causing more damage than without? I'd hardly call that adequate protection. When I ride to work when it's hot, I wear my uniform and a helmet. Any more than that becomes a burden to store when I'm at work. Am I taking a risk? Yes. Is it worth it to me not to lug around $600 worth of gear when it's hot and store it in a restaurant (where I work)where it can easily be stolen? Yes. I have a right to take that risk. Just like I have a right to jump off my roof if I so desire. You can't govern stupid nor should you try to. The govt is not trying to protect us with these laws. they are finding creative ways to take all of our money. That's my take on it. Mind you, MY motorcycle is my only transportation. If my gear gets stolen when I'm broke, should I not be allowed to ride? Should the cops be allowed to pull me over, and give me a rather expensive ticket (that I cannot afford) because I ride to work or church or the store without my gear(because it was stolen)? There are several other situations that could occur, and it's these situations that are the reason that I am pro-choice. Safer and better are two very different concepts. Just because something is safer for us doesn't mean it is always better. There are things unsafe that happen everywhere, every day. We cannot govern preparation for all of them. As Roger said, people have a comfort level with danger. if you take away one danger, they will find something to fill the void. Bottom line is that we are not supposed to be governed by law and order, when our Country was founded upon the principles of mercy and grace. (Message edited by phelan on December 02, 2009) | ||
| Gregtonn |
Liquorwhere's approach is much more publicly responsible than that of Redbuelljunkie. Better yet. Let us wear whatever we want but force us all to sign a DNR order and an organ donor card. This would provide more donor organs. Maybe if we took that and RBJ's approach far enough we could let the law makers decide if, in an accident, we were "to damaged to be useful to society". In that case they would harvest our organs for the "greater benefit of society" and put us out of our misery. There would be no choice in this matter because it would be "the most responsible thing". Any takers? G | ||
| Chellem |
Well, unfortunately, without the safety gear, the organs might get all ground up during an accident. So probably, we'd still be required to wear the damn gear. :P | ||
| Bikertrash05 |
Which equipment would you deem mandatory? Full face helmets, full coverage armored clothing, gloves, and boots. Helmets- all DOT and international safety ratings (Snell, JIS, ECE, BSI, SHARP, etc...). Clothing- abrasion resistant textile or leather covering from neck to hands to feet, with armor/padding in shoulders, elbows, back, hips, and knees. There is an entire industry currently making clothing for this purpose, and it is available for all size riders and for all climate conditions. There should be no reason to be any more specific than stated above. Gloves- abrasion resistant textile or leather covering the hands with armor/padding/reinforcement in critical areas (palms/fingers/knuckles/wrist). As stated above, the products are already available to the public. Boots- abrasion resistant textile or leather above the ankle motorcycle specific boots with armor/padding/reinforcement in critical areas (ankle/heel/toes), steel shank in footbed, and oil/slip resistant sole. Again, this product is readily available in all sizes/shapes/colors and in all price ranges. You want to see all the equipment required by the gov't? REALLY?!  Even the requirements for riding on a military base, were gov't has total control, don't even include the clothing you are proposing. Full-face DOT-approved helmet Long-sleeved shirt and pants Full-fingered leather gloves Brightly-colored clothing for day and reflective vest at night Eye protection (ANSI approved) Fully-enclosed sturdy shoes (no flip-flops, sandals, etc.) | ||
| Redbuelljunkie |
If mandatory safety equipment will save lives, why is that you will demand its use with motorcycles, but will not do so with other hobbies, simply because they are not (yet) regulated by some government agency? Lives saved are lives saved, regulatory agency or not, right? And as a follow up, if suddenly, lets say, horseback riding required a license, would you suddenly decree that all safety equipment should now be mandatory? And if so, why not now? The main difference being some writing on some paper signed by some government bureaucrat? Or do philosophy majors not discuss hypotheticals all of a sudden? Unfortunately, there is not one answer to your "hypothetical" question. For example, I grew up competing in equestrian competitions. All exhibitors under the age of 18 were required to wear a helmet, and everyone had to wear the required uniform. No one had to abide by the rules- but if you didn't you were not allowed in the ring. On your own time, anywhere other than the competition, you could be as unsafe as you wanted- but during active participation you were regulated. After I stopped riding, I heard that all ages were required to wear a helmet during shows- and that's how it is to this day. This is an example of non-government regulation in action, and it works extremely well. You may have occasionally heard someone bitch about having to wear a helmet, but it really didn't matter- everyone understood it was mandatory and served an important purpose. Now, do I believe that government needs to step in and regulate equestrian events to ensure safety- absolutely not, they regulate themselves quite well. There are some similarities, and some differences between this example and the motorcycle argument. It is a given that the first rule of both the equestrian "hobby" and motorcycling is basic safety. The difference is that in the equestrian world safety is mandatory, while for motorcyclists it is not. The non-governmental equestrian sanctioning body is doing it's job- the same cannot be said in the motorcycle world. And, before you ask, since operating a motorcycle on public roads is a privilege that requires competency and licensing- it is comparable to being in an equestrian competition whenever riding on a public road, and therefore requires abiding by all safety rules. Only motorcyclists riding on private land would be considered free from the safety stipulations as provided by the sanctioning body. So, that is an example of a non-governmentaly regulated "hobby" that is doing a good job of enforcing basic safety rules. It should be the same with motorcycles. Because they are doing what should be done, there is no need for governmental interference- they're doing a good job already (better than the gov't, actually). For any other hypothetical "hobbies" I guess I would have to answer you on a case by case basis because there is not a single answer for all the possibilities. | ||
| Benm2 |
After a brief search, I found this information on a website that specializes in equestrian helmets, Troxel helmets:
I like the last sentence best. Since these two can safely be assumed to be parallel activities, then the same rules should apply, and equestrian riders should be required to wear proper safety gear. Further, since falling from a horse is more likely to involve a fall from heights, it places an even higher emphasis on full face helmets and padding. Considering that the self-regulation doesn't seem to go any further that the open-faced riding helmet, your argument that they have properly self regulated (and have a proper regard for safety) is questionable. However I'm certain that the suggestion that riders on horseback gear up with a nice full face Shoei and a set of Dainese wouldn't be met with a warm welcome either. | ||
| Chellem |
Hmm. You're referring to equestrian competitions, which are self-regulating. You join a club or a competition, and you abide by their rules. What about folks who just, ya know, ride horses. In South Jersey, people ride horses on the side of the road. Out west, even in PA sometimes, you see folks, just, on their horses. Regulated or not? Because without the "governing" bodies of the equestrian competition, I doubt regular folks are all that self-regulating, any more than random motorcyclists are. I'd say comparing equestrian competitions would be more equal to motorcycle racing on a track, "self-regulated" by the club you join. So, really, that entire line of logic doesn't relate to the question... AND given the above statistics, although I don't know if they're referring to ONLY competitive horseback riding or not, but still, an interesting parallel. But it's the last sentence of your post that I find the most interesting: or any other hypothetical "hobbies" I guess I would have to answer you on a case by case basis because there is not a single answer for all the possibilities. So, case by case, you, or some governing body, will decide whether or not the participants must wear special gear, and which gear is mandatory, and who qualifies the gear as "approved," and so on. THAT is exactly where you lose me. This line of thinking leads to only one eventual outcome - once we decide that dangerous things must be regulated and safety equipment mandated, someone is in charge of deciding what is "dangerous". And the only person who should be making that choice for me is, well, me. My question is YES or NO: if suddenly, lets say, INSERT HOBBY HERE required a license, would you suddenly decree that all safety equipment should now be mandatory? You can fill in whatever "hobby" you want. The question remains the same. Does EVERYONE need to be safe? Or just motorcyclists? | ||
| Redbuelljunkie |
You're asking me to paint a black or white picture while providing only gray paint... if it were only that simple. I look forward to continuing this discussion after I return from physical therapy. | ||
| Liquorwhere |
Liquorwhere's approach is much more publicly responsible than that of Redbuelljunkie. Greg...that is twice in one year you have agreed with me...what are you trying to do give me a stroke or something????? Back to the regularly scheduled debate...... | ||
| Tiltcylinder |
I wear all the gear all the time. My choice. Wether kayaking, riding, cycling, skiing or playing paintball; I believe in it. It only takes one destroyed helmet to realize how lucky (or smart) you were to be wearing it. Society has allow everyone to become so 'dumbed down' that no one is responsible for their own actions... tooth picks and razor blade packages say 'do not swallow'. Dessicant packs found in the pockets of new stuff Say "do not eat"... anyone old enough to read should also be smart enough not to eat the unknown. Darwin's law needs to be allowed to operate. Jump off your roof, break your neck and by some miracle of modern medicine you survive. We will now all have to pay for your long term care. Ride your motorcycle in shorts and flip flops, wheelie, crash, go to the emergency room... who foots the bill? We all do... taxes, insurance. Why not make the idiots pay? | ||
| Benm2 |
1. we already are. 2. how do you define idiot? Check out the increases in Type 2 Diabetes. The shorts-and-flipflops guy is equally likely to wipe himself out with a single incident. We'll pay for junior's twinkie & potato chip habit till his arteries finally give out after his third bypass. Flipflop will likely cost us less. While Darwin should be allowed to operate, inflicting a direct cost on stupidity is following the same path: Who defines it? | ||
| Dwardo |
So, the government only needs to make something mandatory if it's not already mandatory. Neat. In the end, everything becomes mandatory. | ||
| Phelan |
How long before I have to wear a helmet when I'm running or hiking? I've nearly killed myself just as many times doing these everyday things as I have riding. Hell, I've hurt myself much worse on bicycles than I ever have on a motorcycle (been in a lot of biking accidents that could've killed me; never been in a moto accident). I have a much higher "comfort zone" of danger on bicycles than I do on motorcycles. | ||
| Gregtonn |
"Greg...that is twice in one year you have agreed with me...what are you trying to do give me a stroke or something?????" I've actually agreed with you more often than that. I don't agree or disagree with people based on who they are, but based on what their opinions are on a subject that I care about.  G | ||
| Redbuelljunkie |
Sorry, PT was tough today, and I'm really not up to extended discourse. However, I will comment on this statement: So, case by case, you, or some governing body, will decide whether or not the participants must wear special gear, and which gear is mandatory, and who qualifies the gear as "approved," and so on. THAT is exactly where you lose me. This line of thinking leads to only one eventual outcome - once we decide that dangerous things must be regulated and safety equipment mandated, someone is in charge of deciding what is "dangerous". All I have suggested is that motorcyclists should be required to wear the safety equipment that no one has been able to provide a "good argument" for them not to wear. Most here admit it should be worn, but claim it's their "freedom" not to. I'm saying that wearing safety equipment should be required as part of the privilege of operating a motorcycle on public roads (showing competency in order to earn and retain a license). As to all of the other "hypothetical" activities which would possibly fall under the heading of "dangerous" or "requiring safety equipment", I'm perfectly happy to discuss them- but that's a completely different subject from the point in question. Of course, like everyone else I may have an opinion, but that's all I would be able to offer on the subject- it's outside of the scope of my original contention. I will add this: I didn't always dress appropriately in the past. Like many here, I came to the conclusion that it really is a bad decision to ride unprotected and joined the ATGATT club. Luckily, it was after I made the right choice for safety that the inattentive driver in the Nissan Armada turned in front of me and changed my life forever. ATGATT, in combination with my choice to ride protected, saved my life. It just so happened that my number came up after I realized that safety comes first when riding. If it had come before that epiphany, I sure as hell would have wished I had been required to wear the equipment I had "chosen" not to wear- because I wouldn't be here otherwise. More tomorrow... | ||
| Aesquire |
Oh, I now understand that our levels of comfort with govt. intervention for my own good are different. I'm not going to throw a "you can't make me wear ..." tantrum. What about the concept that the laws for your own good are going to be written by a govt. insurance company & not a representative government? I don't care what sport you are talking about now. "privilege" or not. Licensed operation or not. | ||
| Xb12xmike |
I went for a ride without gloves today... just to see how long it would take for my hands to get numb. | ||
| Crackhead |
mike your in nj,ny,pa area right? It was in the 60s as lunch.... i am guessing 1/2hr with heated drips and hand guards. 10min with out grips and guards. | ||
| Xb12xmike |
yea... was in the 60's in the afternoon but got cold fast that evening. yea.. i had to stop cuz... um it was cold on my fingers. No heated grips... just handguards. I am thinking of getting the grips.. but also am thinking about buying a kit for my seat. Nuthin like a warm bum. | ||
| Fast1075 |
I don't care at all for the "government has to look out for you" thing. You are responsible for your own actions. Living in Florida, I see more no helmet, shorts, tanktop, and flip flop riders than you can imagine...stupid?? in my view, yes. I wear the gear when I ride...I recently bought a new set of leathers to replace my old worn out ones...When I go "riding", I usually ride pretty aggressively for an old man...Having been down on a lot of occasions in my younger years...I know how proper gear can reduce or prevent injury as well as how easy it is to get messed up without gear. Bottom line...I wear mine...one round of skin grafts was enough...I wear armor...one knee surgery was enough...lessons learned...There are at LEAST three times I would have been dead from penetrating trauma if I had not been wearing a helmet... | ||
| Redbuelljunkie |
I don't care at all for the "government has to look out for you" thing. You are responsible for your own actions. Agreed. However, the use of safety equipment should be part of showing competency in order to earn and maintain a license to operate a motorcycle on public roads- not construed as "governmental interference". If you don't know enough to ride protected, then you are not meeting the competency requirement. | ||
| Carbonbigfoot |
The real question isn't if it's a good idea to use safety gear. It is an issue of where you draw the line on the Government mandating control over some aspect of your life. Less government control = Better Is it really any more complicated than that? R | ||
| Gearhead571 |
No. its that simple. When you really get down to it the only thing the gov't regulates are things they can make money on. I.E. seat belt laws and redlight cameras. When was the last time a redlight cam saved a life? Same thing. its all about the almighty dollar. | ||
| Redbuelljunkie |
Do you honestly believe the purpose of seat belts laws is nothing more than a tax? Really? If so, I'm at a total loss here... that is absolutely unbelievable. (Message edited by redbuelljunkie on December 04, 2009) (Message edited by redbuelljunkie on December 04, 2009) |
