| Author | Message | ||
     Aesquire |
Nothing more? No. When the insurance companies push for a law, they always claim that the added safety will let them lower the cost for everyone. I don't know that this EVER happened, but it sure sounds great. When governments pass safety/traffic laws, they most definitely look at enforcement potential, and the revenues that come from it. Why do you think that 15mph speed sign in Buffalo is placed under the bridge where it can't be seen until you are already in the radar beam? Speed cameras are a perfect example. You can't prove a benefit, other than money. In Japan they put old police cars by the side of the road. That probably does as good a job at slowing the speeders. But the speed camera guys make a fortune, and that's exactly how they sell their product to city & state Governments. Still curious how you feel about your riding & gear privileges being determined by the new health plan. ... absolutely unbelievable. really, I assume that's hyperbole. many here can't believe a libertarian would be insistent on govt. regulation, as opposed to personal responsibility. | ||
| Chellem |
If you don't know enough to ride protected, then you are not meeting the competency requirement. Here we go again. See - someone is in charge of creating the "competecy requirement", right? Who else but the government? And, once more, again, why are you only picking on motorcyclists with this safety/competency requirement? You have something against skiers? You secretly HOPE they hurt themselves, right? That's why you're not pro-minimum-safety-competency licensing for skiers? I mean, you care so much about motorcyclists, how can you be so cold (ha ha) to skiers? So many potential injuries could be prevented if only SOMEONE would step in... I'm still waiting for you to paint with that grey paint you mentioned above... Again you say it's beyond the scope of the argument, but I don't think it is. I'm speaking of the motivation of your fatherly attitude, and the further implications of that attitude applied toward other things. Riding as a sport doesn't exist in a vacuum, and decisions made regarding the mandatory safety gear required, or the ability of the governing body to even create such legislation, WILL eventually have implications on other sports and hobbies. SO. Is it everyone or no one? Either the government gets to dictate the safety equipment for everyone, and it's OK to allow the government that level of control over our lives, or it isn't. Which is it? | ||
| Redbuelljunkie |
From some of the statements here, it appears that there are people who believe in no regulation, at all, by anyone. It would seem rather obvious that that is impossible and could never happen. Now, I have stated that since operating a motorcycle on public roads is a privilege that is regulated by government, requires licensing which includes showing competency and has provisions for penalties for infractions, and since safety is the first rule of riding- then safety equipment should be considered a part of showing competency. I could really care less who is in charge of the regulation- it just happens to already be under the control of government. Leaving safety up to the individual rider is obviously a dismal failure, and therefore requires a sanctioning body to regulate meeting competency standards and enforce penalties for non-compliance. It would be "personally irresponsible" for me to say I could care less if anyone else wore safety equipment on a motorcycle- it shows a total lack of competency, either through ignorance or poor choice. Regardless of the reason for the incompetency, as a conscientious and responsible member of the motorcycling community, it would be pitiable of me to adopt such a pathetic attitude as "I have the right to be incompetent, and everyone else does too- screw all of you!". As long as motorcycle operation is regulated, and as long as riding without proper safety gear shows incompetency- it should be required. I have not, and have no interest in, extending my rationale into the hypothetical "what if" arena. I will give my opinion (hypothetical, of course) on these questions if you'd like- but it's really neither here nor there. Mine is a simple statement- it is others that are applying a political spin to my assertion. I'm really just talking here about basic safety and competency for motorcyclists. | ||
| Gearhead571 |
Peter, Why are you so gung ho on government regulation. It boggles my mind that anyone would even want to have the freedom of choice regulated out of there life. Regardless of if you agree with that choice or not. If it is not going to cause harm to you why does it bother you so much? Yes I do believe it is more about revenue collection than public safety. "Those who sacrifice Liberty for security deserve neither” -Benjamin Franklin Mike | ||
| Redbuelljunkie |
Oh, and Aesquire, I somehow missed your answer- do you really believe that the only purpose for requiring seat belt use is to produce income for government? I got the insurance company bit, and the safety/traffic law/speed camera enforcement/potential for added revenue- but I need a clearer answer on the seat belts. As for health plans, I believe that insurance companies can make whatever rules they choose- they are providing a product and consumers can pick what they want to buy. I do not believe heath insurance is a right, and therefore cannot be forced on anyone. I do, however, believe in personal responsibility, and individuals should be held accountable for their actions- whether they choose to be insured or not. | ||
| Redbuelljunkie |
Gearhead- I'm surprised so many are not getting what I'm saying. I'm not gung ho about government regulation. I do believe that riding without proper safety gear is incompetent, and it therefore does not meet the requirements of competency needed to earn or keep a license as provided by law. I have stated, several times, I don't care who regulates it (it happens to be government), but basic safety should not be ignored by anyone. There is no "freedom" being sacrificed- we have a privilege granted to us, and it should be required that we operate with competence. That is all. | ||
| Gearhead571 |
Red, I don't believe riding with or without gear has anything to do with competency. I believe it has more to do with responsibility. I do wear a helmet and jacket when I ride because I have seen them work and know many people who would not be here today without them. I do believe that their should be tighter stipulations and training before someone is allowed to operate a vehicle of any sort on a public street. This may be a better answer to giving people fines. Education goes a long way. | ||
| Phelan |
The point is that we were born with a free will. Some people are willing to give it up; some of us aren't. Thomas Jefferson once said, "Men who will trade liberty for security will lose both and deserve neither." God knows what is best for us, and yet gave us free will to choose bad or good. A govt that is trying to force us to be "safe" is one that it violating our free will to choose to be safe or not. | ||
| Aesquire |
to repeat Nothing more? No. ( of course revenue is not seat belt laws only purpose. It may have been the purpose that got the law passed, but your continued ability to live (pay taxes) may be part of it as well ) You fail to grasp the point of this thread, again. Its not "the govt" that will impose rules on how you live. It will be an insurance agency, run by the govt. with no responsibility to respond to you or your needs, just a mind boggling combination of nanny state mentality & insurance company frugality. It will never have enough money to pay for all that people will demand and so, will restrict freedoms & privileges to cut back on it's need to pay. So, you will wear a FF helmet or you won't get health care. You will be fined, and left to die instead. ( in the real world, treated then fined ) You personally, always wear a ff helmet? fine, you get your broken leg treated, and can go ahead and feel superior to the fools in less than approved gear. Never mind those "incompetent" ( I think you use the word wrong, but I'm not arguing ) people here who dislike your parental attitude toward adults. BUT. these people ( to be clear...statist nanny minded people with power & no responsibility to YOU, ) never stop where your personal comfort zone is. Regulations with the force of law, and no feedback. So IF they start with FF helmets, nothing will stop them from making airbags a requirement. Or fire extinguishers, or neon safety colors. And that's if you are lucky. Motorcycling is just the activity we share. Skiing, skydiving, hunting, eating, cooking, all will fall under the scrutiny of the people who, just as you feel righteous dictating to us because "motorcycling is a privilege, not a right" ( true ) will feel equally righteous dictating to YOU that you must not eat transfats. Or more meat than the govt/insurance co decree is healthy. Or fried food. Or climb a ladder without a insurance company license. It will become a privilege, and not a right as well. Because these people will not stop. Look at Bloomberg in NY, who has laws passed that are truly idiotic. | ||
| Chellem |
It would be "personally irresponsible" for me to say I could care less if anyone else wore safety equipment on a motorcycle- it shows a total lack of competency, either through ignorance or poor choice. Regardless of the reason for the incompetency, as a conscientious and responsible member of the motorcycling community, it would be pitiable of me to adopt such a pathetic attitude as "I have the right to be incompetent, and everyone else does too- screw all of you!". As long as motorcycle operation is regulated, and as long as riding without proper safety gear shows incompetency- it should be required. It would be personally irresponsible of you to let your underage children ride without gear. It is, frankly, none of your damn business what anyone else does. By all means, you tell them you think they're being irresponsible. Start a campaign to help "educate" the incompetents. I'm all for that. More information is almost always good. But the point you are either deliberately ignoring, or truly do not get, is that once you cross the line between strongly recommending and mandating, it becomes political. No way around it. And once that line is crossed for this sport, politically, following the exact same logic of preventing injuries and ensuring safety, it will be crossed for others as soon as it is politically expedient to do so. The precedent will be set. You understand that our legal system is one of precedents, right? But I can't stand it anymore. You keep saying the same thing over and over and over, and refuse to see how your line of thinking translates to other areas of life. You claim that my question has nothing to do with what you're claiming, and you insist upon ignoring anything that doesn't directly relate, in your opinion and frankly, quite narrow view, to your statement about safety in motorcycling. But you're wrong. 30 years ago, one didn't even need a motorcycle license to operate a motorcycle. It wasn't a "privilege" bestowed by the state. So I guess, back then, it would have been perfectly acceptable to ride without gear. Now that it's a privilege, safety gear should be mandated. Soon, other sports and hobbies deemed dangerous may require licensing. And once that happens, I expect to see you here, suddenly supporting that safety equipment me mandatory. Not now, just, when licensing is required. Even though it would save lives now - we don't need it until the government says we do, and then we better get it RIGHT NOW. Enjoy your little bubble. I hope no one breaks it for you. | ||
| Skntpig |
I like helmets | ||
| Eaton_corners |
So, what determines whether something is a privilege or a right? | ||
| Chellem |
That's what's so funny. According to previous posts, if something requires a license, it's a privilege, but if not, it isn't. So the question seems to be, who decides whether you need a license for something? I think the answer is the government, right? And then, I guess, once you need a license, then the government is allowed to mandate all safety equipment for that sport. Please, correct me if I'm misinterpreting the above posts. | ||
| Redbuelljunkie |
Gearhead- thank you, I have been patiently waiting for someone to figure out the true refutation of my argument- it's simply disagreeing that riding without safety gear shows incompetence. It is my opinion that that riding unprotected shows a lack of competency, and that incompetency should be penalized the same as all the other ways a rider can fail to operate a motorcycle in a safe and prudent manner. To claim the end of all freedom as we know it by implementing my suggestion of adding safety equipment use to the definition of competency for operating a motorcycle on public roads is really quite ludicrous. The fact that the people who should most understand its importance are the ones most against it is shocking- pitiful, actually. This jump to "we'll lose all our freedoms" and quoting founding fathers makes interesting discussion, but is really not pertinent to the question at hand. Most people, and I don't completely understand why, have a problem when they are held accountable for their actions- especially relating to traffic rules. When they see someone else being stupid, they are quite vocal in expressing their displeasure- yet when they are penalized for their own mistakes, it becomes an "intrusion into their freedom" and "an insurance/governmental money and power grab". The truth is there are rules, there will always be rules, and someone will enforce them. The idea that there should be freedom from rules is both fallacious and irrational. As for the assertions that everyone should just mind their own business, and that safety didn't used to be so important I say this: is it ok to undermine all of the safety advances made in the last few decades in order to allow individual to "choose" whether they wish to be protected or not? This would include allowing football players to return to leather helmets and no pads, racers to forgo helmets, seat belts, and fire resistant clothing (leathers for bike racers), and don't forget to include any other sport where safety equipment is required- but didn't used to be. Was it really better then? Would participants back then, given the choice of using modern equipment, choose not to utilize it? If injury-reducing equipment could have been made available, would they have been allowed not to use it? It is easy to pick a side for this argument- either you believe that wearing safety equipment shows competency or it does not. My goal is to get people to think about why they don't believe riders should have to be required basic safety standards. It has nothing to do with politics, or government control, or insurance company conspiracies- it's about why the people who should know the most about, and (you would think) would be most concerned about the safety of fellow riders seem to be so apathetic, and in some cases aggressively opposed to the whole idea. | ||
| Chellem |
Yeah, I'm done. You win. Just wrap me in bubble wrap. You say that if safety equipment exists, we should be FORCED to use it. I say, you're not my real mother. We're never gonna agree, because you're OK with people telling you how to live, and I'm not. No one here is saying people shouldn't use safety equipment. What I'm saying, and I can only speak for myself, is that in a free society, one person doesn't tell another person what to do, unless it DIRECTLY impacts another's freedom. Let's skip the theoretical discussions about who is impacted, financially or emotionally, by one person's injury. Until we ALL agree to NEVER do anything dangerous (or fun) we all share the costs. Well, at least those of us who pay taxes and buy insurance. If I ride my motorcycle in an unsafe manner, i.e. speeding, not signaling, or any other dangerous-to-others activity, I should be ticketed. No question. But if I'm riding in a way that does not endanger anyone directly around me, and the only thing I"m doing that is considered "incompetent" is not meeting YOUR standards of safety, then I don't deserve a ticket. Perhaps I need to be told, or shown a video of a few motorcycle crashes. But in America, or at least, in a free country, if I'm not endangering anyone else, I should be allowed to do it. You disagree, and say that if it's safe, I HAVE to do it. You don't care that that same logic could be applied to anything, and choose to eliminate that line of thinking entirely from the discussion. Your choice not to see the further implications is your choice. I think it's ludicrous and unsafe to ignore the larger implications of your line of thinking, but hey, I respect YOUR choice to live in your own little world. Enjoy it. | ||
| Redbuelljunkie |
Chellem- I understand exactly what you're saying, but answer me this: I will be watching the SEC Championship game this afternoon. No one participating in that game has the choice to play unprotected- they are required to wear safety equipment for their own protection, by the governing body that regulates their sport. How is this different from motorcyclists' safety? Do athletes deserve protection but motorcyclists do not? Do you have an issue with allowing football players to play without gear? How do you define the difference? | ||
| Xb12xmike |
Redbuell, I don't know why but, when I read your posts in this thread... I get this unequivocal urge to stick my fingers down my throat and projectile vomit all over my laptop. But this definitely makes me feel better: True Fantasy Football Sport is an activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often engaged in competitively. | ||
| Eaton_corners |
IMHumbleO organized sports do not equate to real life. I believe that by buying a government required tag, maintaining government required insurance, in most states paying ad valorem tax yearly, and paying as much as 35 cents in taxes on every gallon of gas I purchase, gives me the "right" to ride my motorcycle on public roads. | ||
| Redbuelljunkie |
Redbuell, I don't know why but, when I read your posts in this thread... I get this unequivocal urge to stick my fingers down my throat and projectile vomit all over my laptop. What would be the reason- if you had to take a guess? Taken from further down the page of your link: Technology has an important role in sports, whether applied to an athlete's health, the athlete's technique, or equipment's characteristics. Equipment As sports have grown more competitive, the need for better equipment has arose. Golf clubs, football helmets, baseball bats, soccer balls, hockey skates, and other equipment have all seen considerable changes when new technologies have been applied. So, what's your take on whether or not football players should have the choice to wear safety equipment or not? | ||
| Redbuelljunkie |
IMHumbleO organized sports do not equate to real life. No problem. But the way I see it both sports and motorcycling involve an activity that is potentially dangerous (even life-theatening), are both governed, have safety rules, equipment, penalties and punishments, and are entered into voluntarily for each individual's own reasons. The difference is that most sports hold their participants to a higher safety standard than does motorcycling, yet motorcycling is statistically more dangerous- but has no basic safety requirement. That does not make sense to me. Both are very much real life... and death. | ||
| Chellem |
If you want my honest opinion, I'll give it to you. A group of football players, managers, owners, probably lawyers and insurance companies, who all knows, got together and agreed upon safety gear, what's required and what isn't. Now, if you want to be in their little club of players, you play by the rules they created. I don't remember anyone ever involving me in the decision as to what safety gear I should be required to wear to be permitted to join the motorcycle-license-having club. Oh, right, it isn't a club. That's right. If that same group got together and decided they didn't want to wear gear anymore, I say, go for it. It's their CHOICE. They're educated, they choose not to wear whatever, they get injured. Have you ever watched Australian rules? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_hqosNvv5E How much gear you see on them? And yet, somehow, society survives. You can't compare an exclusive, chosen group of football players to riding. Let me ask you this then, in reply. If a bunch of people want to get togther in their backyard and play football, should THEY be required to wear all the gear all the time? If a cop drives by and sees a family playing football in their yard without helmets, should they all be issued summonses? Hmmm? Pretty dangerous stuff. | ||
| Redbuelljunkie |
Let me ask you this then, in reply. If a bunch of people want to get togther in their backyard and play football, should THEY be required to wear all the gear all the time? If a cop drives by and sees a family playing football in their yard without helmets, should they all be issued summonses? Absolutely not. What you do on your own property, when engaging in an unregulated activity, is completely up to you. It cannot be compared to either organized sports or licensed motorcycle operation. I have never claimed that it is either warranted, nor possible to regulate all dangerous activity. Now I've got a game to watch... | ||
| Chellem |
Absolutely not. What you do on your own property, when engaging in an unregulated activity, is completely up to you. It cannot be compared to either organized sports or licensed motorcycle operation. I have never claimed that it is either warranted, nor possible to regulate all dangerous activity. WHY WHY WHY WHY?!?!? Unsafe is unsafe? No? I can act like an ass and be unsafe as long as I'm doing something the government hasn't gotten around to regulating yet? WHO CHOOSES WHAT'S DANGEROUS?? YOU? The government? Isn't it just as dumb to do dangerous things no matter where or why? You make NO sense. If I have a HUGE backyard full of acreage, and I go dirt bike riding, and I'm unlicensed, I shouldn't be forced to wear the gear. If I do the same activity, licensed, on a street, I should be. No one else is at risk. No one else will be any more injured by my choice to wear or not to wear safety gear. Why does it matter to you? I'm sorry, but you make no sense. IF in fact your goal is MY safety, as you have repeatedly stated, none of this should matter. Where, when, how, unsafe is unsafe. You make no sense. | ||
| Redbuelljunkie |
Just to make sure I'm clear on this... I don't make sense to you, right? | ||
| Aesquire |
Just to be clear, you keep deliberately ignoring the idea of the thread, right? ( enlightenment by the socratic method works better if the student wants to be enlightened, otherwise it seems like a real flamer who just answers questions with questions & keeps changing the subject. IMHO ) (Message edited by aesquire on December 05, 2009) | ||
| Redbuelljunkie |
My original reply was a tangent to the idea of this thread, so to be clear I have not been focused on Gov. run health care at all- I have been discussing motorcycle safety equipment and its relationship to proof of competency for motorcycle operation on public roads. My opinion has been applied to so many different things it'll make one's head spin- but they are not based on anything I believe or espouse. The concerns being discussed here do have a relation to Gov. run health care, but only in the academic sense- they will still be fundamental questions regardless of whether we have state-sponsored insurance, and therefore remain pertinent to the overall topic. Any dialogue that engages the participants to think about why they have a particular opinion and asks them to defend their position in a public forum is a worthwhile endeavor. | ||
| Chellem |
Any dialogue that engages the participants to think about why they have a particular opinion and asks them to defend their position in a public forum is a worthwhile endeavor. Glad we agree about that. Well then. What is your opinion on riding a motorcycle on NON-PUBLIC roads? Mandatory safety equipment or not? (The question was kinda posed above, but instead of answering it you chose a cutesy reply.) | ||
| Gregtonn |
"According to previous posts, if something requires a license, it's a privilege, but if not, it isn't." So marriage is a privilege granted by the government and, according to RBJ's thinking, married persons should be wearing a full compliment of government approved safety equipment at all times.  G | ||
| Redbuelljunkie |
Riding a motorcycle on non-public roads cannot be regulated and therefore no competency standard can be applied. For any non-regulated activity taking place on private property you are on your own. I intended to answer this earlier, but I was caught up in the excitement of watching the Crimson Tide roll... | ||
| Redbuelljunkie |
So marriage is a privilege granted by the government and, according to RBJ's thinking, married persons should be wearing a full compliment of government approved safety equipment at all times. That is funny, but you missed this: My opinion has been applied to so many different things it'll make one's head spin- but they are not based on anything I believe or espouse. |
