http://www.motorcycle-usa.com/669/2505/Motorcycle-Article/AMA-Talks-Motorcycle-Helmets---Education.aspx (http://www.motorcycle-usa.com/669/2505/Motorcycle-Article/AMA-Talks-Motorcycle-Helmets---Education.aspx)
The AMA supports safety and training by fighting for the prevention of the introduction of laws that have shown (please refer to Florida helmet laws) to be beneficial over all. They support the current licensing model in the USA which says that any rider with a learner's permit (a simple, very easy test is all you need) can buy any motorcycle they want. Hyabusa, 1198, 700lb cruiser - these are poor beginner bikes to say the least but bikes that the AMA would have riders make an educated choice about but then don't have any structure in place to educate the wider community other than self service. They expect that a self service model will suffice for people that don't know there's a service available. Many other countries have implemented a graduated license system for motorcyclists that includes some element of training, at least in terms of seat time on more manageable motorcycles. The AMA is not in favor of this, they're in favor of the status quo. Even in cases where a rider is aware of the issues, they make poor choices due to peer pressure and what looks cool. Many riders wear DOT helmets that barely cover the crown of their heads, what protection would these helmets offer? Has the AMA attempted to address this issue with the DOT?
The pro choice mantra of the AMA sounds nice for the people that have enough awareness to make the choice or even know about the AMA for that matter so it sells but it's not a policy that serves the wider community. Many people that support these polices don't do so out of an understanding of the issues but a blind devotion of the rightness of choice.
As a former member of the AMA and a motorcycle rider, I find it depressing that the AMA can have such a myopic view of safety and training that would dictate that they advocate only for choice and not of providing direction in cases where sufficient knowledge in the wider community is not present.
I personally advocate training at all levels. I believe a graduated license structure would serve to better educate American motorcyclists and furnish them with the information to make choices. Helmets, like other safety devices used in cars (air bags, seat belts) should be mandated due to their *proven* ability to reduce injuries. Rider training should be more in depth and a graduated system would allow people to choose to what level they wish to be trained.
My conversations with the AMA via email regarding these issues were initially answered but then ignored by the AMA who are meant to represent me and reflect my concerns. It was shortly after this that I ceased being a member of the AMA. The AMA serves the community but doesn't encourage the growth or help direct the community away from it's limitations.
The AMA does not represent me, the AMA represents only those who think that the information and beliefs that they currently have are right and beyond question. At some point the wider American community will become aware of these issues and implement laws that restrict our rights without consultation. This is already happening (Florida wheelie laws, proposed noise legislation in NYC, Denver & NH, etc). The AMA appears after the fact to try to band aid the issue but doesn't then proactively address the other issues that many in the motorcycling community *know* will become a problem down the road because the AMA believes in choice over everything.
------------
Discuss
Do they have any type of positions you could run for (?) or be hired into where you could influence them?
I think the AMA suffers a similar mind set that the NRA has (and lots of other organizations) about rights. These organizations generally come about because of a perceived or real threat to, in this case, the right to ride. Momentum is gained from existing riders and the mind set that the status quo is better than change sets in, i.e. keep the rights we have and dont make waves because we might lose them if we do.
This works well for the small motorcycle community that knows how and what to ride. But the AMA has grown past that and now represents the industry in general and should expand it's thinking because it is now in a position to make change. The problem is that to do so, it risks the base that made it the organization that it is today. No one wants to roll that dice if you just spent years getting to the position where you can, comes down to simple fear.
The slippery slope argument is a good but often invalid argument. Yet it appeals to most and is the easiest to understand and communicate.
The only two options is to do exactly what you did, quit the organization. The second is to start your own, realizing that one day some one will write a similar statement about yours.
I tend to agree with you.
It's a shame that as small as the motorcycling community is here in the States, there are so many different sub-group and genres for any one governing / lobbying body. There's Harley "lifestyle" riders, racers, stunters, dirtbikers, ADVRider types, scooter fans, poseurs, etc., etc., etc...and I'm not sure it's possible for one organization to meet the goals of all those different groups.
It sounds like they put their chips with just a few of the groups I listed above and set their course.
Quote from: kopfjager on February 11, 2009, 10:40:06 PMDo they have any type of positions you could run for (?) or be hired into where you could influence them?
Without a mandate to actually make these policy choices, I wouldn't work for the AMA any more than I'd be a member. When I'm feeling extra cynical, I feel like the AMA is more interested in being the MIC rather than the A
MA.
@ zLoki They aren't the only two options IMO. Unfortunately there's one achievable option which is quit the AMA and try to lobby riders to take a more active interest in legislative issues but that an uphill battle to say the least. I'd almost be willing to put money on the fact that the large majority of motorcyclists will do absolutely nothing until all their rights are gone and then complain bitterly that someone didn't fix it for them before. I'm guilty of this attitude too but am trying to do something.
@ tommys67 What's a shame IMO is that riders seem to think that they have choice when they really don't. Railing against helmet laws is such a futile effort. Not in the sense that nothing will be achieved but because you may get exactly what you want but you lose political capital with the average citizen who thinks riding a motorcycle is crazy, let alone doing so without any protective gear.
Think about what the picture below is and then tell me why helmets should be optional:
(http://www.blacklinecap.com/resources/nfl+helmet.jpg)
Without trying to turn this into a political discussion, I would have to say that my conviction (maybe it is blind devotion to the rightness of choice?) is strong for the right to choose. It may sound cold and calloused, but if some 16-18 year old kid thinks he's too cool for school, and decides he's experienced enough to be riding around on a liter-bike, then perhaps he is destined to learn the lesson the hard way. The rights of the intelligent and reasonable shouldn't be hacked away to protect the idiotic and reckless. I envision the AMA as a group that protects my right to ride my motorcycle as freely, and with the same rights, as I drive my car.
As far as a graduated licensing system goes, what works for one (small) country, might not work for all.
I can't imagine a 400cc motorcycle being safe in any way on the highways of America. Especially considering some of the large folk that ride around the parts.
It's an incessant debate, I don't think there's ever going to be a solution.
But I would rather not have my rights restricted in any manner that doesnt correlate directly with 4-wheeled law.
If motorcyclists licensing rights are restricted, then everyone's should be.
Protecting the stupid and reckless should have to effect everyone, not just the people who ride.
This is less an argument, and moreso random thoughts strung together.... ;D
Quote from: corey on February 12, 2009, 01:25:50 PMBut I would rather not have my rights restricted in any manner that doesnt correlate directly with 4-wheeled law.
IMO: Helmet = Seatbelt - both basic safety devices that have been proven to reduce injuries and fatalities.
As for graduated licensing being inappropriate for Amerca's highways, have you ever seen video of highways around the world? By "one small country", you mean England, Japan or Australia? Are you suggesting that America is so unique as to require even a beginner rider to have any bike they want purely because our drivers are so useless? Doesn't that argument contradict itself?
This is exactly my point, so many people are convinced or have convinced themselves that the preservation of choice is an achievable goal and yet we see time and time again that it's not. Our desire to fight for our right to choose leads us down a path that prevents us being able to have input on when and how our choices are restricted.
For the record, it's not just "16-18" year old kids, it's also 40yo men who are riding for the first time. The proposed "minors should be forced to wear helmets, adults can choose" law is BS for that very reason. We're saying that the kid who's been riding dirt bikes for 10 years is less informed than the 40 yo who's never even sat on a bike?
Look at the legislation currently being proposed in NYC, all straight pipes, even when parked can be issued with a $1000 ticket. The fines go up for subsequent offenses. What's the issue here? I hate straight pipes, especially in the city. It actually seems like not a big deal to me. The problem is that the law defines straight pipes as any motorcycle without the EPA stamped muffler that shipped with the bike as new. It's BS. People in the community are fighting this law (IndustrialGrrl, 2001Chromo) but the very fact that it's being put in place (and the AMA has done nothing) is due to people going way too far with their right to choose. It's not the right of a car driver to chop the mufflers of their car and then annoy the shit out of everyone but bikers want to defend this right?
The second concerning part is that the law would only apply to Motorcycles because cars aren't perceived to be as big a deal. Mainly, IMO, because bikes are easier and the politicians can be seen to be doing something about noise pollution. We're our own worst enemy in this case. I'm not without fault here too admittedly but this (again, IMO) is the end result of our right to choose being abused.
I don't agree with the helmet = seatbelt debate. If you don't wear your seatbelt in a car, you can become dangerous to other passengers in the vehicle, while on a motorcycle, not wearing your helmet only endangers yourself. I wear my helmet ALL the time and tell others they should as well. However, I believe it should be their choice if they don't want to wear a helmet and don't go as far as to nag them to wear it. I think helmets should be a personal choice, not a mandatory law. You're only putting yourself in danger. My 2 cents.
If the AMA stands for choice over everything then I'm with them.
It seems you're arguing we need to change things or the government will change things for us. The graduated liscencing you advocate isn't working to well for the UK. They have higher accidents and fatalities statistically and there is even talk of banning motorcycles entirely! So much for slippery slope arguements being invalid (that goes double for the NRA, ever hear of Randy Weaver).
I think, more than ever we need to fight for the statis quo. I'm sorry but it's an American impulse to side with personal freedom, even when it affects our personal safety. It's like blaming water for being wet. Even if you could prove to me that every kid (or 40 yr old) that bought a litre bike or didn't wear their helmet killed themselves, I'd still side with personal freedom. I don't give a rats ass what's good for the collective. The principle of individual rights is more important to me.
Look, you're right in that people should get better training and they should wear safety gear but I'd rather not concede the power to compel it to the government. They always ALWAYS go too far! So I revel every time I see some jackass riding without a helmet for the very reason that it does bother some. That's his business, mind your own!
p.s. I always wear a helmet and took the MSF course and will take the advanced refresher course and others for the rest of my life. Not doing so is just crazy!
Helmets should be a personal choice. The govt. has no right to dictate the level of safety within which a person lives their life, if they are an adult.
...and I'm an ATGATT guy.
Quote from: Triple J on February 12, 2009, 10:04:21 PM
The govt. has no right to dictate the level of safety within which a person lives their life, if they are an adult.
Thats a political opinion and one that is of huge debate. wish we could talk about it here. but we cant, so ill just say, i mostly agree with you.
To take it away from the political aspect of it, Safety equipment isnt the the #1 saver of lives. Its common sense (think about how many lives were saved by the guy who went "man i will never ride a bike! its too dangerous!") Just like falling from the sky, its not the falling that kills you, its the sudden stop and bouncing around on the ground. On a motorcycle, its not the helmet that saves your life, its your common sense to not do dumbass shit.
Dumbass shit includes, but not exclusive to
1) riding it around other people
2) riding it beyond your limits
3) riding it around places youve never been to
4) riding it
My main point is, 2 wheels is dangerous. If you put yourself on one, you damn well better understand that fact. There are some people who wont go sky diving, but will street race without a helmet. Big divide is, should we protect them by enforcing laws to mandate helmets, or should be let them be? Again, you cant really talk about it without getting theoretical on politics.
So, what I'm getting from this is the following:
1. The AMA represents many rider's opinions and is therefore doing a good job
2. People *actually* don't care about others enough to support legislation that would have no affect on them (assuming they already wear helmets)
As for the "seat belts protect others", sorry I just don't buy that. That's not why seat belt use is mandatory. For the record I personally think that having fewer fatalities generally is better, I think fewer fatalities on motorcycles is better so I support helmet use and legislation. If you think it doesn't effect you then I'm not sure that you've considered how insurance is calculated.
On the subject of policing ourselves before someone else does, you're not actually arguing something that has been shown to work. Many riders have a very skewed version of their "rights" in terms of what they're allowed to do. Exhausts are a perfect example. If the individual doesn't choose to limit the amount of noise coming from their bike, eventually ridiculous laws are proposed. The choice in this respect is to limit our own choices in advance or get totally shut down.
Regarding the talk that motorcycles would be banned in the UK, the conversation is with regards to reducing fatalities on the road. Motorcycles are seen as contributing disproportionately to the number of fatalities so, if the goal is to reduce fatalities to 0 (which is what they've been talking about) and they've come to the conclusion that there's no way to make a motorcycle completely safe then they're left with one option (other than not trying to implement such an unrealistic law). As far as the UK having a higher injury rate, what is this comment based on? Statistics are notoriously fickle.
They're also talking about introducing speed limiters on bikes in the UK to match the speed limit. Why do you think that's happening?
With personal freedom comes personal responsibility.
But in this country of lawsuit hungry a-holes the consequences of your choices are usually someone else's fault.
Helmet laws are a perfect example of what I'm talking about.
You make the choice to exercise your God given freedom here in the good ole' USA and go for a ride on your Ducati without your helmet.
In the course of your ride, opps, you have an accident.
I don't care if it was your fault or not.
You get air-lifted to the hospital, and while your there you get the best treatment money can buy.
Who paid for your helicopter ride and the expenses of the hospital?
We, the taxpayers and consumers, do.
Now, while your home recovering you're missing work, so your co-workers have to fill in for you.
Who's paying for your disability and the reduction in productivity in your job.
We, the taxpayers and consumers, do.
Your riding buddy comes over and mentions that he knows a guy, a lawyer, who might be able to get you some money from the guy who was also involved in the accident, or maybe Ducati for making such a “dangerously fast†motorcycle, or the state for not maintaining the highways.
So you go see the lawyer, haul everyone into court, settle out of court and get a measly $25,000.
Who pays for the court costs, the lawyer's fees to defend all the people in the suit, the money that gets paid to you from all parties involved and all the other expenses incurred?
We, the taxpayers and consumers, do.
So your little exercise in freedoms costs me money.
Guess what, I don't know you, and quite frankly I don't give a rats a** about you, but I know that you cost me money brah.
So maybe the next time you go out and ride the government is going to limit my exposure to expense from your actions by making you wear a helmet.
With personal freedom comes personal responsibility.
When were all ready to accept that, and all it's ramifications, then were ready to exercise all of those freedoms we want.
Personally I dont see why anyone would want to ride without a helmet. I started riding in MI and wearing a helmet was required there. For the last 5.5 years I have been in SC and there is no helmet law here. I tried once and only once in that time to ride without a helmet. Stupidest thing I ever did on a bike (other than that one time I tried an endo but thats another story). Scared me half to death not having a helmet on, only rode about a half a mile before i went back and got my lid.
As for a helmet only affecting the rider and it should be his choice that is complete bullshit. For those of us who are parents we are affecting our children. If "big brother" finds out you are smokin crack they will take your kids AT LEAST until you have gotten clean. They do this not only because it is a dangerous environment but also because what good is a parent who ODs and is dead on the floor. Same thing applies to helments. IMO not wearing a helmet it just as wreckless and dangerous as having a habitual drug problem. You are simply tempting fate as to when something happens that may be out of your control. At least with a helmet and other gear you are making your best effort to stay safe. Hell, I dont even go out for a ride in the middle of the summer without my jacket on. I might be hotter than hell but that just means I stop more frequently for water breaks.
You don't have to be a parent to be affecting the rest of your family in a bad way. Imagine the lok on your parents face when that message got delivered. Aunts, uncles, brothers, sisters, friends, co-workers, etc...... Many people can be adversely affected by an untimely death. To say "Oh it's my choice dont take it away, I'm the only one who is affected by it" is a very selfish and shortsighted viewpoint.
I dont agree with the straight pipes law though. I do think that louder pipes draw attention not just from the public servants but also from the other less attentive drivers out there. Anything that tells the woman on her cellphone, looking in the mirror applying mascara, and changing the song on her radio to look up and see what is disturbing her while she gets ready for work (while driving) is a good thing. ( and I use this scenario because I have seen it)
I have also noticed that the people who take offense to comments I make alone these lines are usually the ones who are behaving in this wreckless manner.
Edit
P.S.
Of course I live in a state where adults can jump in the bed of a pick-up truck and go wherever they want so there are some contradictions as to what is safe for autos vs. what is safe for bikes.
Quote from: EvilSteve on February 12, 2009, 02:20:37 PM
As for graduated licensing being inappropriate for Amerca's highways, have you ever seen video of highways around the world? By "one small country", you mean England, Japan or Australia? Are you suggesting that America is so unique as to require even a beginner rider to have any bike they want purely because our drivers are so useless? Doesn't that argument contradict itself?
I was more referring to the idea that our country is just physically larger. Greater distances, steeper mountains, bigger people.
They don't make 400cc goldwings... and frankly, bikes like that are sometimes the only option for a lot of people.
Harley doesn't make a 400cc bagger that can get you hundreds and hundreds of miles with all the stuff you need for the trip SAFELY.
Bikes that small just don't cut it here, IMO.
Quote from: EvilSteve on February 12, 2009, 02:20:37 PM
For the record, it's not just "16-18" year old kids, it's also 40yo men who are riding for the first time. The proposed "minors should be forced to wear helmets, adults can choose" law is BS for that very reason. We're saying that the kid who's been riding dirt bikes for 10 years is less informed than the 40 yo who's never even sat on a bike?
Firstly, i think that if a 40yo man who is riding for the first time is bold enough to go 100mph+ on a giant sport bike, then he should be aware the consequences and suffer whatever fate he is given. Just like a 16-18 yo kid, he was too stupid and didn't use common sense. Secondly, unless it's different in other states (which it very well could be, I'm in PA) minor and adult alike, if you're on a permit, you where a helmet. period. No night riding or having a passenger either, no matter what your age. Once you get a license it's your call. I'm not sure about minor vs. adult WITH a license here in PA to be honest, but if a minor is forced to wear a helmet, i can understand. At that age, he is not legally responsible for his own death or the death of others, his legal guardian is. He has no rights to other choices, like what school he wants to go to, buying alcohol, etc. Why should his safety be any different? It's not his responsibility legally, it's his parents/guardians until he is 18.
Quote from: EvilSteve on February 13, 2009, 05:38:35 AM
2. People *actually* don't care about others enough to support legislation that would have no affect on them (assuming they already wear helmets)
If you think it doesn't effect you then I'm not sure that you've considered how insurance is calculated.
Even though I always wear a helmet, mandatory helmet legislation may affect me. It's the whole slippery slope thing. They make you wear helmets to reduce fatalities today...tomorrow they may ban motos all together
for the same reason.
Rather than mandate helmet laws, why not mandate a beginning rider education class (same should be done for cars as well)? Part of this class curiculum would be to look at the effectiveness of helmets and to dispell some of the myths (i.e. loss of peripheral vision. [roll]). Educate the people...then let them make their own choice.
I also understand that we end up paying for it in the long run with insurance costs. The same can be said for ANY dangerous activity. The skydiver crashes without insurance, the rock climber falls without insurance, and on and on. Maybe we just ban all dangerous activities to keep costs down? This is one of the sacrifices that is made for a free society...where people can do what they please, how they please, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. No system is perfect in every regard.
@needtorque I'm not saying that loud pipes don't sometimes get people's attention, I'm saying that open pipes, at upwards of 110dB are ridiculous. They're annoying and the same result can be achieved with quieter, less offensive pipes. Having said that, out in the country somewhere, I don't really give a crap if people do have open pipes but in a very built up city or a quiet neighborhood, it's really freaking obnoxious. This leads people in cities to enact laws that will effect
everyone.
Quote from: corey on February 13, 2009, 07:46:29 AMGreater distances, steeper mountains, bigger people.
Germany has graduated licenses. Australia is the same size as the continental USA. This argument really doesn't cut it for me. America is unique, yes but not for geographical or physical reasons. The point of graduated licensing is to that people get more seat time on a bike that's easier to handle. You still end up with a bigger bike if you want one. For the record, I really don't think that someone with as little experience as would have them riding a 400cc bike in a graduated licensing system is going to be riding across the country. A graduated license doesn't permanently limit someone to a 400cc bike either, you just have to have a certain amount of experience on that sized bike before you're allowed to graduate to the next license and therefore get a bigger bike.
Quote from: corey on February 13, 2009, 07:46:29 AMFirstly, i think that if a 40yo man who is riding for the first time is bold enough to go 100mph+ on a giant sport bike, then he should be aware the consequences and suffer whatever fate he is given. Just like a 16-18 yo kid, he was too stupid and didn't use common sense. Secondly, unless it's different in other states (which it very well could be, I'm in PA) minor and adult alike, if you're on a permit, you where a helmet. period. No night riding or having a passenger either, no matter what your age. Once you get a license it's your call. I'm not sure about minor vs. adult WITH a license here in PA to be honest, but if a minor is forced to wear a helmet, i can understand. At that age, he is not legally responsible for his own death or the death of others, his legal guardian is. He has no rights to other choices, like what school he wants to go to, buying alcohol, etc. Why should his safety be any different? It's not his responsibility legally, it's his parents/guardians until he is 18.
Yes, people should have the sense not to do stupid stuff,
but they don't. If you're talking choice then it should be the parent's choice if the minor wears a helmet. I would agree that the PA law saying that anyone on a permit needs to wear a helmet is a better option than basing it on age but that's what the AMA is trying to implement.
@Triple J I honestly don't understand the whole slippery slope argument. You're saying that, if we have a nation wide helmet law we're more likely to get all our other choices taken away? To me that seems illogical. I don't see how the motorcycling community coming up with it's own restrictions and having them made into laws (before someone with no idea does) will necessarily lead to the general population thinking "wait, we can make laws regarding motorcycles? let's ban them altogether!". Could you see why that doesn't make sense to me? To me this argument sounds like "marijuana is a gateway drug".
Quote from: EvilSteve on February 13, 2009, 09:09:41 AM
Could you see why that doesn't make sense to me? To me this argument sounds like "marijuana is a gateway drug".
Yep...I understand why you feel that way. I just disagree. ;D
I don't get the correlation with the gateway drug statement. ??? Sounds like we probably agree on that issue...different thread though. ;)
Heh, ok, I guess it's ok that we disagree. ;)
The comment is with regards to a slippery slope argument. That's essentially what "gateway drug" means. You try one (as the theory goes) and then that starts you on the path to try others. The correlation being that having helmet laws necessarily means we'll end up with loads of other laws. My contention is that those laws will happen anyway if we fight for what the wider community perceives as unreasonable rather than coming up with our own restrictions that actually make sense to motorcyclists.
Quote from: EvilSteve on February 13, 2009, 09:38:40 AM
The comment is with regards to a slippery slope argument. That's essentially what "gateway drug" means. You try one (as the theory goes) and then that starts you on the path to try others. The correlation being that having helmet laws necessarily means we'll end up with loads of other laws. My contention is that those laws will happen anyway if we fight for what the wider community perceives as unreasonable rather than coming up with our own restrictions that actually make sense to motorcyclists.
ah...I get it. The distinguishing thing to me is your talking about a personal issue (gateway drug) vs. a political issue (laws).
Politicians make laws...they don't repeal them. After the federal helmet law is put into place, successive lawmakers may see that moto fatalities are
still higher than cages. Some might then feel the need to "save us" from that trend...and look to increase the existing laws. That just seems to be how the lawmaking process works...starts slow and mostly reasonable, then slowly builds into violations of rights.
The same doesn't hold true for personal issues. Marijuana doesn't always slowly build into something more (although it does sometimes for some people). There is no general trend like there is with the creation of laws and them slowly becoming more stringent.
"Yes, people should have the sense not to do stupid stuff, but they don't. "
My point exactly. But just because THEY don't doesn't mean EVERYONE doesnt. Why should the people who are responsible and intelligent have to suffer because the majority of people are dumb and reckless? It would turn motorcycle riding into the exact same thing as every other institution and social program in the U.S... The rights of the people who actually make motorcycling what it is will be impeded upon so that people who have no idea what they're doing can have their hands held. Classes are free, take them. No excuse.
And again on graduated licensing, i think that this type of structure would actually deter people from becoming motorcyclists. Too much hassle.
It would turn Motorcycling into even more of a sub-culture. Not to mention that not everyone can afford to buy a 400cc bike instead of the bike they want just because they're forced to. What if they start doing this for cars? Everyone needs to drive a 4 cylinder crap mobile until they log 50,000 miles? It would never fly.
Words like THEY and EVERYONE keep being used in these arguments. All of them seem socialistic, and that is not what America is about. It's about the individual. If it wasn't, we wouldve stayed put in Europe.
Quote from: Triple J on February 13, 2009, 09:47:06 AMah...I get it. The distinguishing thing to me is your talking about a personal issue (gateway drug) vs. a political issue (laws).
Which doesn't make the argument any more valid IMO.
FL had no helmet law, then added one, saw fatalities drop and then repealed the law and watched fatalities go up. As an example, the new sound laws in NYC are totally unfair as they had been drafted but they were ready to be signed into law. Without an effort from motorcyclists, we would have ended up with a draconian law only applying to motorcyclists. Now we'll end up with something that's more fair but still a PITA and it *will* apply to anyone that rides through NYC. Had we all decided some time ago to implement laws to (for example) require a dB check on inspection, these stupid laws wouldn't have come up because it would be easy to establish that someone was in breach of an existing law that actually made sense to us.
Quote from: corey on February 13, 2009, 10:33:07 AM...
So, in your opinion, to summarize:
1. Every person for themselves
2. Motorcyclists aren't committed enough to try
3. Laws to help people = socialism (see #1)
If I'm honest, your opinions seem quite short sited and are exactly what I'm talking about. You seem to think what I'm saying is that we need more laws because laws are good. What I'm actually saying is that if we don't come up with something that makes sense now, we'll be forced to deal with something that makes no sense later. You seem to think that only looking out for yourself will achieve your goals and helping others is socialism. I can see that I'm not going to convince you of any of these ideas so I won't try and I'll leave you to believe what you feel is right, as is your right.
For the record, I'm a skydiver and, for the most part, the skydiving community does a much better job of policing itself than the motorcycle community, even more so in other countries.
Quote from: needtorque on February 13, 2009, 07:25:21 AM
As for a helmet only affecting the rider and it should be his choice that is complete bullshit. For those of us who are parents we are affecting our children.
So the government should outlaw you from doing anything that could possibly kill you? It should not be the government who has to make that choice. It's you. If you have people in your life who you do not want affected if you die, then wear a helmet. They're not the ones who should be making sure you don't burden your family with your death because YOU did something stupid. If you don't want it to happen, wear your lid. It's not illegal to wear one and you (as well as I) know that, and choose to wear helmets for many of those reasons.
Quote from: Colonel Angus on February 13, 2009, 11:56:20 AM
So the government should outlaw you from doing anything that could possibly kill you? It should not be the government who has to make that choice. It's you. If you have people in your life who you do not want affected if you die, then wear a helmet. They're not the ones who should be making sure you don't burden your family with your death because YOU did something stupid. If you don't want it to happen, wear your lid. It's not illegal to wear one and you (as well as I) know that, and choose to wear helmets for many of those reasons.
My point with that comment was not making that a valid reason for a helmet law. My point was that people who try to defend themselves not wearing a helmet by using the argument that it affects only them are fooling themselves. Part of being a grown up, an ADULT is realizing that our decisions always affect more then self.
Quote from: needtorque on February 13, 2009, 12:01:44 PM
My point with that comment was not making that a valid reason for a helmet law. My point was that people who try to defend themselves not wearing a helmet by using the argument that it affects only them are fooling themselves. Part of being a grown up, an ADULT is realizing that our decisions always affect more then self.
Ahhh ok. gotcha. I agree. Personally, I see no valid reason for not wearing a helmet, but even so, I don't believe it should be the government's decision whether you should wear one or not.
I can certainly see your POV but I don't want some idiot who choses not to wear a helmet to push up my insurance. Nor do I want the son/daughter of some congress member dieing because they didn't have a helmet triggering ridiculously draconian laws. There's a strong knee-jerk reaction to these kinds of things that will generally be much stronger than the laws put in place by us, for us.
Quote from: EvilSteve on February 13, 2009, 12:34:55 PM
I can certainly see your POV but I don't want some idiot who choses not to wear a helmet to push up my insurance. Nor do I want the son/daughter of some congress member dieing because they didn't have a helmet triggering ridiculously draconian laws. There's a strong knee-jerk reaction to these kinds of things that will generally be much stronger than the laws put in place by us, for us.
This is my fear as well. Honestly I was so surprised that this did not happen when Ben Duchelberger wrecked his with no gear on. Usually it only takes a wreck from one person of some fame to cause an over-reaction to any particular issue.