\”That breed will die off anyway because they can\’t procreate…Again, why would I care?\”
Wow, you almost had me convinced with your pure libertarian argument. Glad you believe in not legislating against gays, even if your concern is limited to not caring. BTW, gays don\’t die off because there are always a percentage born that way, it\’s a genectic variation.
\”A pretty succinct argument for gay marriage and assisted suicide. How does that shoe feel, now that it\’s on the other foot?\”
As for Mr. Shoe on the Other Foot\’s comment, never assume that there is a wellspring of ignorance, bigotry and intolerance in others to draw upon.
The question is; do you want the government to decide what is best for you and then pass laws to force you to do it? Or, do you want to be free to decide for yourself? Even if you choose to engage in risky behavior shouldn’t it always be your choice as long as you don’t endanger or infringe upon the rights of other? You may support a helmet law but were does legislation in the name of public safety stop…no smoking laws, prohibition, government issued condoms in schools, needle exchange programs…
Let\’s see…the government subsidized tobacco until a year or two ago…that probably kills 200,000 a year. There are around 150,000 medical error deaths a year,
how many deaths and injuries caused by alcohol?, just read where 8 out 10 homicides are drug related. Won\’t even mention spending Billions on a dishonest war that has brought poppy production back to highest levels ever. Yeah, we need to jump motorcyle riders who want to ride and feel the wind. Where\’s our priority?
There are already things being done to address what you are commenting about..except perhaps the war part..
My issue in this series of posts has been with the safety of not wearing a helmet. I\’m no expert and I believe I have been clear on that. Even if I did ride motorcycles I probably would consider not wearing my helmet sometimes. But I would never do so while believing that it is SAFER to not wear a helmet. Brad I will continue looking for information regarding the matter but at this point I can\’t imagine how wearing a helmet could be safer. Even if wearing a helmet might get you paralyzed in a small percentage on crashes in every single one of such cases the life of the injured was probably saved.
This argument is akin to the argument against airbags. In rare instances airbags in an impact actually suffocated or injured smaller individuals or children. Does that mean we should reject use of airbags and go back to the way it was before? No I don\’t think so.
Even if I did not wear a helmet while riding I would never kid myself into thinking that I am doing it under the guise of safety.
If a safety precaution causes injury in a small percentage of accidents does that mean that we should shun it if the other option is death?
My cop friend told me whenever their is a serious motorcycle wreck that the clean up is fairly easy. If the brain matter is spread across the highway the fire department is called to wash the disgusting stuff off the highway.
I don\’t want to wear my seatbelt either. 5 tickets later they\’ve convinced me it\’s a good thing for my pocketbook. But, I hate the law!
I reviewed the report by Dr. Jeffrey Coben, Dr. Claudia A. Steiner and Ted Miller concerning the use of motorcycle helmet laws.
This report was funded by Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). In this report, it is another study benefiting the pro-helmet tactics used for NHTSA and state Hospital agencies complaining about more helmet legislation laws.
This report is a referenced from government related reports only, nothing from any non-relevant agency that has nothing to do with government or state agencies to write a non partisan report to the public. Being it is written by AHRQ, was expected for them to write negative things about helmet free States, oh course.
So as a result of this, your legislation will again lobby again to proposed helmet legislation thanks to AHRQ. Nothing in this report shows anything about motorcycle registrations between Helmet law States from Non-Helmet law States, as we know that Helmet Law States have less ridership versing fee Helmet States which have higher rider ships due to freedom of choice issues. When a helmet law gets repealed, the registrations greatly increase as this alarms the Government agencies to complain about accidents. Nothing is said about more motorcyclists, just there is a problem and they flood this in the capital halls to get the helmet law back. It is a crooked business how these agencies work for one another to get motorcyclists off the streets since insurance companies hate motorcyclists as these reports are funds by the insurance industry.
If you would like to complain on this report, you can link here and post to them you do not appreciate the report: http://www.ahrq.gov/info/customer.htm
or
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Office of Communications and Knowledge Transfer
540 Gaither Road, Suite 2000
Rockville, MD 20850.
Exactly! It is always a choice, and lines are being drawn all the time. When you ask \”Even if you choose to engage in risky behavior shouldn\’t it always be your choice as long as you don\’t endanger or infringe upon the rights of other?\”…the real answer is \”it depends.\” Only a pure libertarian would argue against all laws or regulations to protect people from bad choices. But the question you pose turns on the definition of \”danger or infringe.\”
Where does it stop? There used to be no no-smoking laws, but that was back when tobacco companies were saying smoking was harmless, when they knew better.
Prohibition proved not to work, plus it spawned a criminal sector of the economy and undermined the legitimate authority of the government. Condoms in schools and needle-exchange programs are great ideas, cutting down on unwanted pregnancies & AIDS.
Perhaps where to draw the line rests on the seriousness of the damage that can be caused by not regulating. Mandating motorcycle helmets, yes; passing a law requiring skateboarders to wear shoes, no.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
\”That breed will die off anyway because they can\’t procreate…Again, why would I care?\”
Wow, you almost had me convinced with your pure libertarian argument. Glad you believe in not legislating against gays, even if your concern is limited to not caring. BTW, gays don\’t die off because there are always a percentage born that way, it\’s a genectic variation.
\”A pretty succinct argument for gay marriage and assisted suicide. How does that shoe feel, now that it\’s on the other foot?\”
As for Mr. Shoe on the Other Foot\’s comment, never assume that there is a wellspring of ignorance, bigotry and intolerance in others to draw upon.
The question is; do you want the government to decide what is best for you and then pass laws to force you to do it? Or, do you want to be free to decide for yourself? Even if you choose to engage in risky behavior shouldn’t it always be your choice as long as you don’t endanger or infringe upon the rights of other? You may support a helmet law but were does legislation in the name of public safety stop…no smoking laws, prohibition, government issued condoms in schools, needle exchange programs…
They shulda passed out those organ doner cards to all you guys, thats a joke, you are ALL at extreme risk weather you wear a helmet or not
The problem with your argument is that you are not the only person that is adversely affected.
That\’s where government has been stepping in. If it has a negative effect on other people the government will consider stepping in.
Let\’s see…the government subsidized tobacco until a year or two ago…that probably kills 200,000 a year. There are around 150,000 medical error deaths a year,
how many deaths and injuries caused by alcohol?, just read where 8 out 10 homicides are drug related. Won\’t even mention spending Billions on a dishonest war that has brought poppy production back to highest levels ever. Yeah, we need to jump motorcyle riders who want to ride and feel the wind. Where\’s our priority?
There are already things being done to address what you are commenting about..except perhaps the war part..
My issue in this series of posts has been with the safety of not wearing a helmet. I\’m no expert and I believe I have been clear on that. Even if I did ride motorcycles I probably would consider not wearing my helmet sometimes. But I would never do so while believing that it is SAFER to not wear a helmet. Brad I will continue looking for information regarding the matter but at this point I can\’t imagine how wearing a helmet could be safer. Even if wearing a helmet might get you paralyzed in a small percentage on crashes in every single one of such cases the life of the injured was probably saved.
This argument is akin to the argument against airbags. In rare instances airbags in an impact actually suffocated or injured smaller individuals or children. Does that mean we should reject use of airbags and go back to the way it was before? No I don\’t think so.
Even if I did not wear a helmet while riding I would never kid myself into thinking that I am doing it under the guise of safety.
If a safety precaution causes injury in a small percentage of accidents does that mean that we should shun it if the other option is death?
My cop friend told me whenever their is a serious motorcycle wreck that the clean up is fairly easy. If the brain matter is spread across the highway the fire department is called to wash the disgusting stuff off the highway.
I don\’t want to wear my seatbelt either. 5 tickets later they\’ve convinced me it\’s a good thing for my pocketbook. But, I hate the law!
To all:
I reviewed the report by Dr. Jeffrey Coben, Dr. Claudia A. Steiner and Ted Miller concerning the use of motorcycle helmet laws.
This report was funded by Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). In this report, it is another study benefiting the pro-helmet tactics used for NHTSA and state Hospital agencies complaining about more helmet legislation laws.
This report is a referenced from government related reports only, nothing from any non-relevant agency that has nothing to do with government or state agencies to write a non partisan report to the public. Being it is written by AHRQ, was expected for them to write negative things about helmet free States, oh course.
So as a result of this, your legislation will again lobby again to proposed helmet legislation thanks to AHRQ. Nothing in this report shows anything about motorcycle registrations between Helmet law States from Non-Helmet law States, as we know that Helmet Law States have less ridership versing fee Helmet States which have higher rider ships due to freedom of choice issues. When a helmet law gets repealed, the registrations greatly increase as this alarms the Government agencies to complain about accidents. Nothing is said about more motorcyclists, just there is a problem and they flood this in the capital halls to get the helmet law back. It is a crooked business how these agencies work for one another to get motorcyclists off the streets since insurance companies hate motorcyclists as these reports are funds by the insurance industry.
If you would like to complain on this report, you can link here and post to them you do not appreciate the report: http://www.ahrq.gov/info/customer.htm
or
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Office of Communications and Knowledge Transfer
540 Gaither Road, Suite 2000
Rockville, MD 20850.
If you are in a serious accident not wearing a helmet will kill you.
If you can prove that statement wrong, I\’d like to see your evidence.
Exactly! It is always a choice, and lines are being drawn all the time. When you ask \”Even if you choose to engage in risky behavior shouldn\’t it always be your choice as long as you don\’t endanger or infringe upon the rights of other?\”…the real answer is \”it depends.\” Only a pure libertarian would argue against all laws or regulations to protect people from bad choices. But the question you pose turns on the definition of \”danger or infringe.\”
Where does it stop? There used to be no no-smoking laws, but that was back when tobacco companies were saying smoking was harmless, when they knew better.
Prohibition proved not to work, plus it spawned a criminal sector of the economy and undermined the legitimate authority of the government. Condoms in schools and needle-exchange programs are great ideas, cutting down on unwanted pregnancies & AIDS.
Perhaps where to draw the line rests on the seriousness of the damage that can be caused by not regulating. Mandating motorcycle helmets, yes; passing a law requiring skateboarders to wear shoes, no.