Casper Posted July 27, 2007 Report Share Posted July 27, 2007 http://ohio-riders.net/showthread.php?p=32106 Be sure to vote. We're going to send this in to the Dispatch. Let those who ride decide. Spread this around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted July 27, 2007 Report Share Posted July 27, 2007 Personally...yes. One, why wouldn't they want to? All free feeling air BS aside, you wreck, you can die and get hurt much more easily without a helmet. Beside, pretty much every biker has stated that it's not a matter of "if" but "when" you lay a bike down. "Those that have and those that will," etc.... Given that, I feel the 'free choice' of someone riding and deciding not to wear a helmet shouldn't be allowed to impact me or my family should they be involved in an accident together. Same with seat belts in cars. I'm all for the law. Case in point, wife and bike collide, rider of bike has no helmet and is thus injured seriously.....should that guilt ride on my wife's shoulders? Who is at fault doesn't matter; both lives change forever. Should either insurance co. be required to pay more due to the rider not wearing a helmet? I say no. I also feel it's a pretty selfish act towards their own loved ones. Not wearing a helmet or buckling up puts their own family at greater risk in many ways. I couldn't imagine now that I have kids, walking out of the house and not wearing a belt or helmet. IMO, I say if someone isn't wearing a helmet or seat belts in a vehicle, then the insurance co.'s should not have to pay a thing towards that person. They take the chance then they can pay the price. I'm sure everyone will discuss. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amy Posted July 27, 2007 Report Share Posted July 27, 2007 Personally...yes. One, why wouldn't they want to? All free feeling air BS aside, you wreck, you can die and get hurt much more easily without a helmet. Given that, I feel the 'free choice' of someone riding and deciding not to wear a helmet shouldn't be allowed to impact me or my family should they be involved in an accident together. Same with seat belts in cars. I'm all for the law. Case in point, wife and bike collide, rider of bike has no helmet and is thus injured seriously.....should that guilt ride on my wife's shoulders? Who is at fault doesn't matter; both lives change forever. Should either insurance co. be required to pay more due to the rider not wearing a helmet? I say no. IMO, I say if someone isn't wearing a helmet or seat belts in a vehicle, then the insurance co.'s should not have to pay a thing towards that person. They take the chance then they can pay the price. I'm sure everyone will discuss. At first, I used to think that if a rider wants to chance his life it is his choice; after reading your post, Ive come to the conclusion that you have a very good point. I would have to agree. Props! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casper Posted July 27, 2007 Author Report Share Posted July 27, 2007 Personally...yes. One, why wouldn't they want to? All free feeling air BS aside, you wreck, you can die and get hurt much more easily without a helmet. Beside, pretty much every biker has stated that it's not a matter of "if" but "when" you lay a bike down. "Those that have and those that will," etc.... Given that, I feel the 'free choice' of someone riding and deciding not to wear a helmet shouldn't be allowed to impact me or my family should they be involved in an accident together. Same with seat belts in cars. I'm all for the law. Case in point, wife and bike collide, rider of bike has no helmet and is thus injured seriously.....should that guilt ride on my wife's shoulders? Who is at fault doesn't matter; both lives change forever. Should either insurance co. be required to pay more due to the rider not wearing a helmet? I say no. I also feel it's a pretty selfish act towards their own loved ones. Not wearing a helmet or buckling up puts their own family at greater risk in many ways. I couldn't imagine now that I have kids, walking out of the house and not wearing a belt or helmet. IMO, I say if someone isn't wearing a helmet or seat belts in a vehicle, then the insurance co.'s should not have to pay a thing towards that person. They take the chance then they can pay the price. I'm sure everyone will discuss. So you think the government should force it? Really? How in the fuck is it the government's place??????? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckeye1647545503 Posted July 27, 2007 Report Share Posted July 27, 2007 I look at it as Cleaning out the gene pool. If you are dumb enought to not wear it then I don't feel sorry for you. Your wife and kids some what but you no Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrMeanGreen Posted July 27, 2007 Report Share Posted July 27, 2007 Who cares. If people wanna have their leftover brains scraped up with a spatula, let them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturg1647545502 Posted July 27, 2007 Report Share Posted July 27, 2007 i work at a level one trauma center and i say no, let the rider decide. self darwinism & population control. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thorne Posted July 27, 2007 Report Share Posted July 27, 2007 I personally always have my lid on and my belt on in the car. But i by no fucking menas thing the goverment has any fucking right to tell me that I need to do it to be safe. If your worried about how you would feel if you hit someone I think no matter what it is going to affect you so thats a bullshit excuse. Thats a cop out the same kinda of cop out that dumb mother fucker use to say its ok fgor the goverment to take away our rights and invadeour privacy or create gun control its fear based . I'm scared of X so lets make a fucking law around. Marijuana was outawed because of mexicans and blacks. Go look at the papers from that time. Gun control was done because of fear again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casper Posted July 27, 2007 Author Report Share Posted July 27, 2007 I personally wear my helmet every time I ride, even if it's just down to the corner store. But I don't believe it's any of the government's business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted July 27, 2007 Report Share Posted July 27, 2007 Same way they enforce speed limits....limits are there to protect not only me the driver, but those that are on the road with me. Laws of kinds are in place to protect the public....."protect and serve." To me it's no different than the state not allowing my nieghbor to dump gasoline or used oil on his own property.....it impacts others. I certainly don't need someone riding a bike in front of me to have a bug or debris hit them in the face and then causing an accident or even an unsafe situation. I value my life and my family too much. Riding is just like driving in that it's a privilege. If there is a state law that is then in place to require helmets to protect the rider and those around them. Should riders not want to follow the law, then they run the risk of losing the right to ride. So you think the government should force it? Really? How in the fuck is it the government's place??????? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted July 27, 2007 Report Share Posted July 27, 2007 it's not a cop out or fear based anything.....should I be involved in an accident with a bike, sure I'll feel bad, depending on the situation, but if there's no helmet involved and the rider is seriously injured or worse dies due to trauma...it's a pure fact that his death after being involved in an accident with me is going to affect me much worse than if he suffered a simple injury. His road rash, broken limbs all heal, and in time I'd get over that too, but death is forever and not something I'd forget or heal from easily. If your worried about how you would feel if you hit someone I think no matter what it is going to affect you so thats a bullshit excuse. Thats a cop out the same kinda of cop out that dumb mother fucker use to say its ok fgor the goverment to take away our rights and invadeour privacy or create gun control its fear based . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thorne Posted July 27, 2007 Report Share Posted July 27, 2007 Thats BS man. Why should you fear of something happening that never happened be something that should affect me in my daily life. just because you are a weaker person the X why should Y be the end effect? That makes no sense. Speed limited exist to keep dumb people from driving faster then they can handle and hurting others. me having a helment on does not help keep from physically hurting anoyne. Fuck people are scared of the color red does that mean we shoudl out law cars that are red? People are affraid of pit bulls and other bully breeds ddoes that mean they should be outlawed? I as a Bulldog owner say fuck that. My dogs listen to me perfect I think FWD cards are unsafe because once they lose traction they've also lost complete steering. Does that mean they should be outlawed People who drive cars and hit cages scares the piss out of me shoudl there be a law that says we can go faster then they can? I'm scared of being around lots of people in public like a movie theator should there be a law around that? Come on where do you draw the damn line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thorne Posted July 27, 2007 Report Share Posted July 27, 2007 If's and buts is all i see you posing. I can make tons of ifs and buts. If I was able to speed on my motorctycle I would not have to be around stupid cagers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted July 27, 2007 Report Share Posted July 27, 2007 It's not a matter of it being the "Governements business" that's making a personal statement out of something that is not "personal" at all. It's a law, cut and dry. There to protect the public. Governing bodies and laws don't look at individuals in a personal way what so ever, so let's phrase it more appropriately and call it what it would be..... a law. They don't actually "care" what you do, the State puts laws in place to protect the public How is a law that puts a requirement on wearing a helmet any different than a law that says you can't weave in and out of traffic going 100mph? Do you feel the same way? "How dare the Damn Gov't put laws on how fast I can drive!" "It's my life....I can speed if I want to." Again, what you do on a bike or in a car affects others......forget the personal nature of these arguments.....it's never about you the rider personally....it's about the public overall. I personally wear my helmet every time I ride, even if it's just down to the corner store. But I don't believe it's any of the government's business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thorne Posted July 27, 2007 Report Share Posted July 27, 2007 But you've yet to show me how not having my helmet on affects you physically my point is that mental afflictions are not enough to make a law per say. Since the law does state i have to wear EYE Protection. Me speeding has a much higher probability of me causing a wreck then me not having a lid on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted July 27, 2007 Report Share Posted July 27, 2007 you've been drinking haven't you you not wearing a helmet most certainly does endanger me. if you get hit by a bug or road debris, your situation becomes unsafe and that puts everyone around you in a dangerous situation and that most certainly can physically harm someone beside yourself. financially, you put me and everyone at risk too. I won't get into the big picture costs of all this, but back to my point, if we are involved in an accident, regardless of who is at fault, your not wearing a helmet endangers and impacts the financial well being of the insurance co. , my family, your family, etc....not cool. Thats BS man. Why should you fear of something happening that never happened be something that should affect me in my daily life. just because you are a weaker person the X why should Y be the end effect? That makes no sense. Speed limited exist to keep dumb people from driving faster then they can handle and hurting others. me having a helment on does not help keep from physically hurting anoyne. Fuck people are scared of the color red does that mean we shoudl out law cars that are red? I won't go off track but I will say I agree that as a breed Pit Bulls are not bad, but given the reality of the world, and the actual occurances, because again, this is not a Personal issue, it's not about you and what you do or your dog does, it's a state mandated safety measure, protecting the public at large from the public at large and the reality of life. Given that, I do agree that if someone is going to own a Pit, they should be required to have a separate rider on their insurance. Some folks call front license plate tickets a "luxery tax"......same deal on the Pit Bull insurance rider.....luxury tax for owning that breed. People are affraid of pit bulls and other bully breeds ddoes that mean they should be outlawed? I as a Bulldog owner say fuck that. My dogs listen to me perfect No one is outlawing anything...but let's stick to motorcycles....yes, you are required to take a safety course and get a special bike license to handle a vehicle that is nothing like a car. I don't hear anyone complaining about that? I mean, shit, if I can drive a car, why the hell should I be required to get a special license? The answer is pretty clear. I think FWD cards are unsafe because once they lose traction they've also lost complete steering. Does that mean they should be outlawed There is not line to draw. we start with helmets and seat belts and then when something new comes along, like Conceal and Carry, you impliments laws that say you can't have them in school zones or Pedafiles can't hang out in parks. Basically you watch the statistics and see which way the safety of the public at large goes and you error on keep the the citizens safe. Come on where do you draw the damn line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mojoe Posted July 27, 2007 Report Share Posted July 27, 2007 Put on your seat belt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted July 27, 2007 Report Share Posted July 27, 2007 I've pointed it out in other replies....not wearing a helmet exposes your head, eyes, face, to road debris, bugs, etc....should you get popped in the eye that's puts you in an unsafe situation and in turn puts everyone around you in an unsafe situation. The law may not say anything about eye protection, but IMO, it should and IMO, riders should wear it. Weather it puts another person in direct physical harms way isn't the point. The financial impact of things is much greater due to the trauma involved in a bike accident. The world revolves around money and as I said in my other reply, the financial exposure a rider not wearing a helmet puts on all parties around them, family, drivers, insurance co's, etc....at tremendous risk. That financial risk is the very reason points on your license for speeding impact your insurance. The state and insurance companies both realize the likely hood of a rampant speeder costing everyone more money is higher than someone who doesn't speed or get tickets. Thus they are protecting everyone by charging speeders more and implementing laws to remove their driving privileges should they continue to operate in an unsafe and costly manner. Same thoughts can be applied to helmet laws. No doubt the financial impacts are higher without it. No doubt more die without helmets...and like it or not, the Gov't at large is there to protect the physical safety of the public at large....even from themselves. Applying a helmet law will lower the financial impact on everyone just as requiring seat belts has reduced costs associated with accidents in cars.....as have have the Gov't enforced safety standards on cars. I'm mean again, shit, I can build a car....who's this government entity to tell me weather or not I can drive my car on the road. Why should I be required to meet safety requirements. (all said with sarcasm of course) But you've yet to show me how not having my helmet on affects you physically my point is that mental afflictions are not enough to make a law per say. Since the law does state i have to wear EYE Protection. Me speeding has a much higher probability of me causing a wreck then me not having a lid on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thorne Posted July 27, 2007 Report Share Posted July 27, 2007 You still have not pointed to me how these things happen. By your statements alone anything thats not basic slow ass safe tranportation should be outlawed as they have the ablity to have more things go wrong. motorcycle should be outlawed since if a person wrecks one it is going to hur tthe person more and cause more harm to the insurance Sports cars should be outlawed since if a person wrecks one it is going to cost more to fix the car Gun's can kill people should they be outlawed? alky being legal increases the risk for drunk drivers maybe we should outlaw alky again. I can keep going man. Don't vote for your beliefs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thorne Posted July 27, 2007 Report Share Posted July 27, 2007 you debeis argument does not hold water because in the other states they only require a half shell. you can still get hit in the face. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thorne Posted July 27, 2007 Report Share Posted July 27, 2007 how in the hell canyou say its ok to have a law around 1 type of dog? Thats not fair or just. when pits are not the number one attack .its fear based period. Just like when rotts where the hot dog and dobermans it changes based on stupid lbbiest and junk science. Did you know in california for 1 month water was outlawed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted July 27, 2007 Report Share Posted July 27, 2007 not sure what you're looking for? rock in head or bug in eye = unsafe....but I forgot, you don't like face protection either okay, (lay down bike = costly to everyone) (lay down bike with no helmet = Greater cost to everyone.) I'm not saying nor is the law going after anything other than helmets on bike riders. Period...the "slow ass safe transportation thing" and " guns" are not relevant to the point/law at hand. If it is relevant to you, then let's leave that for the State and law makers cover that next....let's stick to just helmets for now. Tangents don't keep the thread focused and interesting. They make for longer posts that are off topic. You still have not pointed to me how these things happen. By your statements alone anything thats not basic slow ass safe tranportation should be outlawed as they have the ablity to have more things go wrong. you're way off track here with the use of the word outlaw...first, no one is saying they are going to outlaw anything....the point is about creating a law that makes a requirement to wear a helmet and continue riding motorcycles. Again, "outlaw" is not a word that you should be using in your replies as it's not the correct meaning or intent of the law. Nothing is being outlawed Alky on the other hand is on track because laws do exist that say you can't be intoxicated and drive. That correlates well here: (no hemet = more dangerous and costly to everyone) as is (Akly + Vehicle = more dangerous and costly to everyone.) Nice job on the correlation. :thumbup: Just remove the word Outlaw. Remember, DUI/DWI = same as helmet law. Both are there to protect you from yourself and the public at large from the offender. alky being legal increases the risk for drunk drivers maybe we should outlaw alky again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V8 Beast Posted July 27, 2007 Report Share Posted July 27, 2007 Laws are primarily made for stupid people that dont know any better. Its a way to hold them accountable for being idiots. Thus it should be a law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted July 27, 2007 Report Share Posted July 27, 2007 I don't believe just one breed is on the books.....I think it covers several. However, I believe the dog law varies by state / city too. It's not a matter of fairness. Again, dogs aren't people.....discrimination is fair game as is profiling. I don't see it as a lobbiest thing.....what group is being paid by who to nail Pit Bulls? Follow the money...there's no one benefiting financially to nail a breed of dog like Pits just for the sake of nailing a dog breed. Bottom line is they are the choice dog of dog fighters and drug dealers and they do make up a pretty notorious ranking for severity of bites/attacks, etc...anything that can be put on the books to squeeze folks like that out of neighborhoods is good in my book....and thus why it's a city regulated law. The burbs here locally in my area don't need "the likes of those owning Pit Bulls" in their area. Again, if they lose a few good folk, who cares....I'll sacrifice a few to keep out the many. I'm sorry, but I happen to agree with it as I don't need some redneck hood with a Pit living in my area nor do I want a crack house with Pits near me. Make a law against the dog and you can clear out those two legally and enforce a lot of other laws in creative ways too Should it by chance kick out the AKC Dog show dog owners.....oh well.... how in the hell canyou say its ok to have a law around 1 type of dog? Thats not fair or just. when pits are not the number one attack .its fear based period. Just like when rotts where the hot dog and dobermans it changes based on stupid lbbiest and junk science. Did you know in california for 1 month water was outlawed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thorne Posted July 27, 2007 Report Share Posted July 27, 2007 .... You guys scare me with your profound lack of understanding about the lack of freedoms. They are outlawing something they are outlawing the ablitiy to ride with out a helment. BTW there is a law regarding eye protection. What I was saying is in other states even with helmet laws you don't require a full face mask. Your statements indicate you feel that something going in someones eye is a big deal. So what is the point of a hlement law if it don't cover the entire face? Also every one of my analgoies as apt. Your just twisting 1 of the words in my sentance to make them not . If alky creates a greater risk for someone to drive while intoxicated why not require poeple to never dirnk. WTF its the same damn thing no matter how you put it. A law is being made based on fear that further tightens over goverments already bush administratored powered grasp. Think about it some before you respond. The bush administrator has taken more rights then any other in the history of the USA. Do we need another friggin pointless law. All of your statements are around what iffs. You what if Motorcycle + wreck = expensive Motorcycle + no helment + wreck = more expensive. Ok so lets make it so you have to wear helments. No its Car + wreck = expensive motorocycle + wreck = more expensive Shoudl we ban motorcycles now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.