It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Motorcycle Helmet Laws

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 02:47 PM
link   
Oh what a suprise. No new arguements just the same opinions you already posted.

So your intelligence is clearly way up there and your opinions must count towards affecting other people's lives and what they are and aren't allowed to do.

You can't give any reason other than you think people should be protected from themselves - so you basicly lump everyone in the same category soley based on some activity they choose to participate in.

Any other reasons or is that the only one you have? Shall I wear rubber cups on my fingers when I type this just in case there's an electrical surge that comes thru my keyboard?




posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ed 209
Oh what a suprise. No new arguements just the same opinions you already posted.

Tell that to yourself. The best you can come up with is comparing helmets to parachutes.


So your intelligence is clearly way up there and your opinions must count towards affecting other people's lives and what they are and aren't allowed to do.

Thanks for the positive comment
At least you got something right



so you basicly lump everyone in the same category soley based on some activity they choose to participate in.

Umm, yeah. That's the point....motorcycle helmets are worn by bikers. Who else would it effect...


Shall I wear rubber cups on my fingers when I type this just in case there's an electrical surge that comes thru my keyboard?

No, but a helmet would suit you well.

Just kidding with ya



[edit on 19/6/2006 by SportyMB]



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by ed 209
No new arguements just the same opinions you already posted.


Be it as they may that they are our opinions, we have provided facts to back them up. Where are the facts supporting your opinions?



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 03:49 PM
link   
No, you blasted a load of rubbish to hide how you are ruining the world,

learn something -

www.belowtopsecret.com...



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 06:45 PM
link   
Ah, so I was insulted when I asked for the facts you're basing your opinions off of? Why did you do that, can't be bothered to demonstrate why you have your opinions? Keep up the good work.



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 07:10 PM
link   


At the extreme end of it you could say that it's not the state's job to provide police, fire, or EMS services. After all, it would be the person's own stupidity for having a house a person could burglarize, or having wiring that somehow shorted out igniting a wall, or a pipe breaking and the home filling with carbon monoxide, right?


That's a very extreme interpretation. The police are primarily responsible for protecting citizens from each other - protecting the home owner from the burglar.

The fire department is responsible for protecting citizens from the dangers of a spreading blaze, and for rescuing people from situations not necessarily of their own making. In all the times I've seen the FD respond, it's to protect nearby homes and rescue people trapped in burning buildings/crushed cars/whatever.

The cause of the blaze is usually not known when the FD arrives on the scene. I hope they'll never sit back and watch the pretty fire burn, just because it may have been started due to carlessness.

And even if it was, there are other people who may need assistance.

They've got a real, necessary purpose outside of protecting people from themselves.

Under the current system, if a man hangs himself off a bridge and sets himself on fire, it's the job of the FD/EMS to rescue his dumb ass. I think that's ludicrous, a total waste of taxpayer resources, and more importantly, it puts responders in unnecessary risk.

They have enough to do without having to chase around trying to forestall the inevitable with one nutcase after another. Making suicide legal would free up a fair bit of money and manpower...

The helmet laws have a justifiable purpose (saving money) from the state's point of view, as long as people continue to rely on EMS to pick up the messes they cause. I guess the fines are designed to offset the costs posed by idiot riders who wreck up and cost the state a bunch of money in FFL/ambulance services/hospital costs.

I understand it, but I don't agree with any system that provides rights in lieu of responsibilities.

You'd think people would voluntarily wear the helmets, but they don't - and the taxpayer is burdened as a result.

So, don't get me wrong, I understand the argument from the other side.

But I also think that self-determination is a God-given right, and that the state is overly-presumptious when it seeks to infringe on that to save some dough (especially when other measures might be taken).

What other measures?

That's whole big can o' worms. We're talking efficiency, cost-cutting, a reduction in redundancy at the state, local, and federal levels. I bet you can't guess how many farmers there are in this country for every USDA employee...

Last I checked it was about a half-dozen to one ratio - 6 farmers for every 1 farm bureaucrat. That's ludicrous! Most large cities have about 3 cops for every 1000 citizens...

Anyway, different topic...

Point being, there are plenty of ways to lower overhead and improve efficiency without telling people what to wear, what to eat, what to smoke, what to drink, and so on.

[edit on 19-6-2006 by WyrdeOne]



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 07:14 PM
link   
[1] My head .... my medical ins ....... my choice.
[2] Full-face helmets are dangerous as hell - can't see nor hear anything but straight, no peripheal vision whatsoever.

Had I been wearing a helmet (anything more than a top-hat) the one time I laid a scooter down, I surely would not be here today, for it was peripheal vision that spurred my non-thought reaction into the action of what to do ...... let it drop and go case-surfing for a burnt ass.

Instead of damn helmet laws, why not curb the ignorance of riding which cause so many accidents involving riders, with more rigorous training pre-license.

Instead of damn helmet laws, why not push more awareness during drivers ed of the motorcycle rider. Of all the bike accidents anyone has seen/read of, how many involve a car? Of those, who was at fault most, the rider or the driver?

This all reminds me of many years ago in California, when a push for mandetory helmets was a goal led by a mother. What happened? She bought her son a brand new Ninja (during that rave), he had never been on a damn motorcycle before. He raced down a neighborhood, no helmet, lost control at the corner, went airborn from the curb and killed himself. Did he die because of lack of helmet? Or did he die because of ignorance? I foget the speed of travel and distance he was airborne before his deadly impact, but they were phenomenal. All a helmet would have done for his wreck would be to keep his brains in a convenient bucket for the coroner.

Do 90mph on a bike and smack into a car at an intersection ........ helmet or not, yer gonna die.

What's next? Wear friggen inflated tire intertubes around me so I bounce if I wreck?

NN



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 05:40 AM
link   
i am also a keen motorcyclist, coming from the uk and now living in portugal i have always had to wear a helmet.

i have always believed that helmet wearing should be mandatory the world over, you crash a bike and 99.9% off the time your going to smash your head off something.

i have had several serious bike injuries (on the road and on the track) i would definatley be dead without a helmet.

even when its hot here i always wear leathers, boots and gloves, i have seen too many friends in hospital with serious tarmac and gravel burns, ive seen bones poking through the skin and knee caps hanging on with bits of gooey flesh..be safe and protect yourself at all times.

I actually think helmets look well cool, especially with a nice black or uridium visor!

oh and just for the bikers out there..heres a link to the isle of man tt...these guys dont really need helmets because if they crash their dead anyways...

www.metacafe.com...



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 07:16 AM
link   
I assume everyone knows about Ben Roethlisburger, If not hes a pro (american)football player in the United States. He didnt have to have a helmet on, but he shouldve. he also didnt have a lisence to even be riding alone. now I come frrom Pittsburgh so of course hearing this was dreadful and i heard a quote about it that i like and im gunna put it in my sig.

"Riding without a License - $400, Ruining your chances for a repeat SuperBowl - Priceless"


i thought that was quite amusing actually. If i ever get on a bike i would definitly wear a helmet.



posted on Jun, 24 2006 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Heratix
What about siekh`s..??...doesnt there religion make them wear a turban in public at all times...??


No. I played volleyball with a guy I used to work with and he wore his hair in a 'topknot' with something wrapped around it. I'm sure they could do something similar under a helmet.

As far as a helmet law... that's a tough one for me. I wouldn't be caught dead without a helmet (or maybe I would) but I'm not sure I think it should be a law. I wore my seatbelt at all times before it was a law and I wore a helmet for the 15 years I lived in AZ, but if people want to take the risk, I'm not sure the law should tell them they can't.

There are a lot of risky behaviors people participate in and the law is helpful to make the activity as safe as possible, it's just hard for me to draw that line. Many people claim their vision and hearing are impared by a helmet.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join