|03-26-2009 05:10 PM|
Don't quit. I'm just tossing out some of the other reasons legislators may be bringing these Nanny Laws to light. I have a problem with them, but I don't think the lawmakers reasons are all nefarious, self serving maybe.
If we were to get back to personal accountability and remove the ability to sue over nothing and enforce fines for filing frivolous lawsuits, we may be able to regain some freedoms because businesses/government would not have to worry about someone spilling hot coffee in their lap and getting a couple million for it.
|03-26-2009 03:15 PM|
|wyseguy||I have always wondered why lawmakers are so "concerned" about motorcycle safety. Why don't we ever hear about them trying to pass helmet laws for bungee jumpers?|
|03-26-2009 01:55 PM|
I quit, Tiny's right (Yes Tiny, I am being serious, not sarcastic )
|03-26-2009 10:30 AM|
Ah, but you like I and the rest cannot speak to the reasoning in any sort of definitive manner, only the goal and possible the outcome if passed or not passed.
Had Jimmy been wearing a helmet he wouldn't be in a vegetative state now, so Jimmy's parents decide the government should have mandated helmet laws. They sue the state. The state, no matter what they do, will come off looking uncaring. So, to save themselves from future lawsuits and negative publicity the state passes a helmet law, and settles quietly with Jimmy's parents.
The state is now covered in case Jerry decides he doesn't want to wear a helmet.
|03-26-2009 05:34 AM|
More personal uneducated opinion is that this is a "feel good" bill to help the Delegate/Senator etc. stay in office. More than likely there are far more people in IL that would say "Oh, look! He cares about our personal well being, and took the time to try and save lives!" Than there are bikers who would oppose the legislation.
|03-26-2009 05:25 AM|
Health insurance *most of the time* won't cover things like motorcycle accidents. There are clauses for that kind of stuff.
Your motorcycle insurance takes care of that. If you don't have medical on your motorcycle insurance, and your health insurance won't cover motorcycle accidents, you pay out of pocket. If you skip on the bill, the Hospital eats it/fights you for it, not the state (most of the time). Most Hospitals are privately owned, not state owned, at least around here anyway.
I think the only time the state would pay for the medical bills would be if a state vehicle hit you (but then the state would have insurance), if you could prove the state was responsible (unsafe roads or something) or something along those lines.
I am not a lawyer, and that is not my final answer
|03-25-2009 09:07 PM|
|tiny terror||I never said medical bills. I said disability. And if you cap disability then the disabled person will end up a ward of the state. More money out.|
|03-25-2009 04:28 PM|
i have a question about that argument anyway. when does the state end up paying medical bills? i honestly don't know when or why this comes into play here, so someone please tell me how the state ends up with the bill for a motorcycle accident.
i have insurance for the bike, and health insurance. so are we saying the rider in question is un-insured? then he/she is already breaking the law, so whats a helmet law gonna do?
|03-25-2009 03:10 PM|
If that's your concern (and I know you're just playing DA), then pass a law stating that if someone is injured on a motorcycle w/out a helmet, then the max that the state will pay is $10,000 for neurological or spinal injuries.
|03-25-2009 02:23 PM|
|jpdocdave||it will be my dying wish.|
|03-25-2009 01:28 PM|
You'll be dead soon. The calculator said so.
|03-25-2009 01:20 PM|
|jpdocdave||i've been writing my congressman to vote on legislation making panda pushing illegal in the lower 48 states.|
|03-25-2009 01:14 PM|
Ok, so they're protecting me from paying for you by forcing you to wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle.
I love devil's advocate... cuz I think the gov should stay out of it.
And don't you start on panda pushing.
|03-25-2009 01:09 PM|
again, question isn't if helmets are better or worse. it is better not to do a lot of things, (drink alcohol, smoke, eat junk food, push pandas) is it the government's job to make laws against them?
and bird dog, there's so many things wrong with what you said, i don't know where to start. i guess i'll start with the laundry list of things my tax dollars pay for that i have nothing to do with, just one example being illegal immigrants and their strain on the economy, and the 5 kids in one house that i'm helping give an education to, while struggling to put my kids in private school because of how messed up public shcools are that get my tax money.
lets focus on the strain on tax payers money that are actually breaking the law, instead of instating new laws infringing on legal citizen/ tax payers rights, if thats gonna be your argument.
|03-25-2009 12:22 PM|
|T-BONE N BIXBY||
I'd love to help you out and I understand your concern, but my cousin has his helmet to thank for aiding in minimizing his injuries suffered from a crash on an Illinois State Police motorcylce. He was attempting to catch up to a "low life" in a pick up truck (several outstanding warrants, no insurance, etc...) for a moving violation, and the guy decided to just stop in the middle of the road, instead of pulling to the right shoulder. Motorcylce clipped the back bumper, and up and over he went. Helmet scratched and marred, and possibly cracked, but still in place and no dammage to head.
Again, I understand your thoughts, as my wife refuses to wear her seat belt for your exact reasons above. Good luck to you.
|03-25-2009 09:27 AM|
Let's get rid of all the helmet laws. Let everyone choose.
Bicycles and ATV's too.
Then register all vehicle riders and charge each one $1000 / year.
It wouldn't totally pay for all the consequences of the injured.
But it would help partially pay for the care of those that become vegetables of the state and would help provide for survivors that depended on the deceased. The husbands,wives and children left behind.
Then the rest of the taxpayers that don't ride would not have to carry as much of the burden.
|03-24-2009 09:08 PM|
|03-24-2009 09:06 PM|
|Dare2BSquare||Arkansas' helmet law didn't make it out of committee today.|
|03-24-2009 08:54 PM|
|03-24-2009 08:34 PM|
good point, speaking of protecting the tax payers, maybe we should be discussing whether he should get 1500 tax payer dollars a month.
|03-24-2009 07:37 PM|
|jgano23||it just seems as though the government is protecting us from ourselves.|
|03-24-2009 07:33 PM|
x2. That is my point exactly. Do I think it is stupid to NOT wear a helmet? Absolutely. I wouldn't ride without one, and I sure as heck wouldn't let a passenger ride without one, but it's not the governments job to tell us we should either.
|03-24-2009 01:31 PM|
|05GT-O.C.D.||I'm against helmet laws but do wear one myself and make my passengers wear one as well. I didn't wear one for a long time... at first I was trying to be cool and look like 'a Harley guy'. Then I got T-boned by a car and thankfully have 99% healed (stupid ankle still bothers me sometimes). After that, I began looking for a helmet but could never find one that was comfortable and continued to ride w/out a helmet. Then I found the NXT helmet, I wear it every time I ride and now feel uncomfortable without it. It's not government's job to mandate it, but I do encourage everyone with a family who may care about them to look into finding a helmet that you're comfortable wearing. One day your family may thank you for it. [/preaching]|
|03-24-2009 11:39 AM|
I shall play devil's advocate since I love to do it.
Say a young man, oh 19, is riding. He chooses not to wear a helmet (this is in the fairy world where the gov'ment doesn't care). A moment of distraction and he's under a car. Bike laid down, road rash, broken bones, head injury. The bones heal, but the head injury leaves him disabled.
He's 19 and disabled. He will now draw $1567 a month for the rest of his life.
Now, place a helmet on his head. Moment of distraction, bike down, broken bones, but his melon stays intact. He spends some time in the hospital, heals up fine, and draws nothing.
I'm not saying a helmet is the end all to protection, but, maybe the government isn't looking to protect the riders so much as they're looking to protect the country's interests, ie the tax payers.
|03-24-2009 09:53 AM|
My Dad, Mom, and I all ride. I grew up on bikes in a state that requires helmets, however I have been going to rallies in other states that don't require them since I was born. After I saw enough accidents I always wore one, just for me, my dad and his friends did not. Last August he was in an accident with another bike. After finding out that his head injury could have been deadly had he not had the helmet to save him, we now all wear them full time law or not.
It is a personal option that you say only hurts you. What about your family and friends if you die though or get seriously injured? The government isn't saying you can't where a skid lid, or anything like that, if you want your head free do that. Again it's personal opinion just like the style of bike you ride, the type of roads (twisties, straight, speed, stunt), or how reckless you go. Fight it and don't do that's all up to you, remember they aren't taking away your bike, it is easy NOT to get a ticket so don't say it is a way to make money. And if you know someone close to you who was in an accident that had a head injury, I garuntee you will change your mind
|03-24-2009 09:02 AM|
lots of accidents
If you leave more then a car length
between you and next car they will cut in and brake
if you happen to be looking to the rear with helmet
I love the people that put on turn signal and figure its their right
to turn no matter whos next to them
Sorry had to vent
|03-23-2009 09:24 PM|
|jdhallissey||I agree I had to basically drop a shoulder and turn. did I like doing that in traffic NO! so jack off can cut you off when trying to look over your shoulder to change lanes and you get the butt hole pucker when they merge on you!!|
|03-23-2009 09:21 PM|
you still had no periferal vision though.
don't get me wrong, helmet=safer.....just not the governments job to make me do it.
|03-23-2009 09:14 PM|
|jdhallissey||Dave I agree but the helmet I wore was a racing one so wind was not a factor for me but your skull caps I could see gettin blown around.|
|03-23-2009 09:11 PM|
^yep, i don't need the government protecting me from myself. if they need to protect others from me, fine.
and there are downsides to helmets. they catch the wind and blow your head around like a sail, making balance dificult, and they eliminate all periferal vision, gigantor blind spots you have to turn you whole body to check.
|This thread has more than 30 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.|