ESPN interview July 2005 Big Ben "explains" his riding philosophy
Novice
I wonder what Roethlisberger would say if the interviewer asked, "well there's no law requiring condoms . . . you use those?"
Naturally, BR was riding a Hayabusa . . . a sportbike. Granted, it was given to him by Suzuki but it's not like they don't make 10 other bikes . . . much slower bikes.
Notice he didn't say play football without a helmet . . .
He answered in the affirmative about having a license but even if he met both criteria I would still call him a novice.
No one with just a MSF and two years of riding experience should be on a 'Busa. He says he rides choppers (+/- Harleys) with his buddies but the truth is that he's an occasional rider that had more money than skills . . . always a bad combination.
No one with just a MSF and two years of riding experience should be on a 'Busa. He says he rides choppers (+/- Harleys) with his buddies but the truth is that he's an occasional rider that had more money than skills . . . always a bad combination.
DivideBYZero
Lifer
- May 18, 2001
- 24,117
- 2
- 0
LOL!
"yes the government has a responsibility to make people safe by controlling every aspect of their private life"
Yeah, no bias.
eits
Lifer
it's called a joke... i guess i shoulda made a face or something to make it a little more obvious. oh, well.
DivideBYZero
Lifer
- May 18, 2001
- 24,117
- 2
- 0
eits
Lifer
Sure, like investigating homicide because people are dying in accidents when they shouldn't be.
eits
Lifer
Number1
Diamond Member
- Feb 24, 2006
- 7,881
- 549
- 126
Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
I'm sorry, but being from Canada is no excuse for being a 'tard.
The quote from Ben Franklin (I looked it up) is so out of contest in this debate. How can anybody define not wearing a helmet as an "essential liberty"? To me a helmet is an essential need on a motorcycle.
Helmet laws are easy to enforce and they do save lives. Why should tax payers pay for easily preventable medical expenses? And don?t give me the ?beef is bad for you so we should outlaw it? argument. You would have a hard time passing a law like that.
And the quote isn't safety its 'security'
we have all kinds of public safety laws, from food safety, construction safety, manufacturing safety
I never understood the 'right' to drive it never has been a right, owning a car has never been a right, wearing a helmet or not has never been a 'RIGHT'
we have all kinds of public safety laws, from food safety, construction safety, manufacturing safety
I never understood the 'right' to drive it never has been a right, owning a car has never been a right, wearing a helmet or not has never been a 'RIGHT'
i call girls "dudes," too. it's not a gender-specific term back east.
i wasn't serious about taking away the licenses of older people... just making them have to retest every few years in order to keep it.[/quote]
I'm all for that - although you have to admit there is a difference between forcing some moron to wear a helmet who doesn't want to (which affects me not at all) and allowing some 70 year old blind woman to run me over on my motorcycle when I am wearing a helmet.
The difference is the woman is a danger to everyone else. Some idiot not wearing a helmet is only endangering him/herself.
moshquerade
No Lifer
- Nov 1, 2001
- 61,504
- 12
- 56
i don't like your answers in the second poll. i would pick the 3rd option except you went off the deep end with it.
eits
Lifer
I'm all for that - although you have to admit there is a difference between forcing some moron to wear a helmet who doesn't want to (which affects me not at all) and allowing some 70 year old blind woman to run me over on my motorcycle when I am wearing a helmet.
The difference is the woman is a danger to everyone else. Some idiot not wearing a helmet is only endangering him/herself.
[/quote]
then, i guess it'd be fair that if you drive without a helmet, you should be required to pay more for insurance and if you hit anyone and sign a waiver saying that you can't sue anyone if you get hurt or die from crashing into anyone.
I picked it anyway just to show him he couldn't tell me what to think
It's winning now, by the way.
Fingolfin269
Lifer
- Feb 28, 2003
- 17,948
- 34
- 91
I'm actually all for requiring helmets if you're riding a motorcycle. But my reasoning is that if I'm the person who screws up and pulls out in front of a person riding a motorcycle and they plant their face in my windshield then I want to know that they had a helmet on their head upon impact. I just don't want to screw up and kill someone who is an idiot for not wearing a helmet and probably would have lived if they had been wearing a helmet.
And to be honest, I hate being anywhere near motorycycles on the road mainly because the drivers are typically unpredicatble. This mostly goes for people riding crotch rockets but can also hold for people riding Harley's because when they're in packs they are typically extensions of one another. If one merges over you better be ready for the rest of them to come as well.
And to be honest, I hate being anywhere near motorycycles on the road mainly because the drivers are typically unpredicatble. This mostly goes for people riding crotch rockets but can also hold for people riding Harley's because when they're in packs they are typically extensions of one another. If one merges over you better be ready for the rest of them to come as well.
cKGunslinger
Lifer
- Nov 29, 1999
- 16,408
- 57
- 91
Originally posted by: Number1
Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
I'm sorry, but being from Canada is no excuse for being a 'tard.
The quote from Ben Franklin (I looked it up) is so out of contest in this debate. How can anybody define not wearing a helmet as an "essential liberty"? To me a helmet is an essential need on a motorcycle.
Helmet laws are easy to enforce and they do save lives. Why should tax payers pay for easily preventable medical expenses? And don?t give me the ?beef is bad for you so we should outlaw it? argument. You would have a hard time passing a law like that.
See, you're erecting a strawman and arguing against it. No one here is saying that "not wearing a helmet" is an essential liberty, but you have to admit that it is nearing the slippery-slope that is a government having unnecessary influence and control over personal aspects of your life.
I, for one, have a hard time distinguishing the basic differences between mandatory helmet laws and, say, laws prohibiting skydiving, mountain climbing, jet-skiing, bungi-jumping, hang-gliding, eating fast food, rough sex, etc. I mean, why are some "potentially hazardous activities" acceptable, while others are not?
You ask not to give you the "beef is bad for you so we should outlaw it? argument, but I ask you why not? Your response that you would "have a hard passing that" holds absolutely no water. This country in no way, shape, or form was ever designed to be a "majority rules" democracy. If that were the case, I'd have to assume that you are against the rights of any minority group, as their rights could easily be trumped by a disagreeing majority. Maybe gays shouldn't have the right to marry, maybe we should reinstitute slavery, maybe we should get rid of the EOE acts. I'm sure we could probably find a majority group in many cases that would support those ideas, but that certainly doesn't make them the right things to do.
Now obviously, as we live in reality, and not an hypothetically perfect world, there are going to have to be some concessions. We don't let children drink or smoke or drive cars, but don't think that is infringing on anyone's rights, as we deem them necessary for the safety of the general populace. Along those same line we hit a grey zone where people disagree. We have laws against prostitution, suicide, drug use, etc. There are people on both sides that have valid and logical arguments why these should or should not be illegal activities. In my opinion, seatbelt/helmets laws are simply more items in the grey zone. There are arguments both for an against that make some sense.
So please, stop arguing each side like you are on polar opposites of some moral and idealogical spectrum. Chances are, you are only in opposition of the situation by a few degrees, not a full 180°.
Fenixgoon
Lifer
- Jun 30, 2003
- 33,140
- 12,560
- 136
didn't vote in the poll cause i didn't like the options.
but yes PA needs a helmet law (or the fed should pass one)- the government requires there to be airbags in cars, why not helmets for motorcyclists? it makes absolutely NO sense to ride without one - you only increase your chance of serious injury/brain damage/death.
but yes PA needs a helmet law (or the fed should pass one)- the government requires there to be airbags in cars, why not helmets for motorcyclists? it makes absolutely NO sense to ride without one - you only increase your chance of serious injury/brain damage/death.
cKGunslinger
Lifer
- Nov 29, 1999
- 16,408
- 57
- 91
I'm willing to bet that a large majority of the people who ride without helmets are perfectly aware that they are at a greater risk, and that may even be a reason for them to do so.
Should we also ban skydiving and mountain climbing? I mean, those are risky activities and *I* think you'd have to be a moron to do either one, so therefore they should be illegal, no? I mean, no good can come from either one, other than some personal sense of thrill and excitiment from the rush of doing something dangerous. And in your opinion, personal fulfillment and enjoyment should be no reason for being allowed to do anything remotely dangerous, right? Hmm?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter