So my rights should be abridged due to the possibility of someone else's *feelings being hurt* if I die?
That's absurd.
So my rights should be abridged due to the possibility of someone else's *feelings being hurt* if I die?
That's absurd.
Where do you get the idea it is your right to ride with out a helmet/seatbelt. When it is not a right to use a motorized vechicel at all on public roads?
This is flawed thinking, the type that a nanny-stater often uses. You're willing to give up my rights, since doing so doesn't hurt you. You can't see the implications.
However, if I were to let you suffer and die because you did something that I did not approve of, your fellow nanny-staters would be pissing their pants.
Maybe you eat meat while someone else doesn't want you to. Pay for your own damn heart operation.
Maybe you ride bikes when I think that bikes should be banned. Pay for your own damn hospital stay when you fall.
Maybe you got injured while on vacation. I don't think people should take vacations. You're on your own.
Maybe your kid is seriously ill. I don't think you should have had kids, pay for him youself.
When someone is willing to give up another fellow citizen's rights based on their own disagreement, it makes the country worse for all of us.
The difference between you and I is that while I may not agree with what you do, I'll defend your freedom to do it.
Prohibiting the consumption of red meat would also save lives. There is other food to eat, why allow it? Just because you think it tastes good? Think of the emotional distress you cause others to feel when you get heart disease. Is your enjoyment worth their trauma?
(that is the type of flawed reasoning that nanny-staters use. Give up someone else's freedom in an attempt at a little safety. It's a losing proposition.)
It's only not a right because the automobile was invented after 1776. If you notice, the oppressive government doesn't seem to be willing to declare that we have any new rights at all. Everything new that comes out is suddenly a "priveledge" allowed by the US Government.
If it wasn't for the Constitution, we wouldn't have any rights at all, because there's no way that the current government would allow the people to have any powers or rights over the government.
I don't see why we don't have people on here trying to get motorcycles banned. A person on a motorcycle, even one wearing a helmet, is still worse off in an accident that a person in a car that isn't wearing their seatbelt.
Everyone knows that motorcycles are dangerous. Why should they be allowed?
Everyone knows that motorcycles are dangerous. Why should they be allowed?
BoomerD
No Lifer
- Feb 26, 2006
- 66,582
- 14,985
- 146
WHAAAA! I don't want to wear a seatbelt. It infringes on my rights.
What rights? You have to obey the laws of the state, city, county, etc, in order to drive a car. Why have driver's licences? Another infringement on your freedoms. How about insurance? There's a BIG infringement on your freedoms.
Same goes for helmet laws...Yeah, they suck, but in low speed crashes, it increases the chance that you may survive with your head intact. Like them or not, vehicle laws are designed to protect everyone, whether you like them or not. If you don't want to wear a seat belt...don't, but you will have to pay a fine if you get caught. Don't like motorcycle helmets? Don't wear one, but you will have to pay a fine when you get caught. That allows you to have your "freedoms" but at the price of being fined if you get caught violating the law. I personally don't like some of the highway speed limits, but I KNOW I will have to pay the fine IF I get caught exceeding them.
What rights? You have to obey the laws of the state, city, county, etc, in order to drive a car. Why have driver's licences? Another infringement on your freedoms. How about insurance? There's a BIG infringement on your freedoms.
Same goes for helmet laws...Yeah, they suck, but in low speed crashes, it increases the chance that you may survive with your head intact. Like them or not, vehicle laws are designed to protect everyone, whether you like them or not. If you don't want to wear a seat belt...don't, but you will have to pay a fine if you get caught. Don't like motorcycle helmets? Don't wear one, but you will have to pay a fine when you get caught. That allows you to have your "freedoms" but at the price of being fined if you get caught violating the law. I personally don't like some of the highway speed limits, but I KNOW I will have to pay the fine IF I get caught exceeding them.
Be honest with me- did it ever cross your mind that maybe some of these laws were enacted to generate revenue? That the claim "it's for your safety" is just an excuse to hit you up for a revenue-generating ticket?
The 55 mph speed limit was never about safety; it was about fuel conservation. It was only after the oil crisis, and the possibility that municipalities would lose the profitable tickets they were writing for exceeding the 55 mph speed limit, did it suddenly become "for your safety".
BoomerD
No Lifer
- Feb 26, 2006
- 66,582
- 14,985
- 146
Of course...speed laws, and many others are exactly that...revenue enhancers. BUT, they're still the law, and you have the option of not obeying them...with the penalties if/when you get caught. Parking meters are a prime example of this...they make money hand over fist for municipalities...
I just see something seriously wrong with the ethics of a situation like this... the citizens gave an agency legal/physical power over the rest of populace to protect and to serve them. The same agency winds up with a revenue addiction, and ends up using the power we gave them to strongarm money from us.
Instead of police being a friendly, highly visible public service, they're now commonly found hiding behind embankments and off in the bushes stalking the citizens they're supposed to be serving and handing out tickets. They're more like predators.
The balance of power has gotten out of hand.
A perfect case of that is 285 here in atlanta. The speed limit was actually 60 (65?) and in the 70's it was lowered to 55. When the city evaluated raising it they decided to leave it at 55.. for revenue generations aka "safety"
There are many studies that have proven that since people arrive at their destination quicker that a speed limit of 65 is safer than 55.
Linflas
Lifer
- Jan 30, 2001
- 15,395
- 78
- 91
Identical situation here in the DC suburbs of Virginia. When the 55MPH limit was enacted the interstates were 70MPH everywhere in the state except Northern Virginia where they were 65 MPH. Now they are back to normal everywhere in the state but here where they are still 55.
Scarpozzi
Lifer
- Jun 13, 2000
- 26,392
- 1,780
- 126
A friend of mine was in the car with his girlfriend about 7 years ago. They were in a major car accident that killed his girlfriend. He was not wearing a seatbelt and lived. She was wearing a seatbelt and died. I don't exactly know what did her in (probably head injury)....but the newspaper kind of reversed their seatbelt situation and said that she WASN'T wearing a seatbelt. It just goes to show that the media sucks.
The media does suck, and I believe that there are plenty of cases where people are worse off wearing it.. However, I think in the vast majority of situations you are better off with it on
Please exit the thread. That statement in bold is absurd because me and many others who are against the law have stated that we always wear our seatbelts and that anyone who doesn't is pretty much a dumbass.
So yeah...excellent work. :roll:
Well as a motorcyclist, your crazy to not wear a helmut or protection while riding. However, it is not the laws job to protect YOU from YOURSELF. So, I don't believe in the helmut law. I think that is one more law on the books that should be illeminated. We are not our brothers keeper. Period.
Laws are made to protect people from harming one another and others property.
If someone chooses not to wear a helmut and has an accident, that person knew from the moment they chose to ride that bike what the increased risks were to begin with. They assume the risks of this activity.
Ok, so if this is your argument then, then we should make laws against people wanting to become fire fighters, or building window washers... because those are highly dangerous activities and many people are killed doing these type occupations. Think of the emotional damage done to the relatives who have to worry about their loved ones doing a job they CHOSE to do knowing the risks involved. Oh don't forget the window washer might have his life insurance policy rate increased substantially because he CHOSE that line of work, and knew the risks inherrent to that type activity.
Sorry, I don't buy this. Americans need to take responsibility for their own choices in life. Face up to the consequences and stop trying to control everyone else around them, and point blame.
Forcing someone to wear a helmut is not going to save anyones butt except the rider! It is the riders choice. Period. If you wreck, you wreck... damage done regardless of helmut on or not.
Body parts will go flying regardless of helmut on or not, if you are at a high rate of speed and in traffic.
MrChad
Lifer
- Aug 22, 2001
- 13,507
- 3
- 81
Originally posted by: DivideBYZero
Originally posted by: DougK62
Hahahahahahahahah. That's a ridiculous comparison. You're grasping for anything, and it's funny.
No, it's a perfect comparison. It's my right to drive, don't curb my personal freedom.
It's absolutely your right to drive. Just drive on roads that are exclusively owned by you.
I wear my seatbelt every time I drive, but I oppose the nanny state requiring me to do so. The only justifications I can see for seatbelt laws are lower insurance rates and reduced public healthcare costs, and to be honest I don't know how much those areas are impacted.
TheSlamma,
I guess neither of us see what the big deal is about having to wear a seat belt or a helmet. I starting to think that if these laws are removed that other people would want to do away with drivers licenses next- cause getting them renewed is a real pain in the ass- especially after moving to New York. And from what I hear a lot of the worst drivers never bothered keeping properly registered.
As a mater of fact, getting my vehicle inspected is a pain in the ass too. Why not do away with vehicle inspections too? I mean if a car is breaking down in the middle of the highway nobody is really hurting anyone?
I guess they are right. We should do away with seatbelts and all these foolish laws. Then I could enjoy a Mad Max style trip twice a way in and out of work- wouldn?t that be wicked?
After reading a good bit of the thread, here are my findings thus far.
Seatbelt and helmet laws:
Pros:
* saves lives
* lessens injury
* saves money
* helps prevent accidents
* helps prevent injury and death which can keep roads closed longer after accidents
Cons:
* prevents the 'wind in your hair' feeling for people with motor bikes
* provides bitches with something to bitch about
PS. I'd be against helmet laws if bikers were given a choice of (1) always wearing a helmet or (2) signing up to be an organ donor (where the burden of proving you're 'not quite dead yet' was put solely on a biker).
Seatbelt and helmet laws:
Pros:
* saves lives
* lessens injury
* saves money
* helps prevent accidents
* helps prevent injury and death which can keep roads closed longer after accidents
Cons:
* prevents the 'wind in your hair' feeling for people with motor bikes
* provides bitches with something to bitch about
PS. I'd be against helmet laws if bikers were given a choice of (1) always wearing a helmet or (2) signing up to be an organ donor (where the burden of proving you're 'not quite dead yet' was put solely on a biker).
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 + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter