Feds say all motorcycle riders should be required to wear helmets

[Frank Lee]

Just like for those "death trap" cars, here's some #s for bikes:

'07: 38.01 motorcycle fatalities per 100,000,000 miles, or 1 per 2,630,887 miles...

Unlike cages @14,000 miles/year, Kelly Blue Book says bikes accumilate 3000-6000 miles/year; NHTSA says 2411 for '00. Hmmm... well in the absence of better data I'll use the average 2411+3000+6000/3=3803... OK, 4000 miles/year, which is quite a bit more than I average.

2,630,887 miles/4000 miles per year = 658 years.

Bikes are about 10x worse than cages per mile (Car odds were 6,300 years of driving before getting nailed)

And yet, 658 years is how many lifetimes???

And that is why I oppose this proposed mandate as well. As always, wearing a helmet and other gear is always an option for those that feel the need.

[dcb]

The only slightly valid argument I have seen is that it increases health care costs, a very tiny amount. Far less than cars and drivers who are less able to avoid collisions in the first place and drive everywhere.

But looking at the fact that motorcycles can be very efficient machines, means they have been using less fuel and resources as well. I mean you can get a brand new ninja 250 (which many ecomodders are getting awesome mpg with) for like $4k, and since you are part of society, you just saved society $36,000 over a volt

[NachtRitter]

Originally Posted by Thymeclock

The topic was one of a political nature from the get-go, ("Feds say all motorcycle riders should be required to wear helmets") and the moderators allowed it. Now, after much discussion (with no incivility), you want to terminate it? I wonder why?

Because I come here for ecomodding tips, tricks, and ideas, not for political discussions embedded in an ecomodding subsection. If you want to attach a different meaning to it, be my guest.

Originally Posted by Thymeclock

This invocation of censorship is the equivalent of imposing martial law before anything bad 'might' happen. What if it doesn't happen? Will you be disappointed?

Authoritarians and dictators love draconian measures that curtail freedom. So do Nanny Statists.

You do understand this is a privately run forum, right? The moderators already censor the site, and have the right to do so anytime and in any way they choose. They also have the right to ban any member for any reason (or even for no reason). Don't like it, then you have the freedom to leave. Again, if you want to attach a different meaning to it, you are free to do so.

[NachtRitter]

Originally Posted by Thymeclock

Freedom is akin to health. I don't think it possible that anyone might suffer from having too much health...

You may want to think that through just a little bit. Imagine, for example, if everyone had the freedom to choose which side of the road they could drive on. Extend that to anyone having the freedom to do anything they want to do. Not a place I would want to live. Would you?

[Frank Lee]

You could avoid the thread if it distresses you. I don't look at every thread.

Also, "political" is argueing about dems vs repubs, or foreign policy, or some such. This is a motor vehicle regulatory concern, on a motor vehicle forum.

[Thymeclock]

Originally Posted by ShadeTreeMech

But the similarities ends when the people who depend on the dead fool without a helmet are deprived of their resource. An unborn child doesn't have anyone depending on them for survival.

That's what life insurance is for. If you can afford a motorcycle, you can also afford life insurance - and a helmet. I'm all for wearing a helmet. I'm against being forced by law to wear a helmet.

[Thymeclock]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thymeclock
The topic was one of a political nature from the get-go, ("Feds say all motorcycle riders should be required to wear helmets") and the moderators allowed it. Now, after much discussion (with no incivility), you want to terminate it? I wonder why?

Because I come here for ecomodding tips, tricks, and ideas, not for political discussions embedded in an ecomodding subsection. If you want to attach a different meaning to it, be my guest.

Since you knew there would be a political aspect to the discussion, and as you have chosen to participate in it, you need to learn the tolerance of allowing views that differ from your own. Why else would you be calling to terminate the discussion? No one is forcing you to read this thread or offer a rebuttal. However, do note that I am refuting you - I'm not calling upon authorities to silence you.

Originally Posted by Thymeclock
This invocation of censorship is the equivalent of imposing martial law before anything bad 'might' happen. What if it doesn't happen? Will you be disappointed?

Authoritarians and dictators love draconian measures that curtail freedom. So do Nanny Statists.

You do understand this is a privately run forum, right? The moderators already censor the site, and have the right to do so anytime and in any way they choose. They also have the right to ban any member for any reason (or even for no reason). Don't like it, then you have the freedom to leave.

A: You are not a moderator (thank God!) and B: Who do you think you are to tell me to leave?

Again, if you want to attach a different meaning to it, you are free to do so.

I did. Your repeated pretense of granting me permission to comment sounds more arrogant than it is gracious.

[Thymeclock]

Originally Posted by NachtRitter

You may want to think that through just a little bit. Imagine, for example, if everyone had the freedom to choose which side of the road they could drive on. Extend that to anyone having the freedom to do anything they want to do. Not a place I would want to live. Would you?

Obviously your definition of having "the freedom to..." is different and your proposed hypothetical tries to steer the discussion into a different topic. I'm not interested in extending your hypothetical scenario to absurdity. This sounds like an attempt at propping up another 'straw man' argument.

[ShadeTreeMech]

The law isn't to force those who have the wisdom to know when to protect themselves.

This law is to protect the morons, the young men, and the fools who also live among us and are too ignorant to know common sense or wisdom.

[Frank Lee]

^Thanks! Another good reason not to have it!