Quote from: 2RR2NV on November 13, 2013, 03:17:07 PM

doesn't really matter to me since i wear one anyways...  and not required to.

How about when they come after your bike?

Quote from: bomber on November 13, 2013, 03:25:18 PM

I would bet that the AMA is getting involved in this as a nod to the cruiser riders, who seem to be under-represented in that organization, at least round here.

IIRC the AMA's public position has always been in support of voluntary helmet use; they're not as vocal as, say, ABATE.

Quote from: mxvet57 on November 13, 2013, 05:14:40 PM

All the government has to say to the states is if you don't pass the law you'll loose federal highway funds. Worked for seat belts.

That would work

Quote from: kneescrubber on November 13, 2013, 06:26:05 PM

Quote from: PatM on November 13, 2013, 05:25:43 PM

Quote from: mxvet57 on November 13, 2013, 05:14:40 PM

All the government has to say to the states is if you don't pass the law you'll loose federal highway funds. Worked for seat belts.

That would work

That approach typically doesn't work in Texas. Texans hate being told what to do by; well, you know.

If the state can do without federal funding, I see no issue. How much of the state's highway budget would they loose? Would the state legislator be willing to forgo whatever funds they get just for bikers?

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

So what y'all are saying is we need to do away with any and/or all laws that are for the common good?

Quote from: kneescrubber on November 18, 2013, 06:42:50 PM

So what y'all are saying is we need to do away with any and/or all laws that are for the common good?

Who decides the "common good"?


Useless laws weaken the necessary laws. -- Charles de Montesquieu

Good. when I saw helmetless douches in Montana, I laughed in my RF1100 at them.

If it wasn't for my helmet, I would currently have Jun 6, 2025 - Aug 26, 2025 engraved on my tombstone.

...<snip>...
However, I would absolutely prefer that the Feds were working on mandatory legal traffic filtering for all states instead of a helmet law.  As is legal in California and pretty much every other country everywhere.   Now THAT would be very useful legislation!

As far a legislation goes, this is pretty benign.  I do not personally believe in the slippery slope theory.  For example, we require people to wear seatbelts, but no one has come for my car yet.   

None taken, of course and I see your point as well.

...federal dollars spent on rear steering motorcycles, and the state of Ohio toying with seat belt laws for motorcycles . . . . . .

I fully support your right not to wear one as long as zero public dollars go to saving your arse should you be silly enough to take a spill whilst not wearing said headgear..

Not sure how accurate this so..read with that in mind..

A privately conducted California study put the average cost of hospital admissions for a non-helmeted rider at $17,704. Of this initial amount, 72 percent of the costs for hospitalization were paid by the State of California, with another 10 percent being paid by other tax-based sources. Now you have to do all the math to get compaired to a helmeted rider etc etc..but point being that freedom is not necessarily free..

All fine and dandy with personal responsibility and liberty as long as you ACTUALLY accept the risk..problem is people want it too much both ways..freedom from tyranny..till they need it...

Imagine you're having a backyard barbeque. A cop walks in and announces, "This is a random health and safety check to see whether you've removed the skin from the chicken before you served it." Though delicious in taste, we all know that chicken skin contains considerable unhealthy fat. If you're caught serving chicken skin, the cop gets your ID and issues you a $50 ticket.

If something like this were to occur, most Americans -- I hope -- would see such an action as ludicrous, offensive and a gross violation of our liberties. But not so fast. Let's think about it. Each year, obesity claims the lives of 300,000 Americans and adds over $100 billion to health-care costs. Doesn't that give government the right to dictate what we eat? If you're the least offended by the notion of government dictating our diets, pray tell me how it differs in principle from seatbelt laws and especially the new federal enforcement program called "Click It or Ticket."

Under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, the federal government is spending $500 million to aggressively enforce seatbelt laws. According to a July Consumers Research article written by Eric Peters titled "The Federal Government Wants You to Buckle Up," about 11,000 law enforcement agencies across the country have set up random checkpoints and have issued hundreds of thousands of tickets to unbelted drivers and passengers.

Just as in my barbeque scenario, their justification is our health and safety. After all, the 2002 highway death toll was 42,815 and, according to a U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) study, "The Economic Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes on America's Roadways," seatbelt usage could have prevented an estimated 9,200 fatalities.

"Click It or Ticket" represents another bold step along the road to serfdom. History knows of no totalitarianism agenda where noble goals weren't used as justification. Nazis used "for the good of the German Volk" and the Soviets used "for the good of the proletariat" as their justification. Health and safety have become the American justification for attacks on liberty.

In a free society, each person owns himself. As such, he has the broad discretion to make his own choices regardless of what others think of the wisdom of his choices. He has the right to take chances with his own health and safety. However, if an American doesn't own himself, and it's Congress that owns him, he doesn't have those rights. Thus, the "Click It or Ticket" program is simply Congress' way of caring for its property, the American people.

Whether seatbelt usage is a good idea is beside the point, for daily exercise, nutritious meals, eight hours sleep, and cultural and intellectual enrichment might also be good ideas. The point is whether government has a right to coerce us into taking care of ourselves.

If eating what we wish is our business and not that of government, then why should we accept government's coercing us to wear seatbelts? America's tyrants might answer, "We just haven't gotten around to dictating diets yet."

Some might argue, but falsely so, that the problem with people exercising their liberty to drive without seatbelts, ride motorcycles without helmets or eat in unhealthy ways is that if they become injured or sick, society will be burdened with higher health-care costs. That's not a problem of liberty but one of socialism.

There's no liberty-based argument for forcing one person to care for the needs of another. Under socialism, one is obliged to care for another. A parent-child relationship emerges between the citizen and the government. That was not the vision of our Founders.

So what y'all are saying is we need to do away with any and/or all laws that are for the common good?

So this person not wearing a helmet lives in a complete vacuum. Their decision not to wear a helmet affects no one else?

I support seat belt laws. I would support coast-to-coast helmet laws. And I would also support laws or other controls over text messaging while driving.

For all people, not just under kids.