Irony takes a deadly turn.

Joe08867

bobman1235 wrote: »

This post makes no sense at all. All motorcyclists should be punished because some chose not to be safe? You live in a scary, small world.

I agree 1,000,000%.

By the way the internet does make things looks worse than they are. I'm cool of your cool? Keep the shiny side up..

tonyb

steveinaz wrote: »

Mandatory helmet laws could be approved nation wide tommorrow---and your rates won't drop a bloody cent. FACT.

Amen bro....
The safety nannys have already put an end to such simple childhood activities such as dodgeball, tag, and even just riding a bike.

I also wonder if these mandatory helmet laws would still be around if insurance itself wasn't mandatory.

Not to derail, but as Shack pointed out, we are part of a "collective". A term I personally can't stand true as it may be. Since we all will be part of a government run healthcare system in one form or another in the near future, doesn't that give them the right to make all the rules ? Mandate social behavior ? What you eat,drink ?
Mandates is a form of surpression in my book, a way to control the population in a way that only a select few will determine.

Nobody will argue the need for safety laws in any given society, but as Steve points out, to what extent....where does it end ?

steveinaz

You can legislate anything to death, but does that mean we should? Get Government out of my life please. Hell, I can't even shoot anymore without having to pay someone for the "priviledge" and then do everything at the range--per their f'in rules.

If you want to live in a test tube, by all means, knock yourself out---just leave the rest of us the hell alone. Damn.

steveinaz

How about we limit the HP on cars to 50? That's all you need is it not? That would be much safer and therefore lower our insurance rates, would it not? And everyone wants be safe, don't we?

Getting my point Shack? You're a serious car enthusiast, and my proposal probably makes your blood boil, right? Why---well because muscle cars are just damn fun aren't they? I'm NOT a car enthusiast, but I certainly see the appeal in a mega-horsepower rig, so you won't see me supporting legislation on reducing HP either.

Demiurge

It's only ironic if you don't understand why he was out there in the first place.

steveinaz

exactly. Game, set, match.

tonyb

Good point Steve, or they'll just tax the hell out of older cars that don't meet a 50 mpg fuel rating,and thats pretty much every used car. Forces you to buy new and send everything else to the scrap heap.

steveinaz

Precisely Tony. It's how the minority finds success. Demonize, tax like hell, make it unaffordable or too much of a kill joy to bother. AND MOST OF THEM DON'T EVEN PARTICIPATE IN THE VERY THING THEY WANT TO SEE REGULATED!

It's not the point of something being safe, making good sense; it's the principal of who gets to make that determination---the individual or BIG Government. It IS just that simple. Remember when you were a kid, and got into an argument with your brother over a toy. You learned quick to work it out amongst yourselves, because if you went to Dad (Government) he'd say "ok, niether one of can play with it, put it away." Dad doesn't care about the issue, he wants to get back to the game.

Is this concept hard to follow?

steveinaz

If we keep up this unspoken policy of "punish the many because of the few" pretty soon we'll have no freedoms; and/or everything will be so restricted as not to be worth pursuing it. Then everybody loses.

Sometimes people do dumb stuff, or make bad decisions; it's called "Natural selection" in nature.

Funny how this article makes no mention as to why the rider had to "slam on his brakes."

shack

steveinaz wrote:

How did we ever survive the 60's and 70's without the Safety Sally's?

Evidently...not very well....

From the NHTSA FARS (Fatality Analysis Reporting System)

- The occupant fatality rate (including motorcyclists) per 100,000 population declined by 46.6 percent from 1975 to 2009. This number would be even greater if motorcyclist were excluded as they are the one category that has significantly increased.

Also reported:

-The fatalites reported per 100 million VMT have decreased from over 5 in 1975 to now less than 1 in 2010.

A 46% + decrease in fatalities only (based on population) and 80% decrease in fatalities based on mile traveled since the mid 70s seems pretty significant to me. I would be willing to bet serious injuries would show similar declines.

While there are many factors that make up these figures it is evident to me that the Safety Sallies have had a hand in saving a lot of lives.

dorokusai

I'm w/ Shack in this discussion. Most of America is borderline retarded and some things we have as options, simply aren't "rights" at all.

I'm all for freedom but this isn't the gateway helmet law to communism. Give me a break.

How you reference the 60's and 70's is beyond me.

tonyb

steveinaz wrote: »

Is this concept hard to follow?

For some,yeah it is....unless your the Dad of coarse.

Also, liability issues tie into safety laws in our society of taking everyone to court on a whim. Yet another reason to enact some common sense into the court system. I saw that Texas passed a "loser pays" law which is a good start for frivilous lawsuits.

shack

All I know is that today my chances of survival in a serious auto accident (and those people I love and care about) are SIGNIFICANTLY greater thanks to federal agencies like the NHTSA and other Safety Sallys.

A job well done IMO.

steveinaz

If you think these things are insignificant, imagine speaking with your great grandfather and explainig to him all the "new" rules we have now as society. Mine would climb back in his casket, gladly.

It DOES matter.

tonyb

dorokusai wrote: »

I'm w/ Shack in this discussion. Most of America is borderline retarded and some things we have as options, simply aren't "rights" at all.

I'm all for freedom but this isn't the gateway helmet law to communism. Give me a break.

Gateway helmet law to communism ?? C'mon Mark, a bit extreme bro.

No doubt helmet laws save lives, but who's life is it to save in the first place ?
Making people aware on proceedures of safety, how to be safe, is one thing, making laws to forbid everything that may do you harm is another. If you want a law to take the place of common sense, then alot more laws are needed. However,I do agree that alot of the general public is retarded as you say, but hey...everyone is to one extent or another.:biggrin:

steveinaz

Safety IS available, if your willing to pay the cost. I'm not.

shack

steveinaz wrote:

If you think these things are insignificant, imagine speaking with your great grandfather and explainig to him all the "new" rules we have now as society. Mine would climb back in his casket, gladly.

It DOES matter.

Knowing where my great grandfather came from and what he survived and endured...I think he would jump at the chance to live in our society...rules and all!

shack

steveinaz wrote:

Safety IS available, if your willing to pay the cost. I'm not.

The level safety available today WOULD NOT be here had it not been pushed upon the mfgs...and what would have been available would not be affordable to the masses.

steveinaz

Oh, don't kid yourself for a second...we pay for it. The average mean price of an automobile in 2011? $29,900.00.

shack

steveinaz wrote:

That actually explains a lot.

I certainly hope that is not a slam on my Great Grandfather...

shack

steveinaz wrote:

Oh, don't kid yourself for a second...we pay for it.

Sure we do. But it was not too long ago that only Mercedes, Volvos etc had great safetly ratings. And how many average citizens could actually afford the safety they offered?

steveinaz wrote:

The average mean price of an automobile in 2011? $29,900.00.

And based on inflation is equal to or less than the cost of the average vehicle in 1975...

steveinaz

shack wrote: »

I certainly hope that is not a slam on my Great Grandfather...

Absolutely not, it was a reflection of your beliefs. I had a feeling it would be mis-interpreted, that's why I edited it out.

Bottom line, my ideas/beliefs are probably as foriegn to you, as yours are to me. And that's fine.

bobman1235

shack wrote: »

All I know is that today my chances of survival in a serious auto accident (and those people I love and care about) are SIGNIFICANTLY greater thanks to federal agencies like the NHTSA and other Safety Sallys.

A job well done IMO.

Disagreeing with one or two things doesn't mean a lot of good hasn't been done. Are you telling me that just because they have done some good things, there is NO LAW they could possibly try and enforce that you wouldn't disagree with?

Personally, I like making safety equipment standard / available in all cars, but I also like letting people make their own decisions on whether or not to make use of that equipment.

People HAVE to be responsible for themselves at some point in the process.

Jstas

I think it's funny when new riders in PA (no helmet laws) get the bright idea to "take a ride down the shore" in Jersey (so many helmet laws that even kids under a certain age are required to have a helmet for their tricycles). I usually see them on the side of the road with a trooper and flashing lights, throwing fits because the trooper will not let them operate the motorcycle in NJ without a helmet. They usually have to get a tow or be impounded and they have to get a ride and a helmet to get their bike back.

And loud pipes on bikes are hard to hear over the loud pipes on my truck. I usually watch for fingers.

tonyb

I think we are floating towards the extreme at both ends here.
Yes Shack, there is a need for Safety Sallys, they perform a valuable service to the general public, and life in general is much safer with them than without them.
Nor do any of us want a lawless society were everyone does what the hell they damn well please. There has to be a middle ground, one that is not too limiting, yet keeps the general public as safe as possible. Unfortunately, safety has become politicized and common sense thrown out the window. One lawsuit, add the press hounds, and suddenly someone will take up the cause for more regulation because after all, they have your best interest at heart.:rolleyes:

When you start trying to ban kids from riding a bike to school though, I would say thats pushing it past reason. When kids can't play tag at school anymore, then the safety sallys are stepping over their limits.

I think more so the point Steve and I are trying to make is, you give the safety sallys an inch,they take a mile... as with any government run anything. Personally, I'd like to see some, repeat, some, safety laws become a local issue to be voted on. Helmet laws are one. Riding conditions will vary between Chicago and out side Las Vegas.
The other concept Steve and I would argue is the one to have others save us from...gulp...ourselves. A can of worms no doubt, but if you subscribe to that concept wholeheartedly, then those in charge will eventually need to save you from eating that twinkie,sun exposure, a good cigar, a glass of Scotch, where you live,what you drive, and so on. Which means it would never end.

It's not per say one helmet law, one smoking ban, one mandate here or there, it becomes a slow erosion of freedoms that of late seem to snowball bigger and bigger. So most will stand up and say stop...enough. It's not just about a helmet law in the end. Others would say it's just a stupid helmet law for gods sake,get over it. It's a cummulation of stupid laws, when we have much bigger fish to fry in this country given our current situation.

Steve, I don't mean to speak for you, your doing just fine yourself, but I sense we are on the same page. I appologize if I used your name in any of my rantings you may disagree with.

steveinaz

I agree with your observations, but I (as you) would prefer that we try to minimize as much as possible---the rule making. It OFFENDS me as a human being and an American to have everything dictated to me in LAW, as if I'm an idiot. It also worries me that anything that was once fun and enjoyable will soon be made so stupidly "SAFE" that it will have zero appeal. If you want to be safe, stay the hell off a motorcycle; buy yourself an armored car, wrap the mattress around you, blop on your "DOT" approved helmet and enjoy.

Would a mandatory helmet law lead to the crumbling of American society as we know it? Hell no. Does it need to be mandated? Hell no. I have yet to hear of a single report of a motorcycle rider NOT wearing a helmet--resulting in an accident. Not ONE.

Automobile devices are irrelevant--they are all passive, sans non-automatic seat belts. Nobody is asking you to wear a helmet in your car.

Demiurge

dorokusai wrote: »

I'm w/ Shack in this discussion. Most of America is borderline retarded and some things we have as options, simply aren't "rights" at all.

I'm all for freedom but this isn't the gateway helmet law to communism. Give me a break.

How you reference the 60's and 70's is beyond me.

This one thing? No, but it's a culmination of the nanny state that causes a flake to turn into an out of control avalanche of infringements on many of our basic freedoms. Some, of course, are valid. We live in a society and our freedoms are not absolute. That does not mean we give government a wide purview over our personal lives.

Mandated helmet laws are a ridiculous overreach if you get beyond the simplicity of strapping a helmet on your melon. That's not what this is about, anymore so than mandating you wear a helmet in your car would be.

The retardation as you put it, in this instance, has no impact on you. If only we had as much outrage to muster over the dumb asses that impact us all directly as we do about those who don't.

The insurance argument is a non-starter since the insurance companies already price the risk of riding a motorcycle accordingly. Obviously the risk assessment varies from one insurance company to the next. Forcing someone to wear a helmet impacts you personally exactly not at all.

This is the government with a solution in search of a problem.

If there's a problem, the insurance companies have the legal means to put conditions on the insured. They can either not be insured or pay more for increased risk. If your insurance company is taking undue risks with motorcyclists, find one that has a more strict policy on them than your car/truck driving motorists.

shack

steveinaz wrote:

Bottom line, my ideas/beliefs are probably as foriegn to you, as yours are to me. And that's fine.

No they are not foreign to me...I have family members and friends that feel/believe similarly to you. I simply strongly disagree with them.

This topic was discussed here ad nauseam when Ben Roethlisburger had his motorcycle accident where he wasn't wearing a helmet. We've had similar discussions about smoking, guns, etc, and how all of this relates to "personal freedoms". I have firsthand experience with everything I've discussed...not just my offhand observations...that have shaped my views.

No more from me. My views/beliefs have not changed since the last foray into the topic here at CP...and at this point in my life I doubt (no...I know) that discussion on this forum will have no affect on them.

tonyb

Demiurge wrote: »

This is the government with a solution in search of a problem.

Cha-ching....got that right bro. Isn't that usually the case ?

Demiurge

tonyb wrote: »

Cha-ching....got that right bro. Isn't that usually the case ?

Yep, it usually is. This stuff wouldn't fly if it affected everyone, though. If you don't ride motorcycles how many people are going to defend motorcyclists? Not many, because most can't see the forest for the trees.

We could attach ourselves emotionally to these issues as many do and say to ourselves so and so would be alive if only they had worn a helmet. Well guess what? It was their choice not to. Bitter pill to swallow, but they made a choice, and no government mandate against our free will is going to protect all of us and our loved ones from making poor choices and suffering consequences.

If we're that concerned, motorcycling should just be outlawed. It's inherently dangerous helmet or no helmet. Don't laugh, we're headed there.

The nannying and sucking of fun out of our lives never ends, but one thing remains the same -- we're all going to die. Can't I determine the risks I'm going to take with my own person?