If my state requires (which they do) me to wear a helmet, then, by proxy,
they SHOULD be liable for any consequences of their (the state's) law. But
they're not! When they (the state) are ready to print a list of "approved"
helmets, (which they haven't) and then accept the risk of those injuries
that are caused by me wearing the helmet, then yea, mandatory helmets.
But the state isn't ready to accept that responsibility, so in my opinion,
then NO.
We motorcycle enthusiasts all should be allowed to make an educated decision
for ourselves if I have to reap the consequences of my choice. And BTW;
having health insurance doesn't let the state of the hook. There's always a
ceiling per occurrence, (in most cases that's usually 1 mil) and once that
ceiling is met, then the state (and me or my family) pays. So for those
zealots that claim 'helmets save tax dollars' that isn't necessarily so. In
fact, the state probably spends a considerable amount of $$ on fighting
those helmet citations that are fought in our court system. And for those
zealots who think having health insurance will cover it, are sadly mistaken
as well.
As for the state wanting to save $$, if they're (the state) wanting not to
'flip the bill' for those in need, then stop paying the taxes. I don't mind
paying taxes when I know the $$ might go to some good. But (and usually it
does) when it goes to paying for some FAT LEGISLATOR who sits around making
stupid laws that only cost us more.... then I have a problem with that!
Like tripling our vehicle license fees because our government made bad
choices. Here's an idea, lets cut the Legislator's, Senators, and
Governor's pay for not doing the job they should be doing? That'll save a
whole lot more $$ than putting skid lids on some unsuspecting motorist who
now feels they're safe as a baby - when they're not!
To the rider who makes building codes a comparison to riding; those
choices that I make, that effect me are those choices that I should be
allowed to make in a free state. But those choices which ultimately would
effect someone else (particularly someone who is under the belief they are
safe) are those (choices) that are controlled. So running red lights,
driving drunk, building's with less than safe construction all affect others
and need constraint.
To the rider who feels that eating red meat is a problem, then he / she
shouldn't be a carnivore. Be a vegetarian. It's your choice. It's really
the 'fat' content that makes meats and foods 'taste' good. And to that, if
you have a heart attack, who's the one suffering? The state? I don't think
so. They are painful if you've ever had one, not to mention the uneasy
frightening feeling of dying.
To the rider who thinks riding is a 'privilege.' I bought the damn thing, I
should be able to ride it. Don't you think? If its on private land or
public land, either way I paid for it. The only time I think something is a
'privilege' is when I don't have a right, or can't afford the right to it,
and someone gives me the opportunity to try it, then it's a privilege. Like
knowing someone could be a privilege. They're giving you the opportunity,
but you don't have the right to know them. Or riding on someone's private
land (ranch), that could be a privilege. You don't have the right unless
the owner decides to let you on. But public lands, public 'rights of way'
or public roads, different story. I paid for them, I should be able to use
them. Don't you think?
--
Zypher
Post by MalcolmI love threads like this, because you tell half the story.
Most of those riders who demand the "freedom" don't have medical insurance.
So guess who gets stuck with the bill?
Yup, Joe Taxpayer.
Force them to have insurance first, or let their insurer know they ride w/o
a helmet.
Of all places, Kentucky has the right idea.
Post by CaylaShould wearing a helmet be optional for motorcycle riders? OVER the age
of
Post by Malcolm21
Post by CaylaShouldnt WE have the freedom to have the choice!!??
Vote Yes!!!
http://www.geocities.com/cayla1969/votekyw.html