Epic Helmet Law Protestor is Epic
 

http://beta.news.yahoo.com/ny-motorc...143217859.html

this is just simply hilarious

And even the writer gets a zing in

He probably would have also survived if he knew how to stop by doing something other than stomping his rear brake.

I guess "riding skill" wasn't part of his mid-life crisis.

Survival of the fittesthttp://forums.offtopic.com/images/smilies/bowdown.gif

Irony at its best.

..But sadly, it reflects bad on all of us. Some of us like to ride without a bucket on their head, and can handle applying their brakes.

I've never understood the typical Harley riders aversion to using the front brake. I've nevah cared enough to ask one about it eithah. :lmao:

Anyone have any insight into what that irrational little phobia is about?

Few years back I was on a ride and lost a caliper bolt on my front brakes. A few peope stopped to help/see whats going on. One hardley rider said jsut dont use the front brakes. Scared my friends because I told him to go away before I killed him LOL

You're not always going to have the time or chance to properly apply brakes squid

My head, my problem.

Your mom is cute. I might even fuck her.

Just like this right bro?

http://forgifs.com/gallery/d/182035-...s_grinding.gif

Wow, your momma has some big ass titties.

Second thought, think I'll pass.

No problem

http://goofygifs.com/wp-content/uplo...cat-lasers.gif

Welcome to my part of the state

its worse down here but thye dont know how to get organized. Had 2 dumbasses in the er with motorcycle wrecks the last 2 nights that got jacked up but are too stupid/useless to die

This news story is making the rounds. Here's what was posted on a corvette forum.

Anybody seen someone spread their brains out on the pavement for real?

I was doing some photography back in college and into my frame came a cycle hitting a car. The cycle driver flew off the car (I naturally panned with him) and landed head first on the pavement - his head blasting open like a watermelon dropped from a helicopter.

I was firing about 5 frames per second - not thinking about it, just reflex. Gave the film to the cops.

I was using a zoom lens. I saw brains.

Probably a good idea to wear a helmet. Should it be a law? Well, he did make an awful mess on the street. But nope. Too many nanny laws.

If you don't wear a helmet, you deserve what you get because Darwin's law applies.


Last sentence is blunt and to the point.

Going over the bars.

No lie. That's the fear. They are afraid they will get on the front brake and go over the bars.

I had someone at the track - we are introducing a new class that will have street bikes [cruisers, standards, tour, etc.] using the track as a training surface. Think MSF outside the parking lot. I was testing out a curriculum one day, this woman was taking the class on her bagger [big ass HUGE harley]. I came to learn she wasn't EVER using the front brake. EVER. As in, Never EVER. She was told by her brain surgeon riding buddies that it was dangerous to use the front brake.

She has been riding for 10 years without ever using the front brake. I told her that if she could do a stoppie and go over the bars on her bagger she would defy the laws of physics and should win Stunt Wars.

I was shocked.

As long as you have the health insurance to back it up, you're right.

If not, you pass your problem onto others.

JC

So make that the requirement for going bucketless.

Done.

I've met my fair share of folks that were taught that it is bad to use the front brake.

The best logic I have heard was that the rear wheel could lock up and skid, but you can recover from that, if the front wheel locks up you will wash out the front and there is no way to recover from that

If only that worked for this guy, huh? Oh well. So much for that idea.

Use the front brake, kids. Physics. It's the law.

People who refuse to wear helmets would probably look at that as an infringement of their right to be stupid. Such a law would also be nearly unenforceable. How are the cops supposed to know you're "exempt from self-preservation", without pulling you over?

JC

Secondary violation, loss of license.

That's all fine and good, but it doesn't answer the question.

JC

Same strategy used to keep people from driving cars without insurance.

Will it stop all illegal activity of this kind? No.

Has ANY law ever done that? Not that I'm aware of.

If that's not good enough:
 

Answer B:

Tag on license plate.

Answer C:

Cops have computers. Run the tag; if it comes up "approved for personal liberty / head trauma", don't pull him over.

:shrug:

I've met plenty who are terrified of the front brake. Almost all of them have wrecked at least once by getting into situations where they were not able to stop fast enough.

From this same news story on a kawi triple forum
I've been riding continuously for 44 years youngster. It's my opinion you are 100% wrong but that's beside the point. This is America, I'm tired of loosing personal privileges to the fricking liberals who know everything that's for my own good. I left California for that very same reason. I live in a state where personal freedoms are abundant. We used to have a helmet law and it was repealed long ago. We have races up mountains where you can park your chair anywhere you want. If you get run over because you're stupid - tough but it's your life.

I'll concede helmets can save lives, but do the proper research and you'll find that an overwhelming percentage of deaths involving motorcycles - wearing a helmet would not have mattered anyway. In fact there is a small percentage where perception impairment was a contributing factor.
People pushing helmet laws are idiots because they're ignorant of real facts or they live in a state where if injured the state will carry you for life so it becomes a financial issue disguised behind a mandatory law. We don't have stupid laws like that where I live!

Myself and only for myself - I have a living will, a DNR, organ donor card, plenty of medical insurance and life insurance too. My kids are grown and I'm an adult. If I die tomorrow from ANY cause I won't be a burden financially to anyone or anything. I live my life the way I choose - not by somebody's sense of what's good for me or a hidden agenda.



To which this reply was made
It's not a political issue, or a personal rights issue. Driving is a priviledge, not a right! If you live in a country, and are allowed to leave, then it is your duty to that country to abide by it's laws.

The helmets law is for the the "ones" that don't have any common sense.

The ones that can truely, and morally, not wear a helmet when riding, are the ones with no family or friends. For the simple reason, if a person is so self centered they they don't care about their family/friends/and loved ones, the ones that will hurt for the rest of their lives because of whatever reason that person didn't wear a helmet.

It doesn't (or ever mattered) if it's a law or not, it's the respect for the people that know and love you. Family and friends will understand if you have a dangerous hobby/job, but never will, if they lose you out of you own arrogance.

The guy is dead, he is not suffering like the rest of his family will the rest of their lives...........

Scared of it, using both, all this I've encountered. But to never touch it? No wonder they aren't confident riding, they aren't ever sure they are going to stop.

correct me if I'm wrong but this isnt true. My understanding is that the larger number of deaths are caused by head injuries that would have been preventable with a helmet

Just because they never touch it doesnt mean that they are not proficient at using the back brake. I would be willing to bet that the people you are refering to are all awesome at using the back brake, in fact I would be willing to bet in a rear brake only stopping contest they would kick most of our asses. The folks that I have met who only use the back brake because that is what they learned years ago quickly become very proficient at using it, to the point that in day to day riding their stopping is indistinguishable from people who use just the front or both.

To which I offer this quote (emphasis added by me):

The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right... The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.

-John Stuart Mill

Not sure how that is possible given that 75% of the stopping power of a modern modern cycle is generated by the front brakes. My 109-R laughs at the rear brake. I seldom use it. :idk:

Anyone who's ever watched MotoGP, and seen them braking for a turn with the back tire in the air should be able to figure out what wheel is doing most of the braking.

Again: Physics. It's the law.

I can say I've never used the rear brake on a street going motorcycle.

derf & avatard

Mr "Red" lives in CO and wants to do what he wants and how he wants to do it. He feels everything is under control when he has the bars and he is willing to take his chances.

Mr Blue races ( vintage ) and is a ATGATT guy.

( derf is correct, the helmet stats listed aren't totally true. but hey, he was on a roll :lol: )

I see both sides and fully respect both sides. I live in PA where helmets are optional. I never leave my driveway without leather jacket, full face helmet, boots and gloves. My choice and that's what I want to wear when I ride.

If you wish to ride without gear that improves your chances of survival, feel free to do so. Also make sure you have all your ducks in a row in case some inattentive person takes you out.

I don't want the .gov telling me what to do, I should be responsible for my own well being.

I'll say 90% front brake and 10% rear brake. There are a couple S turns on my way to work where a light application of rear brake makes the bike even more stable and better tracking.

I back shit in all the time. There's a time and place for the back brake. Most people would do well to stay far the fuck away from it, though.

All I'm saying is that someone who only has ever used the rear brake is gonna be more profficient at using the rear brake only than you or I will be at using the rear brake only.

I disagree. Someone who uses both will be the most proficient. That person will learn to carry much greater speed into a corner and be able to use that brake at that greater speed, this will drastically increase the difficulty of properly applying that rear brake.

A rear braker is an easy mark on a race track. You can do two things to them. You can simply just outbrake them because they have to start their braking way before you or you can force them to carry more speed than they can lose if they try to brake with you and watch them run wide as you slip by...

A person that knows both front and rear braking will be more likely to be highly adept to backing it in as well.

Apparently you have never ridden a Harley. You NEED the rear brakes since the the front suck so bad. lol

My 2009 ZX6r front brakes stop on a dime with 2 fingers, though I do use the rear brakes on the street, but not on the track.

Who in the ever fuck uses only the rear brake on the track? Or am I reading this wrong?

I agree that using both brakes is the best, most of your braking power is in the front wheel, O amended my statement to be more clear.

noobs and a certain mod use to do it to, but I think they went to front brake use finally.

And, I'm saying, they aren't proficient at handling a motorcycle. From the people I've seen ride that way, their riding abilities have been stunted because they are doing it wrong. The rear brake just isn't strong enough to stop efficiently. It takes too much planning, it's like doing complicated math while riding.

Must.........stop............laughing..........

But I can't. :lol:

JC

It's unfortunate, but sometimes common sense has to be forced onto people.

Take some 16 year old kid, give him a GSXR, and let him make the helmet decision?

You might as well just take him out back and shoot him.

JC

Here's my deal, if you are riding without a helmet and get hit by a car and die then car driver becomes a killer instead of just an ass hat who hit a biker and injured him/her. So does that mean that car driver is responsible for your life when you could have (possibly) prevented your own death by wearing a helmet? That's where it gets messy IMO. Heather has had a lot of time to think about whose fault each and every aspect of the crash is when a car hits a bike. Waaay too much time.

Too many variable to prove there. Depends on who was at fault and was their death due to a closed head injury, its also tough to prove that a helmet may have saved them.

If the car didn't hit the guy, then nobody would have died... Pay attention.

It's like saying, 'well, he would have lived if he wouldn't have crossed the street'... NO, the asshat running playing Angry Birds on his phone while digging in his balls and eating a Big Mac should have been paying attention.

No, clearly the family of the person riding the motorcycle should sue the person that created Angry Birds, McDonalds and the hooker that gave him crabs....

/kidding

touche`

its the american way, its always someone elses fault

I didn't read the rest of the thread but this is exactly how it is done in FL.

No insurance required on bikes.

Over 21 and proper insurance = no helmet required.

Over 21 and no insurance = helmet required.

The cops can't tell if you have coverage or not without pulling you over but if you do get popped, a fine will result.

Under 21 = special plate, helmet required at all times.

Funny...why? I used to race the same little bikes as you...on a racetrack.

Memba?

Furthermore, I not only know how to change the attitude of a small, very reactive racing motorcycle with the carefully modulated use of the front/rear brakes, I know how to remap those very brake controls when transitioning to a larger street bike, where the rear moves from the left hand, to the right foot.

Brakes are brakes. Once you know how to use them well, where they're controlled from is not really important.

I "remap" almost instantly when going from bicycle (where the brake levers are in fact reversed), to a minimoto (where they are opposite, but still both on the bars), to a street bike, where the rear brake moves to your right foot, to a manual shifted car, where everything moves around; the clutch goes from left hand, to left foot, shift goes from left foot to right hand, throttle goes from right hand to right foot, and all braking is controlled by one single center pedal (which is controlled MOSTLY by my left foot...unless I'm heel-and-toeing).

I used to always set up my cornering line in racing by using the back brake, and tucking the front in, then transitioning out again under power to once again bring the back out on exit. No different than throttle steer in a high HP car.

Of course, I didn't call it "backing it in" back in the day...I didn't even know there was a term for what I did. That came only after Speed Channel arrived on cable, and I started watching 500 GP, and listening to the commentators. It's just how I learned to ride and drive. I know how to manipulate tires to my advantage.

Tires can do one thing at a time very well; corner, brake, accelerate.

If you ask of them more than one thing at once, they lose their effectiveness doing the other, and their grip dynamics change.

Once you know how to use this to your advantage, you can make the tires lose their grip in a controlled manner to change the attitude of a bike, as you enter/exit a corner, using brake, and throttle.

Maybe you forgot I used to race.

Maybe I forgot to say "I used to" when talking about backing it in.

My days of riding anything at the limit are clearly over. As you well know, my right wrist is frozen, and the only thing I "back in" now is the fucking car, into the driveway...save the occasional mind-clearing blast up and down the street on the old dirt bike, using my right thumb and forefinger to (barely) control the throttle.

Suffice to say, I still know how it all works, however...and I'm hoping you're instead laughing about the last line, as most people don't have the experience to start manipulating tire grip at the limit.

I agree here. I know one thing, I have learned a ton about control from riding small twitchy little bikes. Getting on my monster GS is just so much more controllable after riding a fiddy for a few hours.

Valentino still races minimoto every year at ZPF, where he got his start.

Small bikes are a well known "secret" among racers, for staying sharp. MUCH more reactive than a fullsize, and everything is amplified, in terms of dynamics.

Get on the big bike, and it just seems like slo-mo by comparison. It seems it can do nothing to surprise you, and you just feel like you're pushing around a motorhome.

If the fiddy flips your skirt up, you should try an Italian racing minimoto. It's even lower to the ground, and reacts just that much faster. Once you learn to dominate one, a big bike can only seem slow to react by comparison.

I have a shattered kneecap to illustrate that point.

Once of my favorite things about selling minimotos back in the day, was watching those who claimed years of big bike experience confidently telling me how they would have such an easy time adapting to the little bike...just before they had a test drive/spectacular crash.

Those were always the ones who actually broke bones.

:lmao:

Costs are too much to get one that can compete on the fiddy level. Double to triple the costs of an extremely fast and nimble fiddy to get a minimoto that can perform at the same level. Just not worth it. We flat run over italian minimotos in the $2000 range that have come out to play. They cost the manager of DGMR a race, so he banned them from racing with us.

:lol: A certain mod still primarily uses a rear brake for every day riding...but yes, that mod also uses both brakes at the track, and if necessary, both on the street. As she rides like a grandma on the street, unless someone tries to kill her or she's feeling frisky, there's no real need for anything more than the rear brake or downshifting. Unless folks are looking her feet when she rides, most folks never even realize she primarily uses the rear brake. She'd also like to note: this is south ga flat land riding. Mountain and track require use of both brakes. And she does NOT recommend anyone else do what she does. (Not cuz she's a badass, simply bc it wouldnt work for most folks.)

As seen at a rally, said mod can also control the skid and slide when applying the rear brake with force. :wink:

I thought this was about helmets?

I tried riding a 50, I definitely sucked worse on it than a regular bike. For some reason it was scarier than riding a 400lb bike around. And way more sensitive. Yuck.

Back on topic.....

There are causes worth dying for. There are causes that aren't worth dying for. If ole Helmetless Protestor Dude could be revived from the dead, there is a 100% chance he would change his stance on helmets.

Yeah, read my post quoting John Stuart Mill (he was a Brit, but wrote a lot about liberty). Looks like you might have missed it.

Yes, it might have been far better for Mr. dead dumb fuck if he was wearing a bucket.

In retrospect, there's a lot of things I could have done in life that would have been better for me. If you tried to force them on me, however, I'd probably have punched you in the fucking throat...and deservedly so.

Paternalism is the polar opposite of what this country was founded for. It's amazing how much of what people from hundreds of years ago had to say about freedom still applies today.

Ben Franklin's insights, for instance, apply verbatim today, in almost all cases.

What's that saying again regarding those who forget the past?

(kidding...I didn't forget)

I find it very disturbing when we think alike... I just posted this on the TL site earlier today...

You two are scaring me.

Stop it.

The Space-Time Continuum is going to unravel.

We don't give motorcycle licenses to children or the mentally handicapped, and yet many riders choose to act like one (or both...)

Yeah, like Stop signs. Who do these people think they are, telling ME where to stop?

You talk a lot about liberty, which is fine, but what you don't talk (or, apparently, think) about, is how your stupid decisions effect others.

"My head, my problem", is bullshit. It's going to be someone's problem, besides yours.

Some poor schmuck is going to have to clean your brains off the pavement. I've never had to do that, but I'm guessing it's a pretty fucked up job to have. Another guy is going to have drive out to your place, and tell your wife/kids/mom that you're stupid ass is dead. Also unpleasant.

If you're inconsiderate enough to die on the spot, instead of waiting until you get the hospital, guess what happens? They close the road for a few hours, while the investigation is done. Die on the freeway, they close the freeway. Now hundreds, if not thousands of people have lost their liberty to proceed, all because you decided to be French that day.

Seems just a tad selfish to me.

JC

Those people would all have those shit jobs no matter what you did, aside from banning all cars, motorcycles, etc.

And you are right, we don't have any "right" to drive, but those rules of the road are there to protect OTHER people from your dumbass, not to protect you from yourself.

No need for personal responsibility in your world, I guess... Just wait for momma gub'ment's teet to tell you what's best for you.

Yes they would. I just don't see any reason I should make their job even worse.

Personal responsibility in "my world", means taking care of yourself, so others don't have to.

You have the right to walk deep into the woods, with no map, compass or water. Does that sound like something a responsible person would do?

JC

THIS!

I have never heard it put this way but I like it!!

As far as front & rear brake. I will tell you this... I use both on my HDs. My Ultra has GREAT Brembo ABS brakes. I can stop that heavy pig probably as well as any sportbike here. Simply because of break size and hugely on part because of the ABS.

In the twisties... it's all rear brake. It simply stabilizes the ass end of the heavy bike. I might use the front to scrub off big speed, say after a straight, but beyond that, it's all rear brake.

Just saying...

And my stand on helmets...

In the day and age of cars/trucks/suvs required to have side impact beams, crumple zones, anti roll over computers, 3 point seat belts, the steel cage that makes it a car/truck/suv, and 47 air bags deploying all around you. Yet, on a motorcycle, the only defense to saving your life, the helmet, and you think the govt should just let you not wear one! You're logic is VERY flawed!

However, if you are able to talk some idiot politician into it. By all means, go for it. I will ride with you regardless. However, when you splat your head and become a veggy, I don't want to pay for your bad decision. I support the required medical insurance option if you want to ride helmet less. I also believe that rider should be required to take a MSF or otherwise riding safety class. I don't care if he/she has been riding for 50 years!

No, it doesn't sound like something a responsible person would do... does that mean there should be a law against it? I mean, people would have to form search parties and tons of resources would be used to look for your wandering ass... so yeah, that should be outlawed.

Come to think of it... alcohol causes health problems, traffic fatalities, etc, we should just outlaw alcohol. You know, because us Americans obviously cannot make good decisions for ourselves.

Drugs should certainly remain outlawed too... Afterall, people OD, ruin their lives, etc, etc because of drugs... mommy government obviously knows what's best for us there too... Keep up the good work War on Drugs!

You know what else should be outlawed? Fast food. Terrible shit... serves no purpose, makes people fat, and causes other health problems that hospitals and insurance companies have to deal with. We need laws against that.

Shit... you know what... Motorcycles don't really serve much of a purpose, fuck helmet laws, we should just ban those. You can get similar MPG's with some hybrids and even better with scooters that offer more storage and still maintain point A to point B transportation. People are far more likely to get hurt or killed on them, which again, makes people who have to clean that shit up, etc, more inconvenienced - helmets or no. There should be laws against those things too.

It's simple... If my actions do not hurt or harm others... or have the potential to hurt or harm others (ie your goofy stop sign statement)... it should not be momma gub'ment's job to police it... technically, it's not supposed to be. Shoveling up my brains on the highway and inconveniencing travelers who have to wait for me to get pressure washed off the highway is NOT hurting or harming anyone other than myself.

The difference between your car analogy and motorcycles is that it's a requirement of the manufacturer to build the vehicle with safety in mind... motorcycles don't have such ability without completely neutering them - HP limits or outright banning them is about the only real option.

I agree on the MSF course thing... Just like getting a license to drive a car... more education the better. Not because I give a fuck about the douchebag behind the wheel or on the bike, but because they could possibly hurt or harm someone else due to their lack of ability. Again, if the only person or property that could possibly be harmed or damaged is the one making the decision, it should not need to be legislated.

In a way, you're right. If "we" were able to make good decisions on our own, we wouldn't need a law against DUI. So if you drive drunk, but don't actually run over anybody, is the DUI law just an infringement on your right to make bad decisions? Hey, you didn't hurt anybody, right?

Tell that to the people who lost wages, and the companies that lost productivity while their employees were waiting for the mess you caused to get cleaned up.

Just because you don't give a fuck about other peoples problems, doesn't excuse you from causing them.

JC

See... law against DUI protects OTHER people. That's what you're not addressing...

And again, an inconvenience... nobody else is directly getting hurt or killed because I didn't wear my helmet and ended up as a skidmark on the highway. So again, if you are REALLY concerned about inconveniencing others, we should just ban motorcycles... I mean, if I get run over by a semi, the highway is going to be shut down for a LONG time...

Is it a right to not be inconvenienced on roads that you don't have a right to use?

OK, let's address it. Where do you stand on mandatory eye protection laws for motorcyclists?[/QUOTE]

You have a really odd way of looking at things. The obvious solution in your scenario, would be to ban semi trucks.

You keep mentioning the word "ban" in your posts. You're trying to make the point that, banning something, is a logical extension of safety laws. You are, of course, kidding. Well here's the thing: Some asshole in a government office somewhere, is having the same thought, only he's not kidding.

We are a minority, and public perception is already against us. As it stands, I can walk into a shop, and buy a stock bike that will almost double any state speed limit. Every time some asshat offs himself on a bike, some asshole wants to ban them, or limit their performance. For me, helmet laws decrease the odds of that happening. Less dead people = less press. Less press = fast motorcycles.

Sure, I care about the "common good", but my reasoning is also self serving.

Another great thing about helmet laws? Who's more likely to get pulled over, me in full gear, or some cruiser dude in a fake D.O.T. beanie? It's a win/win. Cruiser dude has probably been bar hopping, so there's another drunk off the road, and less cops available to hassle me.

I look at it as a courtesy issue. If I smoke, I go outside. When I ride, I wear a helmet.

JC

Courtesy doesn't exist any more, that's why there are so many laws. *sigh*

Eye protection... that's a tough call... I'd say there could be a good case for eye protection as it could cause a rider to hit someone else due to not seeing.

Understand that I'm AGATT... but that's my choice. However, don't kid yourself that those asshats in Washington would be looking at banning shit less in lieu of mandatory training, helmets, etc... Old ladies will still be pissed off about how loud they are, soccer moms will still be up in arms about how fast they are, and politicians will still look for any reason to fuck up our trip to gain a few votes.

The "freedom" folks are overlooking the fact that operating any kind of motor vehicle on public highways is a not a "right."

The freedom to move about the country actually is a right, IIRC.

Of course, it would require a very big lawsuit, and the highest court in the land, in order to settle exactly what that means, precisely, and define how that affects motor travel, in particular...but one might argue that this IS the travel method of today, and that any restrictions on that might be, in fact, just cause for such a nice legal battle in the highest court.

In addition, the highest court is now stacked with conservatives, who, while they may posture, and talk about big government, and wave flags, and shit, are in fact quietly chipping away at the Constitution, and personal rights as if on a mission to destroy all...so how that battle might play out, is anyone's guess.

True on all counts. You'd have to do away with state licensing requirements and such (yeah, right) in order to really make any changes stick though.

My point was, however, that in the current environment, operation of a motor vehicle on public highways is not a right.

Exactly.

You may walk, (or ride a horse, I suppose, as long as you're not drunk) across state lines with no restrictions.

Making the operation of motor vehicles on public streets, a "right", would be a spectacularly bad idea.

People with drivers licenses can barely drive without fucking it up. As a motorcyclist, the last thing I need is a libertarian free for all on the highways.

JC

Sad to see people still throwing the "Driving is a privilege not a right" bullshit out there, but other than that this is a great thread.

It's semantics.

Anyone who isn't blind or retarded can drive, until "they", prove otherwise.

You really want people with multiple DUI's, or zero training, sharing the road with you?

JC

Do you really want murders or rapists using the same ATMs and shopping malls as you? No? Oh, well, I guess not living in prison is a privilege, not a right.

See what I'm saying? Rights can be taken away under the correct circumstances too.

Sorry to disappoint, but for the moment, it's true.

Actually, no, I don't.

"A privilege is a right or advantage gained by birth, social position, effort, or concession."

Key word here is effort. You make the effort to pass the driving test, you get a license. Seems fair enough.

When "jackbooted thugs" start kicking in doors and revoking licenses without due process, I'll start worrying about the distinction between a right and a privilege.

JC

Do people still wear jackboots/

I don't know.

Ask Homeslice.

JC

:lol:

too late.

True but that's just because they haven't gotten caught (no revenue in that, apparently)

Bullshit, we have people that have multiple DUIs, DWIs and have a general inability to drive. Most people on the road today are too busy doing anything BUT driving while behind the wheel. But, because they have a slim method of keeping it somewhat in their own lane they get away with it. Hell, they get away with murder on a regular basis with four words ["I never saw him"]

/rant

I wasn't disagreeing with you. I was saying that they haven't gotten caught because there's not enough revenue in it.

True, but I don't think declaring that everyone has the "right" to drive, will improve the situation.

JC

The reason helmets are law is because the insurance companies lobby for it. Pretty simple.

Ding.

if it saves them money then why not. Probl3em is more peopel get hurt due to head injuries the ins co will have to shell out more cash, and in a lot of cases it can be a lot of cash. So they will raise everyone elses rates to compensate.

Alas, what price, freedom?

Communism can be pretty cheap, but you have to stand in line for toilet paper...