The Pet Peeve

[Mufasa]

Can I trade it for a shiny, new K1300????

http://www.webbikeworld.com/BMW-motorcyc...-k-1300-s/

[2Beers]

Hubby says "Hmmm nice and Oh they are fast"

[nettiesaur]

(07-04-2011 08:44 PM)Mufasa Wrote:  Can I trade it for a shiny, new K1300????

http://www.webbikeworld.com/BMW-motorcyc...-k-1300-s/

only if you can get them to believe that the gold Christmas wrapping covering the box is real gold.

[Mufasa]

(07-04-2011 08:44 PM)2Beers Wrote:  Ok I'll chime in....If you do so choose to not wear helmet or gear that is your right/choice, BUT if you should crash either by your fault or not then suffer the outcome with out getting a pity party from the public.

... or flowers on your grave from your loved ones that could have been spared this moment by one, simple thing. Point taken though Beers.

Folks, we will have to agree to disagree on this one. Not a whole lot that I feel that I am extremely qualified to speak out against - but rolling the dice with your life whilst yalping the battle cry: "CAUSE BIG BROTHER DON'T CONTROL MEEEEEE!!", to my eyes, simply makes riders look ignorant and foolhardy - not cool and "free".
I love my girls and my wife far too much to take a chance with such an act of sheer ignorance on my behalf.

[Boomer]

A tip o the glass to The Mufster!

Because BIG BROTHER don't control me. Ok - go without a lid on yer head. You have the freedom to do it - those of us who served made sure of that. But - when you crack your head on the pavement, get all maimed and whatever because you failed to wear the PROPER safety equipment and then want my government to pay for your stupidity - WHOA NELLY! Like Mufasa said - I love MY wife, MY daughters, and my LIFE way too much to take a chance in that manner. I have ridden a couple times without - and I just dont care for it. At all. Even on the hot days I dont understand what would possess anyone to ride a motorbike at Mach 2 down some state highway without a lid. There is a short segment of one of Bubba's articles he did in 2008 just before I bought my Harley that speaks to wearing safety equipment when you ride. I believe if you CHOOSE to ride - then choose to protect yourself.

If it SEEMS like I am passionate about helmet use - its probably because I am and its most likely derived from my sisters inveritable LACK of a helmet!

[SpaceCadet]

(07-04-2011 08:54 PM)Mufasa Wrote:  Helmet laws being a stepping stone to Orwells 1984 concerns me about as much as receiving a speeding ticket.

and

(07-04-2011 08:44 PM)2Beers Wrote:  Ok I'll chime in....If you do so choose to not wear helmet or gear that is your right/choice, BUT if you should crash either by your fault or not then suffer the outcome with out getting a pity party from the public.

... or flowers on your grave from your loved ones that could have been spared this moment by one, simple thing. Point taken though Beers.

Folks, we will have to agree to disagree on this one. Not a whole lot that I feel that I am extremely qualified to speak out against - but rolling the dice with your life whilst yalping the battle cry: "CAUSE BIG BROTHER DON'T CONTROL MEEEEEE!!", to my eyes, simply makes riders look ignorant and foolhardy - not cool and "free".
I love my girls and my wife far too much to take a chance with such an act of sheer ignorance on my behalf.

This whole conversation - jarringly off-topic in any case - started with someone ascribing to helmetless riders the motive of "trying to look cool" or somesuch.

I've simply stated that a.) that's likely a simplistic and erroneous assumption, b.) in a free - or even semi-free - society, people have among many other rights the right to take risks, even stupid ones, so long as such activity does not violate the similar rights of others, and that c.) the mess that governments have made of medical industries in N. America and elsewhere is the violator of people's property rights via taxation, not the risks taken by others.

With all due respect, I think each of those points has been pretty much ignored here in favor of emotional reaction to the foolishness of riding helmetless - which, as I've said, is not something I'm supporting here (I haven't ridden a motorcycle since I was roughly 12.) But I think I've stated the case pretty clearly and, as some guys a long time ago said by way of quoting Asimov, "The truth is written all along the page..."

Sneering at valid concerns about the intrusion of government into ever more personal areas of human activity is, I think, far more deadly than any traffic accident. I'll leave it with another fave quote of mine, from Mises' "Human Action," pg 733 or thereabouts, some points to ponder in this context:


"If it is true that government derives its authority from God and is entrusted by Providence to act as the guardian of the ignorant and stupid populace, then it is certainly its task to regiment every aspect of the subject's conduct. The God-sent ruler knows better what is good for his wards than they do themselves. It is his duty to guard them against the harm they would inflict upon themselves if left alone...

But once the principle is admitted that it is the duty of government to protect the individual against his own foolishness, no serious objections can be advanced against further encroachments. A good case could be made out in favor of the prohibition of alcohol and nicotine. And why limit the government's benevolent providence to the protection of the individual's body only? Is not the harm a man can inflict on his mind and soul even more disastrous than any bodily evils? Why not prevent him from reading bad books and seeing bad plays, from looking at bad paintings and statues and from hearing bad music? The mischief done by bad ideologies, surely, is much more pernicious, both for the individual and for the whole society, than that done by narcotic drugs...

These fears are not merely imaginary specters terrifying secluded doctrinaires. It is a fact that no paternal government, whether ancient or modern, ever shrank from regimenting its subjects' minds, beliefs, and opinions. If one abolishes man's freedom to determine his own consumption, one takes all freedoms away."

.

[dheafey]

(07-04-2011 01:41 PM)SpaceCadet Wrote:  One of the many refreshing things I saw in my trips to Thailand (my T-pod journal on the '08 trip is here; the '10 journal is in-process,) was the simple freedom of people in a country swarming with motorcycles and motorscooters to decide for themselves what headgear, if any, to wear whilst riding. Here were parents with small children, little old ladies riding side-saddle behind (presumably) their offspring, and random Joes everywhere, riding around without helmets - or with them.

I've witnessed the same thing while in Bangalore, India - a virtual river of people and vehicles, ebbing and flowing through the various roads and highways. I witnessed a family of 5 on a motorcycle - amazing! After speaking with many locals and Indian co-workers when I returned to the States, they said that very few accidents happen, even amid the chaos of traffic, simply because they can't go that fast. Most of the accidents happen at night when the streets are less crowded and the speeds increase; pedestrians and motorists alike misjudge the rates of speed and either walk into oncoming, speeding traffic or simply don't accelerate fast enough.

[smoker guy]

(07-04-2011 08:44 PM)2Beers Wrote:  Ok I'll chime in....If you do so choose to not wear helmet or gear that is your right/choice, BUT if you should crash either by your fault or not then suffer the outcome with out getting a pity party from the public.

I agree with you 2Beers and SC. This is almost the same as the seatbelt law. I say almost since no child under 18 should be without one. This law is a revenue generating law in my belief. I ride and I choose to wear all the gear(even armored gloves).

Should everyone that rides wear the gear? Yes, if they choose to. I have never seen or heard the death by not wearing all the safety gear causing injury or death to another...although there might be a case or 2 out there. The only time a person should be wearing protective gear is if they are a minor passenger.

I think a more important law would be to require everyone that wants to own and ride a motorcycle on public roads to take a basic rider course such as the MSF( Motorcycle Safety Foundation) offers. As far as I know it is only required of minors.

Well thats abotu all I'll say on the subject, don't take me too seriously...just my scooter noobie opinion.

[Bageleth]

Maybe we should change this to "The Debate" thread.

The helmet law and the seatbelt laws are what my husby refers to as "legislating common sense".

[nettiesaur]

Quote:Sneering at valid concerns about the intrusion of government into ever more personal areas of human activity is, I think, far more deadly than any traffic accident.

Not getting into politics here, since we don't usually, but if your choice affects more than just yourself, it affects the community at large in an adverse way, then government should step in.
There are valid concerns about medical care, and that affects the common good.
Although it is your choice to wear or not wear a helmet or protective gear, not doing so affects the police, EMTs, and hospital staff who have to treat you after an accident. All questions of money aside, even if you are used to treating grisly road injuries, it gets to you after a while.