Quote:
Originally Posted by Byte1
As a "taxpayer" I would rather be "burdened" with the legitimately injured than with welfare recipients or invaders from across the border. Interesting that someone mentions being burdened by a very small group of motorcycle traffic accident victims in comparison to auto accident victims. But, a lot of folks that are too scared to ride or just never had the inclination to ride a motorcycle, just parrot what others say because it sounds plausible.
Personally, I ride with a helmet but I don't give a thought to those that do not. It's their choice and I don't want to be someone else's keeper and make rules for them to live by. I wouldn't even have seat belt laws, even though I feel it is a good idea to wear them if available. But then again, I am one that believes in each individual being responsible for themselves. Ban motorcycles at the same time you ban automobiles. Although, I believe that the amount of horses required for transportation of a population this large would surely create more air pollution with their flatulence than combustion engines.
Just seems like there are way more important issues to warrant scrutiny than a few motorcycles on the hwy. Just my opinion.
|
For the love of G__, must this go on and on. Wearing a helmet will not take away from your "ride". I still wish helmets to be a law.....do I care if you won't wear one and you end up with your skull in one place and your body elsewhere on the pavement...not really. I'd just think...idiot.
And too bad for his wife.