[Jeffery M]

Originally Posted by Michael G.

Your example here is false in many ways.

Here's just one:
There are a lot less cycle owners with or without helmets that qualify for your comparison to anything to do with the above.

You mention the term: I don't want the law telling me this and that."
I'll bet you must have a hell of a time when the laws say you need to pay your taxes.

You are correct. I absolutely do have a very difficult time with paying some of the nonsensical taxes we have to pay. A certain group of people also had a problem with taxation in the 1770's. I understand paying taxes for defense and police , etc. I have no issue with that. And exactly what is wrong with someone saying that they don't want the nanny government telling them what to do all the time when it doesn't harm anyone but themselves? I am not part of the flock of sheeple that is willing to bend to the governments intrusive, and many times constitutionally illegal regulations. Do you not have a limit to how much the government tells you what to do, or do you just blindly follow anything they tell you to do no matter how imposing it is on your personal freedom and rights? I comply with seat belt laws and would do the same with helmet laws if I were in a state that requires you wear them. I would wear one on my own anyway. I advocate wearing motorcycle helmets. Since there is no requirement in Florida to wear motorcycle helmets there is no law being broken and I'm in agreement with that. So you see I personally have no problem with the regulation in Florida as it is. The problem I have is when these agitators against current legal laws say that there should be a decree demanding that helmets should be mandated because they feel having the freedom of personal choice of not wearing a helmet raises healthcare insurance costs. And again so does obesity, lung cancer from smoking, driving fast cars. Freedom costs! I keep repeating that and somehow my comments are misinterpreted as those of being a contrarian scofflaw, when actually the law says you are not required to wear helmets. That fact seems to be lost to some. So who is being the contrarian here? I rode motorcycles many years and wore a helmet. I wear seatbelts every time I drive or ride in a car. I am in favor of wearing them and would not think of traveling without doing so. I am just not in favor of the government telling me I have to wear them when it only endangers me. Why is that so difficult for some people to understand when it is plainly explained in detail? What would you think if the government said you had to be in bed by 9pm every night because that is better for your health and will keep the costs of healthcare insurance down? What if they mandated wearing helmets in golf carts. I just so happened to have attended a golf cart safety seminar yesterday and a guest sheriff's deputy said many people in golf cart accidents are ejected from the golf carts and are seriously injured or killed. I don't hear anybody advocating wearing helmets while riding in golf carts. If they did come up with a rule saying that you had to wear a motorcycle helmet in a golf cart how would that impact your peripheral vision? It's hard enough to see from inside a golf cart with all the blind spots. Would that be a good idea? How many regulations are enough, especially when it does not impact the safety and the heath of others? There are people advocating censorship of speech now for "the good and safety of society". Does not personal liberty, free choice, or the Constitution mean anything anymore? Apparently not to far too many people nowadays.

[Byte1]

Originally Posted by Jeffery M

I agree with your own words that those examples you used are stupid. All of them are a non sequitur. I never stated that you have an absolute right to do whatever you wish in society. I clearly said that I was talking about what only directly impacts a single person and not others. You asked why there are traffic lights, speed limits, traffic control police officers. Naturally because those things protect society in general. A motorcycle rider injured in an accident obviously only physically suffers his own injuries. Driving drunk endangers others. Speeding is hazardous to the driver and others. If I ride safely on a motorcycle and a drunk driver hits me he may be injured or killed and so may I, but my own injuries only impact me in that accident. I may suffer a broken leg, but that injury is only unique to me and not to the other driver. Let's talk about the "slippery slope" term that you mentioned. If someone is overweight and decides to eat sugary desserts or unhealthy fatty fried foods and ends up having heart problems should the government step in and mandate that people be restricted from eating junk food because health insurance costs are impacted? Should all drinking of alcohol be banned due to accidents both on and off the road? Of course not. Like I said before, freedom costs. I do not advocate chaos and anarchy. We must have laws to protect society so that the population in general is guarded against others that may cause harm. But if me not wearing a helmet only jeopardizes myself then I should have the choice of being dumb enough to not wear it. If I decide to engage in acrobatics and land on my head, should the government say I can't do that anymore? If I decided to not be vaccinated from Covid and others I come into contact with are vaccinated then what is the problem? Yet there is a current controversy about that. I have been vaccinated and believe that I should have been. Others have a different opinion. If they don't want to be forced to take the vaccine I am fine with that and support their choice. We all have an obligation to adhere to certain requirements for the general safety of society. However, we are not obligated at every level to forego our individual liberties because somebody else feels uneasy or inconvenienced by your individual choices, that do no harm to others. If one feels that is wrong then outlaw drinking, marijuana, fast cars, abortions, high risk activities, and anything else that could be construed as potentially hazardous. Many freedom minded citizens don't want big nanny goverment deciding every aspect of our lives. Helmets save lives, wear them. Maybe even in golf carts.

EXCELLENT POST!!!

[Byte1]

Originally Posted by Jeffery M

You are correct. I absolutely do have a very difficult time with paying some of the nonsensical taxes we have to pay. I understand paying taxes for defense and police , etc. I have no issue with that. And exactly what is wrong with someone saying that they don't want the nanny government telling them what to do all the time when it doesn't harm anyone but themselves? I am not part of the flock of sheeple that is willing to bend to the governments intrusive, and many times constitutionally illegal regulations. Do you not have a limit to how much the government tells you what to do, or do you just blindly follow anything they tell you to do no matter how imposing it is on your personal freedom and rights? I comply with seat belt laws and would do the same with helmet laws if I were in a state that requires you wear them. I would wear one on my own anyway. I advocate wearing motorcycle helmets. Since there is no requirement in Florida to wear motorcycle helmets there is no law being broken and I'm in agreement with that. So you see I personally have no problem with the regulation in Florida as it is. The problem I have is when these agitators against current legal laws say that there should be a decree demanding that helmets should be mandated because they feel having the freedom of personal choice of not wearing a helmet raises healthcare insurance costs. And again so does obesity, lung cancer from smoking, driving fast cars. Freedom costs! I keep repeating that and somehow my comments are misinterpreted as those of being a contrarian scofflaw, when actually the law says you are not required to wear helmets. That fact seems to be lost to some. So who is being the contrarian here? I rode motorcycles many years and wore a helmet. I wear seatbelts every time I drive or ride in a car. I am in favor of wearing them and would not think of traveling without doing so. I am just not in favor of the government telling me I have to wear them when it only endangers me. Why is that so difficult for some people to understand when it is plainly explained in detail? What would you think if the government said you had to be in bed by 9pm every night because that is better for your health and will keep the costs of healthcare insurance down? What if they mandated wearing helmets in golf carts. I just so happened to have attended a golf cart safety seminar yesterday and a guest sheriff's deputy said many people in golf cart accidents are ejected from the golf carts and are seriously injured or killed. I don't hear anybody advocating wearing helmets while riding in golf carts. If they did come up with a rule saying that you had to wear a motorcycle helmet in a golf cart how would that impact your peripheral vision? It's hard enough to see from inside a golf cart with all the blind spots. Would that be a good idea? How many regulations are enough, especially when it does not impact the safety and the heath of others? There are people advocating censorship of speech now for "the good and safety of society". Does not personal liberty, free choice, or the Constitution mean anything anymore? Apparently not to far too many people nowadays.

Totally agree with this one too.

[dewilson58]

Originally Posted by Byte1

EXCELLENT POST!!!

Toooooooooooo Long.

[Byte1]

Funny, how the most complaints and suggestions of banning motorcycles/motorcycling comes from those that have NO experience operating a motorcycle. It's amazing how many busybodies insist on deciding the fate, restrictions, actions of others.
Can you imagine if a group of those busybodies decided that automobiles/cars were too dangerous and should be banned? Think of how empty the roads would be and how much safer it would be for motorcyclists, bicyclists, etc. Think of how much cleaner the air would be if only motorcycles were allowed on the highways. Ridiculous right? Ridiculous is a bunch of NON-motorcyclists deciding the fate of millions of motorcycle enthusiasts. But, but, but we did research and scientists say....blah, blah, and more verbal vomit.

[jdulej]

Originally Posted by dewilson58

Toooooooooooo Long.

Agree. It turned into "blah, blah, blah" about a third of the way in.

[Mrprez]

Originally Posted by dewilson58

Toooooooooooo Long.

A few paragraphs would be nice. I read the whole thing.

[Michael G.]

Originally Posted by Mrprez

A few paragraphs would be nice. I read the whole thing.

I agree.
If I typed that much, I'd have to take a nap.

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by Jeffery M

You are correct. I absolutely do have a very difficult time with paying some of the nonsensical taxes we have to pay. A certain group of people also had a problem with taxation in the 1770's. I understand paying taxes for defense and police , etc. I have no issue with that. And exactly what is wrong with someone saying that they don't want the nanny government telling them what to do all the time when it doesn't harm anyone but themselves? I am not part of the flock of sheeple that is willing to bend to the governments intrusive, and many times constitutionally illegal regulations. Do you not have a limit to how much the government tells you what to do, or do you just blindly follow anything they tell you to do no matter how imposing it is on your personal freedom and rights? I comply with seat belt laws and would do the same with helmet laws if I were in a state that requires you wear them. I would wear one on my own anyway. I advocate wearing motorcycle helmets. Since there is no requirement in Florida to wear motorcycle helmets there is no law being broken and I'm in agreement with that. So you see I personally have no problem with the regulation in Florida as it is. The problem I have is when these agitators against current legal laws say that there should be a decree demanding that helmets should be mandated because they feel having the freedom of personal choice of not wearing a helmet raises healthcare insurance costs. And again so does obesity, lung cancer from smoking, driving fast cars. Freedom costs! I keep repeating that and somehow my comments are misinterpreted as those of being a contrarian scofflaw, when actually the law says you are not required to wear helmets. That fact seems to be lost to some. So who is being the contrarian here? I rode motorcycles many years and wore a helmet. I wear seatbelts every time I drive or ride in a car. I am in favor of wearing them and would not think of traveling without doing so. I am just not in favor of the government telling me I have to wear them when it only endangers me. Why is that so difficult for some people to understand when it is plainly explained in detail? What would you think if the government said you had to be in bed by 9pm every night because that is better for your health and will keep the costs of healthcare insurance down? What if they mandated wearing helmets in golf carts. I just so happened to have attended a golf cart safety seminar yesterday and a guest sheriff's deputy said many people in golf cart accidents are ejected from the golf carts and are seriously injured or killed. I don't hear anybody advocating wearing helmets while riding in golf carts. If they did come up with a rule saying that you had to wear a motorcycle helmet in a golf cart how would that impact your peripheral vision? It's hard enough to see from inside a golf cart with all the blind spots. Would that be a good idea? How many regulations are enough, especially when it does not impact the safety and the heath of others? There are people advocating censorship of speech now for "the good and safety of society". Does not personal liberty, free choice, or the Constitution mean anything anymore? Apparently not to far too many people nowadays.

While I agree with your posts, paragraphs are your friend...

It was a VERY difficult read...

[spd2918]

Some states have common sense helmet laws. They require extra insurance for those that ride without helmets. This should cover the extra cost of diapers, etc, without burdening the taxpayer.

[Michael G.]

This post is about to die, so post your thoughts soon.

[Byte1]

Originally Posted by spd2918

Some states have common sense helmet laws. They require extra insurance for those that ride without helmets. This should cover the extra cost of diapers, etc, without burdening the taxpayer.

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.

[Spalumbos62]

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.

[Mrprez]

Originally Posted by Spalumbos62

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.

Said someone who has never sat at a red light in 100* heat hoping your brain doesn’t boil over.

[Davonu]

Originally Posted by Mrprez

Said someone who has never sat at a red light in 100* heat hoping your brain doesn’t boil over.

Exaggerate much?