(Please visit one of our advertisers)

No donations or subscriptions are required

   OR   
   
Subscription choices:
Board Karma = 40  (3488 positive of 3870 votes is 40 %pts higher than a neutral 50%)
All Things (Safety Oriented) Motorcycle   
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

You can the entire collection of Safety Tip articles in a 33 Megabyte PDF Portfolio

 All Forums
 Motorcycle Safety
 Safety Gear
 Nebraska Helmet Law
Previous Page
Member Previous Topic Discussion Topic Next Topic
Page: of 2

bachman1961
Male Advanced Member
2263 Posts
[Mentor]


colorado springs, co
USA

Honda

CB750 NightHawk

Posted - 04/03/2016 :  5:31 AM
quote:
Originally posted by magnaman

I don't drive a car without putting my seat belt on, I don't ride a bike without putting on a full face helmet, a riding jacket with armor, and riding over pants with armor. To do otherwise in my opinion is foolish. However, when we have laws put in place that tell me how I must enjoy my entertainment I have to object. Yes at this point it becomes a civil rights argument. I don't want the government infringing on my right to keep and bear arms, I don't want dentists who did nothing wrong to be vilified, or charged with a crime for shooting a lion in a country where lions regularly eat people, etc., etc. The government continues to regulate more and more. Enough is enough. It must be stopped. Because what you want regulated today that someone else enjoys, will be the precursor to something that you enjoy, being regulated. I think we are adult enough to make our own decisions... and take responsibility for those decisions. I don't need another mother to tell me what to do.



That is a pretty common theme among many that I read of.... live and let live. The -who pays for what- part gets a bit sketchy and is likely where fairness or right versus wrong seems every bit as impassioned.

What frustrates me;
I try not to lose track of the fuel that feeds others ideas or beliefs so for example, the hot shot cruiser/sport bike/ UJM or ?? that weaves and cuts through traffic at illegal speeds wearing protective gear or not, creates an image to others that witness it. Most of us don't like to be judged by that image. It just builds on that uphill battle that responsible owner riders have to contend with when faced with motorists who think we are all hooligans and outlaws caring not for our own lives or respecting others on the road. I'm sure there are motorists out there that feel bikers deserve what they get no matter what- Who is at fault, if the rider was ATGATT or any other important distinctions.

Opinions on guns, ownership, carry etc.... Same deal. Think about the "experienced, licensed" responsible seeming owner that has an accidental discharge getting the gun out of the trunk and injuring or killing someone. It happens.
Kid gets moms gun out of her purse or from under the seat or whereever.... We know these should not happen and rules / safety acted upon can prevent this but the news reports get very excited when they (accurately) cite legal ownership events that make all gun owners sound like befuddled miscreants or careless killers.

How the h3ll do we fix this ?
Go to Top of Page

magnaman
Male Standard Member
107 Posts


lake bluff, il
USA

Honda

Magna 700

Posted - 04/11/2016 :  8:06 PM
Bachman, that is the question of our time! How do we stop it... constant vigilance, constantly challenging the comments of those mistaken. One of the easiest things to spot, to tip us off that we need to challenge someone is the phrase "well, if it saves just one child, its worth it."

No, it really isn't worth it, for if that were really true there would be no bicycles, pools, contact sports, high-rise apartment buildings, beaches, motorcycles, walking, illness, running, sports of any kind really, boating, drinking, working, and who can forget cars? Well you get the picture. Each of those things has caused the death or severe injury to a child, not to mention adults.

I believe that our society has moved toward the belief that no one should get hurt or die prematurely. That is an amazing thought to have. Where it came from I do not know. However, as I previously stated I neither need nor want another parent. And in no way is the government, nor will it ever be in a place to protect each of us from ourselves. For to do so will require us to do nothing at all, never leave the house per se. The irony there is that most accidents happen in the home. #128513;

Anyway, to answer your question again, each of us needs to constantly challenge the premises of all the statements we hear that sound at all like a restriction to anyone who wants to do something, or enjoy their entertainment. Yes it is tedious, but the alternative is increasing restriction on the things all of us like to do.

As an aside, whatever your politics, Donald Trump has hammered political correctness. Political correctness is a method for some group to control the speech of others, and thereby control the thinking of those others. Social intercourse can be messy, offensive, misconstrued, downright insulting at times. Our constitution makes no exception for messy, misconstrued or insulting speech. Free speech requires the expression of that which is found offensive. Over time I have become decidedly less tactful. Truth is truth. Lets all speak it.
Go to Top of Page

Horse
Senior Member
263 Posts


Newbury, Berkshire
United Kingdom

BMW

R850RT

Peer Review: 1

Posted - 04/12/2016 :  5:24 AM
quote:
Originally posted by magnaman I believe that our society has moved toward the belief that no one should get hurt or die prematurely. That is an amazing thought to have. Where it came from I do not know.


You've hit on [yet another] one of my pet hates:
Medicos and politicians who use the phrase 'lives saved'.

No, you have *not* 'saved lives' (whether by a new road safety or medical innovation), all you have done is delayed the inevitable, giving that person the opportunity to get a different disease.

Go to Top of Page

bachman1961
Male Advanced Member
2263 Posts
[Mentor]


colorado springs, co
USA

Honda

CB750 NightHawk

Posted - 04/12/2016 :  2:40 PM
quote:
Originally posted by magnaman

Bachman, that is the question of our time! How do we stop it... constant vigilance, constantly challenging the comments of those mistaken. One of the easiest things to spot, to tip us off that we need to challenge someone is the phrase "well, if it saves just one child, its worth it."

Anyway, to answer your question again, each of us needs to constantly challenge the premises of all the statements we hear that sound at all like a restriction to anyone who wants to do something, or enjoy their entertainment. Yes it is tedious, but the alternative is increasing restriction on the things all of us like to do.

As an aside, whatever your politics, Donald Trump has hammered political correctness. Political correctness is a method for some group to control the speech of others, and thereby control the thinking of those others. Social intercourse can be messy, offensive, misconstrued, downright insulting at times. Our constitution makes no exception for messy, misconstrued or insulting speech. Free speech requires the expression of that which is found offensive. Over time I have become decidedly less tactful. Truth is truth. Lets all speak it.



Thoughtful narrative magnaman. I don't feel so bad now.

My first thoughts after reading your post is of our media and news in general. The slant and crafty wording promotes a lot of mis-information and there are times when I see something that just looks like sloppy journalism that might not have ill intent. In either case though these things can be challenged and 'taken-on'. The mass info loop and influence any biased media has seems almost invincible at times.

I used to debate an item or two once in a while, and still do occasionally. When I see something outwardly wrong IMO, I have no shyness about commenting and usually linking my rebuttal to some supportive stats or facts. I've learned through years of perusal and active participation on all types of forums that points made or arguments just carry on to infinity unless or until someone demonstrates the slightest bit of study or 'homework' to shore up the facts that can wrap up the bigger picture.

It may not always work but there are times you can link something and say; "This is what I found and read and it describes how I think of it or what I believe."
I do this when I feel my supportive info may be interpreted as cherry picking.

I'm convinced that many against guns or gun ownership like to quote info and stats (often cherry picked), yet may not know that somewhere between 1/2 and 2/3 of gun deaths are ruled suicide. It's no less a sad story of death, but the stat doesn't fit with the narrative they want to promote so they exclude it or simply didn't do a holistic study and approach it objectively.

~ brian
Go to Top of Page

magnaman
Male Standard Member
107 Posts


lake bluff, il
USA

Honda

Magna 700

Posted - 04/13/2016 :  10:20 AM
quote:
all you have done is delayed the inevitable, giving that person the opportunity to get a different disease.


Horse, I'm not entirely sure you intended to be funny but I found this hysterical! And so true!

Another slick trick when talking about children killed by gun violence, the anti gun groups have included "children" up to age 23. I don't know about you but I have trouble with a 20 year old gang banger killed in a drive by shooting to be considered a "child."

quote:
yet may not know that somewhere between 1/2 and 2/3 of gun deaths are ruled suicide.
Another issue not considered regarding suicide is that some way will be found to finish the deed, gun or no gun.
Go to Top of Page

Horse
Senior Member
263 Posts


Newbury, Berkshire
United Kingdom

BMW

R850RT

Posted - 04/13/2016 :  2:14 PM
'Making the point lightly', rather than an attempt at a belly laugh.

On the 'guns' discussion, it doesn't matter what age they are, they're still dead.
Go to Top of Page

magnaman
Male Standard Member
107 Posts


lake bluff, il
USA

Honda

Magna 700

Posted - 04/13/2016 :  6:40 PM
Well you succeeded. Lol

Regarding the guns discussion, yes dead is dead. I wasn't making a comment on the life taken but on how that life is categorized to increase the "children" killed by gun violence. Its all about pulling the heart strings and mislead people into joining the anti gun side.
Go to Top of Page

Horse
Senior Member
263 Posts


Newbury, Berkshire
United Kingdom

BMW

R850RT

Posted - 04/14/2016 :  1:13 AM
I'm in the UK - our views on guns, gun control, acceptability, etc. are likely to be at variance from many posters on this board.

So let's look at this in the very simplest terms: it doesn't matter who or what age, they are still dead.

As you correctly pointed out, someone wishing to take their own life will find a way. The gun is not a necessity.

Regarding age Vs 'child', in the UK someone can legally have sex, get married, and ride a 50cc moped (not at the same time) at 16. At 18 they can vote and buy alcohol. Do you have any higher limits in the US?
Go to Top of Page

greywolf
Male Moderator
1492 Posts
[Mentor]


Evanston, IL
USA

Suzuki

DL650AL2

Posted - 04/14/2016 :  5:49 AM
Age of sexual consent, like most rights, varies by state. http://www.ageofconsent.us/

Age to marry, which is often lower than age of sexual consent. http://family.findlaw.com/marriage/...nt-laws.html

And drinking age has some exceptions to the national 21 years requirement. http://drinkingage.procon.org/view....rceID=002591

Voting age was lowered from 21 to 18 in 1971.

Driving - http://parentingteens.about.com/od/...by-State.htm
Go to Top of Page

bachman1961
Male Advanced Member
2263 Posts
[Mentor]


colorado springs, co
USA

Honda

CB750 NightHawk

Posted - 04/14/2016 :  4:04 PM
quote:
Originally posted by magnaman
Its all about pulling the heart strings and mislead people into joining the anti gun side.



It's understandable that emotion plays a large part in some of these debates. Many people have been affected by gun violence, lost someone to a DUI or distracted driver, had a dog off-leash attack them or ? ? ? In fact, maybe that is what drive's the often stated; "Even if it saves just one life ..."

Yet, I think of it like a jury pool.
Using logic in place of emotion, this takes the personal event out of discussion and the hurt or traumatized surviving family or friends that would be considered biased because of the experience or loss. Certainly, this is a very real 'thing' to them (the event) but because of these biases, they are not necessarily the best voice of reason.

Edited by - bachman1961 on 04/14/2016 4:20 PM
Go to Top of Page

Arnold
Male Standard Member
172 Posts


Santa Monica, CA
USA

Kawasaki

KZ1000

Posted - 04/14/2016 :  5:55 PM
I think it's important to make the distinction between wearing a helmet and helmet laws.

Wearing a helmet is a SAFETY issue
Helmet laws are a CIVIL RIGHTS issue

Go to Top of Page

bachman1961
Male Advanced Member
2263 Posts
[Mentor]


colorado springs, co
USA

Honda

CB750 NightHawk

Posted - 04/15/2016 :  12:12 AM
Arnold;

What are your thoughts about costs and who pays for what ? How to implement a risk-based cost variable ?
I ask because I'm guessing you've been around the block a few times on a bike and this topic quickly turned to costs, laws / legislation / nanny state theme.

ie; Should ATGATT riders share in costs equally even though they seem to be taking every precaution to minimize risk of injury or worse ?

** There are some of the gear riders too.... Something I have been guilty of when not on the hwy skipping my overpants on short city jaunts or errands.
Go to Top of Page

rkfire
Advanced Member
1689 Posts


Stratford, CT
USA

Suzuki

Bandit

Posted - 04/15/2016 :  7:04 AM   Join poster on Facebook as Friend  
I live in a 'no helmet law' state, but wear a full faced helmet. Having said that, and I dislike laws that incringe on daily life, but I think that if seatbelt laws are reasonable, then so would helmet laws.
Go to Top of Page

gymnast
Moderator
4263 Posts
[Mentor]


Meridian, Idaho
USA

Harley-Davidson

Sportster Sport

Posted - 04/15/2016 :  9:59 AM
quote:
Originally posted by rkfire

I live in a 'no helmet law' state, but wear a full faced helmet. Having said that, and I dislike laws that incringe on daily life, but I think that if seatbelt laws are reasonable, then so would helmet laws.



I remember 40 years ago that a primary ABATE argument against helmet laws was that there were no seatbelt laws, therefor, helmet laws were discriminatory. Funny how the wheel turns.
Go to Top of Page

rkfire
Advanced Member
1689 Posts


Stratford, CT
USA

Suzuki

Bandit

Posted - 04/15/2016 :  10:43 AM   Join poster on Facebook as Friend  
quote:
Originally posted by gymnast


I remember 40 years ago that a primary ABATE argument against helmet laws was that there were no seatbelt laws, therefor, helmet laws were discriminatory. Funny how the wheel turns.



So, they must be in favor of helmet laws now....right? lol
Go to Top of Page

bachman1961
Male Advanced Member
2263 Posts
[Mentor]


colorado springs, co
USA

Honda

CB750 NightHawk

Posted - 04/15/2016 :  2:40 PM
quote:
Originally posted by gymnast
I remember 40 years ago that a primary ABATE argument against helmet laws was that there were no seatbelt laws, therefor, helmet laws were discriminatory. Funny how the wheel turns.




quote:
Originally posted by rkfire
So, they must be in favor of helmet laws now....right? lol





You guys have no idea of the Brainiac Forces you are up against.
When holding out for and ultimatley challenged by the Seatbelt Law, they'll just claim you heard it wrong.

"We meant seatbelts on motorcycles... When they install those and enforce use, THEN we'll wear our helmets ! "
Go to Top of Page

Arnold
Male Standard Member
172 Posts


Santa Monica, CA
USA

Kawasaki

KZ1000

Posted - 04/15/2016 :  5:45 PM
quote:
Originally posted by bachman1961

Arnold;

What are your thoughts about costs and who pays for what ? How to implement a risk-based cost variable ?



I am probably going to get kicked for this, but I am staunchly against helmet laws, with the provision that those who choose to ride lidless are required to carry extensive insurance.

I wear MTGMTT, and I always wear a helmet. With that said, I think the choice should be up to the individual. I have a more libertarian outlook, and it scares me when I see so many laws being passed dictating how we can or cannot dress, act, worship whatever.

So my personal choice is to always wear a helmet, but I am personally opposed to helmet laws.

Like everyone else here, this is just my 2 cents. Perhaps my thinking could be swayed, but this is currently how I feel about the issue.
Go to Top of Page

bachman1961
Male Advanced Member
2263 Posts
[Mentor]


colorado springs, co
USA

Honda

CB750 NightHawk

Posted - 04/15/2016 :  11:13 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Arnold
I am probably going to get kicked for this, but I am staunchly against helmet laws, with the provision that those who choose to ride lidless are required to carry extensive insurance.



If you do get kicked, ATG will come in handy along with that helmet you always wear.

I'm not as strong on my opinion of the law as I am of the coverage one should have so they don't become added liability to their family or our health system. That in my mind, provides some level of Pay to Play fairness.
Go to Top of Page

AaronC
Male Standard Member
102 Posts


Windsor, Ontario
Canada

Honda

1984 Magna vf700c

Posted - 04/20/2016 :  7:47 PM
Here in Ontario, also a very nanny-oriented district, we have mandatory accident benefit coverage on our insurance policies.

Personally, I'm against any sort of seatbelt or helmet laws but my car never moves without everyone belted in and nobody rides my bike without a helmet, at any time.

As much as I'm pro ATGATT, in practice I'm almost ATGATT. I ride with a full-face, SNELL certified helmet, racing gauntlets, an armored jacket and good boots that go up to my shins. If I go down though, my legs are going to get it...for now. For me it was a question of priorty, helmet and jacket came first, then gloves then boots.

I'm also against most forms of gun control. If everyone had a gun at all times, sure accidents would happen and crazy people would be crazy people. But we wouldn't see the massacres we see either, the person pulling the trigger wouldn't have a chance.

Didn't a lot of schools in the 60s and what-not have shooting ranges?
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 2 Previous Topic Discussion Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page
Jump To:
All Things (Safety Oriented) Motorcycle © Master Strategy Group Go To Top Of Page
  This page was generated in 0.42 seconds. Powered By: Snitz Forums 2000 Version 3.4.05