"Helmet? I don't need no steenking helmet!"

[Scooby074]

Is paying taxes that build and maintain roadways a 'privilege'?
I think not.

Paying taxes to build roadways is isnt a voluntary thing, however using them is a privilege.

If your a convicted drunk driver that pays taxes, do you think you can drive because of those taxes? Not a chance. The government has the right to decide who drives and what safety measures they need to take, simple as that, after all it is THEIR highway. I suppose a person could argue they own 1/6,000,000 th (or what ever their states population is) of it.:laughing: so you could do whatever you want on your 6" square of tarmac.

If one doesn't like it he can build his own highways. Its only about $1,000,000 a mile Imagine the "freedom" of a private, no helmet, drunk driver allowing highway!!!! The free market at work. But id imagine they'd run out of users pretty soon, on the up side local funeral directors would be doing a brisk business.

 

[retiredmgn]

Paying taxes to build roadways is isnt a voluntary thing, however using them is a privilege.

If your a convicted drunk driver that pays taxes, do you think you can drive because of those taxes? Not a chance. The government has the right to decide who drives and what safety measures they need to take, simple as that, after all it is THEIR highway. I suppose a person could argue they own 1/6,000,000 th (or what ever their states population is) of it.:laughing: so you could do whatever you want on your 6" square of tarmac.

If one doesn't like it he can build his own highways. Its only about $1,000,000 a mile Imagine the "freedom" of a private, no helmet, drunk driver allowing highway!!!! The free market at work. But id imagine they'd run out of users pretty soon, on the up side local funeral directors would be doing a brisk business.

Well when you put it that way... you win.
Maine is big on the, "driving is a privilege", quote.

"The government has the right to decide who drives and what safety measures they need to take". Couldn't agree more.

"after all it is THEIR highway". Couldn't agree less. Government does not have any money (but that's a different thread). It is all provided, "by the people". For Gov't to say, "You are lucky pal to be able to use what you already paid for", just sits the wrong way.
I have no problem with, "Here are your tax dollars at work. In order to use this road you must follow these rules".
That's not a privilege that's a right. Ignore the rules, loose your 'right' to use the road. 'Privilege' says I am being 'given' something. I'm not being given anything, I'm paying for it. As you mention, I may not own much of it but I am part of the collective that created it.

 

[EMB5530]

How can you guys say its their highway.
The Govt isnt there for itself(well isnt supposed to be)
The Gov is the people its there for the people.
As far as saying it is the non helmet wearers fault maybe we should look at the fact that it is the person who does not pay their own bills fault.

I believe that people should be willing to help each other.
IE paying for treatments for a cancer patient, diabetes research things of that nature.
But there is a real need for personal responsibility which many here dont have.
People go bankrupt with no consequence. And do many other things w/ no consequence.
Why is it Jon Q Publics responsibility to pay for that?
You may think I am harsh but if a person wants to take risks and expects everyone else to take the monitary reprocussions then maybe they need a bit of reality given.

I say this is AMERICA and you should be FREE to choose what you do so long as you are not endangering someone else.
If you are a druggie be a druggie
If you are a dare devil be one
If you like to sky dive do it
and if you want to ride your scooter w/o a helmet well dang it do that too.

Now I know many of you dissagree so I say wear your helmet when you ride but how is it your choice for someone else.

If you are worried about paying higher taxes maybe you should have manditory drug test on anyone on wellfare. and if they cant pass they lose it.
See how much money that will save you.
If you want to enact laws, enact logical ones.

And remember

ITS MY OPINION
Thanks:thumbsup:

 

[JRobyn]

If passing a drug test becomes a prerequisite to receiving welfare (or unemployment, or SS, or SSDI, or foodstamps,etc.) then from what my experience shows, many of the low-lifes who are cut off will then simply turn to robbery, drug dealing or meth manufacturing for their "income". Heaven forbit they actually WORK. One young man I know of burnt off half of the front of himself in a meth lab "accident". Us taxpayers have now paid for (and continue to pay for) his extensive hospitalization and rehabilitation.

 

[Tollster]

While wearing a helmet may always sound like you will walk away scott free, there is and has been a valid cause for the argument of not wearing one. There are many a case file of severe and permanent neck injury. This results from the weight of the helmet hyperextending the spinal cord during the crash.
Sure, we can think of that as a lesser of two evils, but none the less it has been and will be a valid arguement. There have also been other studies on the psychology of those who wear all the gear all the time,and those who choose not to wear any PPE. A large majority of those who wore ATGATT had an higher risk behavior, than those who did not wear any PPE.

I have followed this when our state of Pennsylvania appealed the helmet law not once but twice, the second time the law was over turned. Motorcycle deaths have decreased in my home state when averaged with rider growth. I also believe we have laws that require inexperienced riders to maintain a cover on their grape for a certian period of time,and if under the age of 21.

I have choosen to wear a helmet 99.9% of the time and have ridden bike since 1973 and have been through 18 machines since that time. I have 3 steeds in my garage as we speak. I also have a previous neck injury..the way I figure, I'm boned either way.

I am also amazed at how many people B i t c h about helmet laws, but continue to operate their vehicle while using cell phones ( How about we helmet up after we bann all cell phones from automobiles, who would be crying thenI wonder?). As a rider, those are the biggest human threats on the road. So if you are annoyed by my flashing headlight, or my 150 DB airhorn,don't blame me, blame the cell phone users, as I am just trying to survive the combat highway.

 

[The Haymaker]

If passing a drug test becomes a prerequisite to receiving welfare (or unemployment, or SS, or SSDI, or foodstamps,etc.) then from what my experience shows, many of the low-lifes who are cut off will then simply turn to robbery, drug dealing or meth manufacturing for their "income". Heaven forbit they actually WORK. One young man I know of burnt off half of the front of himself in a meth lab "accident". Us taxpayers have now paid for (and continue to pay for) his extensive hospitalization and rehabilitation.

See, Maine is already partially set up for that predicament.... The cure for the new issue would be our Castle Laws.

 

[The Haymaker]

New Sweden man dies in ATV accident in Stockholm — Maine News — Bangor Daily News

Us Mainers seem to have issues with helmets.... or lack of.

 

[Skyco]

One young man I know of burnt off half of the front of himself in a meth lab "accident". Us taxpayers have now paid for (and continue to pay for) his extensive hospitalization and rehabilitation.

Can we hope it burned enough of his "fun bits" he won't be able to enlarge his gene pool?

 

[MikeD74T]

Sounds good on paper/in utopia land, but what about individual responsibility?

My niece works in hospital billing. All those people lifeflighted from atv/motorcycle crashes with no insurance jacks up my insurance rates. In my state for every $1 of actual services, the hospital has to bill out to private insurance $1.77 to make up for all the uninsured who walk away from their bills/declare bankruptcy

Why should I have to pay higher insurance for all these idiots who 1. don't wear a helmet and 2. don't think they need insurance.

Not a comment on your niece, but nothing jacks up insurance costs more than incompetent hospital billing!!! In the NH seacoast we have 3 helicopter groups fighting for more heli-transports - because they can bill for the service.

Earlier this week an entire family(7 I think) was killed in a van crash in the midwest -why no helmet outcry for them????? Might have saved at least one??? MikeD74T

 

[284 International]

There are many a case file of severe and permanent neck injury. This results from the weight of the helmet hyperextending the spinal cord during the crash.

I don't want to start an argument, I'm here to learn; what is your source for that information? I know that can be an issue with vehicles where the driver is strapped in and the head is free to move (Hence the invention of restraint systems like the HANS and others) but I'm unaware of any studies that demonstrate wearing a helmet being a mechanism of injury for a hyperextended spinal cord during a motorcycle/ATV crash.

A large majority of those who wore ATGATT had an higher risk behavior, than those who did not wear any PPE.

That may be true; I haven't seen any studies that address the issue specific to motorcycles, but it's certainly true in rock climbing, and there appears to be meaningful correlation between drivers' tendency to go faster when their car is equipped with air bags, anti-lock brakes, stability control and the like, compared to the same driver in a car not equipped with those things.

However, given a crash, the driver in the better equipped car gets hurt less. And overall, drivers who don't wear seatbelts, drive drunk, drive aggressively, are young, male, and similar risk factors not only crash more, they die more. (Alcohol use is overwhelmingly a factor in the risky behavior category, because so many things follow on with it after consumption.)

My point is simply that correlation does not equal causation. A seat belted mother who carefully makes sure her child's car seat is correctly installed into her car bought after she researched all of her options and chose the vehicle with the highest crash safety ratings, turns her phone off while driving and has practiced safe, careful driving habits even before she had children is not more likely to get crash, or to get hurt, than the 16 year old who has been souping up his car and is out for a joy ride with his buddies who are in their cars at 2:00am. Mind-set matters most, in my view.

Safety equipment can protect against the lapse of judgment, momentary carelessness, ignorance, or things like that. If one uses the better safety gear to push the boundaries further, the overall hazard is about the same.