# QUestion for the Libs...



## Cryozombie (Oct 4, 2004)

Tgace's "Poke the Bear" email made me think of this comparison...

Democratic Leaders and their supporters want to pass a Helmet law in Illinois, requiring all motorcycle operators to wear a Helmet when riding.

Question for you...

Since most Liberals seem to be "Pro Choice" when it comes to abortion, why support a Helmet law?

Its Ok for you to have the right to choose to murder a baby*, but I cannot have the right to choose to risk MY life on my bike.

Hmm.  Hmm.

(Scratches his head in wonderment) 

*Note to others: I myself am Pro-choice... I use the term "Murder" to illustrate "The Other Side's" POV.


----------



## Tkang_TKD (Oct 4, 2004)

I consider myself a Lib...But I certainly don't agree to the idea of requiring a helmet law.  I support the stance of "insurance won't pay crap" if the person did not take reasonable precautions to protect themselves.

I don't like helmet laws what so ever. You should have the choice of whether you want to wear one.  Who am I to care if you splatter your brain all over the pavement when some idiot doesn't see you trying to pass?


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 4, 2004)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Tgace's "Poke the Bear" email made me think of this comparison...
> Democratic Leaders and their supporters want to pass a Helmet law in Illinois, requiring all motorcycle operators to wear a Helmet when riding.
> Question for you...
> Since most Liberals seem to be "Pro Choice" when it comes to abortion, why support a Helmet law?
> ...


Technopunk ... why even bring up the 'Pro Choice' discussion? You can't ask about a safety law without mentioning choice? Or are you just trying to poke the bears too?


I have this real important question about the 2nd amendment ... So why do you think President Bush doesn't know the stand Jesus took on capital punishment?

​One has absolutely nothing to do with the other. Bring it up if you want to piss people off.


You are also drawing a comparison between the Democratic Party and Liberals. While many democrats are more liberal than republicans, not all democrats are liberals. You certainly wouldn't call George Bush a conservative when in comes to fiscal discipline, would you?

re: Helmet law .... Why do you suppose there are seat belt laws? The Republican Party controls the White House, Both Houses of Congress, the Supreme Court, 28 State Governors, and more State Legislatures.

I am not hearing cries of "Less Government" when it comes to wearing a seat belt... Why is that?

p.s.  my opinion of helmet laws are the same as seat belt laws ... if you get in an accident and die ... good riddence to bad trash.


----------



## loki09789 (Oct 4, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Technopunk ... why even bring up the 'Pro Choice' discussion? You can't ask about a safety law without mentioning choice? Or are you just trying to poke the bears too?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


*Tries to stretch his arms wide enough to hug MWard here too*

NONE of this should be worth getting this worked up IMO.

I think the point is regulation/intervention:  How is it logical that on one issue the position is individual freedom to choose what to do with the life you are responsible for (yours and the unborn fetus) yet on another issue of choice, the push is for gov. regulation.... it does look inconsistent on that level, doesn't it?

How do I justify the 'inconsistency?', Most 'pro-choice' arguments are about the freedom of the chooser whereas the financial burden of increased insurance costs due to the increased probably risk of paying out death and injury benefits to m.cyclists that the rest of us would incur is the rationale behind the helmet laws.

Just like any political fracture, the argument isn't on equal footing.  One side is arguing 'for choice' or something, while the other has an argument based on a totally different set of principles.  You will not find consensus, understanding or even respect when most of the time they don't even know they are arguing apples and oranges under the same heading.


----------



## Patrick Skerry (Oct 4, 2004)

Liberal thinking is characterized by Orwellian logic - double think: blame the victim, punish the victim, redirect the blame, if my plan doesn't work - its your fault.

Liberals couch their rhetoric in cant and sophistry.

Liberal ecomomics are noted for tax & spend, over-regulation, and socialist based domestic policies.

Liberals are generally two-faced, forked tongued, hypocrites who cannot be trusted.


----------



## Tkang_TKD (Oct 4, 2004)

Patrick Skerry said:
			
		

> Liberal thinking is characterized by Orwellian logic - double think: blame the victim, punish the victim, redirect the blame, if my plan doesn't work - its your fault.
> 
> Liberals couch their rhetoric in cant and sophistry.
> 
> ...


So being a Liberal that's in the military, You are basically telling me that I am a Traitor, and a threat to national security?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 4, 2004)

Helmet laws exist for the same reasons seatbelt laws and warning labels on powertools exist.

Because people are stupid.

"Warning - Edge is Sharp" - label on a knife.  Uhh...I sure hope so.

It also creates a nice source of revenue for goverments when they can ticket the stupids for not obeying the law.

Personally, I feel you shouldn't have to legislate common sense things.
But, people are stupid.

As to helmet laws...lets see, no shirt, shorts, bare foot, but a helmet.
yup, he's safe.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Oct 4, 2004)

Patrick Skerry said:
			
		

> Liberal thinking is characterized by Orwellian logic - double think: blame the victim, punish the victim, redirect the blame, if my plan doesn't work - its your fault.
> 
> Liberals couch their rhetoric in cant and sophistry.
> 
> ...


Wow.  I don't see how this rant is addressing the question that Technopunk posed, but....

"blame the victim"? How is that consistent with helmet laws?


----------



## Cryozombie (Oct 4, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> p.s. my opinion of helmet laws are the same as seat belt laws ... if you get in an accident and die ... good riddence to bad trash.


WOO HOO!  I am bad trash!



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> I think the point is regulation/intervention: How is it logical that on one issue the position is individual freedom to choose what to do with the life you are responsible for (yours and the unborn fetus) yet on another issue of choice, the push is for gov. regulation.... it does look inconsistent on that level, doesn't it?


Thats exactly how I saw it.



			
				Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> As to helmet laws...lets see, no shirt, shorts, bare foot, but a helmet.
> yup, he's safe.


Thank you.  Ive said that all along.


----------



## Cryozombie (Oct 4, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> "blame the victim"? How is that consistent with helmet laws?


I took that to mean the statement "if you get in an accident and die ... good riddence to bad trash." by *michaeledward*


----------



## bignick (Oct 4, 2004)

as a fellow motorcyclist...i agree with technopunk...minnesota law states that the only people that are required to have a helmet are those under 18 and people without their full license....i don't usually wear a helmet...they aren't comfortable...and they can(some more than others) limit your visiblity which is a major safety issue...

should i wear one? probably....but i'm young and ignorant...


----------



## psi_radar (Oct 4, 2004)

I've been a motorcyclist for 28 years, and I'm still conflicted about this issue. As an avid biker (year-round rider in Colorado) I hear a lot about riders going into the most permanent form of early retirement. Helmets can and do save lives. Myself, I wear a helmet, boots, gloves and body armor, even in the summer. 

I see a lot of young squids out there (and I'm not directing this at you) with more sack than skill, blasting on hyperbikes near redline while wearing t-shirts, shorts, and flip-flops. I also see doctors and lawyers on their first bikes--800 lb. harleys--barely able to control them in traffic. For these people, perhaps the lack of helmets might be a blessing so they don't have to live through all those painful skin-grafts. But a more altruistic side of me favors government-mandated safety gear.

A good compromise would be to make more inexperienced riders wear helmets, and then be able to allow them to make the decision for themselves further down the line. In Europe and Japan they actually restrict the amoount of horsepower/torque and in some cases displacement by the level of experience and licensing you've achieved. Not a bad solution, really. 

As for the logic of wearing safety gear, ask yourself some questions:

Given the choice of wearing body armor or not in battle, what would you do? Granted, you don't look as cool wearing a vest and helmet. But I'm pretty sure that soccer mom in the Yukon eating and talking on the cell IS trying to kill me, so I'll sacrifice the fashion statement.

Do you wear a seatbelt? 

Would you go to dangerous neighborhood and purposely leave your self-defense skills at home?


----------



## bignick (Oct 4, 2004)

hmm...i totally agree with what psi_radar said too...the title of this thread being "question for the libs.." i guess that makes me a flip-flop...the head instructor of my tkd school was hit while he was on a motorcycle...he wasn't wearing a helmet...luckily he survived...but he's not the same person anymore...and it was almost three years ago...he still suffers seizures and there's some stuff he can't do because spinning etc make him dizzy...

when i ride it's usually out on low traffic country roads...and i'm not one of those kids on crotch rocket squeling out in the parking lot...i just like to cruise...and don't really take risks...doesn't mean i'm necessarily any safer...but i don't push the limit


----------



## psi_radar (Oct 4, 2004)

Ok, to _actually_ answer your question, I would say that liberals tend to be more secular in their reasoning and therefore seem to be conflicted in the abortion/helmet law issue. Rather than a life being created at conception, it's more determined by the mother of the fetus. Conservatives are influenced more by the dogma that life begins at conception and that government is responsible for the fetus as it is for any citizen.  

So, there's an interesting dichotomy here. 

Liberals believe= Less state responsibility for welfare of a human before it is born, more state responsibility afterward

Conservatives=More state responsibility for an unborn child, less for citizens afterward


----------



## Cryozombie (Oct 4, 2004)

Yeah... when I ride to 7-11 to get my cup of Bush/Kerry coffee, I often will not put my Helmet on...

Why?  Its a 4 block ride on a 25mph sidestreet.  

Can I still be killed in an accident?  Absolutley.  Is it as likely as if I got on an Interstate highway and went 90?  No...

SHould I have the choice what to do with my body, as much as say, any woman trying to decide if she wants to give birth?  Or maybe as much as you have deciding if you want to posion yourself with alcohol?


----------



## psi_radar (Oct 4, 2004)

bignick said:
			
		

> hmm...i totally agree with what psi_radar said too...the title of this thread being "question for the libs.." i guess that makes me a flip-flop...the head instructor of my tkd school was hit while he was on a motorcycle...he wasn't wearing a helmet...luckily he survived...but he's not the same person anymore...and it was almost three years ago...he still suffers seizures and there's some stuff he can't do because spinning etc make him dizzy...
> 
> when i ride it's usually out on low traffic country roads...and i'm not one of those kids on crotch rocket squeling out in the parking lot...i just like to cruise...and don't really take risks...doesn't mean i'm necessarily any safer...but i don't push the limit



Flip floppa!   As a social libertarian, I am the flip-flop posterchild. Nick, I'm sure you're a good and safe rider. However, there are lots out there who aren't, and that's where the anti-natural selection laws come in.  :asian:

Edit: also, motorcycling is inherently dangerous. Your safety is often contingent not just on your own skill, but road conditions, mechanical health of your bike, and last and definitely not least, other drivers on the road.


----------



## SMP (Oct 4, 2004)

I think it boils down to choice or even expression.  I live in oregon and always wear a helmet as required.  Even when I ride in Idaho where it is optional.  I prefer to have a helmet.  But I believe if someone wants to ride without a helmet it should be their choice. All to often poloticians believe they know what is best for the rest of us. Gov't should stick to providing the basics.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Oct 4, 2004)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> I took that to mean the statement "if you get in an accident and die ... good riddence to bad trash." by *michaeledward*


Ah. I see.  I was confused - usually helmet laws are thought to help protect, so I was a bit puzzled.

I think psi_radar has an interesting idea - that is, with more experience with a motorcycle, fewer restrictions.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Oct 4, 2004)

One difference I've heard, in explaining why seat belt use is required by law, is that there's a danger to other's safety and/or property of people being thrown from the vehicle during an accident.  Yeah, I thought it was a pretty shaky cover for legal paternalism as well, but hey, if you want a difference between seat belt laws and helmet laws, a motorcyclist, I think, is more likely to have their skin ripped off while skidding down the road, or cracking their skulls open like eggshells, but less likely to become projectiles.  

It should also be noted (and correct me if I'm wrong on this) that seat belt laws are a secondary offense, meaning that a cop can't pull you over for it, but can cite you for it if they see you're not wearing your seat belt if they've pulled you over for something else.  I don't know if the helmet laws would be treated the same.  

The comparison of the helmet laws to the pro-choice stands, I agree, isn't a very good one.  The first one regards how much risk we should let people take regarding their own health and safety, the latter is about the rights of the fetus, right to choose, blah blah blah.  They're similar, but the fundamental issues aren't the same.


----------



## Zepp (Oct 4, 2004)

Slightly off-topic.  This whole thread reminds me of something I once heard a psychology professor say in class when discussing how victims of brain damage are studied:  "Thank God for motorcycle riders.  Without them, we would never have had such opportunities to learn about the functions of the different parts of the brain."


----------



## psi_radar (Oct 4, 2004)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Yeah... when I ride to 7-11 to get my cup of Bush/Kerry coffee, I often will not put my Helmet on...
> 
> Why?  Its a 4 block ride on a 25mph sidestreet.
> 
> Can I still be killed in an accident?  Absolutley.  Is it as likely as if I got on an Interstate highway and went 90?  No...


 
Most motorcycling accidents happen less than five miles from the home at modest speeds. With no one else on the road you'd probably be safe on that jaunt to the 7-eleven, but I bet there's some intersections where a cage could blow a stop sign and turn you into a grease spot.



			
				Technopunk said:
			
		

> SHould I have the choice what to do with my body, as much as say, any woman trying to decide if she wants to give birth?  Or maybe as much as you have deciding if you want to posion yourself with alcohol?



There are legal limitations to alcohol--you're not allowed to drink until you're twenty-one, three years after you're legally allowed to kill someone while serving in the military. Bartenders are legally bound not to serve obvious drunks. Wearing a helmet is up to you, at least in my state. I've just seen a lot of bad accidents and had a few without. I hate seeing people ride without gear. I also think a lot of new riders haven't seen or experienced what can happen, and would change their minds if they did. Like I said, a good compromise might be to limit permissions on an experience and licencing level.

As for equating the helmet laws with the right to choose, I think it's apples and oranges. I'm not touching that.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Oct 4, 2004)

True.  And heavy drug users, although single-event blunt trauma is easier to study results than long-term chemical trauma, I think.  Perhaps if I had more faith in my fellow man, it wouldn't worry me as much.  I see motorcyclists zooming through our little town with no helmet, no leathers, looking pretty pink and vulnerable on their bikes.  Maybe people should start worrying about wearing their leathers along with the helmets.  (as others have already mentioned here.)


----------



## Cryozombie (Oct 4, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> Perhaps if I had more faith in my fellow man, it wouldn't worry me as much. I see motorcyclists zooming through our little town with no helmet, no leathers, looking pretty pink and vulnerable on their bikes. Maybe people should start worrying about wearing their leathers along with the helmets. (as others have already mentioned here.)


50% of motorcyle fatalities are from head trauma. With or without helmets. Protective clothing is nice for things like Low-side falls where you are gonna ride the pavement, helps not to get things like, oh, say, skin grafts... Its also great against Bugs, rocks, and other airborne debris.

It does no good against impacts and high-side falls, unless you happen to be wearing armor under (or in) your jacket that might minimize impact. Typically on the elbows and spine, and, if you have armored riding pants the knees and hips. But, as martial artists, good rolling and falling skills would aid that too...

Being informed and making an informed decision probably means a heck of a lot more than government regulation would. I mean, if we really wanna make bikes safe, maybe we should require all bikes have 4 wheels and roll cages before they are street legal?


----------



## bignick (Oct 4, 2004)

interesting note here...the safety equipment for cars...a seat belt, air bag, etc...comes equipped on all or most(in case of air bags) cars...the safety gear for a motorcycle is a lot more indepth...leather or another study material, armor, helmet, goggles or glasses depending on your helmet, gloves, boots...etc....how much of that comes with the motorcycle?

i'm sure if you're buying a brand new bike from a company or dealer you could maybe get them to throw in a free helmet or maybe a jacket...but normally...your given the vehicle without the safety devices...unlike cars....when i drive i always buckle up...i know too many people that have died in car accidents...and the only bumper sticker i have is reminding people to do the same... http://buckleupforaaron.com is a foundation started by my aunt when my cousin died in a car crash...i can name at least four others off the top of my head...but the main reason i don't really wear safety equipment is that i don't own it and really can't afford it...

i don't know where this was meant to go...but the difference between seat belts and other safety equip. for motorcycles popped into my head and i was just wondering what other people thought about this...


----------



## Phoenix44 (Oct 4, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> p.s. my opinion of helmet laws are the same as seat belt laws ... if you get in an accident and die ... good riddence to bad trash.


Agreed. BUT if you get into an accident, bash your brains in and LIVE, then I'M going to be paying for your diapers and physical therapy for the rest of your miserable life.  And THAT is why helmet laws and safer vehicles are in OUR best interest.


----------



## Patrick Skerry (Oct 4, 2004)

Tkang_TKD said:
			
		

> So being a Liberal that's in the military, You are basically telling me that I am a Traitor, and a threat to national security?


No, you are a liberal who is serving his country - thank you!


----------



## Spud (Oct 4, 2004)

Much like Pheonix44 says, it becomes a public health issue when Medicaid is paying for people with Tramatic Brain Injuries. I see where the state has an interest.  Is it a compelling interest? I'm not sure. Regardless, I always wear a helmet when cycling or skiing. 

 I don't see it as a lib/conservative issue in my state as the conservatives run the place, but we have many of the same approaches to primary seat belt laws, child seats, immunizations etc. Motorcyle helmets aren't required but the state pushes the STAR safe riding program very hard.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Oct 4, 2004)

Patrick Skerry said:
			
		

> No, you are a liberal who is serving his country - thank you!


So you are thanking someone who is



> two-faced, forked tongued, hypocrites who cannot be trusted.


for serving?  Or are you conceding that not all liberals are the monsters you imagine them to be?


----------



## Patrick Skerry (Oct 4, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> So you are thanking someone who is
> 
> 
> for serving? Or are you conceding that not all liberals are the monsters you imagine them to be?


Sometimes a liberal can do the 'right' thing.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Oct 4, 2004)

Patrick Skerry said:
			
		

> Sometimes a liberal can do the 'right' thing.


Interpretation: Crow tastes goooood.


----------



## Patrick Skerry (Oct 4, 2004)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> Interpretation: Crow tastes goooood.


Interpretation: Now I've seen everything!


----------



## OULobo (Oct 4, 2004)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Yeah... when I ride to 7-11 to get my cup of Bush/Kerry coffee, I often will not put my Helmet on...
> 
> Why?  Its a 4 block ride on a 25mph sidestreet.



Then why not just walk?



			
				psi_radar said:
			
		

> Most motorcycling accidents happen less than five miles from the home at modest speeds. With no one else on the road you'd probably be safe on that jaunt to the 7-eleven, but I bet there's some intersections where a cage could blow a stop sign and turn you into a grease spot.



Most motorcycle accidents are just some fool dumping his bike because he lost footing. Stats that state most accidents happen within five miles of residence are usually classifying minor fenderbenders and DUIs that just run off the road as "accidents". Look at the list of fatal car or motorcycle accidents for a better view of the dangerous bike riding behaviors. 

When I ride, I never wear my helmet. I know I'm stupid. I could throw excuses up, like, "I don't ride freeways or long distances," but the truth is it is more fun and it's legal without a helmet. It is a calculated risk, and one that I think I,  and anyone else who rides, should have the ability to take if they wish. I will qualify that if I rode long distances or high speeds I would wear my helmet, but I think it is still a choice.


----------



## OULobo (Oct 4, 2004)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> Agreed. BUT if you get into an accident, bash your brains in and LIVE, then I'M going to be paying for your diapers and physical therapy for the rest of your miserable life.  And THAT is why helmet laws and safer vehicles are in OUR best interest.



I don't see how this relates. I have heard it said, but I don't get the connection. I know, and have heard of, many people that get into accidents, car, motorcycle, ect., and the gov. isn't stepping up to help in any context, least of all help with medical expenses. They or their families are responsible for any and all of their medical expenses. Yes, if they have insurance, then some of it is covered, but they have been paying for that for years, it's just part of the insurance business. The only time I hear the government taking a part in payment is if the victim is elderly (medicaid/care) or destitute. Niether or which have an abudance of motorcycle rider representation. Not many welfare families can afford a bike. I guess I can see if you say that it raises insurace rates as a whole or that it costs in emergancy services tax money, but to me those are things that I pay for too regardless of how I ride.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 4, 2004)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> It should also be noted (and correct me if I'm wrong on this) that seat belt laws are a secondary offense, meaning that a cop can't pull you over for it, but can cite you for it if they see you're not wearing your seat belt if they've pulled you over for something else. I don't know if the helmet laws would be treated the same.


Depends on the state. In some states this is true. In NY I can use seatbelts as PC for a stop.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 4, 2004)

The sad truth is that many of these laws are from victims and families of victims gaining support for these laws and taking them to the politicians...."I have seen the enemy and he is us". Seatbelts, DWI laws, helmets, driving with cell phones and on down the line....


----------



## psi_radar (Oct 4, 2004)

Here's a page with some great research on these subjects:

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/pedbimot/motorcycle/research.htm


If you're a drunk older guy on a harley with no helmet, according to statistics you might as well just shoot yourself and get it over with. The over 49 age group riding 1000-1500 cc bikes are the demographic with the highest increase of fatalities. They don't distinguish between v-twin and I-4, but I think we can assume they're not all riding Hayabusas.


----------



## bignick (Oct 4, 2004)

i've seen this in my hometown where there has been a rash of motorcycle fever...it seems like everyone and their grandmother's got a bike...and the one's that i think are in the most trouble are the older guys(read: midlife crisis) that go out and buy the bike and the leathers and all the gear and hop on without every really learning how to ride...someone with experience and no helmet is a lot safer than someone with all the gear and no experience that wants to go on an 8 hour ride...obviously you're safer wearing protective gear if you're a new rider than without any...but i know a lot of them don't even have a motorcycle license, which is required in minnesota...


----------



## Tkang_TKD (Oct 4, 2004)

Patrick Skerry said:
			
		

> Sometimes a liberal can do the 'right' thing.


Or maybe the word liberal is too often demonized.  In truth, I do believe the party of Lincoln were at one point the big liberals.  And all of the good liberal things (like freeing slaves, women's voting rights, integration in the school house, etc...) that have happened in our country, I just can't understand why "liberal" is such a bad word.


----------



## psi_radar (Oct 5, 2004)

bignick said:
			
		

> ...someone with experience and no helmet is a lot safer than someone with all the gear and no experience that wants to go on an 8 hour ride...obviously you're safer wearing protective gear if you're a new rider than without any...but i know a lot of them don't even have a motorcycle license, which is required in minnesota...



I absolutely agree with you. Skill and experience go a long way in motorcycle safety. By the way Nick, don't let the expense of safety equipment keep you from buying any. You can find great deals on ebay and companies like HJC and Suomy make DOT approved helmets for very reasonable prices. Also, dealers will usually throw in gear with the purchase of a cycle if you press them on it.


----------



## Cryozombie (Oct 5, 2004)

bignick said:
			
		

> i've seen this in my hometown where there has been a rash of motorcycle fever...it seems like everyone and their grandmother's got a bike...and the one's that i think are in the most trouble are the older guys(read: midlife crisis) that go out and buy the bike and the leathers and all the gear and hop on without every really learning how to ride...someone with experience and no helmet is a lot safer than someone with all the gear and no experience that wants to go on an 8 hour ride...obviously you're safer wearing protective gear if you're a new rider than without any...but i know a lot of them don't even have a motorcycle license, which is required in minnesota...


 I absolutley agree with this... I put almost 4k miles on my bike riding on a Learners permit (Read that as: With an Experienced rider) AND completed the states Motorcycle Rider Saftey Course before I got my licence.  Even tho Ive only been riding a couple years, I think at this point, I have proven myself responsible enough to choose...


----------



## Phoenix44 (Oct 5, 2004)

OULobo said:
			
		

> I don't see how this relates. I have heard it said, but I don't get the connection....the gov. isn't stepping up to help in any context, least of all help with medical expenses.


Ever hear of Social Security Disability?



> The only time I hear the government taking a part in payment is if the victim is elderly (medicaid/care) or destitute. Niether or which have an abudance of motorcycle rider representation.


Funny thing, but once you bash your brains in, you end up becoming destitute real fast. Especially if you're a single adult. Or one of the 45 million people without health insurance.

And we're not talking about "the government." We're talking about our tax money.


----------



## psi_radar (Oct 5, 2004)

From the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regarding medical costs of helmeted vs. non-helmeted riders:


http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/pedbimot/motorcycle/Motorcycle_HTML/overview.html#5


Here's the conclusion if you don't feel like reading the whole thing:

"Most of the studies reviewed in the course of this project examined the impact of safety helmets or helmet laws on motorcycle injuries. These studies consistently found that helmet use reduced the fatality rate, the probability and severity of head injuries, the cost of medical treatment, the length of hospital stay, the necessity for special medical treatments (including ventilation, intubation, and follow-up care), and the probability of long-term disability. This work reinforces similar conclusions from earlier studies.

A number of the reviewed studies examined the question of who pays for medical costs. Only slightly more than half of motorcycle crash victims have private health insurance coverage. For patients without private insurance, a majority of medical costs are paid by the government. Some crash patients are covered directly through Medicaid or another government program. Others, who are listed by the hospital as self-pay status, might eventually become indigent and qualify for Medicaid when their costs reach a certain level.

While the literature has widely explored acute medical costs, research is sparse in the areas of long-term medical and work-loss costs. For victims of serious head injury, acute hospital care might be only the first stage of a long and costly treatment program. For many crash victims, lost wages from missed work days will outweigh medical costs. And for victims who are permanently disabled, their earnings might be reduced for the rest of their lives. More research is needed on these subjects to provide a more comprehensive pictu re of the full cost of motorcycle crash injuries."


----------



## TonyM. (Oct 5, 2004)

Why do liberals get the tag for helmut laws. Wasn't it the Reagan administration that jammed the 55 mph speed limit down our throats?
We have these laws because of human nature. If we make people legislators, they will legislate. They just can't help themselves.


----------



## loki09789 (Oct 5, 2004)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Yeah... when I ride to 7-11 to get my cup of Bush/Kerry coffee, I often will not put my Helmet on...
> 
> Why? Its a 4 block ride on a 25mph sidestreet.
> 
> ...


Techno,
How DARE you use a consistent reasoning/value system/point of view to evaluate two OBVIOUSLY different issues.  How does the right to choose what you do with your body have anything what so ever to do with the right to choose what you do with your body....

All joking aside, drinking/driving issues create a realistic safety risk to others that makes the 'right to choose' issue a little less significant to me than the 'public welfare' issue.  Now some will say that the same reasoning could be said about abortion, so they might say that my POV on that is 'inconsistent'.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Oct 5, 2004)

TonyM. said:
			
		

> Why do liberals get the tag for helmut laws. Wasn't it the Reagan administration that jammed the 55 mph speed limit down our throats?



Actually, the 55 mph speed limit was originated by the Carter Administration during the oil crisis, in order to save fuel.


----------



## loki09789 (Oct 5, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> Actually, the 55 mph speed limit was originated by the Carter Administration during the oil crisis, in order to save fuel.


One of the other motives (though I have to agree that the driving motive was probably consumption) of the reduced speeds was the safety issues as well.  Now-a-days when people mention the speed limits, they back it up with the survivability statistics/occurance type of datum bits.

If that was the case then, I wonder if the re-introduction of 65 will be reduced back to 55 in response to the near/over $2 gallon prices (at least in this area)...

If they don't reduce the speed, would that be a conspiracy to rake the public by the administration?....


----------



## psi_radar (Oct 5, 2004)

TonyM. said:
			
		

> Why do liberals get the tag for helmut laws. Wasn't it the Reagan administration that jammed the 55 mph speed limit down our throats?
> We have these laws because of human nature. If we make people legislators, they will legislate. They just can't help themselves.



That was during the Carter administration and the last gas crisis in the mid 70's. Ralph Nader had a hand in it too, I believe. 

I hear you about the legislature. To justify their existence, they need to constantly create new laws. By its very nature, it begins to limit our freedoms. 

Ok, I've beat my participation on this thread to death. To all you motorcyclists: please wear your helmets.


----------



## Nightingale (Oct 5, 2004)

MT MOD NOTE:

Please keep the discussion on topic.  The topic is "Helmet laws" and how someone can be pro-choice yet support helmet laws.  General political sniping is not topical.  If someone wishes to debate general liberal v. conservative philosophy, feel free to start a new thread.

Thank you.

-Nightingale-
MT MODERATOR


----------



## Spud (Oct 5, 2004)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> Ever hear of Social Security Disability?
> 
> Funny thing, but once you bash your brains in, you end up becoming destitute real fast. Especially if you're a single adult. Or one of the 45 million people without health insurance.
> 
> And we're not talking about "the government." We're talking about our tax money.


 WORD! 

 I've a friend who provides counseling for people on Medicaid and Social Security Disablity - a sizeable number are in those programs because of Traumatic Brain Injury and of those - the young motorcyclists are well represented.


----------



## loki09789 (Oct 5, 2004)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> Ever hear of Social Security Disability?
> 
> Funny thing, but once you bash your brains in, you end up becoming destitute real fast. Especially if you're a single adult. Or one of the 45 million people without health insurance.
> 
> And we're not talking about "the government." We're talking about our tax money.


In a very cruel and emotionless view, that could also be the practicallity of abortion.  Abort a child that will be unwanted/less that well provided for and will become a 'drain on society' because of all the problems that are assumed to come with those conditions (sub standard living conditions, drug abuse, illegal activies, gang recruitment.....).  Those who would use this reasoning probably cite the percentage of teen and single pregnant women (maybe even going so far as to target minorities even more specifically) who seek abortions and then do the 'what if she kept it' prospectus by comparing the results of crime/youth offenses/academic underachievement of children from women who chose to keep the child.

Sort of a harsh way to look at it, but someone out there is reasoning out things this way....


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 5, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> . . . Abort a child . . .


Child? That is language of pro-life. 
The correct language is fetus. You know that.


----------



## loki09789 (Oct 5, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Child? That is language of pro-life.
> The correct language is fetus. You know that.


Well, my personal bent on this sticks out.... BUT,as an American, beyond voting my conscience, I don't have the right or power to tell another citizen how to live his life.  If I were so crazy as to seek an office, things might be different.

Getting to the "gains in inches" strategy aren't you .


----------



## whalen (Oct 5, 2004)

* 
Directory of information: 
* 
1) Conflict of interest: Cheney continues to receive income from Halliburton 
2) Cheneys involvement in awarding no-bid contract to Halliburton 
3) Iraq contracts: Criminal investigations and rampant waste, fraud and abuse 
4) Doing business with Axis of Evil countries like Iran 
5) Halliburtons sales to Saddam Hussein under Cheney 
6) Halliburton paid bribes during Cheney's reign, say investigators 
7) Halliburton and frivolous lawsuits 
8) Leaving workers and retirees behind 
9) Accounting fraud 
10) Corporate welfare 
11) Asbestos liability: Cheneys legacy 
12) Donald Rumsfeld

* 
1) Conflict of interest: Cheney continues to receive income from Halliburton 
* 
In 2003, Cheney said I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind. But he continues to receive a income of over $150,000 from Halliburton each year and holds 433,333 shares of unexercised stock options in the company. Congressman Henry Waxman (D-CA) of the House Government Reform Committee has asked Cheney to provide further information. 

2) Cheneys involvement in awarding no-bid contract to Halliburton 
* 
Cheney told NBC's Meet the Press "I have absolutely no influence of, involvement of, knowledge of in any way, shape or form of contracts led by the [Army] Corps of Engineers or anybody else in the Federal Government." But an internal Pentagon email contradicts Cheney's denial, explaining that months before the war "action" on the Iraqi oil contract was "coordinated" with Cheney's office.* 

3) Iraq contracts: Criminal investigations and rampant waste, fraud and abuse 
* 
As the recipient of contracts worth an estimated $18 billion, Halliburton is the biggest war profiteer in the Iraq reconstruction debacle and the Armys number one contractor. 
* 
a) The Department of Justice is conducting a criminal investigation into allegations that Halliburton gouged the taxpayers for $61 million for gasoline; a separate criminal investigation is ongoing into charges that two employees took kickbacks from a subcontractor. 
* 
b) The Pentagon's Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) completed a comprehensive review of Halliburton's system for billing the government for meals served to the troops in the Middle East. The DCAA said Halliburton billed the government for 36 percent more meals than was actually served to the troops while an internal KBR report said it had overcharged by 19 percent. In May 2004, the DCAA recommended that the Pentagon refuse to pay Halliburton for the overcharges.
* 
c) A number of ex-employees have returned and blown the whistle on all kinds of waste, fraud and abuse, including charges of $45 per case of soda, $100 per 15-pound bag of laundry, the ditching of $85,000 trucks because of flat tires and other minor repair problems and the use of five-star hotels in Kuwait while the troops are sweating it out in tents in the desert. 
* 
d) In August the Pentagons auditors and Halliburton could not justify $1.8 billion of $4.3 billion (or 43 percent) in bills submitted by the company under one contract. Although at least 25 separate criminal investigations into various reconstruction contractors are underway, the Bush administration has yet to suspend or debar a single contractor in Iraq  not even the companies involved in the Abu Ghraib prison torture. A bipartisan coalition of Senators called for the creation of a special committee modeled on the WWII Truman Committee to investigate these and other problems. Both candidates should be asked if they support the creation of such a committee and the suspension of any company under criminal investigation from new contracts until the investigations are concluded (the way, for example, Enron and WorldCom were suspended from government contracts even before being convicted of fraud). ** 
* 
e) Halliburton is under investigation by the Justice Department for possible over billing on government services work done in the Balkans from 1996 through 2000, i.e., the period when Cheney was CEO.* The GAO found inflated costs, including charges for cleaning some offices up to four times a day.* Based on an internal investigation, Halliburton credited the government approximately $2 million during 2000 and 2001 related to its work in the Balkans as a result of unsupported billings. ** 
* 
f) The Los Angeles Times reported that "the Army recently renegotiated a contract that Halliburton had with a Kuwaiti company to provide meals. By contracting directly with the Kuwaiti company instead of going through Halliburton, the Army knocked 40 percent off the cost of the contract." Once the Pentagon dealt directly with the Kuwaiti-owned company, known as Timimi Co., the cost per-meal dropped from about $5 to about $3, according to GAO Comptroller David Walker. (Los Angeles Times, June  16, 2004, p. A12). 
* 
g) Last December, amid allegations of overcharging, the Pentagon fired Halliburton from its gasoline importation contract and assigned it to an office within the Pentagon known as the Defense Energy Support Center (DESC). The result was a 50 percent reduction in gasoline prices charged to U.S. taxpayers. * 
* 
4) Doing business with Axis of Evil countries like Iran

Cheney has said the U.S. will hunt terrorists wherever they plot and plan." But as CEO for Halliburton he called for ending sanctions against Iran, a nation whose government President Bush says sponsors terrorism and described as part of an axis of evil. Halliburtons sales to Iran totaled $63 million in 2003, and were conducted through the use of shell corporations in the Cayman Islands (a situation being investigated by a grand jury in Houston). 
* 
5) Halliburtons sales to Saddam Hussein under Cheney 
* 
In 2000, Cheney claimed Halliburton had no business deals with Saddam Hussein during his time as CEO. But he misled America since Halliburton did indeed profit from Saddam Hussein's dictatorship when Cheney was with the company. Halliburton subsidiaries -- Dresser Rand and Ingersoll-Dresser Pump -- signed contracts to sell more than $73 million in oil production equipment and spare parts to Iraq from the first half of 1997 through the summer of 2000 -- while Cheney was chairman and CEO of the company. Did Cheney deliberately mislead America or was he ignorant of the facts while employed as CEO? 
* 
6) Halliburton paid bribes during Cheney's reign, say investigators
* 
A scheme to bribe the government of Nigeria  hatched before Cheney arrived -- continued when he was CEO, when a lawyer who allegedly masterminded the use of Swiss bank accounts was rehired over objections from other partners involved in a large liquid natural gas (LNG) project. Cheney also hired Albert Jack Stanley -- a top KBR executive who was fired this year after $5 million was found in his Swiss bank account in association with the scheme. Cheney and his lawyers have refused comment. Bribing foreign governments is a criminal offense under the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. 
* 
7) Halliburton and frivolous lawsuits 
* 
Cheney says the court system is filled with too many lawsuits. But during his 5-year tenure as CEO, Halliburton was more than willing to file its own lawsuits in Americas courts. The company was involved in 151 court claims filed in 15 states around the nation. On average, Halliburton petitioned America's legal system 30 times per year while Cheney was CEO. Although Halliburton earns billions in revenues each year, it sued people or corporations in small claims court for as little as $1,500. It sued 15 debtors for less than $10,000 each, 24 debtors for less than $15,000 each and 40 debtors for less than $100,000 each. How many of these court actions contributed to what Cheney calls the frivolous lawsuit epidemic?* 
*
8) Leaving workers and retirees behind 
* 
As CEO of Halliburton, Cheney masterminded a business merger that robbed $25 million from worker pensions. Nine months after plundering the companys pensions, the board of directors, with Cheney as chairman, awarded Cheney a $20 million pension. Pension experts say Cheneys pension-profiteering was scandalous. 
* 
9) Accounting fraud 
* 
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) said Halliburton provided "materially misleading" information on its accounting statements during the period when Cheney was CEO, thereby defrauding Wall Street and individual investors. Cheney signed those accounting statements as accurate and honest. The SEC agreed to settle the investigation in August after Halliburton agreed to pay a $7.5 million fine and stop "committing or causing future securities law violations." A Dallas federal judge rejected a planned $6 million settlement of a class-action lawsuit filed by Halliburton shareholders who say the company committed the same accounting fraud investigated by the SEC.* The judge said the $6 million settlement was inadequate and unreasonable for the shareholders. Four ex-Halliburton employees filed suit against the company (as shareholders) the day after the SEC settled its case with the company.* * 

In 1996, Cheney appeared in a promotional video for the now disgraced accounting firm Andersen. "I get good advice, if you will, from their people, based upon how we are doing business and how we are operating, over and above the normal, by-the-books auditing arrangement," Cheney said. Andersen was convicted of obstructing justice by shredding documents relating to the failed US energy giant Enron. 
** 
10) Corporate welfare 
* 
During the 2000 debate with Senator Lieberman, in referring to the $44 million he received for five year's work at Halliburton -- Cheney said, "I tell you that the government had absolutely nothing to do with it." But it was Cheney himself who as Secretary of Defense paid Brown & Root Services, a Halliburton subsidiary, $9 million to conduct a study that led to the creation of the logistics contract (LOGCAP) that first went to KBR in 1992 and has allowed Halliburton to rise to the top of the Armys list of contractors today. Halliburtons LOGCAP III contract for its work in Iraq is worth up to $9.2 billion, while its oil restoration contract is worth up to $8.2 billion. Moreover, U.S. taxpayer-supported financing for Halliburtons overseas oil projects since 1992 is valued at more than $7.8 billion. No corporation has benefited more from the World Bank's fossil fuel extractive project than Halliburton. Since 1992, the U.S.-taxpayer financed World Bank approved more than $2.5 billion in financing for 13 Halliburton projects. 

11) Asbestos liability: Cheneys legacy 
* 
Cheneys tenure as CEO for Halliburton is erroneously reported by the mainstream media as a success. In fact, his incompetence and lack of business experience are the reason why Halliburton failed to earn a profit over the last two years despite skyrocketing revenues from Iraq war contracts. While CEO, Cheney orchestrated the $7.7 billion merger of Halliburton with Dresser Industries, a move that eventually saddled Halliburton with Dressers $4 billion in legal claims filed by people who were injured by asbestos. Those legal claims are the reason why Halliburton has been mired in red ink for the last two years.* 
* 
12) Donald Rumsfeld 
* 
In 1966, Donald H. Rumsfeld, then a Republican member of the House of Representatives from Illinois, demanded to know about the 30-year association between Halliburtons chairman and then-president Lyndon B. Johnson. Why this huge contract has not been and is not now being adequately audited is beyond me, Rumsfeld said. The potential for waste and profiteering under such a contract is substantial. (National Public Radio, All Things Considered, Dec. 24, 2003.) 
* 
More in-depth information about Halliburton can be found using the HalliburtonWatch search engine by clicking here. artyon:


----------



## loki09789 (Oct 5, 2004)

whalen said:
			
		

> *
> 
> *
> More in-depth information about Halliburton can be found using the HalliburtonWatch search engine by clicking here. artyon:


 
Looks like it needs its own thread to me.


----------



## Patrick Skerry (Oct 5, 2004)

Tkang_TKD said:
			
		

> Or maybe the word liberal is too often demonized. In truth, I do believe the party of Lincoln were at one point the big liberals. And all of the good liberal things (like freeing slaves, women's voting rights, integration in the school house, etc...) that have happened in our country, I just can't understand why "liberal" is such a bad word.


I cannot and willnot speak for the south, but the schools in Boston were never segregated or imbalanced, too many eye-witnesses and countervailing evidence for that; yet the liberals, most of whom where not even from Boston (example, book: DEATH AT AN EARLY AGE) came in as interlopers and psuedo-experts, screamed RAACISM at the top of their lungs thereby creating a 'self-fulfiling prophecy' and were believed by the liberal Boston newspaper (again, most of who worked for Boston newspapers not being from Boston) and the leftist Kennedy stooge federal judge went ahead violating the Seperation of Powers act and ordered a collectivist solution, 'Forced Busing', to a non-existant problem - in Boston if segregation didn't exist, create it in myth!

All this by liberals who were going to force you to comply with their Utopian left-wing fantasy at your tax expense: liberals are the true practitioners of Orwellian logic: We the liberals are the first among equals!

Trouble is, Boston really isn't that liberal, its all the surrounding cities and towns like Cambridge, Newton, Brookline and various suburbs, Boston itself is conservative to moderate.  But all the liberals scream their heads off and make the most noise, they insist they are right and have all the answers (from the safety of their private sector jobs and their all-white affluent suburbs).

So this is why 'liberal' is such invective.


----------



## whalen (Oct 5, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Looks like it needs its own thread to me.


Yo

You might be right on this.

Hal whalen artyon:


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Oct 5, 2004)

Patrick Skerry said:
			
		

> Trouble is, Boston really isn't that liberal, its all the surrounding cities and towns like Cambridge, Newton, Brookline and various suburbs, Boston itself is conservative to moderate. But all the liberals scream their heads off and make the most noise, they insist they are right and have all the answers (from the safety of their private sector jobs and their all-white affluent suburbs).
> 
> So this is why 'liberal' is such invective.


So you are for urban dwellers and against surburbanites?


----------



## Nightingale (Oct 5, 2004)

MT MOD NOTE:

This thread is locked pending admin review due to the inability of posters to remain on topic.

-Nightingale-
MT MODERATOR


----------

