QUestion for the Libs...

[Cryozombie]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

*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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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!

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.

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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."