Well guys, most of us live in states where wearing a helmet is the law, how do you feel about that and if you were riding in another state would you still wear one? Do you wish your state doesn't have a helmet law? I like my helmet becuase it does 2 things, matches my bike (cool factor) and it keeps me from being 6 feet BELOW the pavement.
PA does not require a helmet for riders with two years experience or the MSF course. I qualify, and I have ridden without a helmet a totoal of ZERO times.
No helmet law here, but we do have a ghey seatbelt law. I don't think we should legislate stuff like this. If I wan't to risk myself by not buckling up or riding without a helmet so be it. The laws should exist for minors under the age of 18, but not for adults.
Ohh, and in indiana if you have truck plates you don't have to wear a seatbelt. I have truck plates on both my vehicles so I am safe from harrassment. :nana:
That being said I always wear a helmet (more for bug protection and tinted visor) and always buckle my seatbelt, but I don't think that big-brother should be allowed to force me to do so.
I can't remember where or when, but I read an interesting study about helmets awhile ago. The conclusion was that you were "better off" not wearing a helmet. Turns out that helmets were saving lives, but not at a level of life worth living. Vegetable hooked up to machines is not what I would consider life saving. I think it is a trade off. In a low speed crash a helmet will help, but at high speeds (probably about 40) it isn't gonna do much for you. Just my .02.
Matt
Ofcourse you should wear a helmet. The argument about riding 40 the helmet not doing anything good i purely wrong. Do you thing guys in MC racing is weat a helmet for fun ? Try to body slide in 40 miles per hour without a helmet :( And i helmet save lifes, then it is a must. Good or bad life ? who is capable to decide ?
I would like a link to that study about helmet and safety.
/tralala
with an issue as polarizing as mandatory helmet laws, no study will be unbiased. I'm sure that if AMA funded a study it would show that they do not help, but if Shoei funded another one it would find that they do! Pretty much everybody has a strong opinion on the subject and data can be 'massaged' to argue whichever point you want. It comes down to a personal decision. I am ok with the law in PA because it gives more choice (i.e. freedom) to the rider. As long as fatal accidents don't rise dramatically (and along with them, tax expenditures for investigations, road-repairs, emergency services, etc), then its up to the rider. Personally, I believe that a helmet is a good idea at any speed.
Wear it every time. I appreciate all the personal freedom issues and the debate is endless, like the one we had about street cctv thirty years ago, I was very anti surveilance but the nothing-to-hide-nothing-to-fear argument is a very powerful one and I have no doubt our city streets are safer and better places because of cctv. Same with helmets, we all really know it makes sense but should it be a legislation issue. I don't know but by the same principal, if we all know, does it matter?
Many (well 39) years ago when I got my first bike at the age of 19 there was no helmet law here, I could not afford one and did not wear one. I had the classic accident, late for work, rainy morning, overtook a military truck on the brow of a hill and met head-on with one of those things that delivers ready-mixed wet cement, not much of a contest, the Lambretta lost. By some freak or miracle depending on how you view these things, I was shot through a hawthorne hedge and ended up sitting on my arse in a field of wheat. Not a scratch or bruise anywhere, bit of luck as the Lambretta never rode again but I got the message. Still shudder as I pass that spot!
Quote from: ACEWell guys, most of us live in states where wearing a helmet is the law, how do you feel about that and if you were riding in another state would you still wear one? Do you wish your state doesn't have a helmet law? I like my helmet becuase it does 2 things, matches my bike (cool factor) and it keeps me from being 6 feet BELOW the pavement.
Helmet not required in Ohio except for beginners and minors. but I've worn a helmet by choice for everyone of my 320k+ miles.
Damn glad I was wearing one last summer when I went rolling down the tarmac. No big impact, but helmet was deeply scratched all around and my pretty face went untouched. :lol: :lol:
I do favor freedom of choice on this controversial issue and choose to wear one myself whenever on bike.
I do favor the freedom of choice. SC does not require helmets of riders 21+. I did not wear one in my younger days. Always wear one now, especially after smacking the side of a mountain head first. The top of my helmet was caved in about 1/2". Looked like someone took a steel pipe and smashed it. No doubt that I would be dead without it.
I was T-Boned by an unlicensed cager last may. I was airborn about 30 feet and landed on my back on concrete. Broke my foot, my helmet cracked....my skull did not. I ride again. 'Nuff sed. :P
I dare you to run as fast as you can head first into a wall. Thats just running. A 10mph crash can kill you.
I will never ride w/out a helmet.
Matt
i'm all for personal decisions and keeping legislation out of personal affairs, but that being said, every time i see someone without a lid on, i just can't help but think about what giant jackasses they are. being at a university, the guys without helmets are all on tl1000s, R1s and 6s, and gixxers. no jackets, no helmets, just some shades and a tshirt. i always wear my helmet, and i pretty much lose a little respect for someone when i find out they don't.
New Jersey has a helmet law but if it did not I would still wear one.
I've never crashed (knock wood) but on more than a few occasions I've had hard UFOs bounce off my helmet and I suspect had they struck my noggin I could have been dazed enough to lose control of the bike.
Ed
when i first started riding a car cut me up i was doing 30mph+ and locked my front wheel up, and i went down hit my head, and shoulder luckly i was wearing a helmet and textile jacket saved m shoulder and the lid saved my face froma nasty crash so that 40mph crash thing turning u into a vegitable is a load of bull, i have head storys of ppl hiting cars dead on at 120+mph and thanking god for lids and leather, and in the UK helmets are mandortory no choice and no1 over here complains.
;)
Down here in Panama City it's "Thunder Beach" weekend and we're chock full o' bikers. I'd say 97% of them are not wearing a helmet and are not required if they have over a certain amount of insurance, can't recall the exact number though. When I ride I prefer no bugs in the face, gravel etc... Also I think of the grusome experience of a helmetless wipe out and cringe. So when I see the majority of riders down here going au natural I wish em luck cause if I don't wear an armored jacket I get all nervous and crap. What really gets me is the biker mama's on the back without a helmet, you'd think they be more vain about the subject. Guess if your man goes you should follow him into the afterlife.
I wear a full face SNELL approved helmet (dont trust DOT) and always ride in full gear no exception. However, I am torn between the law dorcing me to wear the helmet. On one end I dont like being told what do by Big Brother and then on the other end I dont want my insurance rates goin up cause a few morons wanted to try brain surgery on themselves.
I personally dont care. I always wear a set belt and ride in full gear.
I've rode with and wothout a helmet., and I can tell you this much.
Riding without a helmet is more addictive than crack. Hear me out.
You'll ride once.... and probably be okay, and knowing that the last time you rode you were fine, so you can get away with it again and again, etc.
Now... anytime I'm on city streets I strap on the helmet and boots.
If I'm tuning the bike and such and am just putting along on my street in front of my house, I'll forgo the helmet as my street very rarely has any traffic.
As for the 80MPH Helmet usefulness factor, I can understand where people come from on wearing a helmet in city traffic, but not wearing one on the interstate. I don't consider being hooked up to life support being "Alive" and would much rather be offed near instantly in a bad wreck than to hang on in misery.
Basically to sum it up it's personal preference, if it's just you on your bike, then it's your choice.
helmet for sure.. atleast tehse days..
in my younger days I have gone without a helmet .. ofcourse i lived in india.. and i started on a moped.. max speed about 25-30mph..
Funny I used to actually wear a bicycle helmet when i used to ride the bicycle (road racer) but not when i rode the moped.. Why if you ask? I was faster as a pedal machine than i was on that moped. I was clocked around 65kmph on a bicycle.. that moped would never reach that level.
Later when i went to faster 2 wheels i used helmets..
These days even to go for a short ride within the complex that live in, i wear a helmet, i dont think i cant ride without a helmet, much like i cant comfortably without a jacket and boots and gloves on the warmest of days.
Also wearing a helmet is sort of a protection against bugs, since i seem to attract them on to my visor.. all i can say OUCH if i didnt have something covering my face.
I choose to wear a helmet every time I ride. It's as automatic as buckling the belt in the car. I believe in mitigating risk, not avoiding it altogether. My passengers must wear a helmet; they don't get to choose if they ride with me. My neighbor does not wear a helmet. I support his choice in principle but get a bit miffed when I pay my insurance. This is part of the current cost of riding.
I don't buy the seat-belt laws and helmet laws lower insurance argument. The seat-belt law was inacted not too long ago in indiana. When it passed there was no change in my insurance. It should of went down because everyone is safer, right? I think the insurance argument is just something teh goverment used ot justify it to people.
i retract my earlier comment about not wanting the gov't to have to protect us. i mean, i'm all for the darwin awards and thinning out the weak minded and all, but seriously people, come on. people who don't wear helmets are just like people who don't wear seatbelts. they're not taking their activity seriously, and not taking the responcibility they should when behind the wheel/bars. people in cars are lounging listening to their music, talking on their cells, and running us off the roads. why is this? is it because they're bad people? no, not really. it's because they're not taking the care that they should for the activity they're engaged in. they're moving a couple ton piece of metal down a road at speeds of over 60 mph. that's fuckin fast. sure, i love topping out my bike as much as the next guy, and i do it, but i think and pay attention the whole time. these same people who don't pay attention and think they can multi task while driving are the same people who don't wear seatbelts, because they dont respect the fact that they're in a beast of a car moving quickly enough to kill themselves and other drivers. as for the helmets, you're going fast enough to kill yourself, and that road *will* rip your face off. take responcibility for the activity you are engaging in, grow a pair, and do the right thing. you might enjoy the free feeling of no helmet, but some people enjoy the feeling of heroin, and i'm telling you it's dumb. now, if most people are too stupid to realize this, then yeah, let the gov't tell them to do it, cause when someone knocks me off the road i want to be able to get back up and beat them senseless myself, i don't want them dead before i get back to them.
QuoteI don't buy the seat-belt laws and helmet laws lower insurance argument. The seat-belt law was inacted not too long ago in indiana. When it passed there was no change in my insurance. It should of went down because everyone is safer, right? I think the insurance argument is just something teh goverment used ot justify it to people.
I don't buy the public burden argument either. People say motorcyclists should wear helmets so tax money isn't wasted on motorcyclist's head injuries. It seems that if you take that argument to it's logical conclusion, then riding motorcycles shouldn't be legal either. Because let's not kid ourselves, wearing a helmet doesn't make motorcycling "safe". There are plenty of motorcyclists who wear helmets and are seriously injured, often by a car driver screwing up. In an accident between a motorcyclist and a car driver, no matter whose fault it was or whether the rider is wearing a helmet or not, who is going to most likely have the highest hospital and ambulance costs? Those damn motorcyclists are driving up our taxes and insurance rates. They should just get off the road. Anyway, if you die on contact with the pavement because you aren't wearing a helmet, your hospital bills aren't going to be large. Maybe if car drivers would run into fewer motorcyclists, there would be a lot less taxes spent on motorcyclists, and lower insurance rates all around.
i dunno laura, that's a pretty slippery slope. necessitating that motorcyclists wear helmets because of the incurring medical costs does not logically follow through to that motorcycling should be banned. there is no logical following there actually. it simply shows that motorcycling is dangerous, yet legal, so we must make it as least dangerous as possible, by wearing helmets. the argument seeks to keep heath bills low by taking reasonable means, not to keep them low by any means possible.
as an example, by necessitating football teams wearing pads to keep injuries down, and the sport functioning, is the logical conclusion that football should be disbanded because that would solve all of the problems? no, associations are simply looking for ways to let us enjoy our activities, but still making us remain responcible and as safe as possible while doing them. using vehicles is a privilage, not a right; respect it.
I think the govt should just legislate away anything that is potentially harmful or dangerous. We will start with cigarettes and alcohol and then start taking away any form of motorized transportation. Hell, my friend was nearly killed (less than a year ago) on a bicycle when some old dude pulled out infornt of him as he was doing 40-45 mph down a hill. Need to take away those bicycles too. Think of all the money we would save on broken bones if we got rid of skateboards, rollerskates and inline skates. We will have to get rid of any kind of competivie sport, people could get hurt. Will have to stick with board and card games, but then again I might get excited that I won and have a heart attack. Those are gone too. And all that water that is lying around get rid of that too, someone might drown.
Do you get my point here? Everything is potentially dangerous. It is my responsibility to deciede what I feel are acceptable risks. The govt should not be making these choices for me. If I want to be a dumb bastard and not wear a helmet, let me and I will accept the potential risks and consequences. The only time govt has any right to step in and make me do something is if i am doing something that is a risk/danger to other. For example, firing a pistol randomly at anything and everything. That could hurt someone besides me. How does not wearing a seatbelt or helmet hurt anyone besides me?
Let me be a dumb bastard if I wanna be.:thumb:
jasco i think you missed the point of my post. those are all slippery slope arguments that don't logically follow from one another. to legislate that during one potentially skull-cracking activity you wear a helmet is leaps and bounds away from drying up river beds to stop drownings and keep cards away from kids from fear of papercuts. to argue that the gov't should stay out of your biz taken to the extreme that you give, you should be rallying against any form of gun control, and against all drug laws. join the libertarian party, start shooting H, and play in traffic.
yes yes, everything is potentially dangerous, and as bikers we except a little extra risk that most people don't; however, that doesn't mean you should be allowed to take any risk that you think is fine and dandy. you might think you want to jump off a cliff just for kicks, and maybe not use a parachute. well, i don't want my tax money going to your family who you are now not providing for just because you had a "right" do engage in your behavior. i also don't want to pay higher insurence premiums because you're out there splitting your skull. check some stuff out here and see what you find out about your hurting other people by not wearing a helmet.
http://www.hwysafety.org/safety_facts/qanda/helmet_use.htm#5
sometimes people arn't smart enough to do what they should, just like parents need to step in and tell a kid not to eat 10 candy bars or he'll feel crappy, once in a while someone needs to point out that you should (and sometimes make you) wear a helmet. just because you're older now doesn't mean you know everything and are always right about your decisions. children arn't the only ones who make mistakes.
Zarathustra, that website, which is promoting helmet laws, compares average hospital costs of injured motorcyclists wearing helmets to those who weren't wearing helmets. $15,578 compared to $14,377. That doesn't seem like a huge difference to me. If a good chunk of those motorcyclists are injured by car drivers messing up, it seems a more effective way of reducing money spent on injured motorcyclists would be to reduce the amount of cars hitting motorcyclists, helmeted or not.
Secondly, my motorcycle insurance is incredibly cheap. If I get in an accident that is my fault, and I get hurt, then my health insurance is going to cover it. My motorcycle insurance isn't. My health insurance provider doesn't even ask me if I ride a motorcycle or not. If somebody else hits me, then their insurance should cover it, if they have decent insurance. I don't think anybody should be allowed to drive or ride without decent insurance. I don't care how good of a driver anyone is, we are all human and we all make mistakes. We should all be responsible and get good insurance. If people's car insurance rates go up because of the costs of running over riders, so be it. Maybe it will help them watch out for us.
I always wear a helmet. I don't really understand why people don't. Supposedly some people would rather get a head injury and die instantly than have a neck injury from the helmet. I don't really want to get into whether I'd rather have a head injury or neck injury. I'd rather have neither. But $15,578 compared to $14,377, does not seem like a significant difference in costs. Cutting both of those numbers down, for instance by getting drivers to LOOK for motorcyclists and cutting down on drunken driving and riding, in my opinion would be a much better way to save money.
Ride on!
Laura
Seperate debate here buy you brought it up. I don't think the govt owes me or my family anything if I go out and kill myself. I don't want soc security I'd rather take that money that I am forced to pay and invest it how I see fit. I want to take responsibility for my actions and future. I don't think I should have to pay for schools in the form of property tax if I don't have children. It was the parents choices that led them to have children, make them pay for their childrens education. Govt has it's grubby hands to far into my life and pockets.
Matt
i agree
see here's the deal for both jasco and laura, in my opinion. firstly, laura.
i agree that cars should stop hitting motorcyclists, in fact, i'm whole heartedly in favor of that. however, the sad fact of the matter is that we cannot control wether or not a car will hit us (yes we can be extra vigilent, but nonetheless...). however, we can control wether or not we wear a helmet. and given that only one of these is a control we can handle, i say we need to wear helmets. while that cost is not a "significant" difference, i'm pretty sure all of us wouldn't mind not spending an extra 1.2k when we could buy a helmet for less than $300. also, there were some lower paragraphs explaining costs in more detail, and injury statistics that were important.
jasco, that's all well and good that you don't want the state looking after your family. i think that's a great idea. however, just as with laura's comments, we operate in the real world where we can't control these things and opt out personally, either form being hit by cars, or by having our families receive wage loss pay. therefore, while i agree with your idea, that's simply not how our state is run. because of that, whether you want it or not, or any helmetless rider for that matter, i will be paying your family money because you weren't wearing a helmet and got yourself killed. so, what with us needing to deal with the facts, and with reality, just wear a helmet.
sorry if i come off like a jerk here gang, but i rather strongly believe in helmets for safety's sake, and also, i really don't want to be reading about any of you guys in the paper. you're my gs krew! :thumb:
I always wear a helmet and jacket and always buckle my seat belt. I have a high degree of respect for my life and would like to make sure it last as long as possible. Saying that I still believe that I should have the choice to be a dumb bastard if I so choose to be.
matt
Quotesorry if i come off like a jerk here
You don't! ;)
Quote from: spdracer75
You'll ride once.... and probably be okay, and knowing that the last time you rode you were fine, so you can get away with it again and again, etc.
That's exactly why there is such a problem with drunk drivers. You make it home once a little buzzed and then confidence builds as you do it some more. Its playing with fire.
I'm on the fence regarding the helmet law because its a personal freedom issue. I may think its irreponsible to ride without one because of who may be left behind but I also have a problem with govt. telling us they know what's best. I don't buy into the whole helmets hurt you "studies". I think that on the population level, full-faced helmets help much more than they hurt. Who knows what kind of samples were picked for these studies.
As for "with a helmet you'd be reduced to a vegetable" discussion: My aunt was a nurse and has for decades assisted surgery.
She says things they saw and had to try to fix before helmets were the law (and when the standard helmet was the "eggshell" type) were just unbelievable. Those bad brain injuries are mostly a thing of the past now.
Of course you can still break your back, but at least the chance of an injury that really turns you into a vegetable are greatly reduced.
My neigbour is in a wheelchair since he was 22 (Surfing accident, tetraplegic even, he has control of his arms, but not fully of his fingers). He has his share of hardships, but I never got the impression that he wouldn't take and enjoy every minute of his life.
:icon_razz:
not wearing one is just stupid... case over
Quote from: jkstyle834not wearing one is just stupid... case over
So is getting drunk... case over.
Quote from: Ed_in_AzQuote from: jkstyle834not wearing one is just stupid... case over
So is getting drunk... case over.
I'll agree with both of you, but then I'm a teetotaler that always wears his helmet.... :mrgreen:
Hmmm, do we
all tend to agree with things that we already do? If so, is that because we resist change, or because our current actions reflect our accumulated history of thought and conscious decisions...?
Quote from: Kerryour current actions reflect our accumulated history of thought and conscious decisions...?
Bravo Kerry. :cheers: That is precisely what it should be for each of us. :thumb:
Back in the early '80s, Harry Hurt and his staff meticulously analyzed 3600 motorcycle accidents in the LA area. Here are a few of the conclusions of the study, no particular order:
1. The most deadly injuries to accident victimes were of the chest and head.
2. The use of the safety helmet is the single critical factor in the prevention and reduction of head injury.
3. Helmeted riders and passengers showed significantly lower head and neck injury for all types of injury at all levels of severity.
4. Median pre-crash speed was 29.8 MPH and median crash speed was 21.5 MPH, and the one-in-a-thousand crash speed is approx. 86 MPH.
5. There is NO liablility for neck injury by wearing a helmet. helmeted riders always had less neck injury than non-helmeted riders. Only 4 minor injuries were attributable to helmet use, and in each case the helmet prevented more critical or fatal haed injury.
OK the Hurt study is fascinating and it's all we've got. I'd love to see a current study done, and in multiple locations. Anyway, I'm as much a freedom-of-choice guy as anyone (I believe what Ben Franklin said...or was it Aretha Franklin, I don't remember).."the government that governs best governs least..."
My choice: helmet. every time.
ed if anyone one here is needs to take of the tin foil hat, it's you. yeah, i'm a pretty liberal guy, but i'm not trying to enact control over a population with devious intentions in mind. and let me get this straight, my seeing tests that show that people recieve less serious injuries when they wear helmets, and my wanting to have my money go towards myself and people who deserve it, is self-centered, egotistical, and condescending? it's my god damn money, i'm not setting it towards some dumbass that didn't wear a brain bucket because he had "the right"not to. i'll adopt a kid from kenya, and help charities when it's my choice, but i will not be forced to pay some morons bill when he should have been more safe. it's just like a parent telling a child what's better for them when they can't figure it out. people who don't wear helemts seem to be in this boat. they must have some cognitive problem going on where they just don't get it, so yeah, make them wear a helmet.
next. the tip of the liberal control iceberg? jesus. and then you go on to talk about more things, which are all good. i don't understand what's wrong with trying to have a safe and responcible society (seatbelt helmet), and an intelligent society (education). as for the diet and exercise, i sincerily doubt that the liberal agenda is backing bills for the institutionalization of exercise. and the speech and thought control? wake up buddy, liberals arn't the only ones who tote around "progressive speech."
i'm sorry your wife sees a growing trend in liberal sided teaching, but lets think about this. why are liberals teachers? perhaps because conservatives generally take higher paying jobs, and arn't involved in teaching fields. based upon party politics concerning teachers wages, school funding, and children's mental health, most teachers are going to be liberally minded. most people in their chosen profession don't back someone who looks to shaZam! on their efforts.
all in all ed, i really don't want to type this anymore. you just bitched about some conspirosy theory junk, that has no external basis for fact than your own thoughts. everyone in politics thinks that they're right, that's why they back laws for the betterment of the country. liberals, conservatives, they all think they have the answers. to simply lambast liberalism on a post regarding the issues of safety and neccesitiy of helmets shows what kind of theory this is. you barge in and just spew propaganda about the evils of liberalism and the looming threat over the horizon. you apply domination to liberal agendas when in another crackpot theory i could spout about conservative domination. get the tin foil hat off man, i'm not promoting a world shattering change, and i'm not starting a ripple effect. i'm backing a law that keeps people safe, ensures my money is spent how i deem that it should be, and makes people be responcible for the activites they engage themselves in.
Quote from: dmp221(I believe what Ben Franklin said...or was it Aretha Franklin, I don't remember).."the government that governs best governs least..."
It was Henry David Thoreau, in the opening line of his essay on
"Civil Disobedience".
Here's the actual line.
Quote from: Henry David ThoreauI heartily accept the motto, "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically.
(Not agreeing or disagreeing - just reporting.)
8)
well, personally i don't like a whole lot of government intrusion either. but with the way taxes work, and everything else, we need certain laws to protect those of us that are sensible. such as me wanting helmet laws so i don't pay for helmetless riders. as for his statement itself... it's a really biased statement. lookign at something hobbsian it would show that a government that doesn't govern is terrible. now, i don't get down the social contract myself, but i think that every government does need to take some activity in every day affairs. We need the gov't to help inner city kids get better funding, we need the gov't to help keep our roads in shape, etc. basically, we need them to do the good things that no one would be doing without them. if people would pick up the slack and be humanitarians, then i'd agree with this statement. but, the way it is, we need them around, and need them to do their job. exactly how they do their job is open to debate however. i favor less intrusion so long as i am not penalized for my peer's mistakes. if the government hadn't governed first that i would have to pay people's family money, that i'd say they could bail on the helmet law. once governing is started you need new laws to amend and fix the old. it's a vicious cycle. there's my take.
oh, and "wake up and smell the coffee" is the conspiracy theorist's mantra. :mrgreen:
:dunno_white:
Ed if you're going to be a child there's really no sense in us talking about this. you think what you think, and i think what i think. however, i don't see that as a reason to take this down to the level of insults and offhand remarks. don't waste my time.
yes, i think i know what is right. if i thought differently, i would change my opinions. But of course what i think and say is what i think is right; it'd be pretty rediculous if it wasn't.
the way to gov't works is that people who think they have it right sits down and drafts laws. these laws are then passed by other people who think they know what's right. everyone thinks they have it right, but obviously that is impossible; not everyone can be right. that is why i think you're wrong. as for the cycle working for me? it does at times, and at others it doesn't. i don't agree with many laws in effect, and there are some other laws that i would like to see passed. this isn't a cut and dry, draw a line and ascribe to a polical side arguement that you try to make it out to be. yeah, i come off as arrogant, but you come of as a jackass, so let's be civilized shall we?
no offense man, but you've given no arguments for anything that you believe. you've asked me to respond to thomas paine, and you've spouted crazy theories. so yeah, i'm gonna go one thinking i'm right until you say something substancial.
Hey...have any of you seen Bowling for Columbine? If so, what do you think about it?
:mrgreen:
:icon_razz:
Quote from: LauraHey...have any of you seen Bowling for Columbine? If so, what do you think about it?
:mrgreen:
I watched Michael Moore's movie Canadian Bacon. That was too much for me. It displayed his biting wit and wretched predjudice. The biting wit was good, the wretched predjudice was Bowling For Columbine. I've read it's also rife with distortion, falsehoods and sound bites. Try some of his Canadian Bacon instead.
Now check out the
second line of Thoreau's essay:
Quote from: Henry David ThoreauCarried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe--"That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. (Italics added.)
I can see both sides. (I can't believe I'm "getting involved" here, but oh well....)
If "men are prepared for it", then having NO government would surely equal some form of paradise. Otherwise, could it equal anything other than anarchy? Personally, I don't think either extreme could last very long. Human beings feel the need to control (or to be controlled), to protect (or to be protected), to take (or to keep), and so on. Factions will ALWAYS arise, for better or worse.
Surely we would all agree that some amount of government is necessary -- and even good -- at this particular time and place in geo-history. I enjoy not having to boil my water or to ride my GS on a dirt track (because noone ever laid an asphalt ribbon down) or to live in constant fear for my people and possessions.
On the other hand, I think we would all agree that there are areas in our lives where the government gets too involved. The differences between people's opinions on this depends on where along the (WIDE) continuum they are comfortable standing. Does this make us good, or bad, or just different?
As I see it, the best we can do is to work on becoming those "prepared men (and women)". To quote Phil Connors in
Groundhog Day, just after he steers the car off the railroad tracks, out of the way of an oncoming train: "You make choices ... aaand you live with 'em."
IF one believes that less government is better, and
IF one also believes Thoreau's statement that we will have less and less government as we are more and more prepared for it -- then is that person making decisions that will hasten the day ... or assure its delay?
If all of this sounds pretty middle-of-the-road-ish ... you've got Kerry pretty well pegged.
==============================
I just had an interesting thought! As far as I know, there are no laws that make wearing a helmet illegal.
Why is that ... do you suppose?
I'm glad we have a system where different viewpoints can be heard, respected, and best of all, balanced by each other.
Politics (and my apologies to Henry David, Ben and Aretha aside) has anyone heard of another study like the Hurt study being proposed?
I thought I read a few months back that such a study was in the works, and that Mr. Hurt was to be involved in some capacity (and who better?).
I think another study on motorcycle accidents, causes, and prevention would be extremely valuable.
Me and a friend were riding a few weekends ago and we pulled our helmets off for about 15 minutes and rode around downtown at an event they have there on Saturday nights. The feeling without the helmet left me feeling scared shitless. I put it back on, and that is where it stays. I just do not feel safe without it. With that said, I cannot imagine riding down the interstate without one. I love my helmet!! :)
the helmet not helping at speeds over 40 mph thing is bullshit. check out what the racers wear, the speeds at which they crash and then get up and try to ride off.
my personal experience:
In the mountains, went down about 70mph in a turn, lowside. slid on my stomach through a parking lot, then did the flippedy floppedy thing when i hit the grass, broken pinkie, broken toe. huge scrape down the front of my full face shoei, which would have meant missing missing teeth/lips maybe?roadrashed face at least.
(hell, a couple of weekends ago i fell off my girlfriends bed on her tile floor in a drunken state and chipped a tooth, so i am pretty sure asphalt surfing on my face at 70mph would messed my grill up) i was wearing full leathers, so no rash. i did feel like someone beat me over my entire body with sticks. i rode the 2hours home from the mountains, pulled my boot off, and my big toe bone was sticking out through the bottom of my foot. I know if i wasnt wearing a helmet, i wouldnt have been able to ride home. well, i probably would have gotten a ride in a helacopter...
crash two. lowside on the track, prolly 60mph, nasty scrapes on the helmet which would have prolly rung my bell good, and would have made me even less pretty.
i live in florida (no helmet law) and i cringe seeing all these squids on liter bikes in tank tops and flip flops and no helmet.
i see no problem with the govt making helmet laws, etc. you have to stop at stop signs, you have to have brake lights, cars have to pass certain crash tests. its a highway its not your bedroom.
Maybe it's just me, but once, I took a short ride without a helmet and my eyes watered so badly, that I couldn't really see.
I had 'salt track' flames on the sides of head when I got back.
:o
Have I mentioned the time I was hit head-on while out blowdrying my hair?
I was 19, riding the 650 Maxim (my first bike) after I had taken a shower on my day off. As I rounded a corner on a green light from a 40mph to a 30mph street, I had whipped it up to 35 in the short distance that it usually takes me to, when an oncoming '70's Plymouth began its left turn across my path towards the driveway of a drugstore. I began braking and had just started to swerve when I plowed into the car dead center of the hood. As I went over the handlebars, the last words that went through my head were, "Oh well...", I'm begining to vaguely remember the sound of the impact and the sounds of the metal thereafter...anyway, I was floating through the air (things really do slow down in an accident) fighting to keep my head up and then hitting the asphalt on my hands and knees, I tucked and rolled, and my right ear just touched the road. Luckily, I was wearing TourMaster summer gloves, a Hein Gericke V-Pilot jacket and Levi jeans. Zero roadrash. None! But, I had fractured my left kneecap on the hood of the car (the second time I've been hit by a '70's Plymouth...). And a motorcyclist had told me, when I was looking for a motorcycle, that I should always wear gloves, because those are the first things that go out to protect yourself, and you can protect your head with your hands. Back then was before the helmet law, and after that I always wore my helmet and still do.
I did not support the helmet law, but it did not impact me when it did go into effect. I still occasionally ride without the helmet just on my street when I'm listening to the engine, and would like the option.
;)