New Helmet Bill Introduced Today - HB 264

[STrider]

Very well explained Scott- and very diplomatic! If I had to guess from your post, I wouldn't know which side of the helmet rule you were on.

I was gonna stay off the board, as my position closely echos that of a number of posters so far, but oh well-

I almost always wear my helmet. (99+% of the time- sometimes I scoot down to lunch less than 1 block away on a no traffic street) But I am opposed to a helmet law, for the same reasons articulated by Scott, Bill J., Jimbo, and others. Any (additional?) restriction is a step down a slippery slope toward more & more. Don't believe it? Examine what has happened in the offroad community- More & more land closures, noise limits, and bike restrictions.

 

[TexasFatBoy]

I agree, well put. Also please keep in mind that many laws are enacted in order to cover the exceptions and not the norm. Legislators are a reactionary bunch who sway with public pressure because the must respond to the wants of their constituents or lose their job during the next election. And public pressure on a legislator is usually highest after an event. Good example would be to think back to the Janklow incident. Once the biker was dead and people began to see that Janklow was going to get away with a slap on the wrist, their outrage came through and they began pressuring the legislators for change.

As with any piece of legislation, the way to have a voice is to use your voice. Regardless of which way you lean on the issue, it will normally those who speak with the largest voice that will be heard and in the absence of other voices, the legislators are left to believe that that one strongest voice is speaking for the majority.

I bet Austin will have a throng of bikers in town for Legislature day, but do those who attend represent you and all bikers? They do if you don't show up.

 

[TexasFatBoy]

And Hap, I was wonderin' if you were pointin' to me on that one!

 

[Hap Call]

And Hap, I was wonderin' if you were pointin' to me on that one!

Mike, with you, I'm usually pointing AND giggling!!!

 

[Jack Giesecke]

Now that Scott's posted the post to end all posts... ...and I didn't understand a word of it... ...thought I'd ask a question of all those who are opposed to this bill to do away with the insurance requirements. I thought about starting a new thread, but this one's on topic.

Anyway, you know that lots of skin is lost in a crash that could be avoided by wearing race leathers. Guys that are uninsured, helmet wearing, get in crashes and are wearing no or less than complete leathers. Two piece are NOT as good as ONE piece in protecting the mid section, either. Would any of you guys espousing helmet laws or keeping the insurance requirements be in favor of requirements to wear full race leathers on a motorcycle? Would you be in favor of a right to chose, but if you don't wear full race leather, you must have proof of major medical that would cover skin grafts and such? Just wondering how far some of you guys would be willing to take this logic cause I figure there's lots of skin grafts going on out there to uninsured riders considering how many sportbike squids I see going around in flip flops and tank tops and shorts and how many cruiser guys I see in jeans and T shirts. To see someone in full leathers on the street, I have to go to meet up with the TSBA or HSN bunch for a SMR. I've NEVER seen ANYONE wearing leathers on the street around here.

 

[JKDGabe]

Now about the question "At what point does government have the right to do what an individual may not?" there are many examples...impose the death penalty, declare war, tax the masses (well, I guess Bill Gates does that), write laws, acquire property for the greater good, etc...it goes on and on.

Death penalty - do you have the right to defend yourself (or anyone else) to the point of killing the attacker? (Not in all situations obviously, just some) I think so, and what is the death penalty except protecting the rest of society?

War - this is an extension (or should be) of self defense.

Taxes - should be voluntary. Don't want to pay? You don't get services. Obviously if we went back to the Constitutional SALES tax we'd all pay. It used to be that if you didn't pay property tax you couldn't vote in the school elections.

Aquire property for the greater good!? Who is to determine that? Again, if we stuck to the Constitutional guidelines on that I wouldn't complain but when a city can take private property away to let developers build a mall or stadium (which the city helps fund through tax breaks) I think we've got a serious problem. It's just MHO that the end user should pay. If you don't use it you shouldn't have to pay so that I can or vice versa.

I side with the founding fathers, I don't like government... I fear it. An overbearing government is not what made this nation great, it was the people who worked hard and didn't expect others to take care of them. We have slid (and are continuing to slide) down the slippery slope of socialism.

All that said, I really didn't come to this site to discuss the principles of government. So if my reasoning is somehow unclear just ask for clarification, otherwise I quit so I can spend more time riding.

 

[Tourmeister]

All that said, I really didn't come to this site to discuss the principles of government.

In principle, I agree with this The thing is, anytime you start discussing how anything should or should not be, you inevitably devolve to a discussion of government and then ultimate values. Some peope think it a waste of time to think of philosophical things, but it is these things that form the foundation of your beliefs and thus what you think about how things should be.

My guiding rule of thumb for moderating this forum is that you are free to express just about anything you like, as long as it is done politely and in a respectful tone. At the hint of personal attacks, foul language, or heightened emotions, I will either lock the topic or even delete it if necessary. So far, our members have shown a fantastic ability to self regulate and to keep things on a respectful level and I have not had to use the admin powers very often.

So while it may seem this is all unrelated to motorcycling, it is not. We are investigating why we think the governement should or should not be allowed to use its' power to regulate an activity many of us are passionate about. Eventually, everyone will have had their say and this topic will settle down the list like many others only to be resurrected some day down the line

Adios,

 

[Hap Call]

Death penalty - do you have the right to defend yourself (or anyone else) to the point of killing the attacker? (Not in all situations obviously, just some) I think so, and what is the death penalty except protecting the rest of society?

It is not to protect the rest of society - it is a punishment or "penalty". You protect society by incarceration.

War - this is an extension (or should be) of self defense.

Sorry. Poor logic. You cannot declare war as an individual. Somebody goes out and does harm to your family. You cannot hunt that individual down and kill him. The framers of the Constitution specifically prevent this by having trials.

Taxes - should be voluntary. Don't want to pay? You don't get services. Obviously if we went back to the Constitutional SALES tax we'd all pay. It used to be that if you didn't pay property tax you couldn't vote in the school elections.

The comment under debate was at what point does the government have the right to do what an individual may not. Your statement just says that we pay taxes, not that the individual has the right to levy taxes. No correlation here.

Aquire property for the greater good!? Who is to determine that? Again, if we stuck to the Constitutional guidelines on that I wouldn't complain but when a city can take private property away to let developers build a mall or stadium (which the city helps fund through tax breaks) I think we've got a serious problem. It's just MHO that the end user should pay. If you don't use it you shouldn't have to pay so that I can or vice versa.

Again, the comment under debate was at what point does government have the right to do what an individual may not. It sounds like you are agreeing that the government has the right (which is not always used properly) while the individual does not. I do agree with your statement here even though it drifts from the original argument.

I side with the founding fathers, I don't like government... I fear it. An overbearing government is not what made this nation great, it was the people who worked hard and didn't expect others to take care of them. We have slid (and are continuing to slide) down the slippery slope of socialism.

I agree.

All that said, I really didn't come to this site to discuss the principles of government. So if my reasoning is somehow unclear just ask for clarification, otherwise I quit so I can spend more time riding.

That's my kind of logic!

Hap

 

[JKDGabe]

It is not to protect the rest of society - it is a punishment or "penalty". You protect society by incarceration.

Uh uh. That's a burden on society. I like the biblical pattern of restitution or death. (Simplification) It's not about revenge.

Somebody goes out and does harm to your family. You cannot hunt that individual down and kill him

And if the government won't? I believe it's my right (not government granted privelege) and duty to protect my family. We live in a country that's not as corrupt as many but what if you did? Perhaps the problem here is our definition of war. To me war is on a large scale what self defense is on a small one. You say I can't declare war - sure I can. I'm just outgunned! Don't get me wrong, I want the system to work... but what if it doesn't?

Your statement just says that we pay taxes, not that the individual has the right to levy taxes. No correlation here

My point was that government has no moral right to levy taxes. How can you justify party A taking from party B and giving to party C?

Again, the comment under debate was at what point does government have the right to do what an individual may not. It sounds like you are agreeing that the government has the right (which is not always used properly) while the individual does not

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying the government doesn't have that right either. They have the ability but not the right. [sarcasm]But I guess "might makes right" doesn't it?[/sarcasm]

All said and done we'll probably never agree... but I can live with that. You seem like a nice guy anyway. It's nice to find a site that's not overrun by squids with no manners. (or typing ability)

 

[Hap Call]

All said and done we'll probably never agree... but I can live with that. You seem like a nice guy anyway. It's nice to find a site that's not overrun by squids with no manners. (or typing ability)

I agree with you on that...likewise you seem to be a nice guy who argues the argument and does not attack the person on the other side of the discussion...it's hard to find people with the intelligence and integrity to do that.

Hap

 

[STrider]

At the hint of personal attacks, foul language, or heightened emotions, I will either lock the topic or even delete it if necessary.

Sorry I said you would give a nerdy answer (different thread)

 

[TexasFatBoy]

Somebody goes out and does harm to your family. You cannot hunt that individual down and kill him

And if the government won't? I believe it's my right (not government granted privelege) and duty to protect my family. We live in a country that's not as corrupt as many but what if you did? Perhaps the problem here is our definition of war. To me war is on a large scale what self defense is on a small one. You say I can't declare war - sure I can. I'm just outgunned! Don't get me wrong, I want the system to work... but what if it doesn't?

It is your right to protect your family which means that if you or a family member are faced with an imminent threat of death or bodily injury, you may react with like force sufficient to defeat the threat. That does not, however, extend to a right to avenge your family. Absent the imminent threat above, then any unlawful action on your part to avenge your family is a separate and distinct criminal act for which you can be tried and convicted.

Your statement just says that we pay taxes, not that the individual has the right to levy taxes. No correlation here

My point was that government has no moral right to levy taxes. How can you justify party A taking from party B and giving to party C?

Moral right is separable from legal right. And even the founding fathers saw a moral right to tax to provide for the common good, merely that there should be no taxation without representation. Thus, there is a right to tax, and arguably a moral right, but I think that is a different conversation, but everyone has a right to representation before such taxes are levied. Thus the purpose of lobbying and grassroots organizing in order to have your voice heard. Does it always work, no, but it is still the best system out there because at least you have a right to speak out.

Again, the comment under debate was at what point does government have the right to do what an individual may not. It sounds like you are agreeing that the government has the right (which is not always used properly) while the individual does not

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying the government doesn't have that right either. They have the ability but not the right. [sarcasm]But I guess "might makes right" doesn't it?[/sarcasm]

Actually, once again, the founding fathers did provide the government the right to acquire property under the Fifth Amendment which states 'nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.' This is a tacit recognition of a preexisting power to take private property for public use, not the grant of new power. Thus the founding fathers envisioned that it would be necessary for government to take property from private individuals in order to achieve common goals. Has that power been abused - absolutely - most notably where the property owner is not given "just compensation" for that property but is instead forced to take a low-ball amount.

Good debate and thanks for the lack of personal attacks. It's so nice discussing issues with adults!

 

[kurt]

Anyone changed their mind yet????

 

[Trip]

Anyone changed their mind yet????

I thought I had, but then I just had to disagree with myself, and well, you know, I didn't really have an opinion one way or the other to start with.

But it has been an enjoyable thread to follow. Man, we gots some real smart folks around here.

NOW GO OUT AND RIDE

and wear a helmet,






or not,




I don't care

 

[kurt]

I saw some who changed their mind the other day. They changed it from internal organ to external. I don't think the helmet would have made a difference other than in the clean up time. 100 mph+ into a fixed object doesn't leave a lot of room for speculation.

 

[Trip]

I saw some who changed their mind the other day. They changed it from internal organ to external. I don't think the helmet would have made a difference other than in the clean up time. 100 mph+ into a fixed object doesn't leave a lot of room for speculation.

I will say that I am a firm believer in the "Darwin Awards Theory"

I am also a proponent of the "Buffalo Theory" as espoused by Cliff Clavern on "Cheers" it goes like this....

Back when the buffalo roamed the plains, the Indian tribes would chase the herd, killing off the stragglers. These stragglers would inevitably be the weak and the sick. This would, in turn actually be of benefit to the Buffalo herd, improving the overall gene pool, helping insure the survival of the herd. This was also a benefit to the Tribe, insuring a continued source of food.

Now, when we drink, we kill off brain cells. BUT, Cliff says, these are only our weakest brain cells. So, in essence we are actually improving our brain by drinking, strengthing the "pool" of functioning brain cells.

I don't know what this has to do with helmet laws, but I like the theory.

 

[JKDGabe]

I do love the buffalo theory! Don't drink but it's funny as heck.

NOW GO OUT AND RIDE

Just got in from an 8 mile'r and like to froze! 37* here with slight rain.

That does not, however, extend to a right to avenge your family. Absent the imminent threat above, then any unlawful action on your part to avenge your family is a separate and distinct criminal act for which you can be tried and convicted.

I understand and agree. What I'm discussing is the principle of the matter and to do that I used the example of "if the government isn't acting". I don't think of it as vengeance. I think of it as protecting the next person who would have been attacked.

And even the founding fathers saw a moral right to tax to provide for the common good, merely that there should be no taxation without representation.

This country was setup to run off of duty and sales tax. Those getting profit from sales or use from the item(s) they buy paid the tax. Sounds fair to me. Things like land tax assume the government owns everything and we must pay our yearly rent or they take it back. That's immoral but you're right, it's another discussion.

Actually, once again, the founding fathers did provide the government the right to acquire property under the Fifth Amendment which states 'nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.'

As I said earlier, if they stuck to the constitutional guidelines I wouldn't complain. Reasons such as forts/armories/post offices are fine but I don't recall them mentioning malls and stadiums.

I've gotta throw some more clothes on and ride back to the farm now! (Yes, I'll be wearing a helmet!) Stay safe if you're riding today!

 

[Tx Rider]

Death penalty - do you have the right to defend yourself (or anyone else) to the point of killing the attacker? (Not in all situations obviously, just some) I think so, and what is the death penalty except protecting the rest of society?

It is not to protect the rest of society - it is a punishment or "penalty". You protect society by incarceration.

I feel it's just as much of a deterrent to others contemplating such horrendous activity, that they will not be punished, but killed.

It's a measure intended to exploit human beings most basic instinct for survival that haven't yet done a deed worthy of death than a punishment for those who have. Incarceration is a punishment that must be endured, the dead endure nothing.

 

[Hood Ornament]

Death penalty - do you have the right to defend yourself (or anyone else) to the point of killing the attacker? (Not in all situations obviously, just some) I think so, and what is the death penalty except protecting the rest of society?

It is not to protect the rest of society - it is a punishment or "penalty". You protect society by incarceration.

Not true, putting someone to death GUARANTEE's they won't be able to harm another person again. Incarcerating them does not. Therefore teh death penalty DOES protect the rest of society.

 

[Spider]

Wow. This thread has been hijacked so many different ways, I don't know where to begin.

Hap: I agree, I just wasn't going to say it out loud.

JKDGabe: "You say I can't declare war - sure I can. I'm just outgunned!" LMFAO! I like it.

What seems to have been missed though is that we're talking about a law that affects the personal safety of an individual. Something which pretty much tells you, "You're too stupid to decide for yourself what is apparently a good idea, so here, we're going to think for you. And if you don't listen, hey, no big deal, more money for us." Personal safety. That'd be like making it a law that you have to have non-slip bath tubs or get fined... regularly... without lube. And, hey, they can now come into your home and check this without a warrant now. (Insert my impolite and explicit comment here.) Never mind the burden on society for those people who are now vegetables because they didn't have non-slip bath tubs. They might not have wanted to go like that, but the choice was still theirs to assume that risk. You know, the same one we take every morning when we (okay, I got it!) get out of bed. That's where the life part comes into play.

Its one thing to tell someone you can't do this because you could physically injure or kill someone else. That's called a good law. Bad laws decide for you what is good for yourself.

 

[Hap Call]

Its one thing to tell someone you can't do this because you could physically injure or kill someone else. That's called a good law. Bad laws decide for you what is good for yourself.

I like that...mind if I use it sometime?

Hap

 

[TexasFatBoy]

This country was setup to run off of duty and sales tax. Those getting profit from sales or use from the item(s) they buy paid the tax. Sounds fair to me. Things like land tax assume the government owns everything and we must pay our yearly rent or they take it back. That's immoral but you're right, it's another discussion.

While not disagreeing with you in principle as to the original intent, the current system of land tax is designed to provide services for the area in which the land is located, not necessarily based on some type of assumption that the gov't owns the land. Sales tax and duty taxes under the current system are not sufficient to provide for things like fire departments, police, roads, schools, and other community services. And I believe land taxes actually go back to colonial times, although I may be mistaken on that one, but I believe local municipalities enacted property taxes pretty early on.

As I said earlier, if they stuck to the constitutional guidelines I wouldn't complain. Reasons such as forts/armories/post offices are fine but I don't recall them mentioning malls and stadiums.

They may not have, but more than likely your local neighbors voted to build the new stadium or somehow showed support for the new mall by not opposing a zoning change for instance.

I feel it's just as much of a deterrent to others contemplating such horrendous activity, that they will not be punished, but killed.

This may have been true when executions were still publicly held and swiftly carried out. Under the current system, even in Texas, the time between sentencing and the imposition of the death penalty is extremely long - usually years stretching into decades. And since they are held within the prison with no one but family and perhaps victim's family there to observe, the deterrent effect is almost non-existent.

Its one thing to tell someone you can't do this because you could physically injure or kill someone else. That's called a good law. Bad laws decide for you what is good for yourself.

Excellent point and that's where the helmet debate (yes, trying to get back on topic) should really be centered. Unfortunately, too many people replace "physically injure or kill someone else" with "harm" in general and that then gets expanded to include possible societal harm since society is believed to bear the brunt of medical care associated with caring for the helmetless rider. Until credible evidence has been put forth to show that the cost to society is any higher to care for all the helmetless riders vs. all the helmeted riders, then this should be a non-point.

 

[JKDGabe]

not necessarily based on some type of assumption that the gov't owns the land

I really don't know how to make it any clearer. The power to tax is the power to control. Just because they taxed a given thing back in colonial times doesn't make it right at any time.

Sales tax and duty taxes under the current system are not sufficient to provide for things like fire departments, police, roads, schools, and other community services

Roads are supposed to be maintained through sales tax on fuel. Governments are like most people - they'll live above their means if possible. The majority of people who win the lottery end up worse off than they were before.

They may not have, but more than likely your local neighbors voted to build the new stadium or somehow showed support for the new mall by not opposing a zoning change for instance

Fine, let THEM pay for it. Nobody has answered my question "at what point can party A take from party B to give to party C?". Anybody heard the quote "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"? That's the crux of the whole argument, should government take care of us from birth to death or is it our job? As I see it government should only do what is necessary for the whole what we as individuals/private enterprise cannot. Like tourmeister said, we can't discuss the helmet law without discussing the principles of government. I was trying to find out how far people went but it's taken us a little too far off.

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
- Benjamin Franklin

He also said something to the effect of "when 51% of the populace realizes that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury then this republic as we know it will cease". I'm probably way off there but if it benefits the majority it must be right huh?

 

[kurt]

Does anyone have anything to add on the original topic of helmet laws? This is quickly degenerating into an emotional arguement over everything but.

 

[TexasFatBoy]

Nobody has answered my question "at what point can party A take from party B to give to party C?".

When the majority (based on its representation) decides its proper. Once again, that encourages anyone with an interest to get out and be heard. To bring it back to the helmet law, at what point can party A (the government) take a rider's choice whether or not to wear a helmet away? When the majority of representatives in the legislature decide it is the will of their constituents to do so. If you disagree, then you must inform your representative of your wishes on these matters. In the absence of your voice, someone else's will be heard.