BruceH Posted July 7, 2011 Report Share Posted July 7, 2011 This headline was from The Onion, right? No, this one really did happen, i saw the story in a couple of legit(tabloid though) newspapers but it sure sounds like an Onion headline. Well, that's what I meant, really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted July 7, 2011 Report Share Posted July 7, 2011 I would say that if Nanny-State laws were put to a referendum and approved by the voters, then its democracy in action and not busy-body politicians trying to enforce their vision of "proper behavior". But I don't know of any case where nanny-state laws got that kind of treatment. As it pertains to helmet laws, Oregon, 1988, for one (and only?): http://nwhog.wordpress.com/2010/04/07/helmet-laws-in-oregon/ (and yes, I had to look that up!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BruceH Posted July 7, 2011 Report Share Posted July 7, 2011 As far as that goes, if the bill of rights was put to a vote, much of it probably wouldn't pass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clunky Posted July 7, 2011 Report Share Posted July 7, 2011 Another factor to consider would be effect a helmetless rider would have on other road users. If I saw a rider sans helmet I might stare in amazement at his/her stupidity and through distraction crash my car or bicycle. Alternatively I might give such a rider such a wide berth that I'd have a head on with the Number 23 coming the other direction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shawn Posted July 7, 2011 Report Share Posted July 7, 2011 people driving while texting and/or yapping on their fucking cell phones are still more dangerous than just about anyone else. They will be more likely to crash into a motorcyclist whether they are wearing a helmet or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BERIGAN Posted July 8, 2011 Report Share Posted July 8, 2011 Its tragic yet deliciously ironic. Personally I find helmet laws a great symbol of the nanny state, as the risk is entirely the rider's, no one else is at risk but himself, and its no business of any state whether a motorcyclist wants to risk smashing his head on the concrete. You're stupid if you don't wear a helmet but you're also free to be stupid. That's a bedrock principle of the USA and this is a fine reminder on its 235th birthday. Utter bullshit. Taxpayer winds up paying for ambulances and medical care for the helmetless crashers. Typical neocon garbage. Sounds much more like a Libertarian viewpoint...don't agree with it, but it's hardly Neocon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.