Transportation and Driving

Re: 2009 House Bill 4028 (Repeal motorcycle helmet mandate )

gypsy — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 01:39:38 GMT

Research, albeit minimal. I'm impressed.

Re: 2009 House Bill 4028 (Repeal motorcycle helmet mandate )

bugman — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 21:14:23 GMT

and i guess it does matter which definition you choose...

tyr·an·ny Pronunciation: \ˈtir-ə-nē\ Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural tyr·an·nies Etymology: Middle English tyrannie, from Middle French, from Medieval Latin tyrannia, from Latin tyrannus tyrant Date: 14th century

1: oppressive power <every form of tyranny over the mind of man — Thomas Jefferson> ; especially : oppressive power exerted by government <the tyranny of a police state>

2 a: a government in which absolute power is vested in a single ruler ; especially : one characteristic of an ancient Greek city-state b: the office, authority, and administration of a tyrant

3: a rigorous condition imposed by some outside agency or force <living under the tyranny of the clock — Dixon Wecter>

4: a tyrannical act <workers who had suffered tyrannies>

Re: 2009 House Bill 4028 (Repeal motorcycle helmet mandate )

Rabidog — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 21:14:16 GMT

Folks, as this conversation has grown away from the debate regarding HB 4028, Repeal of the motorcycle helmet mandate, I kindly ask that you move the discussion to a better suited forum. Thank you.

Re: 2009 House Bill 4028 (Repeal motorcycle helmet mandate )

bugman — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 21:10:58 GMT

or perhaps this...

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

Re: 2009 House Bill 4028 (Repeal motorcycle helmet mandate )

bugman — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 21:09:30 GMT

let's try this one.

tyranny: dominance through threat of punishment and violence; despotism.

Re: 2009 House Bill 4028 (Repeal motorcycle helmet mandate )

bugman — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 21:02:41 GMT

there are benevolent monarchies, even benevolent dictatorships. but any leader who usurps rights and abrogates freedom is a tyrant. mr. webster has been known to be wrong in the past, especially when political correctness rears it's ugly head.

Re: 2009 House Bill 4028 (Repeal motorcycle helmet mandate )

gypsy — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 20:51:16 GMT

Tyranny: a government in which absolute power is vested in a single ruler.

Webster.

You'll have to take that up with Mr. Webster.

Re: 2009 House Bill 4028 (Repeal motorcycle helmet mandate )

bugman — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 20:40:18 GMT

totalitarianism is where absolute power is vested in a single ruler. tyranny is where any ruler abrogates the rights of the citizens.

Re: 2009 House Bill 4028 (Repeal motorcycle helmet mandate )

gypsy — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 14:38:23 GMT

I am trying to take you seriously, but it is becoming harder with your every post. I will soldier on. We are in agreement on this bill. The helmet mandate should be repealed.

If you are not happy with your representative, by all means don't vote for him, impeach, or recall him, if a majority of the voters in your district are in favor of those actions.

If you want to call the helmet law tyranny, ok. But according to the dictionary, that is not accurate.

Tyranny: a government in which absolute power is vested in a single ruler.

Webster.

Re: 2009 House Bill 4028 (Repeal motorcycle helmet mandate )

bugman — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 13:00:28 GMT

no, the best way to oppose this tyranny is to work to have this, and all other laws that take rights from citizens repealed. next would be to work to remove those who impose this tyranny voted out as soon as possible, impeached if possible, recalled if necessary. all riding without a helmet now would do is make me a petty criminal. it would do nothing to curb the tyranny.

Re: 2009 House Bill 4028 (Repeal motorcycle helmet mandate )

gypsy — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 02:06:26 GMT

I think the best way for you to oppose this tyranny is to ride without a helmet, and get the cheapest insurance you can find.

Re: 2009 House Bill 4028 (Repeal motorcycle helmet mandate )

bugman — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 00:37:43 GMT

no, you don't get it. insurance rates would be higher if accident rates and severity were higher without helmets. and you also forget the 'bottom line'. it is not the job of government to make decisions for me. it is my job to make decisions for the government. we are a government of the governed. not a totalitarian state run by our current governor. her performing a job that is not the proper function of government is tyranny. her making decisions that are best left to the citizen is tyranny.

Re: 2009 House Bill 4028 (Repeal motorcycle helmet mandate )

gypsy — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 19:46:18 GMT

You still don't get it. Helmets are to protect the rider. Motorcycle insurance is to insure the motorcycle, and the damage it may cause to another vehicle, property, and people in an accident. Wearing a helmet or not doesn't change that risk.The medical insurance you buy on yourself can be as expensive as you want coverage for. It's secondary anyway, to any other medical insurance you have. So the insurance issue is not an argument either for or against helmet use. It's irrelevant, other than some states insist you buy extra medical coverage for yourself if you ride helmetless, so that would increase your insurance cost. The difference in insurance prices in different states, whether they have helmet laws or not, is because of many factors not related to helmet usage.

Re: 2009 House Bill 4028 (Repeal motorcycle helmet mandate )

bugman — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 17:08:49 GMT

the point is, all the doom and gloom predicted for 'helmet choice' states hasn't happened. it couldn't have or rates would skyrocket. they haven't, as evidenced by lower rates in helmet choice states. bad science, bad law.

Re: 2009 House Bill 4028 (Repeal motorcycle helmet mandate )

gypsy — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 12:04:10 GMT

Getting quotes for motorcycle insurance cheaper in a helmetless state is meaningless. Motorcycle insurance, like car insurance, insures the vehicle, for damage you may cause to others, and the driver. It will vary for the kind of bike, the area you live in, urban or rural, the experience of the driver, the amount of deductible the driver wants, and the amount of insurance the driver wants on himself. The only factor having to do with helmets is the amount of medical coverage the driver wants on himself. This medical coverage is secondary to any other medical coverage he may have. Some helmetless states require riders to carry a minimum amount of medical coverage if they ride helmetless. Riding without a helmet does not increase your chances of an accident, but it does increase your chances of serious injury or death if you are in an accident.

So if you're trying to make a point that repealing the helmet law will make your insurance cheaper, you're wrong. If you make the point it is your right to choose to ride helmetless, you're right.