Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Screamin]

Here they go again.

http://www.amadirectlink.com/index.asp?ad=/news/helmet_law.asp

[smiley=furious2.gif]

[Dr. Evil]

SAY IT AINT SO!  [smiley=furious.gif]

[smiley=helmet.gif] <--- JUST SAY NO!

[Screamin]

SAY IT AINT SO!  [smiley=furious.gif]

 [smiley=helmet.gif] <--- JUST SAY NO!

"NATIONAL HELMET LAW AVOIDED  Due to quick actions by national and state motorcycle rights organizations and concerned individual riders, an attempt to amend a helmet law requirement into the federal highway bill has been averted.

Just days before Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) intended to introduce yet another national helmet law mandate as an amendment to the Senate's version of the transportation reauthorization measure SAFE-TEA (HR 3), word was spread over the Internet and through discussion groups which mobilized bikers nationwide to flood their Senators' offices with e-mails and phone calls urging them to oppose the amendment.

On Wednesday, May 11, the Lautenberg Amendment to reinstate the federal helmet law that he helped mastermind back in 1991, which was eventually repealed after heavy lobbying by bikers in 1995, was decisively defeated by a vote of 69-28.

The amendment would have diverted a portion of any state's federal highway funding into safety programs if that state did not have and enforce a mandatory helmet law for all motorcycle riders."

One of Ohio's Senator's (DeWine) voted for the blackmail and one (Voinovich) voted against it.

[spydglide]

Dr. Evil...........where can we get a 'posting' of the Senators that voted for the amendment?    [smiley=nervous.gif]   spyder

[Twolanerider]

Dr. Evil...........where can we get a 'posting' of the Senators that voted for the amendment?    [smiley=nervous.gif]   spyder

The entire Senatorial voting record (and just about all other public business) is available through www.senate.gov .  The voting record is broken down by legislative session.  The specific vote in questionis vote # 00120 and is detailed here:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00120

Those voting yea (in favor of) were Senators:

Akaka (D-HI)
Biden (D-DE)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Chafee (R-RI)
Corzine (D-NJ)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dole (R-NC)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Frist (R-TN)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Martinez (R-FL)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Warner (R-VA)
Wyden (D-OR)

The great majority of yea votes were Democratic senators and Democratic Senators that are, generally speaking, politically liberal.  Quickly scanning the list some of the exceptions were interesting.  

The still putative leader of the party (Senator Kerry), for example, voted nay.  Though the Senator senior to him from his home state (Kennedy of Massachusetts) voted yea and their views are generally similar on most other social policy.  Senator Kerry, however, rides a Harley.  

A couple of interesting examples the other way are the leader of Republican party in the Senate (Senator Frist) and one of North Carolina's Senators Mrs. Dole.  Both generally respected in "conservative" circles, accepted by that wing of their own party (Frist helps lead it after all) and both generally of the school of thought that citizens are served best when bothered least by their government.  But both voted in favor of the amendment.  

Senator Doctor Frist was (and is) a surgeon before entering politics and Elizabeth Dole used to head the American Red Cross.  It seems one's experiences and life's lessons might sway one's politics more than the other way around sometimes (thank goodness because we then know they still have a conscience).

[HUBBARD]

Yeah, 'er 'uh, Twolane,
 Thanks for the info!  I knew before I looked, that Byrd and Rockefeller voted yea.  Those two have done more to harm the State of WV, and the Country as a whole, than any other politicians of our time!  Byrd, once an organizer and member of the KKK, now denies it.  Rockefeller, a New York native, once ran for Governor of WV on the Republican Ticket, and was defeated.  Next term, he comes back as a Democrat, and wins.  Add to that his interest in EXXON, which has Huge Western Coal Reserves, which he has used to bid against WV Coal, and taken some of our (WV) contracts.  Both he, and Byrd, are skunks of the first order, and have hoodwinked the less fortunate with their polished pro-union bullchit, which has resulted in WV being 49th on the scale of economic development!  There endeth the lesson.  Later--HUBBARD  

[Twolanerider]

Yeah, 'er 'uh, Twolane,
  Thanks for the info!  I knew before I looked, that Byrd and Rockefeller voted yea.  Those two have done more to harm the State of WV, and the Country as a whole, than any other politicians of our time!  Byrd, once an organizer and member of the KKK, now denies it.  Rockefeller, a New York native, once ran for Governor of WV on the Republican Ticket, and was defeated.  Next term, he comes back as a Democrat, and wins.  Add to that his interest in EXXON, which has Huge Western Coal Reserves, which he has used to bid against WV Coal, and taken some of our (WV) contracts.  Both he, and Byrd, are skunks of the first order, and have hoodwinked the less fortunate with their polished pro-union bullchit, which has resulted in WV being 49th on the scale of economic development!  There endeth the lesson.  Later--HUBBARD  

Carl you've definitely found something we completely agree on.  No Senator is more annoying than Senator Byrd.  In person he's worse than the persona we see from TV or CSPAN.  He's just a cranky insecure obnoxious arrogant hubristic mean selfish stubborn old bastard whose been way past his time and way past his prime for more years than we've been alive and wasn't anything special before.  He's one of those few people in the world just the thought of whom make one of my "special places" pucker up.

[WFP]

I can top that...unfortunately, I am represented by:
Ted (don't let your daughter drive with) Kennedy
John Heinz-Kerry
Barney Fwank

oh, the embarassment!

/Bill

[Twolanerider]

I can top that...unfortunately, I am represented by:
Ted (don't let your daughter drive with) Kennedy
John Heinz-Kerry
Barney Fwank

oh, the embarassment!

/Bill

But Kerry at least voted against the proposed hat law.  He'd be really funny looking with helmet hair  [smiley=huepfenlol2.gif]

[Dave]

Ok, perhaps I am tilting at windmills, but here goes.  We all know there are inherent risks to everything we do.  There is no absence of risk! Those of us who choose riding a motorcycle have accepted a certain level of risk.  Those who ride without a helmet accept a higher level of risk than those who wear one.  But here is where I have a problem.  The states, county’s and municipalities increase our risk by leaving sand and gravel on the road.   This is a risk being imposed by the same government I pay taxes to so that our roads are maintained in a safe condition.  The only way I can mitigate this risk is to stop riding.  Thus, I submit we do not need a national helmet law; what we do need is National Safe Road Legislation.  States, counties and municipalities need to be held accountable by the federal government for maintenance of the roadways to standards commensurate with safe motorcycle operation or lose federal funding for road projects.  To me this makes more sense than helmet laws.

[Twolanerider]

what we do need is National Safe Road Legislation.  States, counties and municipalities need to be held accountable by the federal government for maintenance of the roadways to standards commensurate with safe motorcycle operation or lose federal funding for road projects.  To me this makes more sense than helmet laws.

Wowwwww, hold on their Dave.  That's a path to a prohobition of motorcycles.  We lose out on any cost benefit analysis that the goverment would figure there.

Sovereign immunity is (generally) a thing of the past so far as tort liabilities are concerned so a locality can be held responsible for malfeasance within certain guidelines.  But if the Federal gov't were really faced with the choices between a) incurring the costs of a mandated road standard akin to what you suggest for greater motorcycle safety and b) banning motorcycles from the publicly supported highways then, well, we'd be gone.  

There is no constitutional or other specifically legislated "right" to ride a bike.  Just like driving any other kind of vehicle the ability to do so on public thoroughfares is a legislated privilege.  If allowing that privilege should get to a point that granting it is way more expensive than other value it returns to the polity than that privilege would be rescinded or altered.

That is, in essence, the core of the debate on helmet laws and why some suggest the privilege of riding without a helmet should be altered.  When you ride you are risking your personal safety, life and livelihood.  If that's all you were risking that would be very much the end of the debate.

Trouble is that's not all we're risking.  The costs associated with major head / neurological trauma commonly outstrip insurance limits.   When that happens those costs are passed on to the health system (writ large) and then eventually to the public (you and me and everyone else) through governmental support of one kind or another.  As it is the costs that we pass on to society at large are not burdensome enough that society sees fit to mandate we wear helmets (in most states).  But if we got more expensive to them they would.  

Society at large, in the context of governmental regulation, isn't made because the regulation necessarily cares about your or my head specifically (it doesn't and it can't, the debates are often sounded out on such "personal" bases but that's not what it's really about).  Such regulations are about the overall good of and protection of society; how much all of our heads collectively will cost it when several of us go bonk, and whether it is still deemed acceptable to carry that cost within that society at that time.

[HUBBARD]

Yeah, 'er 'uh, Twolane,
 I retract all my smart@$$ed statements, previously posted, aimed at you.  You [bgcolor=Yellow]ARE[/bgcolor] a [bgcolor=Green]GENTLEMAN[/bgcolor] and a [bgcolor=Orange]SCHOLAR![/bgcolor]  Later--HUBBARD

[Twolanerider]

Yeah, 'er 'uh, Twolane,
  I retract all my smart@$$ed statements, previously posted, aimed at you.  You [bgcolor=Yellow]ARE[/bgcolor] a [bgcolor=Green]GENTLEMAN[/bgcolor] and a [bgcolor=Orange]SCHOLAR![/bgcolor]  Later--HUBBARD

Thanks Hub, bit it's ok to still be a smartass when the mood stikes.  Twolane wants to play too  [smiley=7.gif]

[spydglide]

Sand and gravel left on the road have always annoyed me, but what is really dangerous are those great big hard recap casings laying out on the interstate that you can't see at night or in the rain or both.  Now, THEY are a nuisance and I'm for any 'rules' that keeps 'um off the hwy.  Any ideas, Tater?   [smiley=nervous.gif]  spyder [smiley=furious.gif]

[Dave]

Twolane;

That is what makes this country work so well.  People like you who can moderate the radicals like me.  So, what is the fix to the problem of roads littered with trash, gravel, sand, chunks of tires and yes even sections of tree trunks.  I have seen the police swerve to avoid such obstacles in the road and then pull someone over for speeding a few miles up the road.  Which was the greater hazard; the speeder or the obstacle in the road?  I seriously want better roads in this country.  Those of us who have driven in Germany know that they tolerate nothing on their roads.  Our roads are starting to look more like those I drove on in Turkey.  I am not happy that the roads of this country are beginning to look like those of the “Third World”.  And though I must agree the constitution does not give specific rights to ride a motorcycle, it also does not give specific rights for many of the things we as Americans take for granted.  Perhaps there in lies the problem; we take things for granted and  as a people no longer really “fight” for our rights preferring to leave it all to those who should but often do not represent us.  True, the founders of this Great Nation did not envision motorcycles.  However, they did envision a people who would not submit to injustice in any form.  Indeed the very words of the Declaration of Independence may well serve as inspiration not to submit to such injustice. Ok, I am getting off of my soapbox for the day.