Print

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

[grc]

And, also, one last thing.  Language like that is what often gets either side in trouble when such public safety versus public use issues are discussed and debated.  It's not a "freedom."  We may want to be free not to be hassled by the man and just ride our machines.  But it's not a freedom.

Riding or driving is a privilege, not a right.  Lots of things can restrict that privilege.  And thank god.  There are lots of old farts and others of diminished capacity I want the government to be able to restrict road use from.  It protects my ass everyday. 

Using the public highway system is a national privilege.  Using it on bikes or in cars is the same.  Therefore riding with a helmet is also.  As granted or allowed by Federal or local legislation.  When we go off talking about "Freedoms" to the people that actually craft the standards we have to live within their eyes glaze over.  If we can't deal with them correctly, argue persuasively and inform correctly of why our positions should prevail we can't complain when they legislate against us.

       Said so much better than my feeble earlier attempt.  Thank you.


Jerry

[CVORick]

The highways are built for the cars and trucks.  They are the system's predominant users and important engines of the national economy.  That's why the highway system is out there.  For us it's a just a big assed playground.  As long as we're generally left alone to ride it we should be happy.  Because if we make legislatures or agencies actually start paying a lot of attention to us I guarantee you we won't like the eventual outcome.

How about just Transportation.  I think when Eisenhower and friends established the Interstate Highway System he had in mind movement of troops and weapons as well as interstate commerce.  This thread started talking about Helmet Laws.  Twolanerider you make several good points, but I still think it is about the mighty $$$$, not safety.

[TIF2]

And, also, one last thing.  Language like that is what often gets either side in trouble when such public safety versus public use issues are discussed and debated.  It's not a "freedom."  We may want to be free not to be hassled by the man and just ride our machines.  But it's not a freedom.

Riding or driving is a privilege, not a right.  Lots of things can restrict that privilege.  And thank god.  There are lots of old farts and others of diminished capacity I want the government to be able to restrict road use from.  It protects my ass everyday. 

Using the public highway system is a national privilege.  Using it on bikes or in cars is the same.  Therefore riding with a helmet is also.  As granted or allowed by Federal or local legislation.  When we go off talking about "Freedoms" to the people that actually craft the standards we have to live within their eyes glaze over.  If we can't deal with them correctly, argue persuasively and inform correctly of why our positions should prevail we can't complain when they legislate against us.

Actually, the Driver's Licence was first instituted for commercial use only, those who made money from using public roads (taxi drivers for example). Then it progressed to a public safety issue and the Driving Test was born (worthless as it is). So yes ... by definition it is a priviledge (anything requiring a license is a priviledge).

This priviledge was based solely on the tested ability to operate a vehicle in a manner as not to endanger the lives of others. It had nothing to do with not causing oneself harm (and still doesn't). I have been tested and found that I can operate a vehicle in a safe manner and therefore I am licensed to do so. The problem is that government LOVES to keep on governing, and now the "driving priviledge" has been so abused by state governments that it is a mockery of justice. A few years back there was a study done in Arizona and it found there were 108 specific laws that could result in the revocation of driving priviledges THAT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH OPERATING A VEHICLE.

This my dear friends is a problem, and in my opinion, abuse of power by a government. I have never debated that not wearing a helmet is a freedom, I have stated that laws of protection of a person from themselves are outside of the authority of any Government to regulate.

[Twolanerider]

Stating a belief that it is or should be beyond the right of government to protect a person from his own personal choices is very libertarian and (classically) liberal.  Plato would be proud. It's also separate and apart from the fact of long settled law that government can do exactly that. Whether it be setting speed limits, banning illicit narcotics, passing seatbelt requirements, proscribing many other types of self harmful behavior or passing helmet laws. Whether we like it or not there is no question in this country of whether or not government can legislate in ways to "protect" people from their own choices.

[TIF2]

Stating a belief that it is or should be beyond the right of government to protect a person from his own personal choices is very libertarian and (classically) liberal.  Plato would be proud. It's also separate and apart from the fact of long settled law that government can do exactly that. Whether it be setting speed limits, banning illicit narcotics, passing seatbelt requirements, proscribing many other types of self harmful behavior or passing helmet laws. Whether we like it or not there is no question in this country of whether or not government can legislate in ways to "protect" people from their own choices.

I am hardly liberal (not that there is anything wrong with that ). Personal "choices" -as you put it - is different from personal safety. In your listed examples, only a seatbelt law applies to my point. Excessive speed is a public safety issue as a person's ability to operate a vehicle at that speed may can certainly put the public in harm's way. For narcotics, it is only the sale and possession that is illegal, having them in your system in the privacy of your own dwelling is not. I agree that the government does pass these laws, I just fundamentaly disagree that they have the proper authority to.

It's also separate and apart from the fact of long settled law that government can do exactly that.

It is neither separate nor apart from, and is anything but "long settled law".

In American Motorcycle Association v. Davids, 158 N.W.2d 72, decided July 23, 1968, the three judges constituting Division 2 of the Court of Appeals of Michigan held the statute unconstitutional, reversing a contrary holding by the trial judge. Division 2 of the Court of Appeals concluded: "The precedential consequences of 'stretching our imagination' to find a relationship to the public health, safety and welfare, require the invalidation of this statute."

At least one Court of Appeals was correct in their judgement. Most are not. In order to invoke legislation outside of "public safety", States must use the "Police Power" within the State. This again (my opinion) is abuse of power in as much as police power should only be invoked in order to provide for the safety of the general public - meaning - innocent people become harmed in riots, etc. However, other States have used "public safety" in order to uphold helmet laws:

From State of North Carolina. v. Kenneth Calvin Anderson CITE AS: 275 N.C. 168, 166 S.E.2D 49
:

"The Supreme Court of Rhode Island, in State ex rel. Colvin v. Lombardi, 241 A.2d 625, decided May 8, 1968, passed on the constitutionality of the Rhode Island helmet statute. The Court said: " 'However, it is our unqualified judgment that the purpose sought to be achieved by requiring cyclists to wear protective headgear clearly qualified as a proper subject for legislation.

(T)he requirement of protective headgear for the exposed operator bears a reasonable relationship to highway safety generally. It does not tax the intellect to comprehend that loose stones on the highway kicked up by passing vehicles, or fallen objects such as windblown tree branches . . . against which the operator of a closed vehicle has some protection, could so affect the operator of a motorcycle as to cause him momentarily to lose control and thus become a menace to other vehicles on the highway.' "

Pay special attention to the "menace to other vehicles". That is what gives authority for passage under public safety laws. Whether it is a valid and reasonable finding is pretty questionable - I mean - those same occurrances on the torso, legs, feet, hands, arms - not just the head - would have the same effect. Why not require full body armor?

Also of note is the fact that Rhode Island in State ex rel. Colvin v. Lombardi, 241 A.2d 625, "passed" on whether the statute was constitutional - meaning - we won't form a decision on that issue. The State of Michigan clearly found it to be unconstitutional and instead of Rhode Island addressing whether or not Michigan found correctly, they just decided not to address it. In essence their decision was ... "it is our unqualified judgment that the purpose sought to be achieved by requiring cyclists to wear protective headgear clearly qualified as a proper subject for legislation - we don't care if it is constituional or not"

Nice ... huh?

[Twolanerider]

I am hardly liberal

Note I'd said "(classically) liberal."  Classical liberalism is/was very much what is now perceived as conservatism today.  

It is anything but "long settled law".

You'd suggested it was your opinion that the State should not have the right to legislate in ways to protect people from their own actions.  That is very much settled law.  In many ways.  Suggesting later that it's only meant in certain areas is separate and apart from the base fact.  State actions in the context of the State's perception of public safety or the State's interest in protecting an individual or group/class of people is absolutely settled.  And very often whether that person or group wish to be "protected" from the implications of whatever choice they are making is irrelevant.

[TIF2]

You'd suggested it was your opinion that the State should not have the right to legislate in ways to protect people from their own actions.  

Incorrect, what I stated was the fact that a government should not have the right to legislate my actions against myself. Or your actions against yourself. Your statement reads "their own actions" - it is "their own actions" that can cause harm to others, and that is neccessary to be regulated. Had you completed your statement with " ... against themselves" we would be in full agreement in my position.

State actions in the context of the State's perception of public safety or the State's interest in protecting an individual or group/class of people is absolutely settled.  And very often whether that person or group wish to be "protected" from the implications of whatever choice they are making is irrelevant.

Well ... duh.
The issue becomes whether the State is correct. As you limited it to be " ... in the context of the State's perception of public safety " it's a no brainer. I've shown how that "interpretation" is questionable. For the less astute among us you are stating that "I've (the State) said it to be true - therfore it is true". Doesn't mean they are correct, it just means "we'll state it until someone has an issue with it. Then we'll choose whether or not we'll decide on it".

I've noticed you have avoided whether or not a helmet law is constituional. We have one ruling that it is not, and one ruling that passed. Since one ruling passed, logic dictates that it is not. Otherwise the Michigan decision would have been addressed and quashed with supporting evidence by Rhode Island. I like to call this "case law by convenience" ... use case law that fully supports your decision and ignore case law that does not.

Actually, in the North Carolina decison, they referenced and stated that it was in the powers of the State, under police power, to enforce. Again from State of North Carolina. v. Kenneth Calvin Anderson:

"The rule is succinctly stated by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Liggett Co. v. Baldridge, 278 U.S. 105, 49 S.Ct. 57, 73 L.Ed. 204:

" 'The police power may be exerted in the form of state legislation where otherwise the effect may be to invade rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment only when such legislation bears a real and substantial relationship to the public health, safety, morals or some other phase of the public welfare.' "

Again, I would challenge that helmet laws can be legislated under public safety laws. They can only truly be enforced under police power authority. The decision above is the decision Michigan did not support as they found no "real and substantial relationship to the public health, safety, morals or some other phase of the public welfare". And make sure to read this portion ... "where otherwise the effect may be to invade rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment".

Hopefully I have shown that it is a leap to enforce under public safety (questionable interpretation), and can only be truly legislated under police power. And if the latter is true (which it is) then we really do live in a "Police State" of government.

[Twolanerider]

I just farted.

[SBB]

I just farted.

That's nothing new!




O Chit, wrong thread, sorry Don, thought I was in the "Three word story" thread.

SBB

[spydglide]

so did he

[Twolanerider]

so did he

Yeah, I noticed that too.  They might be contagious !

[AZ SESG]

I just farted.

  Please refrain from delivering these sudden gigantic curving linguistic spit-balls.  My laptop has adverse reactions to the various liquids spewed upon said device.

[TIF2]

I just farted.

C'mon now ... be completely honest ... there was just a bit of "solidarity" in there.

 

[Twolanerider]

C'mon now ... be completely honest ... there was just a bit of "solidarity" in there.

 

No; seriously.  Not a Pole in the group.

[TIF2]

No; seriously.  Not a Pole in the group.

Hehe ... good one.