Print

[AngelaK]

(emphasis mine)
 
     Sorry, honey, you don't get a pass on that one: only US PERSONS will be bound by the Obamessiah's dictats, not real people.  There's a difference, a big difference, a HUGE difference - just like there is between those who are obligated, under penalty of fines &/or caging, to wear a DOT-approved helmet while operating a motorcycle and those who have the option either way.  Options abound, except for slaves of THE STATE.  To add insult to injury, your use of "lol" and the winking face thing only says to me that you're a sadist, not a comedienne...

Wow!  I almost forgot how easily people can get so nasty.  Sadist egh?  Whatev.  AGAIN, if you want to take a risk with your own life, it should be your decision all the way.  Same goes if you drink, smoke cigs, do drugs or drive without a helmet.  And because you like them so much, here are some more smiley's for ya  and a wink for good measure  .

[lordfly]

YES!  This should be a personal choice.  If you want to take the risk and wear no seatbelt or helmet it should be your choice to do so.

If you want to "choose" to not wear safety equipment, then the public should "choose" not to scrape your corpse off the highway after tumbling off a bike at 90mph.

You can choose whatever you want, but I'll be damned if the public should foot the bill for folks not wanting to be safe in dangerous machinery.

[Tiny]

If you want to "choose" to not wear safety equipment, then the public should "choose" not to scrape your corpse off the highway after tumbling off a bike at 90mph.

You can choose whatever you want, but I'll be damned if the public should foot the bill for folks not wanting to be safe in dangerous machinery.

Yeah, leave'em there like an old dead raccoon 'til they get ground into the ashphalt. 

[SimpleMan]

YES!  This should be a personal choice.  If you want to take the risk and wear no seatbelt or helmet it should be your choice to do so.

Angela, Shaggy was being SARCASTIC in that post.

[SimpleMan]

1) Nurses generally rock (even if so many of them are morbidly obese)

Pax, I take issue with that comment. My own wife is an RN, and while she has lost alot of weight recently, she still (to be fair, nor can I) cannot claim to be some svelte 5'9 120 lb 21 year old hottie. The nurses who DO fit into that category (and whatwith the medical field being so over-hyped as the hot job field to get into in recent years there are a considerable number of them) generally are inexperienced and tend to be overwhelmed by the demands of their job. I would hope that if you end up in need of medical care, you would not hope for a NILF (nurse Id like to f#ck), but rather a nurse who knows enough to actually care for you.

[TLaitur]

I would hope that if you end up in need of medical care, you would not hope for a NILF (nurse Id like to f#ck),

SimpleMan:  Judging by Pax previous post; the n wouldn't stand for nurse.  It would stand for Nazi.

[Pax]

SimpleMan:  Judging by Pax previous post; the n wouldn't stand for nurse.  It would stand for Nazi.

Well my goodness, a "lawyer" engaging in slander and defamation on his hometown newspaper's forum.  Quite unbecoming.  It shows quite a lack of JUDGEment. And it's most certainly illegal.

    As for the harping on an aside of mine the point was quite simply that I find it ridiculous to presume one should be taking/heeding advice on how to take care of oneself from those who do not take care of their own bodies, and not all "nurses" fall under that particular category.   "Do as I say, not as I do" works quite well from a parent to a stupid child but is an unacceptable verbal assault from one adult to another.  What "nurses" have to say regarding helmet/seatbelt usage is of no consequence whatsoever - isn't the "Mommy Knows Best!" mentality why women in general could claim no "right" to "vote" in the past?

     If J. Laitur wasn't quite so easily reduced to childish name-calling perhaps he could offer this topic something useful and productive: links to appropriate "legislation" or related places for a fuller understanding of the STATE OF MICHIGAN'S policy of mandating helmet usage AND to my vehement assertion that any man travelling the public roads on a motorcycle sans helmet in Michigan is quite within his lawful rights to do so AS LONG AS he has not contracted with the STATE via it's "licensing" scams.  We'll see. 

[T-M-T]

...my vehement assertion that any man travelling the public roads on a motorcycle sans helmet in Michigan is quite within his lawful rights to do so AS LONG AS he has not contracted with the STATE via it's "licensing" scams.  We'll see.

You’ve spent time in jail for driving with a suspended license and for refusing to cooperate with the police, then you were b-slapped by higher courts when you filed your lame attempt at appeal.  How can you, of all people, advise others to drive (or ride) without a license?

[ell]

Might be getting close to thread locking time.  Please, a bit more civility so the moderators don't need to step in as I would rather not lock the thread.  Originally, it was started by my surprise that such of majority of those sampled were against a repeal of the helmet law.

[SimpleMan]

    As for the harping on an aside of mine the point was quite simply that I find it ridiculous to presume one should be taking/heeding advice on how to take care of oneself from those who do not take care of their own bodies, and not all "nurses" fall under that particular category.   "Do as I say, not as I do" works quite well from a parent to a stupid child but is an unacceptable verbal assault from one adult to another.  What "nurses" have to say regarding helmet/seatbelt usage is of no consequence whatsoever - ?     

Pax, what nurses and other medical professionals have to say about the benefits or lack thereof of helmet use is indeed of great consequence, since they are on the front line. They see and treat the carnage that comes from motorcycle accidents. I cited my own wife's experience since she has worked both in the ER of a level 1 trauma center as well as the neuro step-down units of that and another major hospital, thereby gaining several years of experience dealing with such accident victims.

As far as your comments regarding the physical size or appearance of a nurse somehow having any relation whatsoever to their knowledge and ability to care for patients, I say bollocks. Hospitals aren't brothels. You may very well have a MAN as your nurse, and the better for you if you do, since men are actually better suited to nursing, especicially so for the physical aspects such as lifting heavy patients. Also, just because your nurse, be it a she, doesn't conform to whatever paramters you have in your head as being sexually attractive, doesn't necessarily mean they don't take care of themselves and therefore their advice should not be heeded. The Good Lord made us in all shapes and sizes, and what you consider to be the healthy ideal may very well be just the opposite, and vice versa.

[SimpleMan]

SimpleMan:  Judging by Pax previous post; the n wouldn't stand for nurse.  It would stand for Nazi.

Haha...I can't help it.

[Pax]

The Good Lord made us in all shapes and sizes, and what you consider...

     If you read a bit more I said nothing disparaging of nurse's abilities (or, God forbid, "attractiveness") and for the record I was an EMT for nigh on 5 years (military and civilian both) so I'm well-acquainted with human carnage, sir.

     The thread has evolved into two main themes, that I can see: 1) who gets to decide what is "safe" or "unsafe" for motorcycle riders, and 2) who has to "pay" for injuries resulting from unapproved  risk-taking.   From a libertarian stand-point I insist the governmental agents/goons have no business interfering with such personal decisions - my goodness we'd have no Darwin Awards to dispense annually if it weren't for the shenanigans of risk-takers.    On the second, when "government" involves itself in even the minutae of "health care" when it is nowhere lawfully authorized to do so it cannot lawfully interfere with those who would opt, however ill-conceived it may seem to nurses and nannies and do-gooders, to take what would be unacceptable risks for most everyone else.

     The threats to Life, Liberty and Property inherent in "licensing" schemes are infinitely greater than those of exercising one's lawful rights.  Caging, property seizures and incongruous labelling of our fellow men being paramount examples...which I am also all-to-familiar with.

[SMASH]

Let's delve into the "who pays" portion.

According to the last audit of the MCCA, of which I have a copy, Michigan motorcycylists left 1.8 million dollars in the fund after all claims were paid.
This audit is old and needs to be updated. Unfortuneatly all attempts through legislation to audit the MCCA have been unsuccessful for the past five+ years.

It has been shown in testimony that Michigan motorcyclists pay more than their "fair share" into the MCCA.
While most folks pay into the Fund for only their cars, I myself, pay into the fund 4 fold. 1 truck, 1 van, 2 motorcycles.
It was stated earlier that if you are in a "single vehicle" accident, helmet or not, you are not covered by the MCCA.

Let's be perfectly clear here. The MCCA fund is not for the purpose of the individual.
It is a re-insurance fund for the insurance companies. We just fund it.

No insurance company selling insurance in Michigan can get re-insurance because no one will cover them.
Why?
Because Michigan has no limit which can be sued for in medical damages in the event of a accident/crash.
This does not allow the insurance companies to project with any certainty their future liabilities.
So...since the voters of Michigan have decided to play the injury lottery we are stuck with the MCCA.

If you look at the "declarations" page of your auto/motorcycle policy you will clearly see what you are paying to fund this pool of money for the insurance companies. The average is around $125.00 per vehicle. Multiplied by all of the registered vehicles in Michigan this equates to a boat load of money!
As of now insurance companies are required to cover costs with money from the fund after your injuries exceed $450K. Eventually the goal is to raise this to $1 million.
In the not too distant future the MCCA assessment may exceed the value of the car/motorcycle being insured!
This will lead to many more folks driving with no insurance at all.

As it stands now...Michigan motorcyclists pay MORE than their fair share.

Also, according to organizations like "Heads First" and the insurance industry itself auto accidents are the LEADING cause of head injuries in Michigan.

So, how about a helmet law for CARS??

After 10 years of intimately dealing with this issue and 26 years in the motorcycle industry I can say this with the utmost of confidence.

This comes down to the "majority" using it's force to bear down on a minority of other wise law abiding citizens for their percieved "own good".
If this was about safety people like Jenifer Granholm would not try to sieze the money generated by motorcyclists for motorcycle rider training. If this was about safety more funds would be made available for driver and rider training to help avoid the crash in the first place.
The focus should be on safer driving and riding and not about better CRASHING!

[Chips]

Michigan has one of the worst economies in the country yet it the only State to have the catastrophic insurance program. We are so very lucky!

[SMASH]

Michigan has one of the worst economies in the country yet it the only State to have the catastrophic insurance program. We are so very lucky!

Again, blame the voters of Michigan.
They have been given the chance to end the MCCA through caps on BS injury lawsuits.
They have chosen time and again to play the Injury Lottery.

BTW, they are the same ones who don't understand the State Lottery is nothing more than a Poor Tax.

They are the same ones telling you to shup up and OBEY an un-Constitutional law.

A law written for the people to OBEY and the courts to profit from regardless if the State Police comply with their portion of the law.

Look it up, it's easy to find.

MCL257.658

If we don't OBEY they get away with legalised theft.

Let me give ya'll a hint.

The FEDS don't "approve" helmets!

They never have, and never will.

They can't, they aren't allowed to.

It's called LIABILITY.