Irony at its finest...

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/1018983--bare-headed-biker-dies-in-protest-against-motorcycle-helmets

The point that this guy had should have been covered eh. LOL

actually...i think it shows how dedicated the guy was to the cause.

the fact that he was willing to die in order to keep from being oppressed by some "do-gooder" politicians speaks volumes!!!

Imagine that eh?

I demand my right to choose. Who are you to take that choice away?

Sometimes the rules protect us from ourselves...

that's not what the rules are supposed to be there for...

the rules are supposed to be there to protect us from OTHER people...

if we CHOOSE to be stupid where it will affect us...individually...then so be it.

If we CHOOSE to wear a helmet, seatbelt, tie our shoes..that's up to us...nobody should be regulating it!!!

"The motorcyclist, 55-year-old Philip Contos, likely would have survived had he been wearing a helmet, state troopers said."

How could they possibly know that? Do they force people to ride bikes with and without helmets at different speeds to see where death happens, and where instead you just turn into a vegetable?

AGEsAces wrote:that's not what the rules are supposed to be there for...

the rules are supposed to be there to protect us from OTHER people...

if we CHOOSE to be stupid where it will affect us...individually...then so be it.

If we CHOOSE to wear a helmet, seatbelt, tie our shoes..that's up to us...nobody should be regulating it!!!

I disagree. Perhaps some rules should not have to be forced on us, but being the stubborn human beings that we are we sometimes hurt ourselves.

Take away the seatbelt law and what do ya suppose the death rate and injuries would be like today? I'll guess much higher.

The helmet law is self evident given this story.

Cellphone law? Same same.

Here's the thing. If you choose to ride a bike without a helmet or drive a car without fastening your seatbelt more power to ya. But should you be hurt as a consequence I say you also forfeit taxpayer funded health care...

I imagine there are studies out there that show the death rates and injuries incurred in jurisdictions that enforce the laws versus those that don't.

I have not seen the shoelace law yet though...

grumpy old man wrote:I disagree. Perhaps some rules should not have to be forced on us, but being the stubborn human beings that we are we sometimes hurt ourselves.

who cares? if we're dumb enough to do that...then so be it.

grumpy old man wrote:Take away the seatbelt law and what do ya suppose the death rate and injuries would be like today? I'll guess much higher.

Again...who cares?
Statistics have proven that the people who tend not to wear their seatbelt are the "underprivileged" and general scum. Good riddance.

grumpy old man wrote:The helmet law is self evident given this story.

I would bet...had he lived..he'd STILL be advocating against the stupid law...and that if he had the power to advocate in death...he'd STILL be doing so. There's nothing self-evident here except that a guy died standing up for his convictions...and that the law should be repealed before others have to do the same!!!

grumpy old man wrote:Cellphone law? Same same.

NOT EVEN CLOSE!!!
The cell phone law protects others from YOU being on your cellphone...I don't agree with the law only because there was ALREADY a law in place (called Negligent Driving) which applies to MORE than just cell phones...but the premise of making something illegal which distracts you from driving is a GOOD law...because it protects OTHERS.

grumpy old man wrote:Here's the thing. If you choose to ride a bike without a helmet or drive a car without fastening your seatbelt more power to ya. But should you be hurt as a consequence I say you also forfeit taxpayer funded health care...

Ahhh...now HERE'S the thing I agree with you on...same with smoking and having lung cancer, or skydiving and getting a broken leg, or liver disease and being an alcoholic....though your wording is off...someone will not be hurt BECAUSE they aren't wearing a helmet...but should they sustain injury which could have been PREVENTED by use of the helmet...then it should apply.

grumpy old man wrote:I imagine there are studies out there that show the death rates and injuries incurred in jurisdictions that enforce the laws versus those that don't.

There are studies for everything...though they don't all mean anything.
Here's a study for you though...did you know that governments which continually oppress their citizens with useless laws, tend to find themselves overthrown and quite often homeless or dead?
The more laws created to "control" the people...WILL result in more people standing up and resisting the government...and force society into a chaos.

I have not seen the shoelace law yet though...[/quote]

I wonder if the 1983 bike will be auctioned off??