U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Missouri
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-23-2012, 09:57 AM
 
6,873 posts, read 4,715,037 times
Reputation: 2217
Thumbs up State: Motorcycle helmet laws stalls in Mo. senate

State: Motorcycle helmet laws stalls in Mo. senate - Camdenton, MO - Serving Missouri's Lake of the Ozarks region including Osage Beach, Camdenton, Lake Ozark, Eldon and Sunrise Beach

The bill would relax Missouri's current helmet requirement so that it would apply only to people younger than 21.

Be smart wear a helmet.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-23-2012, 10:31 AM
 
Location: 38 38' 45" N, -90 20' 08" W
7,646 posts, read 11,025,772 times
Reputation: 6168
There should be no legislation against being stupid. If you want to wear a helmet, that's your business. Much like smoking a cigarette or drinking a beer, it's your lungs and liver. Do not need a law to require it. That's my libertarian coming out!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2012, 10:41 AM
 
Location: Volker, Kansas City, MO
12,062 posts, read 18,408,616 times
Reputation: 3618
^Or seatbelts?

I think there's a fair argument on your side, and I definitely have a libertarian streak as well as has been discussed here, but it's not as though there's no precedent for these kinds of restrictions. I don't think it's unreasonable for a government entity to place safety restrictions for those using the roads. I don't necessarily see that as infringing on freedoms in any substantial way.

The bar/restaurant smoking restrictions are different to me in that I feel they infringe on the right's of business owners to allow a legal activity to take place as they see fit.

Maybe that's not an entirely fleshed out ideology though -- there's certainly some overlap between business owner restrictions and driving restrictions in that it's pretty easy to argue they're both 'optional' activities.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2012, 10:42 AM
 
6,873 posts, read 4,715,037 times
Reputation: 2217
http://gns.gannettonline.com/apps/pb...YCLE/803210302

• About 42 percent of riders killed were not wearing helmets.

Half of motorcyclists killed between 2002 and 2006 lost control and crashed without colliding with another vehicle, underscoring the inherent risks involved in riding a motorcycle. Motorcyclists account for about 2 percent of vehicles on the road but 10 percent of all traffic fatalities, according to federal statistics.

Seems logical to wear a helmet.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2012, 10:47 AM
 
6,873 posts, read 4,715,037 times
Reputation: 2217
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike0421 View Post
There should be no legislation against being stupid. If you want to wear a helmet, that's your business. Much like smoking a cigarette or drinking a beer, it's your lungs and liver. Do not need a law to require it. That's my libertarian coming out!
Should we the taxpayer have to pay for Nursing home care for a person that refused to wear a helmet and has exhausted their insurance or had none and will never work again and lay in this home for 5-10 years before they die?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2012, 10:48 AM
 
Location: Volker, Kansas City, MO
12,062 posts, read 18,408,616 times
Reputation: 3618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Versatile View Post
http://gns.gannettonline.com/apps/pb...YCLE/803210302

• About 42 percent of riders killed were not wearing helmets.

Half of motorcyclists killed between 2002 and 2006 lost control and crashed without colliding with another vehicle, underscoring the inherent risks involved in riding a motorcycle. Motorcyclists account for about 2 percent of vehicles on the road but 10 percent of all traffic fatalities, according to federal statistics.

Seems logical to wear a helmet.
Agreed, but the inherent argument isn't whether it's logical to wear one but rather if it's the place of government to legislate it.

Someone not wearing a helmet doesn't pose a threat to others any more than a motorcyclist who is wearing one.

It's a scope of government ideological debate far more than anything else -- which are exactly the kinds of arguments one can rarely "win"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2012, 10:51 AM
 
Location: 38 38' 45" N, -90 20' 08" W
7,646 posts, read 11,025,772 times
Reputation: 6168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Versatile View Post
Risky ride | Gannett News Service motorcycle safety special report

About 42 percent of riders killed were not wearing helmets.

Half of motorcyclists killed between 2002 and 2006 lost control and crashed without colliding with another vehicle, underscoring the inherent risks involved in riding a motorcycle. Motorcyclists account for about 2 percent of vehicles on the road but 10 percent of all traffic fatalities, according to federal statistics.

Seems logical to wear a helmet.
I don't disagree! Absolutely. I don't want government mandating it though, because eating 4 servings of vegetables a day seems to be logical as well. But I don't want to eat 4 servings of vegetables a day, or one serving. I want to eat potato chips and drink beer. These are my own dumb choices, should I choose to partake in them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2012, 10:53 AM
 
Location: 38 38' 45" N, -90 20' 08" W
7,646 posts, read 11,025,772 times
Reputation: 6168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Versatile View Post
Should we the taxpayer have to pay for Nursing home care for a person that refused to wear a helmet and has exhausted their insurance or had none and will never work again and lay in this home for 5-10 years before they die?
In a word, no.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2012, 11:01 AM
 
Location: 38 38' 45" N, -90 20' 08" W
7,646 posts, read 11,025,772 times
Reputation: 6168
Quote:
Originally Posted by aragx6 View Post
^Or seatbelts?
No. Not seatbelts either. God bless New Hampshire.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2012, 11:12 AM
 
6,873 posts, read 4,715,037 times
Reputation: 2217
Compounding the situation. A person's right's vs protecting our population in general. A person's rights should be preserved when at all possible. The public as a whole should be protected from individuals making poor choices. One small act of self indulgence can cost the general public hundreds of thousands of dollars even millions in hospital care, public assistance, etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2011 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Missouri

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:55 PM.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top