Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
Tennessee News, State's helmetless riders infringe on the public good
It is troubling when mere convenience is passed off as freedom.
Despite all statistically sound warnings to the contrary, the Tennessee General Assembly is again debating whether to exempt motorcyclists over age 21 from wearing helmets.
Couched as a matter of individual choice, state Sen. Tim Burchett, R-Knoxville, hopes his bill will advance this year. The past several attempts have stalled in the House.
The House was right. This was a bad idea the first six or seven times, and it still is, for three reasons: Helmets save lives, reduce likelihood of debilitating injury, and help keep health-care costs down for everyone.
The crusade to lose the headgear has a lot of sponsors in both houses, who perhaps have merely followed the lead of other states that embraced this romantic notion of freedom. At present, only 20 states including Tennessee require all motorcycle riders to wear helmets, down from 47 states in 1975. This trend is going in the wrong direction, and lawmakers would do well to consider the hard facts, as well.
People are too stupid for their own good. Yes they should be required to wear helmets. If not for the fact that their broken asses will take up less room in hospitals when they aren't having emergency brain surgery. There are many other reasons but this is the one that probably effects the most people.
The helmet laws are Big Brother trying to take care of individuals. No thanks, I need no taking care of. However, if I am stupid enough to ride without a helmet and get my skull crushed, I should bear sole responsibility for my injuries and my medical bills.
Walking, "save lives, reduce likelihood of debilitating injury, and help keep health-care costs down for everyone."
Not smoking, "save lives, reduce likelihood of debilitating (diseases), and help keep health-care costs down for everyone."
Not eating fatty foods, "save lives, reduce likelihood of debilitating (diseases), and help keep health-care costs down for everyone."
Let's ban all forms of transportation, cigarettes, and fatty foods.
The helmet laws are Big Brother trying to take care of individuals. No thanks, I need no taking care of. However, if I am stupid enough to ride without a helmet and get my skull crushed, I should bear sole responsibility for my injuries and my medical bills.
Well said. I believe government should not force people to use a helmet however I do believe if they chose not to they should be required to have enough insurance to cover their complete hospitalization. Hospitals can't withhold treatment if they don't have the insurance thus they should be required to have it prior to getting a license. And if they are caught riding without the insurance they should lose their license.
I agree with banning smoking and fatty foods. I mean fatty foods are O.K. but companies could make foods taste very similar but way healthier for us, they just don't want to pay for it. There should be stricter standards. Banning smoking is a no brainer. No smoking/fatty foods are easy fixes that won't affect society. So is wearing a helmet. You should be forced to wear a helmet, because there is no reason not to wear one.
.
Surely you jest?
04-19-2007, 09:28 AM
x4fscvdvd
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by spunky1
Surely you jest?
Smoking does nothing but hurt people, then second hand smoke hurts people who don't even want to participate. Tell me how that's fair and why it should be legal. It has no benefit, at all.
Fatty foods I'm O.K. with if that is the only way it can be made. My problem is with companies that make fatty foods because they are CHEAP when they can make the same tasting food much healthier for a slightly higher cost.
I can understand disagreeing with the fatty food thing, but I would LOVE to hear a valid explanation on why smoking should be legal and what benefit it offers society. Using your religion, your body is a temple and is not to be destroyed by smoking and fatty foods, so why would you care?
Shadow, cigarettes disgust me and I have never touched one, and I am very happy that I live in a state that does not allow smoking indoors except for bars. That being said the government cannot stick their head in personal rights. If people want to smoke and it doesn't affect others then that is their decision. But I do believe they should have to bear the consequences as far as insurance goes and should be required to pay increased health care premiums.
04-19-2007, 09:33 AM
x4fscvdvd
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by spunky1
Shadow, cigarettes disgust me and I have never touched one, and I am very happy that I live in a state that does not allow smoking indoors except for bars. That being said the government cannot stick their head in personal rights. If people want to smoke and it doesn't affect others then that is their decision. But I do believe they should have to bear the consequences as far as insurance goes and should be required to pay increased health care premiums.
Second hand smoke DOES effect others. It is legal to smoke in public.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,428,613 times
Reputation: 40736
I've been riding motorcycles for 39 years and wouldn't go around the block without a helmet on but have my doubts trying to legislate common sense is a wise thing.
We all have our pet peeves, how often does it happen that "Gee officer, I was on a very important phone call when I ran off the road"? If we're really interested in preventing injury by motor vehicle 'd bet we'd prevent more by requiring a chip in every cell phone that shuts it off at speeds above 5mph than helmet laws do.
Last edited by burdell; 04-19-2007 at 09:41 AM..
Reason: I proofread like a box of rocks
Second hand smoke DOES effect others. It is legal to smoke in public.
I agree, that is why I said as long as it doesn't affect others. They should not be allowed to smoke in public buildings, but if they want to do it at home or where the smoke doesn't not affect others then they have that right. Also, it really upsets me when pregnant women smoke or when adults smoke in front of children but the govt cannot police individuals homes. Beyond everything else it is completely impractical.
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.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
