MotoHouston.com MotoHouston.com
Register Members List Member Map Media Calendar Garage Forum Home Mark Forums Read

Go Back   MotoHouston.com > General Discussion > General Discussion (Moto Related)
Forgot info?

Welcome to MotoHouston.com! You are currently viewing our forums as a guest which gives you limited access to the community. By joining our free community you will have access to great discounts from our sponsors, the ability to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content, free email, classifieds, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, join our community!

Register Today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.


FREE MH Decals by MAIL!

Advertisement

Reply
Share This Thread: 
Subscribe to this Thread Thread Tools
Old 06-16-2011, 10:49 PM   #461
MadseasoN
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: 77002
Feedback Rating: (1)
Posts: 5,603

Experience: 10+ years
Trackdays: 10+











Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulric View Post
:-) You've got blackboxes as a requirement for every 4wheel vehicle.
No there were seatbelts, then airbags...an age limit for kids in the front seat.


There is no need for 'precedence'. The whole argument 'for' helmets, can be applied to any aspect in regards to motorcycles. Why do you think that the 'magic line' is helmets?
I currently have a choice on wether or not I want to wear a helmet on a ride. Precisely how is the creation of a law that requires me to wear a helmet NOT an infringement upon my right to chose?
Give it a couple years, some do good weenie finds out leather is better to wear than jeans and a t-shirt. What prevents him from creating a bill? Not a thin.
A GPS requirement would give the ability to track every vehicle. There's no GPS requirements for vehicles.

There's an age/weight limit for kids in the front seat. This protects the child. You know there are idiots out there putting their 4 year olds in the front seat with no seatbelt. The same can be said for airbags.

If I understand you you're saying that the helmet law will give the gov the ability to 'cause' other laws because we allowed them to pass the helmet law. That's exactly what precedence is. The only additional law I could see passed on precedence of the helmet law is other required gear laws (jacket, boots, etc). Then you could argue that those things wouldn't save a life, and you'd win that argument so that particular law wouldn't be feasible.

Jeans/tshirt are not traffic laws. A traffic law wouldn't not give the government a reason to make everyone wear jeans/tshirt. That's a huge reach.
MadseasoN is offline   Reply With Quote
Similar Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Safety Gear For ALL vehicles! Do it or Pay! Predator04 General Discussion (Moto Related) 8 07-03-2009 09:53 AM
Anyone fly with their safety gear? v4lu3s General Discussion (Moto Related) 19 12-07-2008 01:34 PM
A bit of cheap riding insurance, safety gear. Diablomann General Discussion (Moto Related) 10 11-20-2007 07:21 PM
Is A New Safety Gear Regulation??? BusaFlo Safety Corner Main 13 03-08-2007 03:57 PM
Advertisement
Old 06-16-2011, 11:00 PM   #462
Ulric
Dirty Old
 
Ulric's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Spring
Feedback Rating: (1)
Posts: 9,633

Experience: 10+ years

Bike(s):
05 FZ1









Quote:
Originally Posted by MadseasoN View Post
A GPS requirement would give the ability to track every vehicle. There's no GPS requirements for vehicles.

There's an age/weight limit for kids in the front seat. This protects the child. You know there are idiots out there putting their 4 year olds in the front seat with no seatbelt. The same can be said for airbags.

If I understand you you're saying that the helmet law will give the gov the ability to 'cause' other laws because we allowed them to pass the helmet law. That's exactly what precedence is. The only additional law I could see passed on precedence of the helmet law is other required gear laws (jacket, boots, etc). Then you could argue that those things wouldn't save a life, and you'd win that argument so that particular law wouldn't be feasible.

Jeans/tshirt are not traffic laws. A traffic law wouldn't not give the government a reason to make everyone wear jeans/tshirt. That's a huge reach.
I repeat, there is now a federal requirement for blackboxes for every 4 wheel vehicle. Do you know for a fact precisely what they are, or are not capable of tracking information wise? No, not unless you helped design/build the thing.

Yea and you had kids killed because of airbags....the age/weight limit had nothing to do with seatbelts, it had to do with injuries/fatalities due to airbags. That's why many auto's have the capability to disarm the passenger side airbag too.

Go read again (and work on the comprehension the jean/t-shirt thing seems to have gone right over your head for example)... 'precedence' is not needed.
Helmet reduce injuries to the head, thus saving lives... they don't use 'magic'.
Leather/Gloves/Boots etc reduce injuries thus helping save lives... the same 'arguements' "for helmet" , work for anything else. It's....stupidity to think they don't. There is no requirement for it to be 'helmets' first, no need for 'precedence'.
__________________
"new joke tomorrow..."
Ulric is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2011, 11:18 PM   #463
MadseasoN
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: 77002
Feedback Rating: (1)
Posts: 5,603

Experience: 10+ years
Trackdays: 10+











Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulric View Post
I repeat, there is now a federal requirement for blackboxes for every 4 wheel vehicle. Do you know for a fact precisely what they are, or are not capable of tracking information wise? No, not unless you helped design/build the thing.

Yea and you had kids killed because of airbags....the age/weight limit had nothing to do with seatbelts, it had to do with injuries/fatalities due to airbags. That's why many auto's have the capability to disarm the passenger side airbag too.

Go read again (and work on the comprehension the jean/t-shirt thing seems to have gone right over your head for example)... 'precedence' is not needed.
Helmet reduce injuries to the head, thus saving lives... they don't use 'magic'.
Leather/Gloves/Boots etc reduce injuries thus helping save lives... the same 'arguements' "for helmet" , work for anything else. It's....stupidity to think they don't. There is no requirement for it to be 'helmets' first, no need for 'precedence'.
Post the law and required specs for the 'black boxes' that the government issued - not some Alex Jones BS either, the real requirement.

The disarm is for baby seats because they face backward.

No, the same argument might work but I doubt it. You can't convince the average person that leather would save a rider's life. You can convince them that a helmet would. Go ask 100 people (riders and non-riders) and see what the response is.
MadseasoN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2011, 11:33 PM   #464
Ulric
Dirty Old
 
Ulric's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Spring
Feedback Rating: (1)
Posts: 9,633

Experience: 10+ years

Bike(s):
05 FZ1









Quote:
Originally Posted by MadseasoN View Post
Post the law and required specs for the 'black boxes' that the government issued - not some Alex Jones BS either, the real requirement.

The disarm is for baby seats because they face backward.

No, the same argument might work but I doubt it. You can't convince the average person that leather would save a rider's life. You can convince them that a helmet would. Go ask 100 people (riders and non-riders) and see what the response is.
Lol you're the one claiming what they are not capable of... you find the specs.

http://www.examiner.com/finance-exam...mment=33589026

http://dvice.com/archives/2011/05/feds-to-require.php

...We already have companies collecting data/selling it for speed traps...
Quote:
a real problem is the fact that the data is being used to setup police revenue sources such as speed cameras. A Dutch firm has openly admitted that they use TomTom customer data to setup speed traps
__________________
"new joke tomorrow..."
Ulric is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2011, 11:39 PM   #465
Ulric
Dirty Old
 
Ulric's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Spring
Feedback Rating: (1)
Posts: 9,633

Experience: 10+ years

Bike(s):
05 FZ1









Quote:
Originally Posted by MadseasoN View Post
Post the law and required specs for the 'black boxes' that the government issued - not some Alex Jones BS either, the real requirement.

The disarm is for baby seats because they face backward.

No, the same argument might work but I doubt it. You can't convince the average person that leather would save a rider's life. You can convince them that a helmet would. Go ask 100 people (riders and non-riders) and see what the response is.
Lol you're the one claiming what they are not capable of... you find the specs.

http://www.examiner.com/finance-exam...mment=33589026

http://dvice.com/archives/2011/05/feds-to-require.php

...We already have companies collecting data/selling it for speed traps...
Quote:
a real problem is the fact that the data is being used to setup police revenue sources such as speed cameras. A Dutch firm has openly admitted that they use TomTom customer data to setup speed traps
...and
Quote:
You can't convince the average person that leather would save a rider's life.
I saw 3 people convince almost 3k in well under 1/2 a year that sportbikes arent equipped with handholds and that a law that required a passenger to have taken the msf would 'educate' passengers and riders.
Given the inclination, time and $...I think I could do what you say would be impossible. :-) How many races and track sessions do you see people in t-shirts, helmets and tennis shoes?
__________________
"new joke tomorrow..."
Ulric is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2011, 11:54 PM   #466
MadseasoN
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: 77002
Feedback Rating: (1)
Posts: 5,603

Experience: 10+ years
Trackdays: 10+











Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulric View Post
Lol you're the one claiming what they are not capable of... you find the specs.

http://www.examiner.com/finance-exam...mment=33589026

http://dvice.com/archives/2011/05/feds-to-require.php

...We already have companies collecting data/selling it for speed traps...
I did not claim that. You misunderstand. Your argument is that a helmet law would be 'foot in the door' for the gov the create laws that might violate your civil rights and that they would 'take it too far'. Well the black box thing was done without a federal helmet law and is not a traffic law anyway. It's part of vehicle standards.
MadseasoN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2011, 11:57 PM   #467
MadseasoN
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: 77002
Feedback Rating: (1)
Posts: 5,603

Experience: 10+ years
Trackdays: 10+











Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulric View Post

...and I saw 3 people convince almost 3k in well under 1/2 a year that sportbikes arent equipped with handholds and that a law that required a passenger to have taken the msf would 'educate' passengers and riders.
Given the inclination, time and $...I think I could do what you say would be impossible. :-) How many races and track sessions do you see people in t-shirts, helmets and tennis shoes?
You surveyed 3K people for their opinion?
MadseasoN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2011, 12:07 AM   #468
Ulric
Dirty Old
 
Ulric's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Spring
Feedback Rating: (1)
Posts: 9,633

Experience: 10+ years

Bike(s):
05 FZ1









Quote:
You surveyed 3K people for their opinion?
I researched and fought some other legislature. :-) There was no need to 'survey' 3k people.


Quote:
Originally Posted by MadseasoN View Post
I did not claim that. You misunderstand. Your argument is that a helmet law would be 'foot in the door' for the gov the create laws that might violate your civil rights and that they would 'take it too far'.
No, that would be setting precedence. I'll repeat, helmet/leather jacket etc... it does not matter, none requires precedence merely someone deciding it's a 'good idea' to start movement to try to force it on other people.

Quote:
Well the black box thing was done without a federal helmet law and is not a traffic law anyway. It's part of vehicle standards.
...and your point is what? Are you really that dense?

...no wonder our country is in the fix it's in.
__________________
"new joke tomorrow..."

Last edited by Ulric; 06-17-2011 at 12:10 AM.
Ulric is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2011, 04:46 AM   #469
Bevo
Hook 'em!
 
Bevo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Houston-The South Loop
Feedback Rating: (0)
Posts: 24,295

Experience: 10+ years
Trackdays: 3

Bike(s):
'12 CBR1000RR Red/Black
'14 CB1000R Matte Gray
'10 CBR1000RR (destroyed)
'09 CBR1000RR C-ABS (sold)
'09 CBR600RR C-ABS (sold)

Member Garage





Quote:
Originally Posted by morvegil View Post
I am dangerous.
You give yourself far too much credit
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by bumblebee View Post
"I lack skillz"
Bevo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2011, 04:50 AM   #470
Bevo
Hook 'em!
 
Bevo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Houston-The South Loop
Feedback Rating: (0)
Posts: 24,295

Experience: 10+ years
Trackdays: 3

Bike(s):
'12 CBR1000RR Red/Black
'14 CB1000R Matte Gray
'10 CBR1000RR (destroyed)
'09 CBR1000RR C-ABS (sold)
'09 CBR600RR C-ABS (sold)

Member Garage





FREEDOM!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rael View Post
george1

This image captures Washington's victory against the English helmet laws.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by bumblebee View Post
"I lack skillz"
Bevo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2011, 07:30 AM   #471
FKNA
Senior Member
 
FKNA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Houston
Feedback Rating: (1)
Posts: 6,707

Experience: 10+ years
Trackdays: 3

Bike(s):
2005 Yamaha R1
2008 Goldwing








Quote:
Originally Posted by MadseasoN View Post
Tell me about freedom and liberty then, oh wise one.

This is a forum where discussion are held. People are going to disagree with you, if you don't like it then don't read it or don't participate. If you're going to participate then post an argument that at least makes you appear to have more than a double-digit IQ.
23 pages later and you still don't have a clue what freedom and liberty is? If you don't know by now, nothing can be said that will make a light bulb go off in your head. , you can't do something as simple as connecting the dots from helmet law to other protective gear. With your narrowmindedness, you work off of the assumption that the argument that will be laid forth in front of the public for protective gear would be the same as the one being laid forth for the helmet (it will save lives) argument. Is it so hard to understand that maybe.......just maybe......a different argument would be used? Maybe something along the lines of (it would reduce serious injury)????

I along with others have put it into black and white for you on how it infringes upon freedom and liberty, but yet you scoff at those that want to protect these two things. The only argument I have seen you put forth is to give up liberty for the illusion of temporary safety.
FKNA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2011, 09:02 AM   #472
honorsdaddy
Professional Donor
 
honorsdaddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: My desk.
Feedback Rating: (0)
Posts: 6,061

Experience: 9 years

Bike(s):
2012 BMW K1600GTL
2013 Triumph Trophy SE (sold)
2009 Harley-Davidson Road Glide(sold)
2007 Star V-Star 1300T (sold)
2007 Star V-Star 1100 (sold)






Send a message via Yahoo to honorsdaddy
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadseasoN View Post
Listen to me - passing a law that requires helmets will not give the 'big bad government' the precedence to pass laws that will violate your civil rights. I'm sure people thought the same about the seat belt law 20-30 years ago. The sky didn't fall after that was passed and the black helicopters never showed up.
No, they didnt, but now, instead of it merely being the law that front lap belts are required in every car, every rider in the car must wear one - front or back seat.

Yeah, you're right, it will NEVER get worse...

BTW, you know you can actually get arrested for not wearing one? In the back seat no less?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadseasoN View Post
If the gov tries to pass a law requiring GPS on every vehicle then I'd worry and start fighting.
Well, lets see...black boxes (data recorders) are required, and the reason every new cell phone has a GPS these days is because it is required by law - and no, short of turning off the phone, you can't REALLY turn it off.
__________________
Keeping the "fun" in "dysfunctional" since 1969.
honorsdaddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2011, 09:05 AM   #473
honorsdaddy
Professional Donor
 
honorsdaddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: My desk.
Feedback Rating: (0)
Posts: 6,061

Experience: 9 years

Bike(s):
2012 BMW K1600GTL
2013 Triumph Trophy SE (sold)
2009 Harley-Davidson Road Glide(sold)
2007 Star V-Star 1300T (sold)
2007 Star V-Star 1100 (sold)






Send a message via Yahoo to honorsdaddy
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadseasoN View Post
A GPS requirement would give the ability to track every vehicle. There's no GPS requirements for vehicles.
Not YET. But there is one for your cell phone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadseasoN View Post
There's an age/weight limit for kids in the front seat. This protects the child. You know there are idiots out there putting their 4 year olds in the front seat with no seatbelt. The same can be said for airbags.
Wow - you mean, like people did 30 years ago? Or even as little as 20 years ago?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadseasoN View Post
If I understand you you're saying that the helmet law will give the gov the ability to 'cause' other laws because we allowed them to pass the helmet law. That's exactly what precedence is. The only additional law I could see passed on precedence of the helmet law is other required gear laws (jacket, boots, etc). Then you could argue that those things wouldn't save a life, and you'd win that argument so that particular law wouldn't be feasible.
We can also argue that the helmet isn't guaranteed to save a life either - oh wait - we are! That's not a good enough reason for you now. Why should we think you'd find it a good enough reason when it comes to leathers and other PPE?

After all, you've already stated, you'd wear leather if you were told to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadseasoN View Post
Jeans/tshirt are not traffic laws. A traffic law wouldn't not give the government a reason to make everyone wear jeans/tshirt. That's a huge reach.
Explain for us ALL how helmets are "traffic laws"?
__________________
Keeping the "fun" in "dysfunctional" since 1969.
honorsdaddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2011, 10:54 AM   #474
SpeedCheeser
and whiskey
 
SpeedCheeser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Houston - Med Center
Feedback Rating: (0)
Posts: 8,550

Experience: 2 years
Trackdays: 1

Bike(s):
thieves









Quote:
Originally Posted by MadseasoN View Post
If I understand you you're saying that the helmet law will give the gov the ability to 'cause' other laws because we allowed them to pass the helmet law. That's exactly what precedence is. The only additional law I could see passed on precedence of the helmet law is other required gear laws (jacket, boots, etc). Then you could argue that those things wouldn't save a life, and you'd win that argument so that particular law wouldn't be feasible.
What he's saying is that if you can justify a law restricting choice, such as a helmet law, under the argument that it can prevent injuries or death, then you can justify near ANYTHING motorcycle related under the same argument. Yes, it could even go so far as outlawing motorcycles on public roads under the argument that they're inherently more dangerous than an enclosed vehicle, even with safety gear. How do you decide where you draw the line as far as what's acceptable and what's not in these laws that have no affect on others on the road? You're either for freedom or you are not. There is no magic line to be drawn (helmets vs. gps tracking).
__________________
avatar44755 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by eltejano View Post
I always thought speedcheeser was a meth head with a fondness for dairy products.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sifu-TZ View Post
he's a viking accountant. he looks at the bottom line, then he yells at it.
SpeedCheeser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2011, 12:34 PM   #475
7cain
Resident Ginja
 
7cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: H-Town
Feedback Rating: (3)
Posts: 5,235

Experience: 10+ years

Bike(s):
'02 ZX6R




Member Garage


Back on the argument "for our safety", here is another example. It is a law that you are required to wear your seatbelt right? Airbags are an additional "safety" feature right? If you read the operation manual for a vehicle with multiple airbags (side curtains, pillars, etc.) it states that you are to sit as far back in the seat as possible, do not lean near the windows as the deployment of said airbags could cause severe injury or DEATH! Now, how would like it to become a law or ticketable office to be sitting in your car improperly? "Sir, the reason I stopped you was because you had your arm out the window and this vehicle is equipped with side curtain airbags. This is for your safety, here's your ticket"
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azylum
... your is sexy. i want it.
FELIS DEMULCTA MITIS (translation: A stroked cat is gentle)
7cain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2011, 12:43 PM   #476
Bevo
Hook 'em!
 
Bevo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Houston-The South Loop
Feedback Rating: (0)
Posts: 24,295

Experience: 10+ years
Trackdays: 3

Bike(s):
'12 CBR1000RR Red/Black
'14 CB1000R Matte Gray
'10 CBR1000RR (destroyed)
'09 CBR1000RR C-ABS (sold)
'09 CBR600RR C-ABS (sold)

Member Garage





Quote:
Originally Posted by 7cain View Post
Back on the argument "for our safety", here is another example. It is a law that you are required to wear your seatbelt right? Airbags are an additional "safety" feature right? If you read the operation manual for a vehicle with multiple airbags (side curtains, pillars, etc.) it states that you are to sit as far back in the seat as possible, do not lean near the windows as the deployment of said airbags could cause severe injury or DEATH! Now, how would like it to become a law or ticketable office to be sitting in your car improperly? "Sir, the reason I stopped you was because you had your arm out the window and this vehicle is equipped with side curtain airbags. This is for your safety, here's your ticket"
Who doesn’t love a ticket?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by bumblebee View Post
"I lack skillz"
Bevo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2011, 07:27 PM   #477
MadseasoN
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: 77002
Feedback Rating: (1)
Posts: 5,603

Experience: 10+ years
Trackdays: 10+











Quote:
Originally Posted by 7cain View Post
Back on the argument "for our safety", here is another example. It is a law that you are required to wear your seatbelt right? Airbags are an additional "safety" feature right? If you read the operation manual for a vehicle with multiple airbags (side curtains, pillars, etc.) it states that you are to sit as far back in the seat as possible, do not lean near the windows as the deployment of said airbags could cause severe injury or DEATH! Now, how would like it to become a law or ticketable office to be sitting in your car improperly? "Sir, the reason I stopped you was because you had your arm out the window and this vehicle is equipped with side curtain airbags. This is for your safety, here's your ticket"
That's a CYA by the airbag/auto manufacturer, not a law. So you don't have to worry.
MadseasoN is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Advertisement


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:11 AM.


MotoHouston.com is not responsible for the content posted by users.
Privacy Policy