[DRB]

Stuff

People die in car crashes lets ban cars. Trains derail lets ban them. Planes crash lets stop that.....

You're right we aren't talking apples and oranges. Its apples and blue whales.

Those bans would be beyond minor infringements. You would be saying you can't do that activity. Whereas a helmet law is simply saying you have to take this precaution to do that activity.

Everyone with their damn slippery slope arguments are killing common sense.

 

[Reactor]

lets ban......blue whales.

Those bans would be beyond minor infringements. You would be saying you can't do that activity. Whereas a helmet law is simply saying you have to take this precaution to do that activity.

I agree people should wear helmets, I even support the law.

As for banning bikes....It's already happening. People are trying it across the country. You can find hundreds of links to places banning bikes from all or part of their localities. Or people fighting to overturn bans.



+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Bill would ban bikes on Texas roadways

Senator Jeff Wentworth (R-San Antonio) has filed SB238, which would, in Texas:

Prohibit cyclists from riding in groups of three or more on FM and RM roads in Texas with unimproved shoulders. (i.e., country roads with no extra paved space to the right of the traffic lane),
Prohibit cyclists from riding two or more abreast, on ANY road, and
Require cyclists to wear the "slow vehicle" triangle emblem, on ANY road
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Bicyclists (barely) get reprieve at Picnic Point
UW recommends new policies to curb conflicts

What follows are the recommendations of the Campus Natural Areas Committee, approved May 2, 2005, in response to a proposal to ban bicycles at Picnic Point, a topic covered as a news item in Isthmus in April. The committee decided to instead further restrict where bicycles are allowed, and impose a 5 m.p.h. speed limit for bikes on the main gravel road at Picnic Point.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Group trying to fix Ohio's laws.

Ohio Bicycle Law Reforms
{stuff}
The priority reforms include:
Require uniformity of traffic laws for bicycles, as is required for other vehicles (§4511.06) and make it more difficult to ban bikes from the road. To see the problems caused by our present "crazy quilt" of local ordinances, see www.crankmail.com/sidewalk-laws.html
Revise the "far right" rule, §4511.55(A) and the "slow vehicle rule", §4511.25(B) following an example of Pennsylvania and adding language from the UVC.

+++++++++++++++++

Colorado.
CENTRAL CITY BIKE BAN CONTINUES

Central City has yet to reverse the City Council’s decision to ban bicycles on the new Central City Parkway connecting the town with I-70 at Hidden Valley. The road is constructed with eight foot paved shoulders which allow safe use by bicyclists. Amazingly the Central City Parkway’s website touts, “This important parkway has been designed to accommodate every type of visitor to the Central City area.” Our hope is that Colorado citizens and tourists who bicycle are welcome visitors too. Thanks to Bike Jeffco and Team Evergreen for helping connect with Central City decision makers and opening conversations to address their concerns and perceptions with the goal of convincing the City Council to overturn the bike ban.


++++++++++++++++++++++++

Ill.
Accent on "Ban" in "Suburban"
Post-Wauconda, thousands of kids still can't bike to school
By Steve Buchtel

Wauconda School District 266's reactionary ban on kids bicycling to school set fire to the headlines of print and TV media in August of 2003. The issue remained hot enough that its repeal in November still found some embers to fan, casting a warm glow of attention on the Chicagoland Bicycle Federation and its successful implementation of a suburban Safe Routes to School program.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Even Oprah wants to ban bikes.....

A Follow Up Message For Those Of You Concerned About The Proposed Anti-Bicycle Oprah Winfrey Show
The League of America Bicyclists has spoken with three producers, a media relations person and a public relations person at the Oprah Winfrey Show over the last week. They confirm they now have no interest in doing a program on banning biking in cities.

Though they would not admit "Outlaw city bikers?" was "killed" in response to a blizzard of emails and phone calls from concerned cyclists, we are convinced this is what lead to the demise of this proposed program. Thank you for speaking out on behalf of cyclists' rights. We will inform you if we learn of any new developments.

 

[Toshi]

don't play devil's advocate if all you're going to do is make halfassed arguments

:nuts:

 

[Reactor]

don't play devil's advocate if all you're going to do is make halfassed arguments

:nuts:

Don't make BS comments from the peanut gallery when you've just been a lurker. :nuts:

If you have actual content to add, do it.

 

[DRB]

I agree people should wear helmets, I even support the law.

As for banning bikes....It's already happening. People are trying it across the country. You can find hundreds of links to places banning bikes from all or part of their localities. Or people fighting to overturn bans.

STUFF

And the point to this is? Banning bikes is a bad idea, nobody ever said it was.

I made a very clear distinction between what I think is a good idea and a bad idea.

 

[Reactor]

And the point to this is? Banning bikes is a bad idea, nobody ever said it was.
I made a very clear distinction between what I think is a good idea and a bad idea.

The point is the same logic is used for both, the it's not an apples and blue whale argument, and it's not a slippery slope arguement. It's already happening.

I believe helmets are a good idea, and banning bikes is a bad idea. We, who have a vested interest in biking, tend to minimize the danger of it being banned. In the last five years or so the pressure on local governments to ban bicycling had increased dramtically ar more cyclelists take to the streets and compete with cars on an increasingly clogged infrastructure.

People, out of concern for our health of course, want to ban cyclists because we might get hurt. It's for our own good they say. Cyclists are unprotected, and get so badly hurt in collisions with cars, they say. Which is the same arguement used for helmet laws. People don't draw the line in the same place. Where you see a slippery slope, other's see a vast plain full of people who need protected.


I think I'm going to start a bike banning thread.

 

[DRB]

The point is the same logic is used for both, the it's not an apples and blue whale argument, and it's not a slippery slope arguement. It's already happening.

So I don't use the logic because someone may use if for something I'm against? I'm not sure what your point is.

 

[Reactor]

So I don't use the logic because someone may use if for something I'm against? I'm not sure what your point is.

So, You need to refine your logic.

There is no benefit to not wearing a helmet, except for the aurgable freedom of choice argument.

What about the benefits bicycles provide, or could provide if properly utilized?

Why do we allow horse drawn buggies?

Or cars that were made before seatbelts were available?

Who and how are roads paid for?

 

[Toshi]

Don't make BS comments from the peanut gallery when you've just been a lurker. :nuts:

If you have actual content to add, do it.

a) this topic has come up before, and i don't feel like rehashing thoughts
b) i probably have made more posts in the PD forum than you have over all of RM
c) my point stands: running pointlessly with an untenable argument is silly

 

[PonySoldier]

b) i probably have made more posts in the PD forum than you have over all of RM

Number of posts is no indication of anything beyond far too much slack time on your hands...

 

[DRB]

So, You need to refine your logic.

There is no benefit to not wearing a helmet, except for the aurgable freedom of choice argument.

What about the benefits bicycles provide, or could provide if properly utilized?

Why do we allow horse drawn buggies?

Or cars that were made before seatbelts were available?

Who and how are roads paid for?

My logic is fine.

 

[Reactor]

My logic is fine.

I guess bikes are doomed to go down with helmetless riding.

 

[DRB]

I guess bikes are doomed to go down with helmetless riding.

I'm sure your superior logic will keep us all safe....

 

[Reactor]

I'm sure your superior logic will keep us all safe....

In this case I doubt it. The most of people driving the helmet laws and bike bans don't care what you or I want. To them personal freedom is irrelevant as long as they are the ones making the rules and everyone else has to follow. If they can see a way to save a buck on taxes(medical bills), or get bikes off the street so they aren't inconvienced on the way to work, they are going to take it. Although you and I might care what happens to people when we discuss a helmet law, many of them don't.

 

[Reactor]

a) this topic has come up before, and i don't feel like rehashing thoughts
b) i probably have made more posts in the PD forum than you have over all of RM
c) my point stands: running pointlessly with an untenable argument is silly

A. I wasn't here for it, this is another thread.
b. Who cares, your posts in this discussion have been largely pointless, and you don't respond when somone rebuts your points, such as they are.
c. So many things have been discussed that a vague comment like "c" is also pointless, and totally unsupported.

Generally your posts in other threads have been pretty bright, but here not so much. I've been around for quite a few years and I've heard both sides of the helmet argument since the early 80's when I started riding. If I don't sound enthused about the helmet laws, in your opinion, it's because I've been hearing about for 25 years. Applying the same logic to bike bans is something I've only seen in the last 5 years.

 

[Westy]

This thread went from beating a dead horse to beating the fossilized bones of said horse.

 

[ridetoofast]

a) this topic has come up before, and i don't feel like rehashing thoughts
b) i probably have made more posts in the PD forum than you have over all of RM
c) my point stands: running pointlessly with an untenable argument is silly

a) why are you here then
b) big fvcking deal, does that make you special?
c) apparently you are the only one that thinks its untenable otherwise i suspect the others in the threa might not be discussing it with him
d) haul ass from this thread then if you don't like it
e) i never realized how incredibly arrogant you are...thanks for the enlightenment

 

[MMike]

a) this topic has come up before, and i don't feel like rehashing thoughts
b) i probably have made more posts in the PD forum than you have over all of RM
c) my point stands: running pointlessly with an untenable argument is silly

Whatever your argument is (thread is too long), I undoubtedly agree with it. I don't think I've ever disagreed with Toshi over lo these many years.

Anyone who doesn't wear a helmet is a moron.

 

[Changleen]

a) why are you here then
b) big fvcking deal, does that make you special?
c) apparently you are the only one that thinks its untenable otherwise i suspect the others in the threa might not be discussing it with him
d) haul ass from this thread then if you don't like it
e) i never realized how incredibly arrogant you are...thanks for the enlightenment

Don't often do this, But STFU n00b.

 

[Reactor]

This bores me. I've seen this issue go back and forth for the last twenty five years, since I started riding Motorcycles. There is really no answer that will satisify anyone.

If you use the logic that the helmet is to reduce medical costs and for the public good, the same argument can be used to do away with just about anything even the slightest bit dangerous, obstructive, unhealthy, or unpopular... beer, bikes, fattening food, violent t.v. shows, Rush Limbaugh. It also begs the question, why do we surpress other issues that have a much greater impact.

If you use the infringe on personal freedom/not hurting anyone argument to defend it, the same argument can be used to justify recreational drugs, multiperson marriages, glue sniffing, assisted or unassisted suicide, the sex industry, and any other of upopular things.

The sad fact is that in our society, people supposed to make informed decisions are rarely informed. Laws are passed by the public and legislature who frequently aren't directly affected by them. Especially when it involves a niche group, like motorcyclists or cyclists, so you face the combination of appathy, and ignorance.

 

[ridetoofast]

Don't often do this, But STFU n00b.

chang Join Date: 01-09-2004

me 03-31-2002

yeah im a noob, but just because you told me to i will

 

[valve bouncer]

If you use the logic that the helmet is to reduce medical costs and for the public good, the same argument can be used to do away with just about anything even the slightest bit dangerous, obstructive, unhealthy, or unpopular... beer, bikes, fattening food, violent t.v. shows, Rush Limbaugh. It also begs the question, why do we surpress other issues that have a much greater impact.

Wearing a helmet is a quick,cheap and easy way to reduce fatalities. Riding a motorcycle is not a right, it's a privilege and with that privilege should come responsibilities. I don't think it's too much to ask to protect your scone.
As for your other examples, well beer already has a large number of restrictions placed on it as regards to who when and where you can buy it as well as consume it.
Bikes? I have no problem with compulsory helmets for bike riders either. Had that law in Australia for years without too many worries.
Fattening food. There's no easy, cheap or quick way to solve this. We are biologically predisposed to storing fat, thousands and thousands of years of evolution has seen to that.
Violent TV shows? The arguement has always been about whether TV/movies reflects society or leads it. Again I don't see any cheap, fast and simple way to solve this problems.
Rush Limbaugh. One bullet

There's lots of problems all over the world that are incredibly complex, difficult and time consuming to solve. This is not one of those. Put a skid-lid on, not too much to ask I reckon.

 

[ridetoofast]

grinds teeth....

fvck i hate it when i have to agree with vb on something.

There's lots of problems all over the world that are incredibly complex, difficult and time consuming to solve. This is not one of those. Put a skid-lid on, not too much to ask I reckon.

 

[kidwoo]

a) why are you here then
b) big fvcking deal, does that make you special?
c) apparently you are the only one that thinks its untenable otherwise i suspect the others in the threa might not be discussing it with him
d) haul ass from this thread then if you don't like it
e) i never realized how incredibly arrogant you are...thanks for the enlightenment

Why are the christians always so darn mean sounding?

 

[Silver]

Why are the christians always so darn mean sounding?

I'll let Changleen hit that softball out of the park

 

[Changleen]

chang Join Date: 01-09-2004

me 03-31-2002

yeah im a noob, but just because you told me to i will

Stop speaking crap then.

 

[Changleen]

I'll let Changleen hit that softball out of the park

It tells them how to they should act in the bible, so you'd have to blame that I suppose.

 

[ohio]

If you use the logic that the helmet is to reduce medical costs and for the public good, the same argument can be used to do away with just about anything even the slightest bit dangerous, obstructive, unhealthy, or unpopular... beer, bikes, fattening food, violent t.v. shows, Rush Limbaugh. It also begs the question, why do we surpress other issues that have a much greater impact.

In this case, we are not peventing an activity, suppressing a message, or silencing a voice.

The only thing you can point to is a minor inconvenience. Without any of the first three in effect, I don't think you can pull a slippery slope argument. The public and the government (in whom I honestly have very little faith) have shown themselves relatively able to balance inconvenience with benefit to the greater good.

As for the question of other issues, well, that's a seperate issue...
I'm sure there are plenty of them I agree with, and plenty I disagree with. It's the nature of a democracy. We'll deal with them one issue at a time, and hopefully exercise good judgement each time. If you find a better way, please do share.

 

[ridetoofast]

i would expect dissent on some other 'types' of boards but im surprised at the many differing opinions about protecting your mellon on a bike site...i just wouldn't have expected that.

don't get me wrong, i DESPISE the gvt telling me whats best for my own interest but this particular subject really seems like it should be a no brainer (no pun intended)

 

[Reactor]

Wearing a helmet is a quick,cheap and easy way to reduce fatalities. Riding a motorcycle is not a right, it's a privilege and with that privilege should come responsibilities. I don't think it's too much to ask to protect your scone.
As for your other examples, well beer already has a large number of restrictions placed on it as regards to who when and where you can buy it as well as consume it.
Bikes? I have no problem with compulsory helmets for bike riders either. Had that law in Australia for years without too many worries.

They are actually banning bikers from the road (or large sections of it) in quite a few communities in America.

Fattening food. There's no easy, cheap or quick way to solve this. We are biologically predisposed to storing fat, thousands and thousands of years of evolution has seen to that.
Violent TV shows? The arguement has always been about whether TV/movies reflects society or leads it. Again I don't see any cheap, fast and simple way to solve this problems.
Rush Limbaugh. One bullet

I'm not going to shoot him, But I can dream.

There's lots of problems all over the world that are incredibly complex, difficult and time consuming to solve. This is not one of those. Put a skid-lid on, not too much to ask I reckon.

I always wear one. Always. It's saved my life at least twice, and my face at least once. Because people don't make informed choices, and helmets are relatively cheep compared to the cost of a motorcycle, I do support some form of helmet law. I'm not really debating that point, any longer.

What I was trying to point out, there are a lot of "situational" ethics/logic involved in many of these decisions. What you might consider a perfectly acceptable activity, with some minimal level of risk, is subject to being banned by the same logic as is used in helmet laws. A lot of people are either prejuduced against motorcyclists and bicycles. People resent Bicycles and being ocassionally held up for a few seconds in traffic, by a bike. And very few people are cyclists.

Lets take alcohol, There were 1274 drunk driving deaths, and countless injuries from drunk drivers in 2003. There are about 300 motorcycle deaths in Florida each year, fatalities increased about 25%, after the helmet law was repealed, crude extrapolation says so the cost was about 75 Helmet deaths/year. Completely banning alcohol would elmiinate a fifteen times as many deaths as helmet laws. And by implication 15 times more money, maybe more since a car is even more likely to injure other people. It would reduce crimes people, like property damage, rape, spousal abuse et. al. Society might actually be a better off for it. It would cost nothing, except the liquer tax revenue.

Do I want to ban Alcohol? Hell No. I enjoy having an occassional beer as much as the next bloke. I don't drive drunk, and If I'm going to a party we get a taxi, or designated driver. But a lot of people don't. The same argument about lowering medical costs and the public good, would seem to make it this an ideal candidate for societal intervention, about 15 times better than a helmet law. Why won't society ban Alcolhol? Because most people in our society drink at least ocassionally, and we have a vested interest keeping it legal, we can empathize with other people that drink. I don't see Alcohol being banned any time soon.

So could we address the problem be adding car breathalizer? Yes. if it were in every car, the production cost would be less than a good motorcycle helmet. Why wouldn't society require a car breathalizer be built into every car? Other guy syndrome. People are all for saving tax dollars when it requires the other guy to spend money, like motorcyclists for a helmet, but hate it when someone tells them they have to spend money, for a protection device they might never need, even if it saves everyone tax dollars.

 

[ridetoofast]

i KNOW it saved mine.

i shattered my hand in 03 and got such a nasty concussion that i lost short term memory for about 20 hrs

i didnt even know what year it was in the ER when the doc started playing 20 questions with me and that was about 5.5 hrs AFTER the accident

 

[oxforduniversit]

The Florida helmet law study does not show the before and after populations of Florida's helmet law. As this is a fact that helmet law reduce rider ship & registerations and helmet law repeals increase as the freedom what people want.

When California passed it's motorcycle helmet law, motorcycle sales went down 42% right after it passed. When Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Texas, Louisiana and US Guam repeal their helmet laws several years back, all of these state all had huge increases in motorcycle registerations but before, they were no where near an sales increase or registerations increase. It is a fact that helmet laws prevent rider ship.

If the pro-helmet law lobbyist want to save helmet laws save lives, all they have is less registeration numbers, less rider ship.

These reports are funded by NTHSA and insurance companies who wish to eliminate motorcyclists as motorcycling only represents 1% of our nations entire vehicle population as it is not a profitable industry for insurance companies.

 

[Secret Squirrel]

The Florida helmet law study does not show the before and after populations of Florida's helmet law. As this is a fact that helmet law reduce rider ship & registerations and helmet law repeals increase as the freedom what people want.

When California passed it's motorcycle helmet law, motorcycle sales went down 42% right after it passed. When Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Texas, Louisiana and US Guam repeal their helmet laws several years back, all of these state all had huge increases in motorcycle registerations but before, they were no where near an sales increase or registerations increase. It is a fact that helmet laws prevent rider ship.

If the pro-helmet law lobbyist want to save helmet laws save lives, all they have is less registeration numbers, less rider ship.

These reports are funded by NTHSA and insurance companies who wish to eliminate motorcyclists as motorcycling only represents 1% of our nations entire vehicle population as it is not a profitable industry for insurance companies.

Two things:
- In this forum, please back up your assertions with the appropriate proof....usually a reputable website. So, I'd love to see the corroborating evidence of how ridership fluctuates due to the enacting of or the repealing of helmet laws.

- Unless proof is shown, I highly doubt that insurance companies are in the business of eliminating motorcycles...Also, the 1% of the entire vehicle population of the U.S. sounds erroneous. But I could be wrong.

 

[N8 v2.0]

moto riding without a helmet is pretty dumb.