NEW HELMET LAW in FLORIDA

[chaserkeywest]

Wow, really brought out the meanies.

Wearing a helmet while engaging in dangerious activity is just common sense.

Rock climbing, White Water Rafting, Mortar Attack, Motorcycle Riding, Horse Racing

Stuff like that

[jahoobob]

They don't choose to put themselves in a combat zone. They did choose to sign up for the miltary and the miltary choose for them to put themselves in a combat zone.  

That is a very big difference.

And yet they continue to sign up (and re-up) knowing their chances of going to a war zone are very high.  Go figure.  The numbers just don't support your premise.  You might have had a little traction with your statement in '03 but not in '07.

[jahoobob]

Agreed... but you should also be required to wear a helmet while driving AND when crossing the street or stepping into the tub.    

I'll raise you two fingers.  

Again, your illogic just doesn't work here.  A car has a roof or roll bar to protect your head and since crossing the street or stepping out of the tub doesn't require a license like driving, no helmet is required.

[Snowbird]

Again, your illogic just doesn't work here.  A car has a roof or roll bar to protect your head and since crossing the street or stepping out of the tub doesn't require a license like driving, no helmet is required.

Ah, but head injuries are serious problems in those activities. Even if it'd save just one life...  

[JimWilliamson]

Education before Legislation

And I believe all would agree that the amount and quality of education needs to be amped up.

[stefrrr]

Yes, but... The reason why these laws are made age-sensitive is because of the lack of willingness to be educated in those under 21. That's the phase of your life (18-21) when you think you are completely invincible, and more likely to get yourself killed.

Were you willing to listen to anyone telling you how to be safe at that age? Some of you still aren't.  

[Black Ice]

Yes, but... The reason why these laws are made age-sensitive is because of the lack of willingness to be educated in those under 21. That's the phase of your life (18-21) when you think you are completely invincible, and more likely to get yourself killed.

Were you willing to listen to anyone telling you how to be safe at that age? Some of you still aren't.  

Some folks never will.

So we keep people in the nursery until they're 16...18...21...25...where does it end?  The longer you coddle people, the less adept they'll be at making intelligent decisions.  The way I see it, you're either an adult or you're not.  "This at 16, that at 18, the other at 21, etc." is a mishmash of nonsense.  Find one age and stick with it.

[JimWilliamson]

Were you willing to listen to anyone telling you how to be safe at that age?

Yes. I was willing to go through, listen, and learn from the drivers education / training program to get the license. It just didn't teach enough / take the opportunity while it had my attention.

It didn't do much of anything for enforcing good / proper / responsible driving (intended to be a holistic comment - covering the vehicle category at hand - which for cycles has a decent amount of emphasis on gear). The current U.S. drivers ed / continuing education programs are a pittance to what they should be. It focuses on weeding out those that can't handle the basics instead of accomplishing the weeding out goal as well as educating proper responsible drivers.

Current U.S. process= 90% weed out, 10% education
Desireable process= 10% weed out, 90% education

[rodm850g]

Guys,
Just as well offer up another .02 worth of drivel from here.....there seems to be an indignation as if a right were tread upon.....boy we jump right up when we feel our rights are trampled upon.... driving a cage, a motorcycle a moped is a privilege...not a right.... one that can go away at the drop of a gavel.....mabey its  for their own good that there are limits....mabey there should be more restriction.....here in soldier city the drivers of cages have got so many important places to go that red lights are run in an alarming rate.....like the fellow just two weeks back busted through a light, in full sized pick up truck....drove through a Honda Accord....tore the car literally in half....killed a mother and child...then bounced off another and killed a motorcyclist sitting waiting for a light to change.......and some one worries about wearing a helmet.....survival is what its about out there.....I drove an emergency vehicle for almost 27 years...people instead of pulling over to let us pass...would drag race not to be hindered....give me a break ...

                                       Rod
p.s.
before you judge me think if we were going to your Mom for a call.....
 

[Black Ice]

driving a cage, a motorcycle a moped is a privilege...not a right

Really?  By what right does anyone revoke this "privilege?"  Where in the Constitution is it stated that Da Gubmint has any right to tell us when, where, what or how we can drive/ride?  

Rights are not bestowed upon us by government.  Rights are innate to us as sentient beings.  If you violate the rights of others through negligence, stupidity or malice, you should pay the price.  But those of us with a working brain are getting pretty tired of being told that we are some sort of risk because of the actions of a few fools.

Every person on Earth has the right to do any damn thing they want unless and until they violate the rights of another.  Driving/riding is, indeed, a right.  Just like you have the right to post what you just did no matter how much I might disagree with it.

Whoops...sorry.  You don't have any right to post on the internet.  After all, Da Gubmint didn't give you permission to do so.  

[Snowbird]

Yes, but... The reason why these laws are made age-sensitive is because of the lack of willingness to be educated in those under 21. That's the phase of your life (18-21) when you think you are completely invincible, and more likely to get yourself killed.

Were you willing to listen to anyone telling you how to be safe at that age? Some of you still aren't.  

Re: paragraph 1, Which is exactly why it is unethical for lawmakers to say that people of a certain age can only risk their lives in government service, aka going to war. They are taking advantage of these people for the govt's own purposes.

And I resent resemble the bolded comment.  

[cornishgolfer]

yet again............WTF has putting a helmet on to do with WAR.....any friggin war.

its there to protect the kids 'cause they all think they know best. We all did to some degree and now that we are OLDER n WISER, we realise we didnt know everything after all. No wonder our Dads laughed at us.

[hig4s]

Yes, at 18 the government say you are an adult, your parents are not longer responsible for you. You can vote and drink,, Oh wait,, you can't drink until 21.. another unconstitutional law..  

should we allow 18 year olds the right to drink?

I personally don't mind helment laws, and think anyone not wearing one is a moron. Same with seatbelts, but the government should not be telling me what I can and cannot do if it only affects me. Next they will be banning downhill skiing, or motorcycles completely,, because it saves lives. Period.  

[Snowbird]

yet again............WTF has putting a helmet on to do with WAR.....any friggin war.

And again, if you cannot read and understand the analogy, why would I respond?   

[chaserkeywest]

This is a thought that I have had running through my head lately.

An interesting question.

How many motorcycle riders are carrying a hand gun while riding for personal protection?

How many of these riders are carrying a hand gun incase they might need it but, dont wear a motorcycle helmet?

[cbsnbiker]

 

Ok, I'll bite.

Does it seem fair that these same under-21 people can decide for themselves to enter a combat zone... but they cannot ride without a helmet? Seems like 2 decisions with possibly deadly consequences.

Oh, and they can vote, FWIW.

So how is that law-- or for that matter ANY law that restricts rights based on age-- constitutional? Sure, the state will likely get away with it since few 21 YO's have the $$ to take the case to the USSC, but is it fair? And why should legislators not be prosecuted for enacting such a blatantly unconstitutional law?
Not only is the law unconstitutional, IMO, but age discrimination is a statutorily protected right, albeit for specific criteria, helmets not mentioned.

Frankly, whom do I blame primarily for any law that restricts rights of people from 18 to 21 years old, such as for this helmet law or for drinking age? ... drum roll ... Eighteen to 21 year olds!

They can vote. They can write letters. They can arrange to meet with their representatives.

If they would mobilize as a political movement and petition their legislators for redress, maybe they could gain some rights!

Of course, there's less motivation for them to do so, since all they have to do is stall, and they will no longer be discriminated against....

[Snowbird]

I can't argue with that... so, why did you post it?  

 

[meanstrk]

They don't choose to put themselves in a combat zone. They did choose to sign up for the miltary and the miltary choose for them to put themselves in a combat zone.  

That is a very big difference.

They choose to put themselves in the position of possibly going to war. No difference.

Marine Corps for 22 years and still active duty. Desert Storm and OIF vet. Voluntarily.

The President orders the combat.  We go and kill people.

[cornishgolfer]

Semper Fi

[Mr Sunshine]

They choose to put themselves in the position of possibly going to war. No difference.

Marine Corps for 22 years and still active duty. Desert Storm and OIF vet. Voluntarily.

The President orders the combat.  We go and kill people.

When you sign up you are saying that will allow a certain group of people totally control your life.  If one was able to choose to go into a combat zone or not then they could choose which combat zone they go into.  We know this isn't the case which makes the big difference in this discussion.