Thread: Mandatory Helmet Laws

Originally Posted by bio-chem

but of course. everyone knows that the federal government is actively monitoring the rigorous debates here at IM in order to better understand the needs of the people and chart a course for our country.

In that case, hookers and pot for everyone!

I think I hit a nerve. He negged me for zero points.

Originally Posted by Zaphod

A small percentage of a small percentage doesn't raise the cost of anything.

That's what I said.

Originally Posted by KelJu

Bullshit!

Half of that isn't even relevant to the discussion anyway. Helmets are for personal safety, where as mudflaps and under run bars are for other driver's safety. You are posting anything you can think of to show you are right.

I doubt you really even care about the issue. So, I am bowing out at this point.

My point was that the government has to take steps, all sorts of them, to try to keep deaths down on the road.

But feel free to get your panties in a bunch.

Originally Posted by DOMS

In that case, hookers and pot for everyone!

I think I hit a nerve. He negged me for zero points.

i received the same thing.

Originally Posted by DOMS

In that case, hookers and pot for everyone!

I think I hit a nerve. He negged me for zero points.

Hookers, pot, guns, no helmets, test, and HGH for all!

Originally Posted by DOMS

That's what I said.

Go back and read what you said. You said it raises the cost of insurance.

Originally Posted by DOMS

My point was that the government has to take steps, all sorts of them, to try to keep deaths down on the road.

But feel free to get your panties in a bunch.

The government doesn't have to. They just want to, propelled mostly by uniformed morons who aren't affected by the laws created.

Originally Posted by Zaphod

Go back and read what you said. You said it raises the cost of insurance.

I suppose I couldn't have been bit clearer, but I said:

Originally Posted by DOMS

jmorrison said that helmets don't affect insurance premiums. Which sounds reasonable considering that only 2% of registered vehicles are motorcycles. And studies have shown that quite a lot of riders dies in accidents. So, only a small percentage of a small percentage raise the cost of insurance.

Originally Posted by Zaphod

The government doesn't have to. They just want to, propelled mostly by uniformed morons who aren't affected by the laws created.

I want to be clear on this: you think that seatbelts laws are "propelled mostly by uniformed morons who aren't affected by the laws created"?

Originally Posted by DOMS

I want to be clear on this: you think that seatbelts laws are "propelled mostly by uniformed morons who aren't affected by the laws created"?

This is opening an entire can of worms, but in my opinion the primary purpose of seat belt law is for increased ticket revenue, and more probable cause stops.

However, I am willing to concede that I may be a little jaded at this point!

Originally Posted by jmorrison

This is opening an entire can of worms, but in my opinion the primary purpose of seat belt law is for increased ticket revenue, and more probable cause stops.

However, I am willing to concede that I may be a little jaded at this point!

I'm gonna have to go with option two, Mr. Morrison.

It could be. It seems like the older I get, the more liberal and conspiracy driven I get.

HELP I AM TURNING INTO A DEMOCRAT! Isn't it supposed to be the other way around?