its time to ban cars and trucks too...

 

Here's your chance to tell him what you think,

mailto:kanga573@aol.com

 

He falls under the "Richard Cranium". list...

 

what the author of the columns fails to realize is that he can quote statistics all day and it shouldn't matter. even if 100 out of 100 motorcyclists died in horrific, avoidable, single-vehicle accidents, it doesn't matter. why? because it isn't the job of our government to be our nanny.

his entire argument is based on the assumption that if something is unsafe or dangerous, the government should BAN it. this is the same logic people have tried to use again and again in this country, and it never works: prohibition. book burnings. banning violent video games-- none of these movements had any staying power. "Won't someone think of the children!?" and "We must protect you from yourself!" are not legitimate reasons to restrict or outlaw an activity that *can* be enjoyed safely and without repercussion.

granted, motorcycling is an inherently dangerous activity (as compared to driving a 4wheeled vehicle) because it takes more skill, requires a higher awareness of ones surroundings, and offers less protection in the event of an accident. but those risks are mitigatable, just as the risks of driving a 4wheeled vehicle are. instead of advocating a ban, the author's energy would be much better spent educating people on how to mitigate those risks. i daresay a licensed, MSF-taught, sober, non-speeding, circumspect rider is perfectly capable of avoiding causing harm to himself and others. so what's the problem?

another issue i take with the author's opinion is that it's built on the edge of a VERY slippery slope. ok, motorcycling is "more dangerous" than driving, sure. but driving a low-riding, fiberglass body, compact car is also "more dangerous" than driving a steel-body sedan with a rollcage. should we make everyone drive steel cars with rollcages? how about tanks? where do we draw the line? exactly what is the definition of an adequately safe vehicle? and who gets to decide what that definition is?

bottom line: education will always be a better solution than government-imposed restriction, and providing people with information to make informed choices is better than assuming they are too stupid to make them for themselves. by advocating bans on "unsafe" activities, you are effectively giving your government carte blanche to not only assume you are stupid, but to make your decisions for you.

perhaps the author of the column *is* that stupid, but i would hope most other folks are not.

 

A bike is no match for someone in a car texting, talking on the phone, reading the paper, putting on their makeup, Distracted drivers are the real problem. people need to focus on the root of the problem

 

In many countries a large part of their population use the motorcycle or scooter as their preferred/only means of transportation.

 

That's what I was thinking. I mean no one wants to die, but think about having 100,000 people in a place and 14 or 72 were taken out, would you really notice the differance? I'm not talking about death lightly, but you see what I'm trying to say. Sure riding a bike is a higher risk of death or getting hurt over driving a car, but we are adults and we have to pick what we do. I mean we all can sit on the side lines and play it safe and die anyways or go do what you like and have fun. Everyone on this earth has to die at somepoint-can't change that-all you can change is how you live your life and enjoy what you do.

 

honestly i figured the number was like 5000 out of every 100,000, i'll take 72 out of 100,000 all day long.

 

We need a better debate here.

Writer says:
Motorcycles are more dangerous than cars/trucks - accurate.
Operating a motorcycle is a Privilage granted by the State - accurate.
State has power to revoke driving/riding privilages - accurate.
Riding a motorcycle is not a right - accurate.

Comparing it to any another activity that is NOT a privilage granted by the State or that the State has the power to control/restrict or eliminate is a losing argument.

Riding a bicycle, riding a horse or walking down the street are not valid in this debate.

The fact that any other activity we may participate in is also dangerous is not a valid argument.
Saying it's your choice or your right is not valid. Drive 20mph over posted speed limit and see how far "choice & rights" get you.

I have seen the vast majority of you recommend the MSF course - as a matter of fact you STRONGLY recommend it. Writer said the SAME thing.
Our difference with the writer: Should the State mandate it?

Most of you STRONGLY advocate a smaller bike for beginners - writer said the SAME thing. Our difference is should the State mandate it?


Writer says they should be banned - ok so now win the debate even though most of you agree with what the writer wrote on why they should be banned. Or at least "Controlled".

16 to 18 yr old drives are killed and injured at a much higher rate than older drivers. Why are they granted the privilage to drive?

It's our "Choice" - no its not. You must be licensed "M" and the STATE gives you permission. You don't get to "choose" - you get to ASK for permission.

"It's our Right!" - no it's not.

Death is NOT something that the State can legislate. Liability costs can be: - mandate insurance minimums for motorcycles?

Mandate anti-lock brakes?
Mandate high Visibility....jackets/vest........headlights.......helmets....?

Or is it simply - As adults we accept responsibility and acknolwledge the inherhent dangers of this legal mode of transportation.

And if that's true - then why the hell can't I smoke a cigarette at a bar? And where were all of you when they BANNED that!?

Call the guy what you want but the STATE has BANNED a lot of things and don't think motorcycles can't be one of them. The State determines speed limits, licenceing, emmisions, helmets, passenger rules, insurance, noise, seat belt use, car seats, and on and on and on.........and they can outlaw your bike with a stroke of a pen. Or contol it to such an extent that it will no longer be worth having.

You better win the debate beyond personal feelings and opinion.

NOTE: guys, I am no friend of the STATE, Nanny State, or those that think they need to legislate how I live my life - and I believe the "Implied consent" rule IS a direct violation of the constitution. And the Supreme Court even agrees - But NONE of that wins the debate.


Pat

 

Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin disagree.

Al right. I thought mothers against drunk punks was for people who lost a loved one because of a drunk driver.
Why would my mom get upset at my bike if I'd crash and bite the dust? It is my choice to ride, and I know the risks involved. AND I'd pass away doing something I love. Next best thing to the heart attack while getting a *******.