Ammo For Sale

« « Is Michael Bloomberg the new Ross Perot? | Home | Excellent » »

He was saved! Must have been the state

Kevin is rejoicing at the nanny state. It saved one life!!! Oh, wait? What’s that? No requirement in Wisconsin to actually wear a helmet? Oh crap! You got your personal responsibility all over me. People can make the right decisions without being threatened to under force of law? Who knew?

In other news, why the Hell are we always talking about cyclists these days?

Note: the smarmy tone is due to Tom’s free market hooey.

14 Responses to “He was saved! Must have been the state”

  1. #9 Says:

    Kevin is rejoicing at the nanny state.

    Sound like a Bloomberg voter.

    In other news, why the Hell are we always talking about cyclists these days?

    Global warming has turned our brains to mush?

    On a side note, is everybody sick of Progressives using the “free market” to justify their goofy ideas? Was there a web seminar? It is incredibly irritating. The invisible hand this the invisible hand that. Make it stop.

  2. JustDoIt Says:

    re: Helmet Laws; Let those who ride decide.

  3. #9 Says:

    London Calling.

    It’s official. London is the new France.

    Greens demand 20mph speed limit

    A speed limit of 20mph could be introduced across much of London within three years.

    The Greens propose that 20mph would become the “default” limit on all London roads and councils would have to make a special case to exempt strategic routes such as bus routes and trunk roads. The limit would be enforced by new speed cameras.

    At the same time, thousands of road humps, pinch-points and chicanes would be removed. Ms Jones said: “Making 20mph the normal speed limit would save lives and money and give a major boost to cyclists, who would feel safer.”

    Roger Geffen of cyclists’ organisation CTC, said: “20mph makes sense not just for road safety; it also means cleaner air, less congestion and more people taking up cycling and walking. It would cut costs and bureaucracy enormously.”

    Good grief, looks like the Goracle is winning. I never envisioned a Luddite future.

  4. straightarrow Says:

    If you ride a motorcycle and don’t wear a helmet, in my opinion, you are an idiot. However, in a free society you have that right. The state should mind its own damn business, helmets and seat belts are not its business. There can be exceptions for those too young to have the ability to decide for themselves. Otherwise not your fucking business.

    I am old enough to remember when all the states promised, “We will never stop anyone for just a seatbelt violation. Uh huh!

  5. tgirsch Says:

    To argue that the state has absolutely nothing to do with someone’s decision to wear a helmet is every bit as asinine as arguing that it was solely because of the state. Of course, nobody actually argued the latter, now did they?

  6. SayUncle Says:

    “Of course, nobody actually argued the latter, now did they?”

    Well, no one argued that his decision to wear a helmet was solely not because of the non-mandated non-law?

    Adverbs are fun!

    Of course, Kev did thank the nanny state.

  7. Manish Says:

    Where’s the comment on the guy should have leaned back, slammed the back brake and tapped the front brake more lightly which would have prevented him from flying forward in the first place? Perhaps the nanny state could have intervened there too.

  8. tgirsch Says:

    The state is partially to thank. If not for safety campaigns and helmet awareness drives, often taxpayer-funded, helmet use would almost certainly be even less widespread than it currently is. But I’m glad to see that you agree with us that such programs don’t constitute nanny-statism. (The alternative would be to assume that you’re so unimaginative that the only government action you can think of to influence helmet use is a law requiring helmet use, and I’m willing to give you more credit than that…)

  9. tgirsch Says:

    P.S., It’s not “free market hooey,” that’s essentially how you libertarian types sound all the time. (Well, it is hooey, but it’s hooey that many libertarians endorse.)

  10. #9 Says:

    P.S., It’s not “free market hooey,” that’s essentially how you libertarian types sound all the time.

    The difference being some people actually understand what they are writing about. You guys mangle it. Badly. Often. Why do you even discuss markets?

  11. straightarrow Says:

    tgirsch, do you think it would be too much to ask if I requested that you write something that is coherent?

  12. JustDoIt Says:

    Motorcycle helmets have never been proven to do anything more than cause accidents and break Rider’s necks. Consider this fact: the fatality to accident ratio in States that do not require helmet usage is virtually identical to that of States that do.

    In fact, in Oregon, the fatality to accident ratio nearly doubled for the first few years that the mandatory helmet law was in force. Twelve years later, fatalities in Oregon are now starting to normalize with other States that do not require helmet usage.

    Try this little test. Put on a full face helmet (don’t forget that really cool face shield), get in your car and try backing out of your driveway. Before you go 10 feet, you will understand why helmets cause accidents. First of all, your peripheral vision will be nothing but a memory. You’ll find it very difficult to turn your head far enough to be able to see behind you. Most Motorcyclists wearing helmets have to use their mirrors exclusively to see what’s beside them and behind them. You’ll also lose most of your hearing. I wouldn’t recommend wearing a helmet when backing out of a driveway where there are children around because you will not be able to hear them. You also better back up quickly because until you learn how to breathe differently, you will almost instantly fog up your face shield. Oh, and then there is the weight and general discomfort of wearing a helmet. Should you decide to ride around the block with your helmet still on, you will notice that you start to fatigue quickly.

  13. Rustmeister Says:

    I’ve been riding motorcycles for 34 years, and I’ve only hit a car head-on once. 😛

    The only time I don’t wear a helmet is when I ride out to the mailbox and back. However, I also wear an open face or trooper style helmet. One that will protect my noggin and be less likely to break my neck.

    Bottom line is; if you have an accident on a bike, you will most likely be hurt, helmet or no. I was lucky in that one I mentioned above. I flew over all the hard objects and landed in grass with a few scrapes and bruises.

    I think helmets should be a choice for anyone with their own medical insurance.

  14. straightarrow Says:

    Rustmeister, I agree. And I am a guy who bought a motorcycle that put him in the hospital twice the first day he had it, then rode it home. I would never wear a full face helmet. I have had a broken neck, no fun. NO, not from a bike accident.

    Motorcycle riders get bit. It isn’t a question of if, only when. In my case, stupidity on my part was to blame. That does not hold true for all of them. But let’s face it, it’s a bad mismatch when you go down or strike another vehicle or hard object. A great many things in this world have greater structural integrity than the human body.

    But the risk is up to a free man, whether he will accept it or not. I never moved my bike from the front yard to the back without a helmet. Just seemed like good sense to me, but I reserve the right decide for myself.

Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.

Uncle Pays the Bills

Find Local
Gun Shops & Shooting Ranges


bisonAd

Categories

Archives