MANDATORY BIKER ORGAN-DONOR BILL

[EX#996]

food for thought, when a race organization requires helmets, is that infringing on one's right to choose? they are forcing you to wear a helmet. it's either that or not race. so if you have no choice in the matter, why do you still race?

-jen

We wear helmets because racers are the smart ones.
 - We wear helmets
 - We wear leathers
 - We wear gloves
 - We wear boots
 - We do our fast driving in a controlled (sometimes) envoronment.
 - We choose to race and abide by the rules.

Dawn   :)

[BRG]

Don't let JU catch you using direct clips from his articals and posting them on the chat sites. This pisses him off and the last guy that did it was not happy with the result. He said its ok if you post a link to the info. and that all. Just wanted to let you know so you don't have problems.

Baker   ;D

[GSXR RACER MIKE]

     Pit girl; I have to disagree with you on the mandatory helmet rule while racing. This is a requirement of the racing organization and is not an option if you want to race. The option of legally not wearing a helmet in a particular state is a choice an individual makes on their own, not a requirement. I live in Illinois and don't have to wear a helmet to ride legally on the street, admitidly I use this option about half the time I ride. If a state wants a helmet law then they should do it, not use something like this to scare you into wearing one if you don't want to be an organ donor. I strongly agree with the statements about doctors playing God and possibly letting a potential donor die in order to get an organ for someone else and look like a hero (possibly a drunk needing a liver), after all we are just motorcyclists -let us die.
     Do you know what the difference between the DOT rating and the SNELL rating on helmets is? The basic premise behind the DOT rating is to stop you from getting a concussion, not save your life. The Department of Transportation looked at the accidents involving a head impact and determined that the absolute majority of the impacts were not life threatening and possibly result in a concussion or disability if not wearing a helmet. Therefore they developed standards that would allow the helmet to crush easier to help cushion the lighter blows to the head but ultimately fail under harder life threatening impacts, due to this lower crushing pressure feature. SNELL has the idea that building a helmet to save your life in the event of a hard impact, with the possibility of a concussion in a lighter impact, is more important. Check around and you will find that most of the cheaper helmets are DOT approved and the SNELL approved ones are a little more expensive. The best and most expensive helmets comply to both standards, such as my Aria RX7-RR4 and Aria RX7-RR3 helmets.
     After learning this you may now find it rather ironic that the DOT standard is not designed to save your life, yet this is what they want you to wear!
     Organ harvesting anyone?

[Pit_Girl]

yowzers... i seem to have made quite an A$$ of myself... i din't think i would cause so much fuss...
i respect all of your opinions though, so it's cool.   :) (and hopefully you respect mine, but if you don't, that's cool too)

about the helmets... i din't know the exact reasons why the snell rating was so much better (thanx for fillin me in), but i do know that when i do start riding (as i've mentioned before in my intro, i can't ride yet) my helmet with have the snell rating (and will be worn every time i ride  ;) )

but, i think i've drawn enough attention to myself for one night... i'll go back to lurking now....

-jen

"disorder, confusion... my work is done here"

[Nate R]

Jen, I don't think you've made an, umm, butt of yourself. You voiced your opinion, and others respectfully disagreed.

I think the key difference here is that you're looking at it from a more idealist point of view. Yes, if they don't care about their head, what will they care about their organs? Probably not much, but some people have VERY strong opinions AGAINST helmets, and it's not just because they don't care. There are other helmetless people besides squids. Some people just plain don't want to, and are QUITE thankful for their right to choose. As far as being idealist, well, the gov't is NOT that selective. If you let them do this, it leaves the door open for worse things. Pretty soon it could become that if you didn't die from natural causes, your body could be donated automatically to science right away.

Lets say one's religion is one that feels that your entire body should be buried, and that it would not be right if some organs were missing. If someone's a part of this religion, they have to wear a helmet if they ride to keep the goverment from infringing on their religious beliefs and final wishes?  I think that's CRAP.  They are left without a choice if they want to follow the religion, because of the law. It's not a great example, but I hope it gets the point across.

I personally wear a helmet, as you know. I don't think anyone should NOT wear one, but that's their choice.

I'm not really sure where I stand on mandatory helmet laws. I can see where they help, but I can see where people could feel the gov't is being too controlling.

It sounds like you're thinking along the Darwin theory: Let the stupid/weak be killed. Which some would agree with, some would not. Either way, think about this as a step into a doorway. If they can take your organs regardless of what you think as a motorcyclist, well, that's just leaving the door WIDE open for other things, you know?

drty Your points seem a bit off. Your other things where you think choices are the answer involve another life, where as choosing to wear sunglasses is only directly affecting you. That's where some come off saying it's stupid. Because that choice is NOT about the preservation of another life, but about yours. So, I think that stirs things up more.

Either way, I'm just throwing this stuff out there. I think that this bill is a BAD idea.

Jen, I think you took some of these posts more harshly than they were meant. I didn't see any real anger here, just a difference in opinions. And if anyone knows that you're different from many, it's me. Don't go back to lurking at all. Keep posting.
I do agree that just because the choice is there doesnt make both options right. And I think that many agree, but they want the freedom of that choice, because that's a lot of what this country is about.

Look at this:  You've voiced your opinion. Thankfully, you can do that. People responded, and justified their beliefs, or why they thought yours were wrong. You found out you were definitely in the minority of opinion here. Is that a new thing for you? Certainly not. No one was just replying saying, "No, you're wrong and stupid! Period!" Everyone was respectful, which is how I think it should be. I think this was an excellent thread, and many brought up some good points. I DO think had you thought this out a littlemore, you reply originally would've been a little different. Either way, I think you did the right thing in putting your thoughts out there. That's what a forum is for.

Good job to you, Jen, and thanx to all again for a great forum here. This is I think a great example of people being open, but still getting to say what they think.

Thoughts?

[Pit_Girl]

i suppose i was just taking the more idealistic, utopian approach. i tend to go off on a philosophical tanget sometimes... so bare with me ;)

i see and understand all of your points, and i guess i didn't make it clear that i am against the law. instead of making a veiled, half-butted atempt at a helmet law, why not go the whole way and make an acutal law? but it is the government for you... my point is, the government doesn't always make laws for pointless reasons. for example, not selling guns to fellons is not a pointless law.  although it restricts a fellon's freedom (and applies to all fellons, not just violent offenders, which i do not agree with), it does keep others safe.  riding a bike is statistically more dangerous than riding in a car. we all can't avoid that fact.  so i don't understand why some people will choose not to wear a helmet, if it will reduce their risks of death while riding, just to look "cool".  it keeps you safe, and it keeps me safe...

also, i shouldn't have been so general... all helmetless riders aren't silly...only the ones that choose not to wear them because of vanity or image. just like all doctors don't kill people to harvest their organs... but i digress... i view not weaing helmets to look cool like people who smoke to look cool.  smoking is classified as a self inflicted disease, and thus, not wearing a helmet to look cool is like self inlicted severe injury/death.

but the real point of you argument is freedom of choice, which we still have. riding, unfortuantley is becoming more of a privalege than a right these days.  and unfortuantely, living with 4 non-riding/anti-riding people, i have a good view of what non-riders think about helmets and such.  helmets make them more comfortable.  helmets make them less apt to take riding away from us.  and unfortunately, since we are the minority and don't have as much democratic power to change that, we have to respect (and accept) that.  

as i have said before... when a race organization requires helmets, is that infringing on one's right to choose? they are forcing you to wear a helmet. it's either that or not race. so if you have no choice in the matter, why do you still race? after all, it is the principle of the thing that bothers you all, right?

respectfully yours,
jen

[ice]

Its all so simple people:

These type of rules and laws are a result of one thing:

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Why does CCS has safety regulations???

Because CCS is a business.  Businesses are supposed to make $$$$$$$

Having safety regulations make them more $$$$

Suppose 10 people race without a helmet, they all crash and permanently disfigure their faces.

At least one of them will sue the sanctioning body (CCS in our case) in an attempt to get some $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Even if they (CCS) sucessfully defend the lawsuit, it still costs $$$$ for lawyers and takes up valuable time from CCS managers (more $$$$)

Result: Higher insurance costs for CCS, higher management costs for CCS, and thus higher entry fees for the rest of us.  
Higher entry fees, less racers.  Less racers, less money for CCS.

Therefore having strict safety regulations enhances the profits of CCS, allows more of us to race and saves your face.

Seems like an all around smart decision.

Simple


Or:

In the case of helmet laws and seat belt laws.

Consider this:  It is estimated that 20% of Americans are without health care coverage.
 
So you go riding down the street without a helmet or a seat belt, and bust your face.  :-X

Because you don't have health care insurance and because hospitals are required to treat you, you get some kind of medical assistance anyway.

Guess who pays for it ?

The rest of us via tax dollars and higher insurance premiums.
  
Now Grandma is pissed >:(

Because you're self absorbed, and decided your personal freedoms should come at the expense of the rest of society, Grandma now has less $$$$$$ to purchase the prescription drugs she needs to continue to survive.  
She will forever vehemently support helmet laws and seatbelt laws as a result, and she is not alone.


$$$$$$$$$$$$$ rules the world.  Never forget it.  

[spyderchick]

You know, this is a purely political issue. Some bills get passed because individuals are able to affect change, (Amber alert law) but most get passed because of someone's agenda. Who is this "someone"? Generally a corporation who is fronted by a PAC, "political action commitee". These are the same folks who "donate" to the campaigns of our democratically elected officials. I'm sure the AMA has a PAC, the question is, is it stronger than the PAC who'd like to harvest our organs?

You might ask what corporation would like to harvest organs. Well, in case you haven't noticed, most hospitals are affilated with a "health care organiazation". Here in Wisconsin, Aurora is prominent as well as Covenant. Hospitals did this to survive financially and keep health care available. But could they have other political goals as well. It could well be some other organization initiated this bill. Who could that be?

Pharmacuetical companies come to mind. Boy those drugs that you have to take for the rest of your life after a transplant can't be cheap. Ever notice how everyone taking meds will happen to be taking the ones that are the most advertised? "Ask you doctor about..." And they do. They might not be the most effective and inexpensive med for you, but hey, it's selling, adding to bottom line.

Let's say for argument's sake that an individual was able to convince their reprsentative that this is "organ donor" bill is a good one. The bill would still receive backing from some industry or corporate source before it would get very far.

The great equalizer? Outrage and the constitution.  This is not a constitution bill. Nate pointed out that it could infringe on someone's religious rights, or other personal beliefs. This is true. Expressing the outrage is not enough, however, if you tie that in with the constitution, and this law can not be passed, and if it were to be put into law, it could be challenged.

This law might only be up for a vote in one state, but believe me, if there's money to be made, other will be watching closely.

Recommended reading: Trust Us, We're Experts
by: Sheldon Rampton & John Strauber

[Chef]

jen,

it's realy just all talk....

ike

[Pit_Girl]

don't worry, it's cool ;)

-jen

[TiffineyIngram]

No, $$$ does not rule everything.  It's a sad day when people actually believe that's how the world is.  We don't have safety regulations just so we lose less money.  You are way off.  We want to keep you safe--that's the whole reason that sportsman racing (on tracks) was invented--to give you a safe place to go fast and do stuff that's way too dangerous on the street.  Just to prove a point:  if insurance (or any other costs) wouldn't be affected, would there still be safety standards?  Absolutely.  Why?  Because, you may think that corporations are big faceless money-hungry machines, but, at least behind CCS and Clearchannel, there are people that know and care about all of you.  Money doesn't rule the world, unfortunately it rules some people in certain positions.

[Lowe119]

It isn't $$$$ or beliefs, it is ignorance. It's like saying anyone who catches AIDS because they didn't wear a condom becomes the governments' property. Anyone who doesn't wear a helmet loses their dieing rights - no matter what their religious beliefs are.  
Our government was designed to protect us from foreign threats and to serve the public needs - such as roads, police, and other public services. It WAS NOT MADE TO MAKE EVERY DECISION FOR US.  >:(
I need to calm down.
I know MANY people who think racing like we do is suicide. Why don't they take our organs?  What about our love of the sport? I crave and need it. Does that mean that because I put myself at risk for the love of my life, that I should lose my rights to my body? Life is about risks.
Some people are keeping their bodies healthy so they look good in their caskets.
Just for the record - after I rolled my car 4 times, the cop gave me a seatbelt ticket saying, "I know you weren't wearing your seatbelt, because you'd be dead if you were."
I know many people thrown from cars and motorcycles - Hundreds of feet - that walked away. If they were wearing their seatbelts.....a statement would've been made about how it saved their lives.
IGNORANCE :P

It is all about OUR CHOICE.