Seate: Rendell didn’t use head on helmet law…
|
Comment Commandments:
1) No Personal Attacks. (Debating is encouraged, but be respectful). 2) No Sexual Discussion (unless it specifically pertains to a cited story). 3) No Profanity (Let’s all behave like adults). |
GOLDEN RULE:
Be civil and statesmanlike. You can disagree without being disagreeable. Annoying trolls who break these rules will be blocked from commenting. ***Please don't disable anonymous commenting for everyone else*** |
***TOPIC FORUM: 50 STORIES LAST COMMENTED ON***
***LIST OF TOP 50 COMMENTERS***
***LIST OF 50 MOST COMMENTED ON STORIES***
***LIST OF 50 LAST COMMENTS***
test
3 Comments
Once again proves himself to be an idiot.
For those who wear them, the helmet provides some measure of protection AFTER a wreck. The eye protection serves to prevent debris and bugs from getting into the eye and CAUSING an accident. There doesn't have to be an injury to the eye to cause an accident. The distraction alone is enough to do that.
It's easy enough to understand. Motorcyclists who wear a helmet suffer catastrophic injuries in a crash, costing the state hundreds of thousands of dollars for treatment and care/rehabilitation. Those who don't wear a helmet only incur a one time funeral expense, normally paid by their life insurance. When motorcyclists complained about wearing a helmet, the answer was easy. As far as wearing eye protection, that's only to protect the rest of us from being hit by an out of control motorcycle, after bugs hit them in the eyes.
It is not really easy enough to understand if you believe in personal freedom and choice. The view that you take is called collectivism. The nanny state makes decisions for us. The argument that the state or tax payers will have to pick up the tab is bogus, when you consider the fact that many people don't subscribe to socialism. In other words, this is a republic not a democracy!!