twa Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 You can't do it without permission from the state. No one argues with this setup' date=' correct?A right is something that you can do without state permission. Driving is not such a thing.[/quote'] I have done it w/o permission my whole life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 I have done it w/o permission my whole life Just cause you haven't gotten caught doesn't mean ya did it legally. I know people who have been smoking marijuana for thirty years and never been arrested or fined. Does that mean they have the right to smoke weed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamB Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 I was thinking of adding a caveat like that, but decided against it... I guess if we were to extend it to head, neck or spinal. I do agree it's akin to blaming the victim which is wrongheaded. Then again, it's pretty wrong headed not to wear seatbelts or to wear a helmet. The only real reason I can see to not where a helmet is machismo which is a pretty ridiculous reason in my opinion. I do not disagree. Personally, I think my skull is worth the $150.00+ to get a good helmet (safety-wise), and it is hard to look macho when you are getting your food through an IV and wearing diapers for the rest of your life. I just think that as long as people go for the either/or solution, it will end up not going anywhere hence why I support compromises where riders get the freedom to choose, but also accept the consequences of that choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Just cause you haven't gotten caught doesn't mean ya did it legally. I know people who have been smoking marijuana for thirty years and never been arrested or fined. Does that mean they have the right to smoke weed? legality differs from whether it is a right or not....:evilg: http://www.ridl.us/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=3880 We should remember what makes this "legal," and not a violation of the individual’s common law right to travel "unrestricted" is that they knowingly volunteer, freely, by contract, to waive their right. If they were forced, coerced or unknowingly placed under the States powers, the courts have said it is a clear violation of their rights. This in itself raises a very interesting question. What percentage of the people in each state have filed, and received, licenses, registrations, insurance etc. after erroneously being advised by their government that it was mandatory? Many of our courts, attorneys and police officials are just becoming informed about this important issue and the difference between "Privileges vs. Rights". We can assume that the majority of those Americans carrying state licenses, vehicle registrations etc., have no knowledge of the rights they waived in obeying laws such as these that the U.S. Constitution clearly states are unlawful, i.e. "laws of no effect". In other words - "LAWS THAT ARE NOT LAWS AT ALL." .. "Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property...and is regarded as inalienable." 16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987. This concept is further amplified by the definition of personal liberty: "Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion -- to go where and when one pleases -- only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct." [emphasis added] II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135. and further... "Personal liberty -- consists of the power of locomotion, of changing situations, of removing one's person to whatever place one's inclination may direct, without imprisonment or restraint unless by due process of law." 1 Blackstone's Commentary 134; Hare, Constitution__.777; Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed. Justice Tolman was concerned about the State prohibiting the Citizen from the "most sacred of his liberties," the Right of movement, the Right of moving one's self from place to place without threat of imprisonment, the Right to use the public roads in the ordinary course of life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 I have done it w/o permission my whole life You are reasonably lucky that you are not in prison. ---------- Post added July-6th-2011 at 06:25 PM ---------- legality differs from whether it is a right or not....:evilg:http://www.ridl.us/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=3880 We should remember what makes this "legal," and not a violation of the individual’s common law right to travel "unrestricted" is that they knowingly volunteer, freely, by contract, to waive their right. Oh Christ. We are dangerously close to sovereign citizen **** here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 The right of locomotion is very important. Restricting my ability to ambulate would be wrong. However, the speed at which I get from A to B is not part of the right as far as I understand. If I can go from MD to CA without being restricted that's all I ask. Whether I have to do it by foot, train, bike, car, plane, or other is a different issue. Mind you, as a society we've agreed that I can be denied to ability to drive if I fail to pass a test or have acrued a few too many tickets or accidents. That, we've decided does not restrict our right to ambulate because we can still get there... sometimes, it may just take a little longer, be more expensive, or take a little more work. ---------- Post added July-6th-2011 at 07:27 PM ---------- Oh Christ. We are dangerously close to sovereign citizen **** here. Yeah, but as we know, twa doesn't mean what he's posting. He's just making trouble or putting up devil's arguments just to be difficult. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 You are reasonably lucky that you are not in prison. Or dead ....might make a fun court case one of these days can I count on ya donating to my defense fund? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deejaydana Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 I grew up on off road bikes at a really young age and loved it then. Living in So Cal now I would never own a bike, it's just a recipe for your own demise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 Building codes are in place so that future owners have the right to a standard of safety. your other argument could be made about riding motorcycles period. Many states don't force people to wear helmets. Building Codes are, at their very core, a forfeiture of individual rights for the common benefit. That future owners have a right to the standard of safety is just one aspect. Wearing seatbelts and helmets and car seat laws are no different. Except in your mind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deejaydana Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 Confession: I think dudes in their 50s, 60s, 70s, riding their Harley's (when they're accountants during the week) are just complete bufoons, trying to get thru their mid-life crisis and throw out the vibe that they're tough, or something that they're not. Just clowns all the way. Jeez, I have an almost irrational dislike for these wankers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 Building Codes are, at their very core, a forfeiture of individual rights for the common benefit. That future owners have a right to the standard of safety is just one aspect.Wearing seatbelts and helmets and car seat laws are no different. Except in your mind Good to have some backup on riding being a right. I do agree rights can be restricted with just cause,I think helmet laws fall short of the standard though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 Good to have some backup on riding being a right.I do agree rights can be restricted with just cause,I think helmet laws fall short of the standard though. At the end of the day it's something that should be left up to the states, along with other things that don't really matter. I would be in favor of no helmet laws BUT if you ride without a helmet you must show proof of health insurance that will cover your dumbass when you split your head open. ---------- Post added July-6th-2011 at 10:24 PM ---------- Confession: I think dudes in their 50s, 60s, 70s, riding their Harley's (when they're accountants during the week) are just complete bufoons, trying to get thru their mid-life crisis and throw out the vibe that they're tough, or something that they're not. Just clowns all the way. Jeez, I have an almost irrational dislike for these wankers. Really? I think the accountant/lawyer Harley rider is a complete myth. I think most Harley Riders are guys in their 40s and 50s who think that dressing like a slovenly pig, putting up the appearance of ignorant trash, and dating fat white women makes them cool. The accountants mostly drive Porsches and Mercedes. Who wouldn't if you could afford it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 At the end of the day it's something that should be left up to the states, along with other things that don't really matter. I would be in favor of no helmet laws BUT if you ride without a helmet you must show proof of health insurance that will cover your dumbass when you split your head open. I would argue that Auto Carriers should have the right to deny coverage if you fail to wear a helmet and that the individual or his estate should be eligible for the balance. I frankly don't understand the desire here. This is one of those "I'm a rugged individualist" concepts that is just patently stupid in every way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 I frankly don't understand the desire here. This is one of those "I'm a rugged individualist" concepts that is just patently stupid in every way. Dude, we're talking about 50 year old men who wear bandanas and have a wallet chain. I don't think we're dealing with the intellectually elite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 Dude, we're talking about 50 year old men who wear bandanas and have a wallet chain. I don't think we're dealing with the intellectually elite. Fair point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 At the end of the day it's something that should be left up to the states, along with other things that don't really matter. I would be in favor of no helmet laws BUT if you ride without a helmet you must show proof of health insurance that will cover your dumbass when you split your head open. throw in only over 21 and ya got Texas law deejaydeena....I tend to agree with that,but it seems to make them happy....my accountant bought a Harley trike ....born to ride :pfft: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deejaydana Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 I would argue that Auto Carriers should have the right to deny coverage if you fail to wear a helmet and that the individual or his estate should be eligible for the balance. Auto/bike carriers typically exclude medical coverage entirely from motorcycle policies. Some carriers don't write bike policies at all for those over 50 or 60 years of age. FYI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 Auto/bike carriers typically exclude medical coverage entirely from motorcycle policies. Some carriers don't write bike policies at all for those over 50 or 60 years of age. FYI. People are idiots. So, basically, all those middle managers who go on poker runs are risking bankruptcy for their hobby? Dude, collect stamps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sportjunkie07 Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 zoony, from my experience working as a waiter during biker rallies, i can tell you that your analysis of a biker's profile is spot on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deejaydana Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 People are idiots.So' date=' basically, all those middle managers who go on poker runs are risking bankruptcy for their hobby? Dude, collect stamps.[/quote'] pretty much, it's vanity at its most idiotic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allannis Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 Confession: I think dudes in their 50s, 60s, 70s, riding their Harley's (when they're accountants during the week) are just complete bufoons, trying to get thru their mid-life crisis and throw out the vibe that they're tough, or something that they're not. Just clowns all the way. Jeez, I have an almost irrational dislike for these wankers. I have been riding motorcycles since I was a teenager,and will keep doing so as long as I am able. I pretty sure the people you are talking about couldn't give a rats ass if you like them or not.People who make confessions on web forums are clowns in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deejaydana Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 I have been riding motorcycles since I was a teenager,and will keep doing so as long as I am able. I pretty sure the people you are talking about couldn't give a rats ass if you like them or not.People who make confessions on web forums are clowns in my opinion. We're all entitled to our opinions. I grew up riding at a very young age, pre-teens actually, but my point is simply this (specifically here in the very crowded fwys & roads of So Cal): get over it if you have a family and ride in more remote areas if you're going to ride. That and stop trying to get attention by being something you're not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 I have been riding motorcycles since I was a teenager,and will keep doing so as long as I am able. I pretty sure the people you are talking about couldn't give a rats ass if you like them or not.People who make confessions on web forums are clowns in my opinion. all of us belong to groups that other people thing are obnoxious or ridiculous. Internet forums are the best place to voice those opinions. Doing so in person is rude For instance, lots of people refer to us as Redskin dorks. Which we are. Embrace it, who cares what other people think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 I have been riding motorcycles since I was a teenager,and will keep doing so as long as I am able. I pretty sure the people you are talking about couldn't give a rats ass if you like them or not.People who make confessions on web forums are clowns in my opinion. Go ahead and hate your neighbor! Go ahead and cheat a friend! Claim it in the name of heaven! You can justify it in the end! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allannis Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 We're all entitled to our opinions. I grew up riding at a very young age, pre-teens actually, but my point is simply this (specifically here in the very crowded fwys & roads of So Cal): get over it if you have a family and ride in more remote areas if you're going to ride. That and stop trying to get attention bys being something you're not. Who made you the judge of whether people are trying to be somthing they're not. however I would agree riding in crowded areas would be beyond my comfort area. I moved to WV to get away from crowds. Wearing a helmet should be up to the rider, and the rider should have to carry insurance to cover his/her head if he/she suffers a head injury,however the person who caused the accident should also be liable for causing the accident. I am sure you know not all states force riders to wear helmets. I happen to wear a DOT helmet,don't have a chain hanging from my wallet,or wear o doo rag, however if I ever chainge my mind about these things I will do so without any worry about what you think. ---------- Post added July-6th-2011 at 11:42 PM ---------- Go ahead and hate your neighbor!Go ahead and cheat a friend! Claim it in the name of heaven! You can justify it in the end! How intelligent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.