Ducati Monster Motorcycle Forum banner

1 - 20 of 42 Posts

·
Administrator
Joined
·
316 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
The AMA protects your right to ride. We fight bike bans, land closures, health-care discrimination against motorcyclists, and more. Plus, the AMA is committed to providing the best benefits possible for its members to save them time and money. We are also dedicated to amateur racing, providing amateur competitors and their families, friends and fans with exciting andenjoyable racing events that create lifelong memories. We also publish American Motorcyclist magazine, which focuses on the accomplishments of our members in all forms of riding, whether it's racing, cross-country touring or trail riding. The AMA is dedicated to all these things, and more. After all, we love to ride.

www.AmericanMotorcyclist.com
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
So does the AMA still lobby for ending helmet laws? If so, that tells you something doesn't it.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4 Posts
There is no other Organization out there looking to protect your rights. agree or disagree we should support it.

The rulechanges in AMA road racing are a little scary, but the fans I think are getting a better show.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
Not only do they fight for our rights to ride, but they also have great deals for being members from hotel discounts, excellent road side assistance, to discounts at store. I recommend the AMA to everyone.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
3,939 Posts
The AMA protects your right to ride? tahaha.. parang di naman..
Um, yes they do. Indeed, since they sold the racing arm to DMG, that's the main thing they do.

PhilB
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22 Posts
So does the AMA still lobby for ending helmet laws? If so, that tells you something doesn't it.
Quote from the AMA website:

"The AMA believes riders should wear all the safety gear all the time. But the AMA also believes riders -- rather than government -- should make the decision."

Never understood why people are so quick to judge and form/offer opinions while unaware of all the facts...

I do think that for a "free" country, there are way too many unnecessary restrictions aimed at select groups of taxpayers (i.e. Motorcyclists).

I support the AMA... my choice.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
3,939 Posts
how do you prove it to me?
Take a look at what they do. Their primary activity is to lobby against laws that restrict motorcycling, and motorcyclists, on-road and off-road. What makes you think they aren't doing that?

So does the AMA still lobby for ending helmet laws? If so, that tells you something doesn't it.
Yes, it does. It tells me that they are in favor of freedom for motorcyclists. I wear a helmet every time, and strongly recommend that everyone else do so as well. I did so before there was a helmet law here in CA. I did so last year when I was in Ohio which does not have a helmet law. I believe in helmets. But I have no right to *force* someone else to, to point a gun at his head and say "wear it, or else". And neither do you, and neither does the government.

Quote from the AMA website:

"The AMA believes riders should wear all the safety gear all the time. But the AMA also believes riders -- rather than government -- should make the decision."

Never understood why people are so quick to judge and form/offer opinions while unaware of all the facts...

I do think that for a "free" country, there are way too many unnecessary restrictions aimed at select groups of taxpayers (i.e. Motorcyclists).

I support the AMA... my choice.
+1. Exactly.

PhilB
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
97 Posts
Yes, it does. It tells me that they are in favor of freedom for motorcyclists. I wear a helmet every time, and strongly recommend that everyone else do so as well. I did so before there was a helmet law here in CA. I did so last year when I was in Ohio which does not have a helmet law. I believe in helmets. But I have no right to *force* someone else to, to point a gun at his head and say "wear it, or else". And neither do you, and neither does the government.
Word to That. I really feel uncomfortable riding the motorcycle without a helmet but I'm sure there are occasions where I'd really love to go without it.

I also think scooter sales would go up if you didn't need helmet's on them. I mean serriously, I hate them with a passion but if you could just hop on with your shorts, sandals and t-shirt it might be pretty fun to rip around mexico style.

Oh and since I'm a Canadian I can't even ride a bicycle without a helmet. Wish someone would reverse that law :(
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16 Posts
I don't think helmet laws are as cut and dried as simple freedom of choice.

I personally would like to be "free" from potentially having my tax dollars pay for the emergency, rehab, and ongoing care for an individual who chooses to ride without protective gear...

No, protective gear will not prevent all injuries. But the evidence gathered over decades makes it pretty clear you should have it on every time you ride -- especially if your idea of freedom, like mine, includes not voluntarily putting myself in a position where I might have to hang off this country's social safety net.

On the other hand, if you're insured to the hilt -- well then I'll look forward to seeing your smiling, helmet-free face out on the road! :cool:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
213 Posts
I don't think helmet laws are as cut and dried as simple freedom of choice.

I personally would like to be "free" from potentially having my tax dollars pay for the emergency, rehab, and ongoing care for an individual who chooses to ride without protective gear...

No, protective gear will not prevent all injuries. But the evidence gathered over decades makes it pretty clear you should have it on every time you ride -- especially if your idea of freedom, like mine, includes not voluntarily putting myself in a position where I might have to hang off this country's social safety net.

On the other hand, if you're insured to the hilt -- well then I'll look forward to seeing your smiling, helmet-free face out on the road! :cool:
It's funny you said that I said the same exact thing to everyone. I don't care what people do as long as it doesn't hurt me or cost me anything.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
3,939 Posts
I don't think helmet laws are as cut and dried as simple freedom of choice.

I personally would like to be "free" from potentially having my tax dollars pay for the emergency, rehab, and ongoing care for an individual who chooses to ride without protective gear...

No, protective gear will not prevent all injuries. But the evidence gathered over decades makes it pretty clear you should have it on every time you ride -- especially if your idea of freedom, like mine, includes not voluntarily putting myself in a position where I might have to hang off this country's social safety net.

On the other hand, if you're insured to the hilt -- well then I'll look forward to seeing your smiling, helmet-free face out on the road! :cool:
Ethically, that is not a problem with helmet use or other people's choices; that's a problem with a system that takes your money to pay for other people's problems.

Practically, that is an argument that applies to riding motorcycles in the first place, as well as eating french fries, smoking, hang gliding, diving, not exercising enough, drinking soda, and so forth, Are you prepared to support laws about each and every one of those actions, based on people "not voluntarily putting themselves in a position where they might have to hang off this country's social safety net"? Because that's where that line goes.

Either we have freedom of our own choices, or we admit we are subjects to be herded and managed so as not to cost our government or our society too much, and bend over and take any restrictions they want to place. No thank to the latter.

I'm a human, not a domesticated ruminant.

It's funny you said that I said the same exact thing to everyone. I don't care what people do as long as it doesn't hurt me or cost me anything.
Again, you do realize that EXACT line of logic can be used to eliminate motorcycling itself, not to mention any other hobby or activity that carries any extra risk.

And again, it's not the individual that is causing you the cost; it's the government program that forces you to pay for it.

PhilB
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16 Posts
Yes, taken to the nth degree, you could argue anything that applies extra "risk" to some societal baseline creates a burden on taxpayers.

However, I think it is incumbent upon the individual to mitigate risk wherever practicable and sensible. It's not that hard to buckle a seatbelt, test your air regulator, check the chamber on a gun, or wear a helmet. The rate of return vs these simple steps is quite large when taken in aggregate. Changing one's diet - now that's another matter entirely, and one that is wrapped up in how food is marketed and distributed, psychological needs, and on and on. I'm guessing wearing protective gear does not fall into the same category.

I wish we could change how entitlement programs are structured in this country, but that isn't going to happen, at least in my lifetime. The best I can do is hope riders and others that engaged in "risky" activities take full advantage of the excellent risk mitigation techniques and technology out there -- to protect themselves, to minimize the chances of needing lifelong care, and to represent ourselves in the best light so policymakers don't perceive the need for additional regulation and legislation.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
3,939 Posts
Yes, taken to the nth degree, you could argue anything that applies extra "risk" to some societal baseline creates a burden on taxpayers.

However, I think it is incumbent upon the individual to mitigate risk wherever practicable and sensible. It's not that hard to buckle a seatbelt, test your air regulator, check the chamber on a gun, or wear a helmet. The rate of return vs these simple steps is quite large when taken in aggregate. Changing one's diet - now that's another matter entirely, and one that is wrapped up in how food is marketed and distributed, psychological needs, and on and on. I'm guessing wearing protective gear does not fall into the same category.

I wish we could change how entitlement programs are structured in this country, but that isn't going to happen, at least in my lifetime. The best I can do is hope riders and others that engaged in "risky" activities take full advantage of the excellent risk mitigation techniques and technology out there -- to protect themselves, to minimize the chances of needing lifelong care, and to represent ourselves in the best light so policymakers don't perceive the need for additional regulation and legislation.
So in other words, you are claiming the right to make others behave as you wish by force, and thus also conceding to others the right to to make you behave as they wish by force. This is not freedom, or liberty, or ethically right.

You look at your neighbor and say "He shouldn't ride without a helmet; that could cost me money -- I'll support a law". Your other neighbor looks at you and says "He shouldn't ride a motorcycle, especially one o' those dangerous crotch rockets; that could cost me money -- I'll support a law". His neighbor looks at him and says "He shouldn't ski or snowboard or scuba dive; that could cost me money -- I'll support a law". His neighbor looks at him and says "He shouldn't barbecue all those ribs, he could have a heart atttack; that could cost me money -- I'll support a law". And so on. Where does it end?

It ends when people who value freedom, who have the guts to be free, who have the guts to let other people be free, say "**** off, it ends here". That's where.

I find it really strange, and sad, that I even have to argue for individual choice and the right to choose one's own risk levels, on a MOTORCYCLE forum. Come on, people, THINK!!
=====
"If you want to be free, there is but one way; it is to guarantee an equally full measure of liberty to all your neighbors. There is no other." -- Carl Schurz, (1829-1906) German born U.S. Senator and Union Army general during the US Civil War

"A free man must be able to endure it when his fellow men act and live otherwise than he considers proper." -- Ludwig von Mises

PhilB
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16 Posts
So in other words...
Yes, in other words - not my words.

"Incumbent upon the individual" and "hope riders and others... take full advantage of the excellent risk mitigation..." speak to mindset, not legislation or forcible behavior modification.

I believe it is precisely through MY choices as a member of a society whose freedom is negotiated via social contract that I contribute to said freedom. If we are to make choices regardless of consequences in the name of freedom, and place it upon others around us to deal with those choices, we both abrogate the personal responsibility that comes with said freedom and travel ultimately toward anarchy, where freedom is defined as everything and anything.

I can only hope other riders feel the same level of responsibility. My apologies for pulling this thread off track.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
3,939 Posts
Yes, in other words - not my words.

"Incumbent upon the individual" and "hope riders and others... take full advantage of the excellent risk mitigation..." speak to mindset, not legislation or forcible behavior modification.

I believe it is precisely through MY choices as a member of a society whose freedom is negotiated via social contract that I contribute to said freedom. If we are to make choices regardless of consequences in the name of freedom, and place it upon others around us to deal with those choices, we both abrogate the personal responsibility that comes with said freedom and travel ultimately toward anarchy, where freedom is defined as everything and anything.

I can only hope other riders feel the same level of responsibility. My apologies for pulling this thread off track.
Yes, indeed YOUR words.
I don't think helmet laws are as cut and dried as simple freedom of choice.

I personally would like to be "free" from potentially having my tax dollars pay for the emergency, rehab, and ongoing care for an individual who chooses to ride without protective gear...

No, protective gear will not prevent all injuries. But the evidence gathered over decades makes it pretty clear you should have it on every time you ride -- especially if your idea of freedom, like mine, includes not voluntarily putting myself in a position where I might have to hang off this country's social safety net.

On the other hand, if you're insured to the hilt -- well then I'll look forward to seeing your smiling, helmet-free face out on the road! :cool:
You here are advocating laws about others behavior, and saying that freedom of choice should be contingent on your insurance levels -- that only the insured have the right to their own liberty and pursuit of happiness. Does the word "unalienable" mean anything to you?

PhilB
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16 Posts
And you are stating that freedom should be contingent on nothing?

Unalienable cuts multiple ways when multiple parties are involved. None of us exists in a perfect vacuum where consequences only impinge on oneself.

I am not a constitutional law expert by any means, so I will cede the last word to you. Again, apologies for derailing this thread.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
3,939 Posts
And you are stating that freedom should be contingent on nothing?

Unalienable cuts multiple ways when multiple parties are involved. None of us exists in a perfect vacuum where consequences only impinge on oneself.

I am not a constitutional law expert by any means, so I will cede the last word to you. Again, apologies for derailing this thread.
Yes, "unalienable" means the right is inherent and contingent on nothing. That's exactly the point.

The actual rights violation in this situation is in the system that compels people to pay for those who make bad decisions, NOT the bad decision maker. The proper avenue to fight the actual rights violation is therefore to, as you said, "change how entitlement programs are structured in this country", NOT to pass addtional laws to further violate the rights of the individual and thus *protect* the system that is actually causing the problem.

To bring it back to the OT, the AMA fights for our liberty and rights as motorcyclists and adult human beings. That is its legitimate focus, and the problems of socialism and government that are used by others as justifications for abridging that liberty and those rights are a separate problem and must be fought by others. Support for the AMA is thus indeed support for rights and freedom. I advocate also supporting other groups that fight for other aspects of liberty as well, such as the GOA for guns, the Libertarian Party for everything, Ron Paul for President through the Republican Party, the ACLU for the issues it fights for, HRC for its work on equal rights for gay people, DownsizeDC.org for pretty much everything -- there are plenty of others, each fighting for its piece of the freedom concept.

PhilB
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
69 Posts
I'm not a constitutional lawyer either, but this thread is fascinating. I was under the impression that riding a motorcycle or driving a car on public highways is not a right at all; it's a privilege. If you want to ride a motorcycle on your own land without a helmet, nobody is going to stop you.

I thought the unalienable rights mentioned in the constitution were the right to live, the right to be happy, and the right to pursue your dreams... kinda vague, I know. But people use that to argue for all sorts of behavior, like smoking in public, having smoke-free public areas, storing an arsenal of unlicensed weapons, or riding a motorcycle without a helmet. I don't think it works that way. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm not arguing for or against helmet laws. I'm just saying the constitution does not establish an unalienable right to ride a motorcycle on publicly owned highways without a helmet.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
3,939 Posts
I'm not a constitutional lawyer either, but this thread is fascinating. I was under the impression that riding a motorcycle or driving a car on public highways is not a right at all; it's a privilege. If you want to ride a motorcycle on your own land without a helmet, nobody is going to stop you.

I thought the unalienable rights mentioned in the constitution were the right to live, the right to be happy, and the right to pursue your dreams... kinda vague, I know. But people use that to argue for all sorts of behavior, like smoking in public, having smoke-free public areas, storing an arsenal of unlicensed weapons, or riding a motorcycle without a helmet. I don't think it works that way. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm not arguing for or against helmet laws. I'm just saying the constitution does not establish an unalienable right to ride a motorcycle on publicly owned highways without a helmet.
The Declaration of Independence recognizes a right to "liberty". What does that mean? It means that you have the right to determine the course of your own life, without being coerced by others, provided only that you must respect the equal right of others to the same and not coerce them.

And yes, of course it is used to argue for all sorts of behavior, and rightly so -- we have the right to all sorts of behavior, as long as we do not violate the equal right of others to the same. You have the unalienable right to do anything you want to, as long as you are not harming, endangering, or coercing others.

The line that driving/riding is a privilege is pure bullshit from a rights standpoint. But it has been enshrined in our legal system as a way for the legal system to avoid having to respect the rights of people to travel freely without being harassed, and to impose lucrative traffic fines without due process.

PhilB
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29 Posts
As a new member, I too am quite surprised at a discussion like this on a forum devoted to folks generally thought to value individual expression and responsibility.
May I nominate PhilB for president? His point of view seems to coincide with that of many of our founding fathers.


"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add "within the limits of the law" because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." - Thomas Jefferson

That said, this was about the AMA, not safety gear, if you value your rights to ride at all, you should consider supporting the AMA even if you don't agree with their position on helmet regulations.
 
1 - 20 of 42 Posts
Top