Virginia Freedom Riders :: Freedom Forums

MissPenny

http://www.delmarvanow.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070517/DCP02/705170360/1058/DCP

Cover your cranium
Editorial

You might think that there are some instruments of personal safety that in this day and age are unquestionably good. Seat belts, say -- can't everyone agree that seat belts in cars, and laws punishing people who don't use them, are an unalloyed benefit? Nice try. A gentleman named Allan Cronshaw with, presumably, a lot of free time is waging a legal war on New York state's seat belt laws, arguing that they infringe in his religious beliefs. As someone who believes modern science is morally bankrupt, Cronshaw argues in motions he submitted to a county court that the state that forces him to wear a seat belt compels him to "believe" in the science behind it in a religion-infringing way. The courts have been... skeptical. But Cronshaw soldiers on.

While most readers, at this point, are likely ruefully shaking their heads, one group may be taking notes. That would be motorcyclists opposed to a proposed Delaware law mandating, for the first time in this state, that adults driving motorcycles wear helmets when they ride. There is a vigorous, organized, well-educated lobby of bikers determined to keep this bill from becoming law. They haven't raised the "it's against our religion" argument yet, but maybe that's because it hasn't occurred to them.

What they have argued -- and it's not without merit -- is that helmet-wearing is an activity the state government has no business regulating. "If you want to wear a helmet, that's fine. But it should be a personal choice," Jim Bob Golden of Middletown told the News Journal as he explained why the law shouldn't change.

Perhaps. But the same argument could apply to the wearing of seat belts, and states have long since decided that the safety benefits of seat belt use is so great that laws requiring it are merited. How do motorcycle accidents hurt more than just the motorcyclists? Well, the cost to health insurers and state health agencies of treating these gruesome injuries is not insubstantial; and the number of motorcycle injuries is rising faster than the number of motorcyclists.

Another argument against the helmets is that their weight actually makes riders less responsive and cuts their visibility. Let's let the market take care of that one; when more riders are required to wear helmets, the demand for light, unencumbering helmets will no doubt spur their development.

This bill's chances at becoming law are not stellar. It's risen and been smothered in the legislature before, and anyone who's been to a bike show knows that anti-helmet-law groups are fiercely well-organized. But it still has merit. Here's hoping it passes.

RESPONSE TO THIS EDITORIAL:

A tremendous uproar has been created about a mandatory helmet law. Some of the arguments are factual and some have no reason for a helmet because there would be nothing to protect inside the helmet.

A properly fitted helmet affords a modicum of protection in some scenarios. An improperly fitted helmet will not protect and possibly increase injury to the wearer of the device.

The testing for helmets to receive DOT stickers is destructive by design and incomplete in determining the actual protective qualities of a helmet. This has made the conceptual argument that helmets are a panacea for Traumatic Brain Injury and public burden vague. Additionally, the testing methodology that is relied upon to make law makes the laws themselves vague. As with many of our laws, there must be a clear cut enforcement. Clear cut enforcement is impossible when found upon vague principle. This opens a pathway to random enforcement and prejudicial enforcement against a specific minority group. The Government cannot make any objective standards for helmets without taking on liability, and since they [the government] are expressly forbidden from taking on any liability, they can never make an objective standard for helmet. There it is. Without an objective standard it all becomes ad hoc and arbitrary; ad hoc and arbitrary is the foundation of vague law; vague law is unconstitutional.

Many arguments about helmet laws originate under a feeling of patriotic duty to democracy. Democracy is the rule of the majority (in effect mob rule). Since the majority of voting age public do not ride motorcycles, motorcyclists are ruled by a ruling class that seemingly has no vested interest in the outcome of laws such as mandatory helmets. Where is the apathy of all the people when it comes to helmet laws? Why are the fears of so may non-riders acknowledged?

Truth be told, In states that do not have mandatory helmet laws, the majority of motorcyclists wear helmets.

I am certain that TBI is expensive. I am certain that death and catastrophic injury are painful to family members, and at times, entire communities. Are these pains of death and catastrophic injury less frequent or less painful because all riders must wear an inadequately engineered hat for the task?

We have had and still have many examples of abuse of government power by elected and appointed officials and their infrastructure. I am of the opinion that the mandatory helmet law is a knee jerk reaction to a lobbyist group that has threatened to withhold funds from one of these officials and or one of their pet projects.

Many motorcyclists are judged by the actions of a few. If that were applied to teachers, should we ban all teachers based upon a few? If that were applied to any sub-group in our society today, should we pass a dress code to satiate ourselves into submission feeling that we have done all that we can?

This helmet law issue is a joke being played out on everyone. It is a blatant misuse of power. Years ago, political offices were filled by persons of wisdom. Seemingly, that standard no longer applies.

I do not support the futility of helmet laws for any reason. The difference is that I fully support the utility of helmets and all of the reasons that anyone would want to wear one.

Riding a motorcycle is a combination of things for many people.

I started riding at a very young age. I have crashed. A helmet has not saved my life. Common sense has saved my life and so has balance.

I strongly believe in the United States of America. I do not want to burden the taxpayers with a vague law. Our Government cannot make any objective standards for helmets without taking on liability, and since they [the government] are expressly forbidden from taking on any liability, they can never make an objective standard for helmet. There it is. Without an objective standard it all becomes ad hoc and arbitrary; ad hoc and arbitrary is the foundation of vague law; vague law is unconstitutional.

I wear a helmet when I ride and I don't wear a helmet when I ride. I make the choice each and every time. I own several helmets. None of these helmets has ever prevented a crash nor have they ever made me more visible to other drivers.

I have survived crashes with pain. I have survived crahses because of education. I have survived crashes because of experience. The helmet never helped me in any of these situations.

I am at a loss for words when you say that you have trouble believing statistics yet support helmet laws which are founded upon statistics. I do understand that old expression figures lie and liars figure.

The scope of these helmet laws is reaching much further than just motorcyclists. Helmets are a control issue. Helmets are a uniform not unlike the large letters that the colonists would adorn women with during the witch hunts of yore. Seemingly we are not protecting society nor individuals with helmet laws.

I know the medical issues of motorcycle crashes quite intimately. I also understand the ramifications of TBI. Yes, it affects the injured, their family, the community and all connected in the service of the injured. Helmets will not prevent the causation. Helmets will not prevent motorcyclists from dying.

We must then look at preventing the causes of crashing. We must address enforcement of existing laws and penalties. We need not muck up our overburdened legal system nor prevent our law enforcement officers from pursuing real criminals.

Little children are traumatized by many things. Death is a traumatic experience and is a part of everyone's life.

The argument against witnessing trauma is a good one because it beckons for an answer. One of the answers to many motorcycle deaths and catastrophic injuries is distracted driving and the prevention of it. Distracted drivers cause more deaths to motorcyclists than the lack of helmets.

I have held severely injured people in my arms and helped save them. I have held others through their final breath. I understand my feelings about it and maybe have a glimpse of some of your feelings.

I realize how serious you are about helping people and the strength of your empathy and compassion. Please, believe me when I say to you that helmet laws are not based upon this.

We cannot make motorcycle riders and their passengers wear a plastic hat. Many parents can't even make their children wear suitable clothing when it is warm. The government is not a parent that decides what is best for us. We are adults. With our adulthood comes an independence and a responsibility. Some of us undertake our independence and responsibilities differently than others. We choose to ascribe to teachings of different faiths. We choose different professions and careers. None of us is right or wrong by making these choices. Many of us hope for different outcomes based upon our choices. Occasionally we are rewarded for making one choice over another.

Balance is not an assumed risk.

Balance has many definitions that all require equilibrium.

The definition of balance is not a concept nor is balance a risk.

Motorcyclists need to be afforded the right to live and the right to die.
They wish freedom and fair usage of the highways and byways.
They wish to travel unimpeded with freedom of movement.
They wish to have insurance claims paid without lawsuit.
They wish protection from the bully pulpit of government under the guise of democracy.

The true issue of laws for and against motorcyclists is control of a perceived balance.

Many motorcyclists ride to live out a fantasy double life. For them, they have purchased the costume and accoutrements of a rebel or a tough guy sanitized in their attempts at living life to the fullest. For others, riding is a freedom of transport through the elements. Some others enjoy the use of skill necessary for survival and the challenges that are constantly changing. Still others enjoy the conspicuity of being a risk taker.

Taking risks and meeting the challenges are totally different than risky behavior.

Anti motorcycle and, anti-motorcyclist positions range from practicality of modality, myriads of protectionism of motorcyclists from themselves, to those issues of the environment. It has become fair game to blame the ills of society upon motorcyclists and motorcycles or the lack of them.

Viewpoints have stated that, “one major source of urban noise, that of motorcycles, is optional and totally unnecessary. In a seasonal climate, it is clear that motorcycles are not an integral part of our transportation system for they cannot be operated during our long winter. The owners of motorcycles have alternative means of transportation. The motorcycle is an optional vehicle for pleasure, not utility. It is a toy, albeit an expensive one.

Furthering the anti motorcycle viewpoint, they go on to say, “As pleasure vehicles, motorcycles tend to operate in groups and to concentrate in particular and limited traffic patterns. And, as pleasure vehicles, they are often operated in a manner that brings juvenile emotional satisfaction to their owners but distress to those who live nearby. The effect of all these behaviors is to saturate certain roadways of our city with high and excessive levels of noise.”

Many well-meaning citizens abhor the death of another for their own selfish gain.

They attach their own fears of death to the feelings and wishes of another.

Many Americans view the motorcyclist as “fair game”. They would prefer to not hear us, nor hear our pleas. They have also shown a preference for not seeing us. They have even recommended that we be put in harms way. “Some cities have adopted technical monitoring as a check on such behavior. Others have restricted access to those areas where the uncaring motorcyclists have destroyed the quality of life for local residents, in effect distributing the noise pollution throughout the city at large. Because of the difficulty and cost of monitoring motorcycle noise, I urge that we adopt a policy to limit the use of parkways by motorcyclists — as we have for trucks — and thereby distribute their noise over a larger area.”

The minority of motorcyclists is easy to pick on. The protections afforded by leather and helmets do not help us against prejudicial laws currently in existence or the ones yet to be introduced.

The protective gear additionally fails us within the court system.

The protective gear allows all to profile our “type” and predict our behaviors.

We as motorcyclists try to demand an equal access (balance) to all these things and we are stigmatized by our own public dress and behaviors.

Motorcyclists are portrayed constantly as irresponsible risk takers because of balance.

Motorcyclists constantly fight for balance in laws and in life.

The assumed risk, of wanting balance in life, wastes life and money needlessly when we assume the position of victim.

As motorcyclists, it is the razor's edge that draws us. The feeling of perfectly managing all those influences that result in what can only be described as the closest feeling to flying that can be experienced upon solid ground. When you're riding on the razor's edge, it's the joy of feeling (and being in control of) personal perfection that is so seductive.

This joy of feeling has now drawn many of us into politics and legislation to defend our sense of control and balance in our personal and societal lives.

An amalgam of people ride powered two and three wheeled vehicles. Many choose to be law abiding and others choose to be lawless in varying degrees.

Unless we choose to balance ourselves and unify within a framework of some common ground, we will always be victims of choice rather than have freedom of choice.

Name calling for making one choice or another is a form of manipulation for personal gain. I have seen much of it during the campaign for this law. I have seen an entire group being noticed as stupid, ignorant, dare-devils over wanting the make the choice about a marginally effective appliance that would be governed by a vague law.

The seat belts that are required are minimally protective and unlike helmets, there are much better restraint systems available. If we are really concerned about the overall numbers of TBI, shall we insist upon 5-point harnesses for starters?

For other people to diminish my choices in life is not their option. I will not abide this rude show of force.

Posted: Thu May 17, 2007 8:06 am
_________________
Penny Adams
Virginia Freedom Riders - Legislative Officer

"Government is too big and too important to be left to the politicians."
Chester Bowles (1901 - 1986)

Bodicca · Joined: 05 Oct 2009 Posts: 1

Allan Cronshaw is a socio-pathic cult leader that spews strawman arguments to justify him being the reincarnation of St. James (of the Bible).

His harrasment of the legal system is right on with his pathetic antisemitic and antiChristian hate filled counter-theology.

Hold him up as an example for defending our freedoms and rights, is like holding up a KKK talking head for civil rights activism.