 |  | |
| | | |
OK, upon another visit to the Helmet Law Defense League website, I noticed more stupid arguments against helmets, so I posted the following.
(I did edit this a little. I noticed I made some grammatical errors, but I was pissed and wrote in the heat of passion. This is my updated version. Sorry.)
Name: Red
Date: August 05 2003
Email Address: red@redzgixxersite.com
Homepage: http://www.redzgixxersite.com
Comments:
Ok, I read your little Helmet Hoax article, and it is total bunk. First of all, in the Constitution you believe so much in, you apparently have not read. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights is there a specified "Freedom of Choice" amendment. I do have to say that if you CHOOSE not to ride your motorcycle because you have to wear a helmet, hang up your f**cking keys, you are not a motorcyclist, your an image, or at least your looking for one. About the little neck break incident, that person would have probably died anyway, considering if he hit his head hard enough to break his neck, his brains would have scattered long before his neck broke. Your numbers, the ones stating that more people die wearing helmets than not...Ha!...I have to laugh. First off, what those statistics fail to mention, point out, or notice, is that most of those injuries were NOT head/helmet related. There are millions of fatal variables involved in motorcycle accidents. Furthermore, another little thing that is overlooked is that if the helmet does save a life, it DOES NOT BECOME A STATISTIC...So, until you have all the numbers...shut up. To put an end to my little rant, you state the government can't seem to put any real hard evidence on the effectiveness of helmet use, yet you cannot effectively state their hindrance either, just complaints and excuses. To the moron below that stated that he almost got into accident because of his helmet, you need to check your riding skills buddy. Don't blame the helmet or its law because you’re a crappy rider and an unobservant idiot. Thank you.
About a week later, I received this e-mail from Quig (Richard Quigley).
Red,
After reading your entry in our guestbook, I took the time to visit your web site and read your presentation (or as much I as could stomach) of your stand on the advantages of helmets, and your opinion of those people who don't agree with you.
All I needed to see was your reference to a "non-DOT approved helmet" -- both calling the reader an idiot and explaining that that's probably what he wears all at the same time. The problem for you is that ALL helmets are non-DOT approved. DOT (as in the U.S. Department of Transportation) does not approve helmets.
Real slow now so even you can get it . . .
D. O. T. d o e s n o t
a p p r o v e h e l m e t s
( o r a n y o t h e r
v e h i c l e e q u i p m e n t ) .
Since there is no such thing as a "DOT approved" helmet, then it reasonably follows that ALL helmets are non-DOT approved. Get it? Even you, in all your sexual-intellectual (fucking idiot) glory, wear a "non-DOT approved" helmet.
Since that seems to be the limit of your actual knowledge on the subject, there's no sense in trying to present you with any additional facts.
Bottom line; you are under-educated, over-opinionated and waaaay out of your league.
It's probably best if you just sit down, shut up and learn something before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.
quig
Helmet Law Defense League
My Reply:
You people never cease to amaze me, really. You're all a bunch of fucking spin-doctors who interpret posting and publications to your own needs.
Let's nip this in the bud, shall we. I think you may have a problem understanding the difference between "approving" and "endorsing". You say there is no such thing as a "DOT Approved" helmet, well, I beg to differ. You know that little DOT/Snell label on the back of helmets. In order to get that label, the helmet manufacturer must submit the helmet model to the U.S. Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The helmet must then pass a myriad of stress and impact tests set by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 218, “Motorcycle Helmets” standard (the second link below specifies). By federal law, anything that does not pass all of the Department of Transportation's helmet safety standards cannot be sold as a motorcycle helmet. The helmet must be "APPROVED", get it! The Department of Transportation must APPROVE the helmet for sale as a motorcycle helmet to the general public (pardon my redundancy, but it seems to be the only way to make a point to you people).
Does the DOT "endorse" helmets? No. An endorsement is basically saying "You pay me enough money, and I'll put your little sticker on the back of the helmet." or, "You pay me enough money, and we'll tell everybody how good your helmets are." So of course the DOT will not endorse or receive endorsements from a motorcycle helmet company. However (here we go again) the helmets must still be tested and APPROVED for public sale. Look it up you retard. To help, here are some links.
http://www.webbikeworld.com/motorcycle-helmets/DOT-standard.htm
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/pedbimot/fmvss218.htm
http://www.dot.gov/affairs/nhtsa1103.htm
There are hundreds more, but I doubt you'll bother.
Take a look at this:
These are two of the four helmets I own. Notice the big DOT/SNELL "approved" sticker. Interesting note, these stickers are near impossible to remove in one piece with out the aid of a heating device like a hair dryer or the like. The reason is non-helmet using aficionados would steal the easily removable oval DOT sticker of old from approved helmets to put on their "beanie" helmets to avoid being pulled over.
Now what I find really odd is that of all the arguments/insults I have made, the only thing you can counter with is your ridiculous "DOT does not approve helmets" argument. WHERE THE FUCK DID YOU COME UP WITH THAT!! (Ok, I was being a bit presumptuous here myself. I was sort of wrong here...my bad!)
Though this is off the subject, I'm going to restate what I said in the posting on your site. If you have a problem riding your motorcycle with a helmet or the helmet laws keep you from riding, you're not a real motorcyclist. You people consistently spout that your "freedoms" are being infringed upon. Looking at this, I don't see how wearing a helmet is affecting any of your actions any more than other traffic laws. There a number of laws put in place by the DOT that affect how you act on the roads. Some examples are stop lights, stop signs, speed limits, crosswalks, big red flashing lights on school buses, driving under the influence, driving tired, being properly licensed, or something as simple as driving on the right side (the opposite of left, not the synonym for correct, though I guess both apply) of the road. I don't hear any arguments that stop signs are a violation of your freedoms or that you have the right to drive drunk. It's your vehicle. Why don't you fight against that? I mean, really, if you break it down, big brother is telling you what to or not to do, isn't he.
Another little item you tend to overlook is that driving a car or riding a motorcycle is a privilege, not a right. When given a privilege, you must honor and obey any law conditional to that privilege. Deal with it. The Europeans and Australians get it, I get it, why can't you? They have nationwide helmet laws, and don't make a big deal of it. They understand the safety issues. I'm sure you do too, but you just can't let go of your so-called bad-ass, rebel image that wearing a helmet seems to preclude. Get over yourself.
As I have said many, many, many times in the past, I don't think there should be a law (but I'm reconsidering) to wear helmets. Actually, I should thank you for not wearing one (law permitting). As soon as we scrape your gray matter off the asphalt, you will have cleansed the gene pool and the IQ of the motorcycling community will have gone up a couple of notches. So thank you. Fight on, you tard.
Oh, the "sexual-intellectual" comment, that's good. I like it and will probably use it in the future, thanks.
Red.