A.K.A. ROAD PIZZA
"Gould" <ljgee@no-spam> wrote in message news:<becs1g$pjq$1@no-spam>...
> "Ben Quick" <onlyblacksocks@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:a70694cf.0307071155.8bdecba@no-spam
> > Rendell signs helmet-law repeal
> >
> >
> > The Associated Press
> > 7/7/2003, 2:27 p.m. ET
> >
> >
> > HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) - Gov. Ed Rendell has signed the bill to repeal
> > Pennsylvania's helmet law for most motorcyclists and passengers. It takes
> > effect Sept. 4.
> >
> > The new law will make helmets optional for most adult motorcyclists in
> > Pennsylvania. Passengers may ride bare-headed too, so long as they ride with
> > someone qualified to ride without a helmet. It mandates helmets for bikers
> > with less than two years of riding experience, but the waiting period will
> > be waived for anyone who completes a motorcycle-safety course. Riders
> > younger than 21 must wear helmets.
> >
> > Rendell signed the bill without fanfare Sunday and announced it Monday, but
> > it will not become law until 60 days after it was signed.
> >
> > Many bikers unfamiliar with the legislative process have been calling the
> > Pennsylvania Alliance of Bikers Aimed Toward Education, which led the effort
> > to repeal the present law, for clarification on the effective date. On its
> > Web site, the group has posted a warning: "Do not ride without a helmet
> > yet!"
> >
> > "We're just trying to put people wise to that," said Charles Umbenhauer,
> > lobbyist for the 7,000-member organization.
> >
> > Both houses of the Legislature passed the bill by comfortable margins,
> > culminating more than two decades of unsuccessful attempts by motorcycle
> > groups to repeal the law.
> >
> > Pennsylvania is currently one of 20 states that requires all motorcycle
> > riders to wear helmets. Repeal advocates said motorcyclists should have the
> > option of going without helmets. Medical and insurance groups argued that it
> > would increase injuries and deaths, as well as the cost of caring for trauma
> > victims.
> >
> >
> > Copyright 2003 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
>
> I knew eventually there would be something I liked about Ed Rendell. Ride On.
>
> It's the rider's head. Let him/her damage it as they see fit.
On Mon, 7 Jul 2003 18:25:00 -0400, Gould <ljgee@no-spam> wrote:
>I knew eventually there would be something I liked about Ed Rendell. Ride On.
>
>It's the rider's head. Let him/her damage it as they see fit.
Over the last couple of years I've been seeing more and more
people without helmets so....
Same with bicycle riders. Most people I see now don't wear
helmets.
KByrd
This is a great concept. Repealing the helmet law will thin the herd at the
shallow end of the gene pool making the entire planet a better place to be.
JR
"Karen Y Byrd" <kybyrd@no-spam> wrote in message
news:slrn3vsbglf0q.2e2k.kybyrd@no-spam
> On Mon, 7 Jul 2003 18:25:00 -0400, Gould <ljgee@no-spam> wrote:
> >I knew eventually there would be something I liked about Ed Rendell. Ride
On.
> >
> >It's the rider's head. Let him/her damage it as they see fit.
>
> Over the last couple of years I've been seeing more and more
> people without helmets so....
>
> Same with bicycle riders. Most people I see now don't wear
> helmets.
>
> KByrd
The bicycle helmet stuff for children is really silly. I road on a bike for my
entire childhood and I can't remember once falling off the bike and hitting my
head. I don't think I fell off my bike that often at all. If I did I probably
scraped my knees or hands. It happened so rarely I just don;t recall it
happening. I don't remember anyone ever falling off their bike and hitting
their heads. It just doesn't happen often enough to warrant legislating helmet
use for children on bicycles. As for motorcyclists they are grown people and
should be able to decide for themselves.
I can tell you are no lawyer! Bless You!
jralessi@no-spam (JR) wrote in message news:<lIBOa.3113$x35.1920128@no-spam>...
> This is a great concept. Repealing the helmet law will thin the herd at the
> shallow end of the gene pool making the entire planet a better place to be.
>
> JR
Our elected officials must have run up against the
trial lawyers........More busted heads and brain
damaged people mean high dollar settlements. That is
why our state has no mandatory selt belt law like
other states.
Too bad our politicians must take their orders from
them. Hell, most politicians at the state level or
higher are lawyers.
onlyblacksocks@no-spam (Ben Quick) wrote in message news:<a70694cf.0307071155.8bdecba@no-spam>...
> Rendell signs helmet-law repeal
>
>
> The Associated Press
> 7/7/2003, 2:27 p.m. ET
>
>
> HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) ? Gov. Ed Rendell has signed the bill to repeal
> Pennsylvania's helmet law for most motorcyclists and passengers. It takes
> effect Sept. 4.
>
> The new law will make helmets optional for most adult motorcyclists in
> Pennsylvania. Passengers may ride bare-headed too, so long as they ride with
> someone qualified to ride without a helmet. It mandates helmets for bikers
> with less than two years of riding experience, but the waiting period will
> be waived for anyone who completes a motorcycle-safety course. Riders
> younger than 21 must wear helmets.
>
> Rendell signed the bill without fanfare Sunday and announced it Monday, but
> it will not become law until 60 days after it was signed.
>
> Many bikers unfamiliar with the legislative process have been calling the
> Pennsylvania Alliance of Bikers Aimed Toward Education, which led the effort
> to repeal the present law, for clarification on the effective date. On its
> Web site, the group has posted a warning: "Do not ride without a helmet
> yet!"
>
> "We're just trying to put people wise to that," said Charles Umbenhauer,
> lobbyist for the 7,000-member organization.
>
> Both houses of the Legislature passed the bill by comfortable margins,
> culminating more than two decades of unsuccessful attempts by motorcycle
> groups to repeal the law.
>
> Pennsylvania is currently one of 20 states that requires all motorcycle
> riders to wear helmets. Repeal advocates said motorcyclists should have the
> option of going without helmets. Medical and insurance groups argued that it
> would increase injuries and deaths, as well as the cost of caring for trauma
> victims.
>
>
> Copyright 2003 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
"Gould" <ljgee@no-spam> wrote in message
news:beepml$ll4$1@no-spam
>
> "Karen Y Byrd" <kybyrd@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:slrn3vsbglf0q.2e2k.kybyrd@no-spam
> > On Mon, 7 Jul 2003 18:25:00 -0400, Gould <ljgee@no-spam> wrote:
> > >I knew eventually there would be something I liked about Ed Rendell.
Ride
> On.
> > >
> > >It's the rider's head. Let him/her damage it as they see fit.
> >
> > Over the last couple of years I've been seeing more and more
> > people without helmets so....
> >
> > Same with bicycle riders. Most people I see now don't wear
> > helmets.
> >
> > KByrd
>
> The bicycle helmet stuff for children is really silly. I road on a bike
for my
> entire childhood and I can't remember once falling off the bike and
hitting my
> head. I don't think I fell off my bike that often at all. If I did I
probably
> scraped my knees or hands. It happened so rarely I just don;t recall it
> happening. I don't remember anyone ever falling off their bike and hitting
> their heads. It just doesn't happen often enough to warrant legislating
helmet
> use for children on bicycles. As for motorcyclists they are grown people
and
> should be able to decide for themselves.
>
>
"Bicyclists admitted to hospital with head injuries are 20 times as likely
to die as those without"
http://www.helmets.org/henderso.htm
Natural selection at its best!
"JR" <jralessi@no-spam> wrote in message
news:lIBOa.3113$x35.1920128@no-spam
> This is a great concept. Repealing the helmet law will thin the herd at
the
> shallow end of the gene pool making the entire planet a better place to
be.
>
> JR
>
In article <becs1g$pjq$1@no-spam>,
"Gould" <ljgee@no-spam> wrote:
>
> I knew eventually there would be something I liked about Ed Rendell. Ride On.
>
> It's the rider's head. Let him/her damage it as they see fit.
As long as the rider pays for the consequences of such foolishness, I
agree. Darwin's theory of Natural Selection will do its work.
So the next question is: Should they repeal the seat belt law?
We have as much right to kill ourselves in our cars as motorcyclists do on
their motorcycles!
"Me" <srhi@no-spam> wrote in message
news:srhi-F9566A.21140814072003@no-spam
> In article <becs1g$pjq$1@no-spam>,
> "Gould" <ljgee@no-spam> wrote:
> >
> > I knew eventually there would be something I liked about Ed Rendell.
Ride On.
> >
> > It's the rider's head. Let him/her damage it as they see fit.
>
> As long as the rider pays for the consequences of such foolishness, I
> agree. Darwin's theory of Natural Selection will do its work.
"Me" <srhi@no-spam> wrote in message
news:srhi-F9566A.21140814072003@no-spam
> In article <becs1g$pjq$1@no-spam>,
> "Gould" <ljgee@no-spam> wrote:
> >
> > I knew eventually there would be something I liked about Ed Rendell. Ride
On.
> >
> > It's the rider's head. Let him/her damage it as they see fit.
>
> As long as the rider pays for the consequences of such foolishness, I
> agree. Darwin's theory of Natural Selection will do its work.
agreed
"Jim Huratiak" <jhuratiak@no-spam> wrote in message
news:f0qdna-Ts6R1HomiXTWJgA@no-spam
> So the next question is: Should they repeal the seat belt law?
>
> We have as much right to kill ourselves in our cars as motorcyclists do on
> their motorcycles!
>
>
> "Me" <srhi@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:srhi-F9566A.21140814072003@no-spam
> > In article <becs1g$pjq$1@no-spam>,
> > "Gould" <ljgee@no-spam> wrote:
> > >
> > > I knew eventually there would be something I liked about Ed Rendell.
> Ride On.
> > >
> > > It's the rider's head. Let him/her damage it as they see fit.
> >
> > As long as the rider pays for the consequences of such foolishness, I
> > agree. Darwin's theory of Natural Selection will do its work.
>
>
The seat belt law is just as silly as the helmet law. I never wear a seat
belt. Think of me as you will. I can't stand the damned things. I never could
stand riding my motorcycle with that hot ass helmet on either. Riding without
it is the greatest. To each his own however. And that's the way it should be.
In article <f0qdna-Ts6R1HomiXTWJgA@no-spam>,
"Jim Huratiak" <jhuratiak@no-spam> wrote:
> So the next question is: Should they repeal the seat belt law?
>
> We have as much right to kill ourselves in our cars as motorcyclists do on
> their motorcycles!
I am on the fence on that issue. With a motorcycle, much less damage can
be done to others than an out of control car. One must be securely
fastened behind the wheel of a car in order to control it properly and
prevent it from crashing into other cars. That's not really true on a
motorcycle where seatbelts are simply not an option. An unbelted
automobile driver can cause a lot of damage to other people and their
property while not sustaining any injury to him or herself.
"Me" <srhi@no-spam> wrote in message
news:srhi-DACB5E.08104416072003@no-spam
> In article <f0qdna-Ts6R1HomiXTWJgA@no-spam>,
> "Jim Huratiak" <jhuratiak@no-spam> wrote:
>
> > So the next question is: Should they repeal the seat belt law?
> >
> > We have as much right to kill ourselves in our cars as motorcyclists do
on
> > their motorcycles!
>
> I am on the fence on that issue. With a motorcycle, much less damage can
> be done to others than an out of control car. One must be securely
> fastened behind the wheel of a car in order to control it properly and
> prevent it from crashing into other cars.
How do you figure that? I don't know where to look, but I strongly doubt
that there is a realationship between seat belt usage and accident rates.
I'm quite secure in my seat when driving, seatbelt or not.
That's not really true on a
> motorcycle where seatbelts are simply not an option. An unbelted
> automobile driver can cause a lot of damage to other people and their
> property while not sustaining any injury to him or herself.
This is a _real_ stretch on justifying seat belt laws
In article <f0qdna-Ts6R1HomiXTWJgA@no-spam>, "Jim Huratiak" <jhuratiak@no-spam> wrote:
>So the next question is: Should they repeal the seat belt law?
Ther are obvious advantages not wearing a helmit by seeing more and hearing more.
What advantage is there of not wearing a seat belt? being able to reach over to the other side of
the car to wind a window?
greg
> "Bicyclists admitted to hospital with head injuries are 20 times as
> likely to die as those without"
> http://www.helmets.org/henderso.htm
>
So in effect, the helmet law repeal is really supposed to help the
insurance industry. Hmmm.
Joel
He didn't have choice. He pandered for the hillbilly, moron vote.
"Joel Whitburn, Jr." <beegees@no-spam> wrote in message
news:DNednXaUjowGdUKiRVn-uA@no-spam
> > "Bicyclists admitted to hospital with head injuries are 20 times as
> > likely to die as those without"
> > http://www.helmets.org/henderso.htm
> >
> So in effect, the helmet law repeal is really supposed to help the
> insurance industry. Hmmm.
>
> Joel