big surprise, motorcycle helmet laws save lives

What's the point of this thread, DQ? Is this simply a liberal's nod for government restrictions, or do you actually have a legitimate gripe here? Was a motorcyclist's head split open before you in traffic?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
I absolutely do drive, as is my right.
Click to expand...
Well, as far as I know, there are no states that allow you to drive without a license. I googled it, and didn't find any.

So, unless you live somewhere that doesn't require a driver's license, you'll find out exactly what your rights are when you get pulled over.

Of course, driving without a license brings a slap on the wrist, whereas driving with a suspended license brings much bigger penalties.
 
Althea said:
Well, as far as I know, there are no states that allow you to drive without a license. I googled it, and didn't find any.

So, unless you live somewhere that doesn't require a driver's license, you'll find out exactly what your rights are when you get pulled over.

Of course, driving without a license brings a slap on the wrist, whereas driving with a suspended license brings much bigger penalties.
Click to expand...
and states are NEVER wrong, are they? of course, I don't see why we even bother with a constitution anymore, since most of you prefer security theater over freedom.
 
Althea said:
It's apparent that you don't read. In post 33, you made the nonsensical argument that driving isn't a privilege.



I'm glad to hear that you're ok.

So tell me...how did your helmet get ripped off? And what would the damage have been to your head, if the helmet didn't take the brunt of the force that ripped it off?
Click to expand...

Here's Post #33.
SmarterthanYou said:
and I call bullshit, AGAIN, on your idiotic and moronic driving 'privilege'.

"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."- Thompson v Smith, 154 SE 579

"Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the l4th Amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution." - Schactman v Dulles, 96 App D.C. 287, 293.

It is settled that the streets of a city belong to the people of a state and the use thereof is an inalienable right of every citizen of the state. Whyte v. City of Sacramento, 65 Cal. App. 534, 547, 224 Pac. 1008, 1013 (1924); Escobedo v. State Dept. of Motor Vehicles (1950), 222 Pac. 2d 1, 5, 35 Cal.2d 870 (1950).

This right of the people to the use of the public streets of a city is so well established and so universally recognized in this country, that it has become a part of the alphabet of fundamental rights of the citizen. Swift v. City of Topeka, 23 Pac. 1075,1076, 43 Kansas 671, 674.

"Complete freedom of the highways is so old and well established a blessing that we have forgotten the days of the Robber Barons and toll roads, and yet, under an act like this, arbitrarily administered, the highways may be completely monopolized, if, through lack of interest, the people submit, then they may look to see the most sacred of their liberties taken from them one by one, by more or less rapid encroachment." Robertson vs. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash 133,147.

Public ways, as applied to ways by land, are usually termed “highways” or “public roads,” are such ways as every citizen has a right to use. Kripp v. Curtis, 11 P. 879; 71 Cal. 62

Every citizen has an inalienable right to make use of the public highways of the state; every citizen has full freedom to travel from place to place in the enjoyment of life and liberty. People v Nothaus, 363 P.2d 180, 182 (Colo.-1961).

Americans' "freedom to travel throughout the United States has long been recognized as a basic right under the Constitution," according to multiple cases including Williams v Fears, 179 US 270, 274; 21 S Ct 128; 45 L Ed 186 (1900); Twining v New Jersey, 211 US 78, 97; 29 S Ct 14; 53 L Ed 97 (1908), as listed in the case of United States v Guest, 383 US 745; 86 S Ct 1170; 16 L Ed 2d 239 (1968), a case involving criminally prosecuting people for obstructing the right (obstruction is a federal crime pursuant to federal criminal law 18 USC 241).
Click to expand...

Please show where I made such a comment.

The paramedics said I would have still had a concusion; but the result would have been the same.
The reason being is that I T-Boned the VW, stayed on the bike, and moved down the passanger side, to the rear end of the VW.
So I hit my head on the roof of the VW, after most of the "brunt force" of the accident had already occured.
Witnesses said that when I reached the end of the VW, that the bike (with me still on it) just kind of fell over; because there was no momentum left.

The witnesses said that when I fell, that I tried to put my right hand out to break my fall and that's when I ended up breaking my wrist.
 
Derp Derp said:
Who cares. It's an irrelevent point to anyone but a political ideologue. The facts are is that it's extremely risky behavior to ride a motorcycle with out a helmet and those who do so are at best using questionable judgement and at worst are just plain stupid.

His basic argument is also bogus. You don't have a right to travel in any way you want on a publicly funded road. I can't ride my bicycle on the insterstate nor can I drive a tractor down a limited access highway. Now if I owned those roads I could but I don't. The public does and since the public pays for those roads they have a right to manage how they are used by the public. Regulating how public roads are used is not the same as denying one a right to travel. That's just a plain silly notion.

My advice to STY is that if he does not like the way in which our public roads are managed he's quite free to build his own roads and travel on them.
Click to expand...

Since more people die in auto accidents, should it be mandated that people should wear a helmet while in a car?
 
 
The funny thing is, conservatives would still purchase car insurance (albeit at cheaper premiums) if it weren't mandatory, because they are much more economically saavy. Liberals wouldn't, though, because if the government isn't mandating it then it must not be important...
 
Threedee said:
The funny thing is, conservatives would still purchase car insurance (albeit at cheaper premiums) if it weren't mandatory, because they are much more economically saavy. Liberals wouldn't, though, because if the government isn't mandating it then it must not be important...
Click to expand...

Interesting claim. I suppose you can back it up.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
I will exercise my 5th Amendment Right and not say. It does get insured though, even though that's unconstitutional as well, but it still belongs to the bank so it's necessary.
Click to expand...
I didn't think you could answer...so either your spouse, or your parents insure the vehicle(s).

And when you have an accident, they'll probably have trouble getting insurance again. Or their rates will skyrocket.

So much trouble, just to avoid obtaining the privilege to drive.
 
Althea said:
I didn't think you could answer...so either your spouse, or your parents insure the vehicle(s).

And when you have an accident, they'll probably have trouble getting insurance again. Or their rates will skyrocket.

So much trouble, just to avoid obtaining the privilege to drive.
Click to expand...
RIGHT to drive, or are you being liberally obtuse regarding the numerous court decisions I posted?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
RIGHT to drive, or are you being liberally obtuse regarding the numerous court decisions I posted?
Click to expand...
You can continue to make false claims about the right you think you have to drive on public roads.

Are you also claiming that driving without a license will bring no penalty when you are caught?
 
\\()// said:
LOL.

Do you demand that illegal immigrants be denied driving licenses?
Click to expand...
I'm sure he'll argue that illegals don't enjoy the same rights that citizens do
However, you might want to ask him about elderly people who are denied the privilege of driving, once they are deemed unable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top