Kawasaki Concours Forum
Mish mash => Open Forum => Topic started by: timsatx on May 17, 2011, 03:24:55 PM
-
Texas House of Representatives Passes “Sport Bike” Law
Could establish dangerous precedent for Texas motorcyclists
On May 4th the House passed House bill 2470, which defines “sport bikes” as a separate class of motorcycles and places special restrictions on the operators of “sport bikes”. The bill would also require motorcycles designed to carry more than one person to be equipped with passenger foot pegs and handholds for use by the passenger.
While the requirement for passenger accommodations is redundant (these requirements are addressed in federal regulation) the AMA is most concerned by the state’s arbitrary definition of “sport bike” and the potential of establishing a dangerous precedent of regulating motorcycles and motorcyclists differently based on this definition.
The bill’s definition of “sport bike” is so broad that it may even be counterproductive to motorcycle safety. In a position statement, the Motorcycle Industry Council (MIC) observed that,
There are small displacement (250 cc) motorcycles that, because of the vague and subjective criteria proposed, would be included in the definition of “sport bike” that are as appropriate, or more so, for novice riders than certain other larger displacement motorcycles that create much more horsepower yet would not fall under the “sport bike” definition and therefore not have restrictions placed on them.
HB 2470 is currently in the state Senate.
The AMA encourages all Texas motorcyclists to review the legislation which is posted on the StateWatch section of AmericianMotorcyclist.com and contact their state senator with their concerns.
I got this in an email from the AMA.
-
In reading the bill I see nothing about Sport Tourers..... I wonder if they consider them Sport Bikes? What is considered to be a light weight frame? We do lean over the tank somewhat. We are equipped to carry passengers so I think we're ok there. I wonder what precipitated the bill? Will there be Sport Bike only checkpoints now? Too many questions on this one.
-
Here's a legislative summary for the bill.
Legislative Summary
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
Sport bikes are high-powered motorcycles that are becoming increasingly popular in Texas. These bikes can reach very high speeds, and when used improperly, can be dangerous. With the high speed and maneuverability of these bikes, it is important that the bikes are properly equipped to support passengers, that passengers are knowledgeable of motorcycle safety regulations, and that the sport bike operators have sufficient experience before carrying a passenger on the bike. C.S.H.B. 2470 sets out regulations relating to the operation of sport bikes.
RULEMAKING AUTHORITY
It is the committee's opinion that this bill does not expressly grant any additional rulemaking authority to a state officer, department, agency, or institution.
ANALYSIS
C.S.H.B. 2470 amends the Transportation Code to include a sport bike as a motorcycle for the purpose of a provision of law establishing that a Class M driver's license authorizes the holder of the license to operate a motorcycle or a moped. The bill prohibits an operator, in addition to the requirements and prohibitions under provisions of law relating to riding a motorcycle, from carrying another person on a sport bike unless the sport bike is designed to carry more than one person and the operator is at least 18 years of age and has had a Class M license for at least two years or unless the other person is at least 18 years of age and holds a Class M license or is a certified motorcycle operator training and safety course instructor. The bill requires an operator of a sport bike to ensure that a passenger on the sport bike complies with all Department of Public Safety regulations relating to motorcycle safety. The bill requires a sport bike designed to carry more than one person to be equipped with foot pegs and handholds for use by a passenger on the sport bike.
C.S.H.B. 2470 defines "sport bike" to mean a motorcycle that is optimized for speed, acceleration, braking, and maneuverability on paved roads; that has a lightweight frame; on which the operator leans forward over the gas tank during operation; and that is not a touring, cruising, standard, or dual-sport motorcycle. The bill includes a sport bike in the definition of "motorcycle" for purposes of provisions of law relating to protective headgear for motorcycle operators and passengers.
C.S.H.B. 2470 provides a short title, Malorie's Law, for purposes of citing its provisions. The bill makes a conforming change.
EFFECTIVE DATE
September 1, 2011.
COMPARISON OF ORIGINAL AND SUBSTITUTE
C.S.H.B. 2470 differs from the original in nonsubstantive ways in the provision defining "sport bike." The substitute differs from the original in other nonsubstantive ways by using language reflective of certain bill drafting conventions.
__________________
Also known as Malorie's Law. Here's some text from a website I found.
(http://firstladiesoftheroundtable.org/images/malorie%20bullock.jpg)
Malorie Elise Bullock, a 19 years of age Honor’s College student at Texas A&M University of Commerce, tragically lost her life April 8th 2010, while a passenger on a light weight motorcycle (crotch rocket). This petition is to help prevent further injury or death as a result of being a passenger on light weight motorcycles.
Riders and passengers of light weight motorcycles are required to obtain a permit for carrying a passenger or being a passenger on these motorcycles. Riders carrying passengers may only be experienced riders with the knowledge of changes and adjustments which are needed to carry passengers. A knowledge written test and rider’s skills test will be required, with a passing score, to obtain a passenger permit.
Riders and passengers will be ticketed when either one or both do not have a permit for passengers while riding on the light weight motorcycles.
http://firstladiesoftheroundtable.org/MaloriesLaw.aspx (http://firstladiesoftheroundtable.org/MaloriesLaw.aspx)
From the same website:
Malorie's Law
A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT
relating to the regulation of sport bikes and certain other
motorcycles.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. This Act shall be known as Malorie ' s Law .
SECTION 2. Section 521.084, Transportation Code, is amended
to read as follows:
Sec. 521.084. CLASS M LICENSE. A Class M driver's license
authorizes the holder of the license to operate a motorcycle,
including a sport bike as defined by Section 541.201, or a moped.
SECTION 3. Section 541.201, Transportation Code, is amended
by adding Subdivision (18-a) to read as follows:
(18-a) "Sport bike" means a motorcycle:
(A) that is optimized for speed, acceleration,
braking, and maneuverability on paved roads;
(B) that has a lightweight frame;
(C) on which the operator leans forward over the
gas tank during operation; and
(D) that is not a touring, cruising, standard, or
dual-sport motorcycle.
SECTION 4. Subchapter I, Chapter 545, Transportation Code,
is amended by adding Section 545.4161 to read as follows:
Sec. 545.4161. OPERATION OF SPORT BIKE. (a) In addition to
the requirements and prohibitions under Section 545.416, an
operator may not carry another person on a sport bike unless the
sport bike is designed to carry more than one person and:
(1) the operator:
(A) is at least 18 years of age; and
(B) has had a Class M license for at least two
years; or
(2) the other person:
(A) is at least 18 years of age and holds a Class
M license; or
(B) is a motorcycle operator training and safety
course instructor certified under Chapter 662.
(b) An operator of a sport bike shall ensure that a
passenger on the sport bike complies with all department
regulations relating to motorcycle safety.
SECTION 5. The heading to Subchapter M, Chapter 547,
Transportation Code, is amended to read as follows:
SUBCHAPTER M. ADDITIONAL OR ALTERNATIVE EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR
MOTORCYCLES, [AND] MOTOR-DRIVEN CYCLES, AND SPORT BIKES
SECTION 6. Subchapter M, Chapter 547, Transportation Code,
is amended by adding Section 547.803 to read as follows:
Sec. 547.803. SAFETY EQUIPMENT. If a motorcycle, including
a sport bike, is designed to carry more than one person, the
motorcycle must be equipped with foot pegs and handholds for use by
a passenger on the motorcycle.
SECTION 7. Section 661.001(1), Transportation Code, is
amended to read as follows:
(1) "Motorcycle" means a motor vehicle designed to
propel itself with not more than three wheels in contact with the
ground, and having a saddle for the use of the rider. The term
includes a sport bike, as defined by Section 541.201. The term does
not include a tractor or a three-wheeled vehicle equipped with a cab
or occupant compartment, seat, and seat belt and designed to
contain the operator in the cab or occupant compartment.
SECTION 8. This Act takes effect September 1, 2011.
So, if I'm reading this right, to give your girlfriend/SO a ride on your Sport Bike, she also has to have a Class M Motorcycle license. Hmmm...
-
That's the way I read it as well. Hmm interesting.... I can see 'maybe' the other stuff but requiring a passenger to have a motorcycle license as well? I don't see this going very far but you never know... Sorry about the girl, though.
-
The way I read it was to give your girlfriend or SO a ride she has to have her class M license OR YOU have to have your class M license for at least 2 years. I don't know how it works in Texas, but here in Ohio while you have your temp learning permit, you cannot have a passenger (along with other stipulations as well). Also, during your first year of having your license, you and your passenger are required to wear a helmet (why you would not wear helmet is beyond me, I happen to like my brain). I don't like putting different restrictions on different types of motorcycles.
-
It sounds like the same morons who wrote the assault rifle definition years ago wrote this anti-motorcycle bill.
-
It sounds like the same morons who wrote the assault rifle definition years ago wrote this anti-motorcycle bill.
That pretty much describes the entire Texas legislature AND their idiot governor.
-
The way I read it was to give your girlfriend or SO a ride she has to have her class M license OR YOU have to have your class M license for at least 2 years.
That appears to be the correct reading of it.
The bill prohibits an operator, in addition to the requirements and prohibitions under provisions of law relating to riding a motorcycle, from carrying another person on a sport bike unless the sport bike is designed to carry more than one person and the operator is at least 18 years of age and has had a Class M license for at least two years or unless the other person is at least 18 years of age and holds a Class M license or is a certified motorcycle operator training and safety course instructor.
Although the "is a certified motorcycle operator training and safety course instructor" clause seems redundant, as I would think that anyone who meets those qualifications would also be at least 18 and hold a current motorcycle license.
-
Just another 'feel-good', 'do-something' law designed to protect us from ourselves...
-
Just another 'feel-good', 'do-something' law designed to protect us from ourselves...
. . . or to protect passengers from idiot stuntah wanna-be's?
-
Just another 'feel-good', 'do-something' law designed to protect us from ourselves...
+1
-
The way I read it was to give your girlfriend or SO a ride she has to have her class M license OR YOU have to have your class M license for at least 2 years. I don't know how it works in Texas, but here in Ohio while you have your temp learning permit, you cannot have a passenger (along with other stipulations as well). Also, during your first year of having your license, you and your passenger are required to wear a helmet (why you would not wear helmet is beyond me, I happen to like my brain). I don't like putting different restrictions on different types of motorcycles.
This makes a little more sense, and is more agreeable I think. That OR really changes the context.
That being said, its laws like this that make you wonder how any of us ever survived our own childhoods! You know, back in the day when people were responsible for their own lives and actions, and didn't need to government to tell us not to do stupid things.
-
A similar policy debate was brewing in Ontario last year, but no changes were made to the Highway Traffic Act.....yet!
http://www.torontosun.com/news/torontoandgta/2010/08/28/15172156.html (http://www.torontosun.com/news/torontoandgta/2010/08/28/15172156.html)
-
. . . or to protect passengers from idiot stuntah wanna-be's?
I don't think that'll be the case in practice. Passing an exam of some sort doesn't make you good. Besides in most cases anything mandated by the state usually becomes a joke. You pay your money, show up for an afternoon, and get your paper. The state will collect some money on the new licensing or testing if only through taxes and, when they write up some noob kid, they'll tack one more thing onto the ticket. No one gets any safer.
People have to realize that making new laws almost never makes people safer. All you can really do is hold people accountable.
-
. . . or to protect passengers from idiot stuntah wanna-be's?
Yeah, god-forbid that any passenger be responsible for making that decision for themselves... :P
-
Yeah, god-forbid that any passenger be responsible for making that decision for themselves...
A lot of passengers that haven't been around bikes don't have a clue about what they're getting into. Add a young stud who wants to show off, and the passenger has no idea what she's in for:
Girl falls off motorcycle (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jI7gk9GnGiQ#)
On Sunday, day before 2009 COG National we rode in on the dragon to Fontana, and saw a CBR stuffed under a guardrail. A young woman had fallen off as a passenger and was killed. She was about 28 and had 3 kids.
I also recall the road rash poster girl, who although familiar with bikes, jumps on the back of one in a hooded sweatshirt and the guys proceeds to go ~140mph and looses her off the back.
I wonder if this legislative direction is similar to the graded motorcycle licensing in Europe.
-
I think it makes sense, but should apply to all motorcycles, not just sport bikes. You tell me if want your kid climbing onto the back of a bike with some idiot who just got his license...
-
You tell me if want your kid climbing onto the back of a bike with some idiot who just got his license...
Hmm... Posed that way, the question makes me think a bit longer. But, I still think I need to trust my kids to make good decisions, and I hope I've raised them to do so.
I'd like to trust my gov't representatives to spend their time on more pressing issues than a new law every time some young person gets injured or killed. It's tragic, and I'm glad I'm not in the girl's parents' shoes, but is there a rash of these incidents that I'm not aware of? Is this type of thing hurting more people than drunk drivers?
I thought Texans had more common sense.
-
Another law that won't be followed by the people it's directed at.
Just like the laws here in CT, that state that for the first six months of a kid having their driver's license they aren't permitted to have ANY kids in their car when they drive... including siblings. The following six months they can have a sibling in the car, but only if a parent is with them.
Even with this law, the kids do whatever they want. Last Feb four kids were killed locally when the driver hit a tree. The driver was 16, and only had a learner permit. They "borrowed" his girlfriend's mom's car.
-
A lot of passengers that haven't been around bikes don't have a clue about what they're getting into.
Sorry, but I believe in personal responsibility. Anybody who does anything and doesn't have a clue as to what they're getting into is simply asking for trouble. It is very regrettable when someones personal decision costs them their lives, but nobody has ever successfully claimed that life is fair...
As far as your poster girl, she has stated that it was her own fault for getting on a bike without protective gear... and now actively campaigns for ATGATT...
I could support a law stating that all motorcyclists were banned from having passengers for the first two years of their license. I could support a law stating that anyone under 21 could not have passengers under 21. But for the nanny state to single out sport bikes just because a few passengers trusted the wrong people or made misinformed choices is not something I can or will support...
-
I'd like to think that I will raise my kids (they're real young) to think better than this. It's not a terribly useful law, but I don't see it as a bad thing either.
-
interesting thing in that area paper:
http://mydeathspace.com/article/2010/10/07/Malorie_Bullock_(19)_died_when_a_truck_pulled_out_in_front_of_the_motorcycle_that_she_and_her_boyfriend_were_riding (http://mydeathspace.com/article/2010/10/07/Malorie_Bullock_(19)_died_when_a_truck_pulled_out_in_front_of_the_motorcycle_that_she_and_her_boyfriend_were_riding)
"The other accident occurred at approximately 9:30 p.m. Thursday, when two other A&M-Commerce students were injured after being struck by a vehicle.
According to a statement issued Friday afternoon by the Commerce Police Department, the accident occurred in the crosswalk area of Highway 24/50.
An initial investigation by the department revealed two students were at the median about to cross the northbound lane going east. The male and female students started walking towards the campus when an sport utility vehicle traveling northbound struck both individuals. The driver was unclear as to what she had struck and continued traveling northbound to the next turn around area, then returned to the scene. "
-
Sorry, but I believe in personal responsibility. Anybody who does anything and doesn't have a clue as to what they're getting into is simply asking for trouble. It is very regrettable when someones personal decision costs them their lives, but nobody has ever successfully claimed that life is fair...
As far as your poster girl, she has stated that it was her own fault for getting on a bike without protective gear... and now actively campaigns for ATGATT...
She's not my 'poster girl'. But hey that's all cool. I only used it to show that people can think they know what you're getting into, but if the idiot twisting the throttle doesn't, you are in deep stuff. Same with the other two examples.
For sake of discussion, how can someone have a clue if they don't understand bikes. What's the difference between a racy looking modern moped and a sport bike that goes 186 mph to the un-informed?
Mr. 18 year old says 'hey want a ride' to the hot clueless 16 year old (or younger) girl. How could she possibly make an informed decision when she doesn't have a clue? Neither of them are likely to have a lot of common sense in the first place. I know 'cuz I were one once.
We all do lots of pre-emptive things without thinking, only because early 'pioneers' crashed and burned, allowing us and others to learn from their mistakes and / or lack of knowledge.
-
When I was a kid we had a bull in the field next door. Keep in mind, I was under 10, yet I could tell from the size of the thing and the sharp pointy things poking out his head that I needed to go around that pasture. Didnt need Pappy or anyone else to tell me and I certainly didnt need a law. Anyone who has ever fallen while wearing a pair of shorts understands the pain associated with a skinned knee, it isnt a far stretch to imagine pavement on unprotected body parts and the soon to be felt pain. This is another example of the nanny state commanding more control over a persons life, nothing more, nothing less.
I soon expect a law banning death, totaly unenforceable, yet required in some politicians grand scheme of things. Every step taken brings us one step closer to death, some steps are longer or faster, but closer none the less.
-
I could support a law stating that all motorcyclists were banned from having passengers for the first two years of their license. I could support a law stating that anyone under 21 could not have passengers under 21. But for the nanny state to single out sport bikes just because a few passengers trusted the wrong people or made misinformed choices is not something I can or will support...
I agree. I never came out to say I thought the legistation great. Just to point out that its understandable and that Euro style licensing probably came from the same ideas.
Your point is valid. A kid can kill a boatload of their friends just as easily in a station wagon as a Hi-Per sports car.
It would make sense to 'target' the inexperienced riders with licensing restrictions like overseas. The legislation in question is crafted by people who are likely ignorant about motorcycles as evidenced in the 'criteria' they use to try and define sport bikes.
-
I soon expect a law banning death, totaly unenforceable
LOL, we already have that. Suicide is illegal, but its kinda hard to bring the justice system to bear on the offenders ! :o
-
LOL, we already have that. Suicide is illegal, but its kinda hard to bring the justice system to bear on the offenders ! :o
Not really, Dr assisted suicide is legal in WA state, lots of hoops, but legal none the less. If I eat 25 Triple whoppers a day and die of fatness, is it illegal?
My entire point in the bull story is it is quite obvious that a mototcycle is dangerous. More laws restrict something that is obvious and equates to control. What ever happened to holding an individual accountable for their choices/actions? Mama nature dont need no stinking laws, what is, is. Life is fair, it is the choices made that just make it seem unfair. Given equal circumstances, mama nature always produces the same results, nothing emotional about it.
-
Not really, Dr assisted suicide is legal in WA state, lots of hoops, but legal none the less. If I eat 25 Triple whoppers a day and die of fatness, is it illegal?.
Not if you go quick, but if you linger and become a burden on society.....
-
Not if you go quick, but if you linger and become a burden on society.....
\
A burden is a burden ;) Someone will either carry it out of choice, or be forced to carry it. If the burden is worthless, no one will choose to carry it. If a law has no value, will folks choose to follow it?
-
+1
+2
Here in Florida, we've seen all sorts of stuff in the name of "safety" that ends up endangering our rights and costing the taxpayer or small business person bundles. We have a red light camera bill complete with victim's name just like the bill you have in Texas. You're now guilty until proven innocent. We also had changes to parasailing regulations that will put most operators out of business because of all of the people killed parasailing here in the past 10 years. How many you ask?
1,000?
No.
100?
No, but a little warmer.
10?
Still no. Keep going.
The answer: 4
So now the proposed law (not sure if it passed, hopefully not) went from having a million dollar liability policy to 2 million just like that. The industry is already regulated on the water by the Coast Guard & in the air by the FAA. One of the Senators on the panel nailed it when he said we'll put the weekend operators out of business and that this was an inherently dangerous activity, and finally that the government cannot protect us from every dangerous activity we pursue. He was outvoted like 7-1. BTW, I don't have a dog in that fight but was in the committee room for another bill when they were debating this one.
Don't get me started on Motorcycle Only Checkpoints (http://www.bigbendbikersforfreedom.com/2011/03/us-defenders-stand-on-motorcycle-only.html)!
-
I'd like to think that I will raise my kids (they're real young) to think better than this. It's not a terribly useful law, but I don't see it as a bad thing either.
Not to pick on you, but this attitude really perturbs me. So many ways to look at this. The road to hell being paved with good intentions is one of them. Another is the attitude many have that if it isn't effecting me it doesn't matter to me. For example, I don't smoke, can't stand the stuff, but I hate the law here in Arkansas that makes all work environments smoke free. You can't have a smoking section in a restaurant anymore. Like I'm too stupid to choose non-smoking section or choose a different place all together. So the inconvenience to smokers is no sweat to me, but it's a reduction in liberty and dang it, that shouldn't be tolerated.
I suppose I may not be fairly characterizing what you are trying to say, but it's the laissez-faire attitude that bothers me. Hmm, that's ironic. That term really means 'let it be' yet that is sort of the opposite of what this law does. It's the opposite of freedom from state intervention.
-
With the exception that it targets "Sport Bikes" this law does not one thing harmful. All laws are merely guidelines anyway. You cannot force someone to act in a certain manner. You always have a choice. Since this is a licensing issue, this information will be on the test to get a motorcycle license. Then everybody who gets a MC on their license will know what the rules are, what a good idea is and is not. If the rules are there, you can hold someone accountable. Someone is ALWAYS accountable, and it's usually the driver. If the passenger is a licensed motorcycle driver, they know about motorcycles and are better informed to make those decisions. If the MC driver has had a license for more than two years, they are hopefully a little more skilled than your average squid and therefore hopefully a little safer.
In my mind, this law is more about holding someone accountable than actually regulating motorcycles.
-
And before the personal responsibility argument comes back, when that person makes a decision to get on the back of your motorcycle, you are personally responsible for their safety.
-
So you have to be 18, not the current 16, to drive a Ninja 250? :o
-
I don't think you should be able to drive anything on public roads until 18... One of the few things the Brits got right.
-
I fully disagree with you on the smoking ban in the workplace. Without absolute smoke free rules there will be asshats who flaunt those rules and smoke inside the building, in their offic,e in a conference room or right next to the door. There is no way a restaurant can have a non smoking area in the middle of the room and still have no smoke. Smokers infringe on my liberty and right to not be exposed to a health hazard imposed by others optional actions.
It is different to require a tiered licensing structure like Europe or Japan on motorcycle usage. That would make perfect sense, save lives, and increase sales of lower cc bikes in the US. BUT it will cost $$$ to set up and maintain.
By requiring a motorcycle passenger to have a license or permit to ride would really limit a biker's ability to pick up girls, so I am against it. But I am also against the sale of a high powered superbike to an inexperienced rider. I have seen motorcycle salespeople pushing a Gixxer on a newbie, since there was one in stock. Stupid.
Adrenaline junkie? Yep. I was 25 years ago. That's why I had a series of sportbikes in my 20s. Lucky I didn't kill myself. Just luck. Not smarts.
Not to pick on you, but this attitude really perturbs me. So many ways to look at this. The road to hell being paved with good intentions is one of them. Another is the attitude many have that if it isn't effecting me it doesn't matter to me. For example, I don't smoke, can't stand the stuff, but I hate the law here in Arkansas that makes all work environments smoke free. You can't have a smoking section in a restaurant anymore. Like I'm too stupid to choose non-smoking section or choose a different place all together. So the inconvenience to smokers is no sweat to me, but it's a reduction in liberty and dang it, that shouldn't be tolerated.
I suppose I may not be fairly characterizing what you are trying to say, but it's the laissez-faire attitude that bothers me. Hmm, that's ironic. That term really means 'let it be' yet that is sort of the opposite of what this law does. It's the opposite of freedom from state intervention.
-
She's not my 'poster girl'. But hey that's all cool. I only used it to show that people can think they know what you're getting into, but if the idiot twisting the throttle doesn't, you are in deep stuff. Same with the other two examples.
For sake of discussion, how can someone have a clue if they don't understand bikes. What's the difference between a racy looking modern moped and a sport bike that goes 186 mph to the un-informed?
Mr. 18 year old says 'hey want a ride' to the hot clueless 16 year old (or younger) girl. How could she possibly make an informed decision when she doesn't have a clue? Neither of them are likely to have a lot of common sense in the first place. I know 'cuz I were one once.
We all do lots of pre-emptive things without thinking, only because early 'pioneers' crashed and burned, allowing us and others to learn from their mistakes and / or lack of knowledge.
My daughter was raised around and on bikes and had her first one at age 3 (her mom was out of town on biz and left me as designated parent :P) and when she turned 18, got her street license after completing the MSF course. She rides ATGATT mostly (but never sans helmet). And she's beautiful, so attracts males like a "Free Beer" sign.
Last night at Bike Night in the parking lot, she was being talked up by a young dude with a tricked-out YZR-1. Eventually it got around to him asking the "hey, wanna go for a ride" question. She goes, "No thanks, got my own and points to her Ninja." You should've seen him deflate. Like watching the Goodyear blimp get a puncture. ;D
-
I don't think you should be able to drive anything on public roads until 18... One of the few things the Brits got right.
I think they can do mopeds and bikes of 125cc.
-
Not to pick on you, but this attitude really perturbs me. So many ways to look at this. The road to hell being paved with good intentions is one of them. Another is the attitude many have that if it isn't effecting me it doesn't matter to me. For example, I don't smoke, can't stand the stuff, but I hate the law here in Arkansas that makes all work environments smoke free. You can't have a smoking section in a restaurant anymore. Like I'm too stupid to choose non-smoking section or choose a different place all together. So the inconvenience to smokers is no sweat to me, but it's a reduction in liberty and dang it, that shouldn't be tolerated.
I suppose I may not be fairly characterizing what you are trying to say, but it's the laissez-faire attitude that bothers me. Hmm, that's ironic. That term really means 'let it be' yet that is sort of the opposite of what this law does. It's the opposite of freedom from state intervention.
TOTALLY DISAGREE with you on the public smoking laws! One of the best damn laws for the public good (and simply the pleasure of not having to do deal with asshat smokers). Period.
Just because some people have a smelly, annoying, health-destroying bad habit does NOT mean we're taking any of their freedoms away. They can smoke in their car, their home, any private property. But when they smoke in a public place or office, they're affecting MY freedom.
-
I'd like to see a law that protects me and my liberty from people with good intentions...
-
so does the connie fall in the sport bike category in TX or the hardley-ableson category?
-
TOTALLY DISAGREE with you on the public smoking laws! One of the best damn laws for the public good (and simply the pleasure of not having to do deal with asshat smokers). Period.
Just because some people have a smelly, annoying, health-destroying bad habit does NOT mean we're taking any of their freedoms away. They can smoke in their car, their home, any private property. But when they smoke in a public place or office, they're affecting MY freedom.
Hey jockstrap, since you're off topic anyway if you see me smoking on a public sidewalk cross the ******* street.
-
Gents I suggest that you ease up on the personal insults and use of profanity; I see them going both ways. If you must resort to hitting below the belt you have already lost the fight and now your loosing respect. There has been a complaint filed here and I will simply remind you that there are rules of conduct here please follow them or you will be following the thread to the Arena or worse yet you may loose your posting privileges. >:(
-
Gents I suggest that you ease up on the personal insults and use of profanity; I see them going both ways. If you must resort to hitting below the belt you have already lost the fight and now your loosing respect. There has been a complaint filed here and I will simply remind you that there are rules of conduct here please follow them or you will be following the thread to the Arena or worse yet you may loose your posting privileges. >:(
T, reprimand deserved and accepted. While my sentiments stand, in the future I will endeavor to refrain from responding in a manner not suitable to the forum.
Gary
-
I fully disagree with you on the smoking ban in the workplace. Without absolute smoke free rules there will be asshats who flaunt those rules and smoke inside the building, in their offic,e in a conference room or right next to the door. There is no way a restaurant can have a non smoking area in the middle of the room and still have no smoke. Smokers infringe on my liberty and right to not be exposed to a health hazard imposed by others optional actions.
I know it is a little OT, but since I started it I figure I am allowed. We have gone through this here in San Antonio. They recently passed a law banning smoking in all restaurants. There was a big uprising against it but the politicians had to do it "for the good of the people" as if the 'people' don't know how to make a responsible decision. It is not governments responsibility to protect us from ourselves. The patrons of a restaurant can make the decision to go to it or not. If they don't like the smoke then don't go. I didn't go to some restaurants myself because of that. I am not a smoker and I don't like smoke, but I do not need the government talking for me. I make my own educated decision. I am tired of this freaking nanny state we have become. If you do not like the smoke then don't go.
-
I have been unable to find any statistics that support this law.
Is the "problem" 1 in 100 sport bikes or 1 in 1,000, or 1 in 10,000.....
It would appear that the law has been contrived due to speculation of
a problem existing and not hard facts.
How many adults on motorcycles are being killed vs kids? :nuts:
I would guess that more adults die, just guessing, but if we were
REALLY interested in saving lives we'd ban motorcycle use by adults
and the net effect would be more lives saved.
Another feel good law based on nebulous emotion.
If you want the government to become mom and dad for you then let
them herd us all into high rise apartments where we can ride public
transportation and have no need for personal "dangerous" vehicles..
The mortality rate for ALL citizens would drop dramatically with 100,000's
lives saved. No more heart ache calls, no more need for highway patrol,
no more wasted money on highway speed limit signs. Utopia!
-
I know it is a little OT, but since I started it I figure I am allowed. We have gone through this here in San Antonio. They recently passed a law banning smoking in all restaurants. There was a big uprising against it but the politicians had to do it "for the good of the people" as if the 'people' don't know how to make a responsible decision. It is not governments responsibility to protect us from ourselves. The patrons of a restaurant can make the decision to go to it or not. If they don't like the smoke then don't go. I didn't go to some restaurants myself because of that. I am not a smoker and I don't like smoke, but I do not need the government talking for me. I make my own educated decision. I am tired of this freaking nanny state we have become. If you do not like the smoke then don't go.
So you modify your behavior (avoiding certain restaurants) in order to allow others to do anything they damn well please? Interesting take on things, especially since smokers are in an overwhelming MINORITY in the USA population.
And BTW, yes governments (state and federal) are allowed and encouraged to make laws to protect us from ourselves and from those who do irresponsible things. Public safety is the reason; making "educated decisions" may make for good personal choices, but doesn't protect you from idiots who don't care who they harm.
Otherwise someone could say: "I'm allowed to shoot my pistol in a crowded room if I feel like it, just so long as I don't hit anybody!"
-
I don't see how this law is going to save lives, people are going to ride them anyway they want and just because you have a class ''m'' does not mean you are a safe rider.
-
So you modify your behavior (avoiding certain restaurants) in order to allow others to do anything they damn well please? Interesting take on things, especially since smokers are in an overwhelming MINORITY in the USA population.
And BTW, yes governments (state and federal) are allowed and encouraged to make laws to protect us from ourselves and from those who do irresponsible things. Public safety is the reason; making "educated decisions" may make for good personal choices, but doesn't protect you from idiots who don't care who they harm.
Otherwise someone could say: "I'm allowed to shoot my pistol in a crowded room if I feel like it, just so long as I don't hit anybody!"
Wrong, I don't modify my behavior, I reinforce it. By my own desire I do not go places I do not want to go. You see, you are looking at it through a one-way mirror. You are saying it has to be your way, that's it. I am saying it is your choice. You want to remove my choice and that of the smokers. Maybe the smokers want to go to a restaurant where they can smoke. Now you are denying them the same freedoms that you think are for you only, when I say it is for everyone.
And why do you think I want to allow people to do anything they want. Last time I checked smoking was a legal activity, yet it is being treated as an illegal activity. It sounds like if it is something you don't like then a law needs to be made to satisfy you, the majority, over the minority. Now that is an interesting take.
Another thing to consider is that a business is in it to make money, not lose money. If it is a problem for a business that they think they need to change to a no smoking establishment, then they will do it. There are a number of businesses that have done that before the law. If they do that then it is their right, it should also be their right to not change it if they so desire, the same as it is your right to either go or not go to a restaurant for any given reason, be it smoking or anything else.
Your analogy of shooting a pistol in a crowd is a bad one and the type that fear mongers like to use. "Oh. I know, let's use an extreme example to make our point", never-mind that the morals of society dictate a persons actions and the laws are created to enforce those morals. Why do you think that the laws are different all over the U.S. They are even different city to city within the same state. I've got news for you, no law is going to protect me from people who wish to do me harm. If someone wants to shoot me in a crowd, no law is going to help me. Just ask Gabrielle Giffords.