|
Replies: 86
| visibility 2350
|
Webmaster [∞]
TigerPulse: 100%
∞
Posts: 45049
Joined: 2012
|
FB Update: Swinney pleads with state for helmet law on mopeds
Aug 19, 2016, 9:30 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Ring of Honor [22964]
TigerPulse: 100%
53
Posts: 13977
Joined: 2013
|
I agree, Coach!
Aug 19, 2016, 9:40 PM
|
|
If you start a petition, I'll gladly sign it!
It makes no sense why this isn't already a law. I'm just glad XK is still alive.
Did the motorist texting and driving get arrested? What kind of punishment is that person facing?
~JKB
|
|
|
|
|
|
Walk-On [122]
TigerPulse: 100%
11
|
Re: I agree, Coach!
Aug 19, 2016, 11:14 PM
|
|
What if the guy had been DUI? I'd bet there would be plenty of public outrage, and he would have been arrested and his license suspended. The response to texting? "Oh, well whatever. Could happen to anybody."
Drivers texting are potentially as dangerous as drunk drivers but they aren't perceived in the same way by the public or law enforcement. Why? Is it because it's accepted?
Sorry for the rant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3881]
TigerPulse: 100%
35
|
YES!! I get so upset with law "enforcement" because I live
Aug 20, 2016, 6:51 AM
|
|
in Clemson and see people driving and texting ALL the time with no actions being taken. I even saw the Clemson chief of police on a newscast commenting on why they had only written 5...that's right FIVE tickets in the 6 years stating that "if the state would give him a law with some teeth that he would enforce it"!! What a load of crap!! Enforce the law that is in effect and lives will be saved because we all see students and adults alike driving through the area with heads down and the police are doing NOTHING about it!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associate AD [1092]
TigerPulse: 100%
25
|
law enforcement can't do much about texting while driving
Aug 20, 2016, 8:23 AM
|
|
They still need probable cause to do a search of someone's phone. It has been upheld in courts, that most things you're talking about with texting, amount to only reasonable suspicion. Thus if the officer searched the phones of the drivers without consent it would be an illegal search and seizure protected against under the 6th amendment. Basically they need a warrant to go through your phone if you don't say "yeah go through my phone and see if I was breaking the law", most people don't do that, some are dumb enough to do it though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3881]
TigerPulse: 100%
35
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associate AD [1092]
TigerPulse: 100%
25
|
i must be missing something, it says that
Aug 20, 2016, 9:54 AM
|
|
motorist can use a cell phone for GPS and talking on the phone. Then it says
"Police are able to stop and cite offenders on sight, but cannot “seize, search, view, or require the forfeiture” of a wireless electronic communication device involved in a violation."
Meaning, if an officer pulls you over and says he saw you texting, and you said you were using the GPS or looking up a contact to call. Then you will probably win in court since they can't search your phone, and they have the burden of proof.
It's why it's a useless law, it's not enforceable. The only people who actually get convicted of the crime are honest people who admit to doing it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3881]
TigerPulse: 100%
35
|
I believe you are. Using it for GPS and making a phone call
Aug 20, 2016, 12:00 PM
|
|
would be very easy to discern with little observation. Do you think that a teenage driver (or any other for that matter) looking down and pressing numerous keys for an extended period of time deserve the right to put others lives in danger. Don't be so naïve as to think you, I or our trained professionals cannot tell the difference between the two. You may feel differently if you had ever lost a loved one to a distracted driver and I pray that you don't.....but your lackadaisical attitude may change then. The life you save may be your own but hey.......
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associate AD [1092]
TigerPulse: 100%
25
|
i'm talking about law enforcement and the ability
Aug 20, 2016, 1:50 PM
|
|
to enforce the law.
I don't text while driving, nor do I talk on the phone while driving, and because of my profession and responsibilities, I lecture anybody that i know who does.
That does not change the fact that prosecution is about what you can prove and not what you think. Until drivers have to hand over their phone or phone records for a search, there is no way to prove that a texter is texting.
I personally believe if you kill somebody while texting you should get manslaughter and go away for the maximum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Beast [6410]
TigerPulse: 100%
40
|
My question is this:
Aug 19, 2016, 9:42 PM
|
|
Why is no one pointing out the fact that there is a law that says anyone under 21 operating or riding a motorcycle has to wear a helmet? With most of our players being under 21, including Xavier, this would cover most of our players. Or is this law different for mopeds?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2194]
TigerPulse: 100%
32
|
Re: FB Update: Swinney pleads with state for helmet law on mopeds
Aug 19, 2016, 9:43 PM
|
|
I totally agree with Coach. It is ridiculous there is not a requirement to wear a helmet especially for mopeds.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2954]
TigerPulse: 91%
33
|
whats just as bad is no seat belts in schools buses and
Aug 19, 2016, 9:46 PM
|
|
babies can ride in golf carts without seat belts!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3573]
TigerPulse: 100%
34
|
The reason that there are no seat belts in busses is
Aug 20, 2016, 9:41 AM
|
|
so school districts don't have to publish rules on bus capacity. They can say each bus can hold up to 60 people. They can then shove more elementary students on than high school simply because of size of the rider. Saves money on the number of busses needed and routes required.
If they put seat belts in the number of seat belts the legal capacity of the bus.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [61740]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 43123
Joined: 1998
|
it defies logic that a truck driver has to wear a seatbelt
Aug 19, 2016, 9:49 PM
|
|
or he's breaking the law, yet a motorcycle/moped driver doesn't even have to wear a helmet.
I'd actually prefer if they weren't even allowed on roads where the speed limit is >25mph. I get behind them on 55mph roads up in the hills a couple times a week, and you about never can pass them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5234]
TigerPulse: 92%
38
|
I couldn't disagree more...
Aug 19, 2016, 9:55 PM
|
|
Information is available and plenty. There is no restriction to accessing it. If you choose to (a) not read it or (b) ignore it, then that should be your perogative.
We don't need more nanny state laws protecting us from our conscious, poor decisions. It just gives police another reason to stop folks and go on a fishing expedition. Or it give govt another way to raise revenue to buy votes elsewhere.
Ugghhhh....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5234]
TigerPulse: 92%
38
|
Re: I couldn't disagree more...
Aug 19, 2016, 9:59 PM
|
|
And same goes with seat belt laws, salt in food laws, soda/sugar laws... Enough already! We are becoming a fascist country!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15492]
TigerPulse: 100%
50
Posts: 18413
Joined: 2014
|
Re: I couldn't disagree more...
Aug 19, 2016, 10:34 PM
|
|
Agreed, dang liberals want the government to control everything in our lives!
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1898]
TigerPulse: 100%
31
|
Um ... Proof ! There has been a run on Kool-Aid***
Aug 19, 2016, 11:15 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Letterman [283]
TigerPulse: 93%
14
|
Re: I couldn't disagree more...
Aug 20, 2016, 5:34 AM
[ in reply to Re: I couldn't disagree more... ] |
|
Don't wear a helmet or seat belt. I don't care. But when your in an accident and a helmet or a seat belt would have helped, the insurance company should not have to pick up those hospital bills because of poor judgement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5234]
TigerPulse: 92%
38
|
Here is how it should work...
Aug 20, 2016, 6:26 AM
|
|
BTW - These self protection laws were pushed by insurance companies.
When getting insurance, why not have your premiums fluctuate based on what you agree to do or abide by in your personal safety practices. If you declare you will always wear a seat belt or helmet you get a discount. If you say you won't smoke, you get a discount. Now of course this will only work for things that can be definitively be proven after the fact that you didn't abide by the promise you made to get the lower premium - but it will work and the market gets to be the decider.
If you get sick or in a accident and it is obvious you didn't live up to your promises, then they insurance company gets to invoke a penalty clause and require you to hit a much, much higher deductible before they pay out anything. The amount of that would be based on industry wide actuarial S showing what premiums you should have been paying over your lifetime thus far had you been honest in the first place.
Problem solved and you don't have to give the police state more reasons to harass people, stop people, fine people, etc.
Live free or die!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [41658]
TigerPulse: 100%
57
Posts: 43343
Joined: 1998
|
liberals will not like this idea***
Aug 20, 2016, 7:40 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scout Team [175]
TigerPulse: 99%
12
|
just like when I have to pay more when someones beachhouse
Aug 20, 2016, 7:54 AM
[ in reply to Re: I couldn't disagree more... ] |
|
gets washed away by a storm? How about the people that keep building in that hole called N.O. just to get flooded once again? Who paying for that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [41658]
TigerPulse: 100%
57
Posts: 43343
Joined: 1998
|
If I were you I wouldn't pay for someone elses
Aug 20, 2016, 10:43 AM
|
|
beach house. If they have cash to buy a house then they don't need your help. If they don't have cash then they are required to carry flood insurance. You should quit helping them pay their premiums.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1st Rounder [645]
TigerPulse: 95%
21
|
|
|
|
|
|
Head Coach [795]
TigerPulse: 100%
22
|
Re: I couldn't disagree more...
Aug 21, 2016, 8:05 PM
[ in reply to Re: I couldn't disagree more... ] |
|
Insurance company h*ll. What about these same people with NO insurance going to the ER because of their dumb*ss decision to not wear a helmet, and guess who's paying that bill?! Yea just tack that onto my bill. It's why people with insurance can't afford to go to the ER.
OK. Sorry. I lost it for a minute. This is not a forum for voicing my displeasure with the current state of healthcare insurance. We are here to forget about life's serious issues for just a few minutes by discussing FOOTBALL! So let's Spot The Ball!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5234]
TigerPulse: 92%
38
|
Here's how it should work and gives people choices...
Aug 21, 2016, 8:54 PM
|
|
BTW - These self protection laws were pushed by insurance companies.
When getting insurance, why not have your premiums fluctuate based on what you agree to do or abide by in your personal safety practices. If you declare you will always wear a seat belt or helmet you get a discount. If you say you won't smoke, you get a discount. Now of course this will only work for things that can be definitively be proven after the fact that you didn't abide by the promise you made to get the lower premium - but it will work and the market gets to be the decider.
If you get sick or in a accident and it is obvious you didn't live up to your promises, then the insurance company gets to invoke a penalty clause and require you to hit a much, much higher deductible before they pay out anything. The amount of that would be based on industry wide actuarials showing what premiums you should have been paying over your lifetime thus far had you been honest in the first place.
Problem solved and you don't have to give the police state more reasons to harass people, stop people, fine people, etc.
Live free or die!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5234]
TigerPulse: 92%
38
|
Dr. Bruce T. Yandle, Clemson professor, enlightened me on...
Aug 21, 2016, 8:57 PM
|
|
the economics of govt regulation. ????
Best professor I ever had, other than Dr. Server (Biology), a Notre Dame grad.
Message was edited by: hufferbilly®
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
Posts: 58393
Joined: 2003
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Beast [6511]
TigerPulse: 100%
40
Posts: 13558
Joined: 2000
|
We all pay higher auto insurance premiums as a result
Aug 20, 2016, 9:23 AM
[ in reply to I couldn't disagree more... ] |
|
of traffic fatalities. Your right to be an idiot and not wear a helmet ends with my having to pay higher insurance premiums. Now if you want to shift that premium burden to people that don't wear helmets, more power to you
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5234]
TigerPulse: 92%
38
|
Re: We all pay higher auto insurance premiums as a result
Aug 20, 2016, 9:31 AM
|
|
BTW - These self protection laws were pushed by insurance companies.
When getting insurance, why not have your premiums fluctuate based on what you agree to do or abide by in your personal safety practices. If you declare you will always wear a seat belt or helmet you get a discount. If you say you won't smoke, you get a discount. Now of course this will only work for things that can be definitively be proven after the fact that you didn't abide by the promise you made to get the lower premium - but it will work and the market gets to be the decider.
If you get sick or in a accident and it is obvious you didn't live up to your promises, then they insurance company gets to invoke a penalty clause and require you to hit a much, much higher deductible before they pay out anything. The amount of that would be based on industry wide actuarial S showing what premiums you should have been paying over your lifetime thus far had you been honest in the first place.
Problem solved and you don't have to give the police state more reasons to harass people, stop people, fine people, etc.
Live free or die!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Beast [6511]
TigerPulse: 100%
40
Posts: 13558
Joined: 2000
|
I watched a motorcyclist die right in front of me
Aug 20, 2016, 10:20 AM
|
|
#### car turn left in front of him onto the road I was stopped on. The accident was in no way the motorcyclists fault. The driver of the car just did not see him and has to live with the fact that she killed him. I am convinced he would have lived with a helmet. If we can legislate seat belts we can require helmets. You can live free without dying
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5234]
TigerPulse: 92%
38
|
Re: I watched a motorcyclist die right in front of me
Aug 20, 2016, 10:31 AM
|
|
It is a personal responsibility, personal choice that govt has no business forcing on anyone. If you choose not to take safety precautions, you foot the bill for the risks you take. That is how it should always work. Stop enabling the police state control through nanny state laws designed to protect people from themselves. That is a slippery slope to collectivism and kills individual liberty.m
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Beast [6511]
TigerPulse: 100%
40
Posts: 13558
Joined: 2000
|
when that dead motorcyclists sues you because your teenager
Aug 20, 2016, 10:37 AM
|
|
Turned left in front of him and takes everything you ever worked for because your child was at fault...you can then appreciate how slippery the slope really is
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [41658]
TigerPulse: 100%
57
Posts: 43343
Joined: 1998
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-American [585]
TigerPulse: 100%
20
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5234]
TigerPulse: 92%
38
|
Hahaha... Exposing faulty logic through absurdity... Kind of
Aug 20, 2016, 2:43 PM
|
|
Like pointing out that if a $15/HR min wage is good, then a $200/HR min wage is better, so let's just mandate that!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Beast [6511]
TigerPulse: 100%
40
Posts: 13558
Joined: 2000
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-American [585]
TigerPulse: 100%
20
|
Re: Helmets by far are the single most effective mothod to
Aug 20, 2016, 4:04 PM
|
|
Once again you post information that you think backs your position but offers no clear reasoning that helmets offer significant protection in high speed crashes that involve a traumatic blow to the head. One major problem has been the lack of training. I know numerous people that never took a motorcycle road test to obtain a license. They drove on a learners permit for years. This law has now changed thanks to backing from riders. Taking a motorcycle safety course will prevent more loss of life in high speed crashes than helmet would. Mopeds are still in this category.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-American [585]
TigerPulse: 100%
20
|
Re: I watched a motorcyclist die right in front of me
Aug 20, 2016, 12:27 PM
[ in reply to I watched a motorcyclist die right in front of me ] |
|
Doubt it. Had a good friend die a year ago in same scenario. A former state senator. Wore a helmet as required in GA. I've been riding for 50 years and can name dozens of cases. I wear a helmet but it's my choice. Bet the person that turned left paid $80 for a ticket and increased insurance rates as punishment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1st Rounder [645]
TigerPulse: 95%
21
|
Re: I watched a motorcyclist die right in front of me
Aug 22, 2016, 6:03 PM
|
|
The person that turned left needs jail time and a real driving course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dynasty Maker [3253]
TigerPulse: 100%
34
|
DO IT!!!***
Aug 19, 2016, 10:19 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Campus Hero [13855]
TigerPulse: 100%
48
Posts: 23084
Joined: 2004
|
Absolutely shocked someone was texting while driving
Aug 19, 2016, 10:45 PM
|
|
on a college campus.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [9174]
TigerPulse: 69%
44
Posts: 14647
Joined: 2002
|
Disagree with Coach on this one
Aug 19, 2016, 11:06 PM
|
|
You don't legislate intelligence or protection from stupidity. Laws don't need to be on books for such things. Laws need to be enforceable and all laws can't be if they are too numerous.
-Dr. Nikola Tesla
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standout [222]
TigerPulse: 92%
13
|
Re: Disagree with Coach on this one
Aug 20, 2016, 2:38 AM
|
|
Normally I don't like the government legislating very much. A helmet law is in the public interests. Why? Because public funds are used to help someone when they are stupid enough to not wear a helmet. If they chose not to wear a helmet and are also willing to wear something that says,"I am a dumb ###. Do not treat my head injury" then we can forget about a helmet law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Letterman [283]
TigerPulse: 93%
14
|
Re: Disagree with Coach on this one
Aug 20, 2016, 5:36 AM
|
|
Zackly
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [48078]
TigerPulse: 100%
58
Posts: 49059
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5234]
TigerPulse: 92%
38
|
Re: Never thought about that. You changed my mind.*****
Aug 20, 2016, 6:31 AM
|
|
Let me change it back...
BTW - These self protection laws were pushed by insurance companies.
When getting insurance, why not have your premiums fluctuate based on what you agree to do or abide by in your personal safety practices. If you declare you will always wear a seat belt or helmet you get a discount. If you say you won't smoke, you get a discount. Now of course this will only work for things that can be definitively be proven after the fact that you didn't abide by the promise you made to get the lower premium - but it will work and the market gets to be the decider.
If you get sick or in a accident and it is obvious you didn't live up to your promises, then the insurance company gets to invoke a penalty clause and require you to hit a much, much higher deductible before they pay out anything. The amount of that would be based on industry wide actuarials showing what premiums you should have been paying over your lifetime thus far had you been honest in the first place.
Problem solved and you don't have to give the police state more reasons to harass people, stop people, fine people, etc.
Live free or die!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3573]
TigerPulse: 100%
34
|
That's not the entire story though
Aug 20, 2016, 9:50 AM
|
|
The public funds that the poster is talking about isn't "insurance money." It's not just insured people that have to wear helmets. There are many laws out there, even prior to ACA, that require health care and other living assistance treatments. EMTALA requires a hospital to treat no matter the payment method. They can't say "he's uninsured and wasn't wearing a helmet. Let him die." If they were to require long term medical care or assisted living, Medicaid would likely pick up the tab after their financial resources are used. These weren't insurance laws. We're all on the hook for stupidity.
On the flip side, if someone is riding a motorcycle at high speeds, let them take their helmet off. There would be no quality of life if you get in an accident at highway speeds. YOu're a vegetable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5234]
TigerPulse: 92%
38
|
Your premise is a little off...
Aug 20, 2016, 10:18 AM
|
|
Before ACA, you are more correct than not. However, with ACA, everyone subsidizes insurance for those who cannot afford insurance, so there should be no one without it at this point.
That then breaks things into 2 groups: those who chose not to buy insurance even though they could afford it and those who are on subsidized insurance.
The subsidized insured should always be subsidized as if they are highest risk profile, so they are covered.
For the ones who have chosen to not pay for insurance, even though they can afford it, allow them enjoy the consequences of not having it - which is being left to die. Sometimes choices should actually matter. Personal accountability/responsibility must be part of the equation.
I cannot tell you how many younger people I know who are running their own business and opt to not buy health insurance because they are young and want to spend that $ on other stuff. When I point out how irresponsible that is, they point out that the system will have to take care of them regardless. And if they get sick (cancer, et al), they will just get health insurance then via ACA because they have to give them coverage regardless.
Again, choices should matter and have consequences. Personal accountability and responsibility should matter and have consequences if ignored. How else do people change reckless behaviors/choices?
Message was edited by: hufferbilly®
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-American [585]
TigerPulse: 100%
20
|
Re: That's not the entire story though
Aug 20, 2016, 10:19 AM
[ in reply to That's not the entire story though ] |
|
Won't survive an accident with head trauma at highway speed even with a helmet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Beast [6511]
TigerPulse: 100%
40
Posts: 13558
Joined: 2000
|
BS... I handled a claim where a witness
Aug 20, 2016, 10:24 AM
|
|
Described the passenger on the back of the motorcyclist fly off like a kite on I 26 running 70 mph. She had a helmet on and lived. Watch world record motorcyclist crash and survive. They are all wearing helmets
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-American [585]
TigerPulse: 100%
20
|
Re: BS... I handled a claim where a witness
Aug 20, 2016, 10:32 AM
|
|
Then she didn't have head trauma!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Beast [6511]
TigerPulse: 100%
40
Posts: 13558
Joined: 2000
|
because the helmet protected her melon. Everything else
Aug 20, 2016, 10:40 AM
|
|
had trauma
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-American [585]
TigerPulse: 100%
20
|
Re: because the helmet protected her melon. Everything else
Aug 20, 2016, 12:22 PM
|
|
Anomaly
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5234]
TigerPulse: 92%
38
|
Re: Disagree with Coach on this one
Aug 20, 2016, 6:30 AM
[ in reply to Re: Disagree with Coach on this one ] |
|
In case you didn't read my post above...
BTW - These self protection laws were pushed by insurance companies.
When getting insurance, why not have your premiums fluctuate based on what you agree to do or abide by in your personal safety practices. If you declare you will always wear a seat belt or helmet you get a discount. If you say you won't smoke, you get a discount. Now of course this will only work for things that can be definitively be proven after the fact that you didn't abide by the promise you made to get the lower premium - but it will work and the market gets to be the decider.
If you get sick or in a accident and it is obvious you didn't live up to your promises, then they insurance company gets to invoke a penalty clause and require you to hit a much, much higher deductible before they pay out anything. The amount of that would be based on industry wide actuarial S showing what premiums you should have been paying over your lifetime thus far had you been honest in the first place.
Problem solved and you don't have to give the police state more reasons to harass people, stop people, fine people, etc.
Live free or die!
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-American [585]
TigerPulse: 100%
20
|
Re: Disagree with Coach on this one
Aug 20, 2016, 8:15 AM
[ in reply to Re: Disagree with Coach on this one ] |
|
BTW, would the helmet have saved him from an injury? No. Helmets are great for keeping brain matter in your skull. Once you reach 35 to 40 mph, they don't do much else. Riding motorcycles and mopeds is inheritantly dangerous. Would you also consider banning them? Wonder how many of you are texting your response while driving down the road.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5234]
TigerPulse: 92%
38
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [18923]
TigerPulse: 100%
52
|
The point would probably have been more effective if the
Aug 19, 2016, 11:20 PM
|
|
picture of Coach Dabo Swinney did not show him on a moped without a helmet.
Sorry, coudn't resist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [27114]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 46055
Joined: 2010
|
+1... First thing I noticed. Not sure if article was Sirius.***
Aug 19, 2016, 11:24 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [41658]
TigerPulse: 100%
57
Posts: 43343
Joined: 1998
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-American [585]
TigerPulse: 100%
20
|
Re: FB Update: Please provide
Aug 20, 2016, 8:09 AM
|
|
Me an example of someone wrecking a motorcycle on the interstate at 80 mph and a helmet was credited with saving their life. If we are going to protect everyone, lets require helmets for riding bicycles, four wheelers, ATVs, skate boards, cars, trucks, farm equipment, etc! Let's also require three point belts and roll cages in vehicles. This is getting out of hand. Instead of this, how about treating texting while driving like DUI. The deaths on the SC highways have doubled. You tell me why!! BTW, I ride a motorcycle. I wear a helmet. It's a choice I make.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Changer [1830]
TigerPulse: 100%
31
|
Agree or no, but the answer is at the end.
Aug 20, 2016, 8:35 AM
|
|
SC law requires operators under 21 to wear a helmet. So we don't need a new law; we just need the players to abide by the existing law. And for idiots not to text while driving. Sounds like both should've gotten ticketed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paw Warrior [4687]
TigerPulse: 100%
37
|
Re: FB Update: Swinney pleads with state for helmet law on mopeds
Aug 20, 2016, 8:45 AM
|
|
A helmet wouldn't have stopped him from getting scratches on his arm and stitches in his toe though. Might as well throw tennis shoes into the law also... Flip flops and mopeds aren't exactly PB&J.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-American [585]
TigerPulse: 100%
20
|
Re: FB Update: Swinney pleads with state for helmet law on mopeds
Aug 20, 2016, 10:13 AM
|
|
Agree. Let's also require riding glasses, heavy duty riding boots, gloves, long sleeves and heavy padded riding jacket. US Military requires all that on their bases along with a reflective vest. Oh and require it for bicycles too! Hondas can be purchased with an airbag. They should be required too. This is Definately a bike rider problem and not the cage drivers texting while driving!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paw Warrior [4687]
TigerPulse: 100%
37
|
Re: FB Update: Swinney pleads with state for helmet law on mopeds
Aug 20, 2016, 2:21 PM
|
|
Cool thing about being in a cage though... When the other bozo hits you, you're inside of a cage, with airbags, and seatbelts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dynasty Maker [3408]
TigerPulse: 100%
34
|
Re: FB Update: Swinney pleads with state for helmet law on mopeds
Aug 20, 2016, 8:58 AM
|
|
If Dabo is so concerned then he should make a team rule that they have to wear helmets. Simple. No need for another law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2877]
TigerPulse: 100%
33
|
Re: FB Update: Swinney pleads with state for helmet law on mopeds
Aug 20, 2016, 9:18 AM
|
|
Team rule should be no mopeds
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3573]
TigerPulse: 100%
34
|
You should wear helmets on mopeds for anonymity
Aug 20, 2016, 9:43 AM
|
|
Mopeds are like fat girls. Sure they are fun to ride, but you don't want anyone to see you do it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
TigerNet Immortal [165728]
TigerPulse: 100%
69
Posts: 69187
Joined: 2013
|
That's odd.......
Aug 20, 2016, 10:15 AM
|
|
someone must have photoshopped Dabo's helmet off in the picture.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [6723]
TigerPulse: 100%
41
|
Dabo Missed a Big Point.....Go After The Distracted Driver!
Aug 20, 2016, 10:22 AM
|
|
He is making an issue of helmets. While that may be important, had the driver not been distracted text messaging the accident would not have occurred.
Dabo's heart is always in the right place but he should have used his celebrity voice concerns about distracted drivers..
How many of us each day see people drifting all over the road text messaging or now playing Pokemon GO compared to bike riders not wearing a helmet?
Distracted Drivers are an increasing menace to driving and I think they are far worse than drunk drivers
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [14751]
TigerPulse: 93%
49
Posts: 22551
Joined: 2003
|
So because there isn't a law that absolves people from being
Aug 20, 2016, 10:55 AM
|
|
responsible and/or an organization from having a "rule" with teeth?
I don't necessarily disagree with a law, but what concerns me MORE is the general attitude that the onus is on the government rather than the individual. Does everyone wear a seat belt? No, that is law. ULTIMATELY the order of responsibility starts with the individual and moves outward, not the other way around. But we have got so twisted up as a society most people can't even grasp this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Letterman [269]
TigerPulse: 97%
14
|
Re: FB Update: Swinney pleads with state for helmet law on mopeds
Aug 20, 2016, 10:59 AM
|
|
Me thinks coach should stick to coaching.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gridiron Giant [15972]
TigerPulse: 100%
50
|
I am ALL IN on this.. he's 100% right
Aug 20, 2016, 1:23 PM
|
|
Never understood it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Valley Protector [1465]
TigerPulse: 90%
29
|
Forgive me if already said, but here is the STUPIDITY of
Aug 20, 2016, 2:17 PM
|
|
this whole argument:
1. I may be wrong, but if Kelly is a freshman, than I assume he is under 21. The last sentence of the article states SC requires U-21 moped drivers to wear a helmet. So we already have a law covering this issue and he was breaking it.
2. According to the article, the car driver was texting when he hit Kelly. SC has a law against texting while driving so he was breaking the law to cause the accident.
So two laws were broken during this accident. Why in Hades do you think another law is going to make a bit of difference? Unenforceable laws breed contempt for all laws. You can't legislate common sense and you can extrapolate this argument to any number of similar, "We need a law against ..." statements being shoved down our throats on the national scene.
I love Dabo and Coach V, but they are wrong on this issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5234]
TigerPulse: 92%
38
|
Don't use logic with pro big govt progressives
Aug 20, 2016, 2:30 PM
|
|
They cannot follow along and they continue to skin their ignorance arguing back. Sad and embarrassing for them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Beast [6511]
TigerPulse: 100%
40
Posts: 13558
Joined: 2000
|
it's not big government to mandate a helmet. Big government
Aug 20, 2016, 3:05 PM
|
|
is forcing me to pay for Obamacare, is forcing me to fund Medicare, Social Security disability, for the injuried idiot that did not have God given sense to wear a helmet
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-American [585]
TigerPulse: 100%
20
|
Re: it's not big government to mandate a helmet. Big government
Aug 20, 2016, 4:07 PM
|
|
You must have stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [6723]
TigerPulse: 100%
41
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paw Warrior [4687]
TigerPulse: 100%
37
|
Re: Forgive me if already said, but here is the STUPIDITY of
Aug 20, 2016, 2:42 PM
[ in reply to Forgive me if already said, but here is the STUPIDITY of ] |
|
Totally agree with what you're saying but all things considered, it's just a better, safer idea to require all motorcycle / moped / bicyclists to wear helmets. I think that's the point here. The coaches probably didn't know the age stipulation in the current law when they said what they said.
In states without an all-rider helmet law, 59% of the motorcyclists (including mopeds) killed were not wearing helmets, as opposed to only 8% in states with all-rider helmet laws. And that was a stat from 2013. I lost two friends in Florida on motorcycles because of the no-helmet issue... Had they been wearing helmets, both would be here today. That being said, I hope the guy that was in the car gets the book thrown at him. This texting and driving business is bs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5234]
TigerPulse: 92%
38
|
Sorry for your loss, but we all have choices and...
Aug 20, 2016, 2:54 PM
|
|
... if we are going to live in a society that protects and respects individual liberty, everyone needs the freedom to make their own choices without being criminalized.
The thing about freedom is it doesn't guarantee the outcome of your choices will always be positive. It mean we must have the freedom to choose to live as cautiously, smartly, or recklessly (provided we are not endangering others in the process) as we #### well please. Even if 99% think we are stupid as hell for our choices. Each person should have that right without worrying about the police state harassing them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2702]
TigerPulse: 100%
33
|
It really sounds like you want a lawless society
Aug 20, 2016, 3:09 PM
|
|
Laws are a deterrent and nothing more. You can do whatever you want but you have to be prepared for the consequences. We choose every day to obey or break the law whether it be speeding or assault. The consequence for speeding may be a ticket. The consequence for assault may be jail. It's your choice to obey the laws that serve to protect the greater good and if you don't you pay for your actions. The only other option is a lawless society where you are truly free to do whatever you please.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Beast [6511]
TigerPulse: 100%
40
Posts: 13558
Joined: 2000
|
He hasn't figured out he is helping to foot the bill
Aug 20, 2016, 3:20 PM
|
|
in higher taxes, auto and health insurance premiums caused by the absence of common sense. His desire for "smaller" government in reality helping create a larger government. Ironic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5234]
TigerPulse: 92%
38
|
I showed you how everyone else doesn't eat the cost
Aug 20, 2016, 3:30 PM
|
|
In a market-based solution model
When getting insurance, why not have your premiums fluctuate based on what you agree to do or abide by in your personal safety practices. If you declare you will always wear a seat belt or helmet you get a discount. If you say you won't smoke, you get a discount. Now of course this will only work for things that can be definitively be proven after the fact that you didn't abide by the promise you made to get the lower premium - but it will work and the market gets to be the decider.
If you get sick or in a accident and it is obvious you didn't live up to your promises, then the insurance company gets to invoke a penalty clause and require you to hit a much, much higher deductible before they pay out anything. The amount of that would be based on industry wide actuarials showing what premiums you should have been paying over your lifetime thus far had you been honest in the first place.
Problem solved and you don't have to give the police state more reasons to harass people, stop people, fine people, etc.
Live free or die!
Message was edited by: hufferbilly®
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Beast [6511]
TigerPulse: 100%
40
Posts: 13558
Joined: 2000
|
You obviously don't understand insurance or human nature
Aug 20, 2016, 3:48 PM
|
|
1) everyone would lie about their seatbelt or helmet useage to get the cheaper rate.
2) it's not the motorcyclists insurance premiums who are most effected. Unless you have the plaintiff bar and the state legislature agree and enact legislation that would ban or limit ones ability to sue or recover for damages in accident in which they chose not to wear a helmet, your "solution" would have little if any effect on auto insurance, much less health insurance, Medicare or Social security disability. Enacting such legislation is far bigger government reach than requiring a helmet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5234]
TigerPulse: 92%
38
|
Re: You obviously don't understand insurance or human nature
Aug 20, 2016, 5:23 PM
|
|
If they lie, they pay a much higher deductible based on lifetime formula assuming they have lied on insurance since an adult.
If they have subsidized, the subsidized cost would have the assumption that they won't do safer things, so that cost would be covered in the subsidized premium.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5234]
TigerPulse: 92%
38
|
Not a lawless society, just a less law society
Aug 20, 2016, 3:27 PM
[ in reply to It really sounds like you want a lawless society ] |
|
Way too many ticky, tacky laws on the books today, most of which do nothing but give the govt a thumb on you should they choose to come after you for whatever reason. Maybe you support the wrong political agenda or the wrong type of business or whatever those in power decide they don't like about you.
Let's get back to some basic laws like don't kill, don't destroy other people's property, don't physically harm or hurt others, etc and let all of the other micromanagement laws go bye, bye.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [8598]
TigerPulse: 100%
43
Posts: 10323
Joined: 2003
|
Stick to football!***
Aug 20, 2016, 5:30 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 86
| visibility 2350
|
|
|
50
