What do you think of the "AMA"
concerned
the "AMA" in regards to many of the policies relating to Pro Racing.
Limitting Purse amounts, Siding with Promoters of the own membership,
rather than promoting the sport of motorcycle racing like "NASCAR" they
spend the competition members money on the HELMET LAW. What the hell is
that?
What do you think?
Chuck Smillie
Where NASCAR is a orginization dedicated to racing, the AMA's membership has a
majority of street riders who do not race. Can you say W-E-R-A ... as racers
let's go there! They have fought for TV and promotion of the sport. They just
need a better Premier Class, sorry I like pure Formula Bikes still (and believe
that's what we need to maintain world dominance). Also, they still have a
stigma of being a second class event, if a WERA rider were to pop out winning
GP that would all change ... that's why we need FI back!
>
>What do you think?
>
Solution is stop racing AMA, they will then decide if it's worth having racing
as part of their program.
Smillie
Silver Eagle Racing
PS I am a bad example because I still race MX with them and have been a 20+
year member.
Jim Brewer
concerned <jfs...@mailbag.com> wrote:
>Myself and many of friends have become quite upset over the years with
>the "AMA" in regards to many of the policies relating to Pro Racing.
>
>Limitting Purse amounts, Siding with Promoters of the own membership,
>rather than promoting the sport of motorcycle racing like "NASCAR" they
>spend the competition members money on the HELMET LAW.
My understanding is that Paradama is the Pro RoadRacing organization that
runs the AMA races. It's an independent "for profit" enterprise, so I doubt
that the AMA's fighting of helmet laws has any financial impact on racing.
I could be wrong, though.
-Jim
RokStedy
lobby group. They represent the motorcycling
public as well as 'promote' events.
Since not all members race, their work must
be in the best interest of the riding "whole".
The helmet law is a HUGE issue in some areas and I expect them to
use my membership money to represent me. I realize that my
political representative also has that responsibility, but the AMA is
admittedly a much more powerful unit than just 1 rider.
Strength in numbers.
Another example: the NRA.
Fred Farzanegan P185
This is a subject that has been brought up again and
again. I applaud the AMA on their motorcycle rights program,
including helmet law repeals, but their track record
on motorcycle racing is abysmal. It is their lack of a
regional program (unlike their MX) and many other racing
issues that made me quit the AMA two years ago.
-fred
WERA and soon-to-be-CCS racer
DoD #835
Michael Dube
On 1 Feb 1996, concerned wrote:
> Myself and many of friends have become quite upset over the years with
> the "AMA" in regards to many of the policies relating to Pro Racing.
>
> Limitting Purse amounts, Siding with Promoters of the own membership,
> rather than promoting the sport of motorcycle racing like "NASCAR" they
> spend the competition members money on the HELMET LAW. What the hell is
> that?
>
> What do you think?
I joined the AMA in 1993 as a concerned member of the motorcycling
community to help preserve the Right to Ride. Shortly after I did I
started getting mailings from the NRA, which pissed me off to no end. I
tried to get an AMA official to fess up to sharing the mailing list with
the NRA and they would neither confirm or deny it, which is the answer
right there. I eventually got fed up with paying for the anti-helmet
campaign that the AMA so strongly endorses and wrote a letter protesting
their stand. I told them I would not renew my AMA membership until they
addressed my concerns. They never replied, and I am no longer an AMA
member.
Michael Dube
On 2 Feb 1996, RokStedy wrote:
> Strength in numbers.
> Another example: the NRA.
Excellent example! Let's promote our sport by joining in on dirty tricks
and promoting mayhem.
Michael Dube
On 2 Feb 1996, Fred Farzanegan P185 wrote:
> This is a subject that has been brought up again and
> again. I applaud the AMA on their motorcycle rights program,
> including helmet law repeals...
(SNIP)
It is absurd that the AMA is anti-helmet on the one hand when it comes to
the motorcycling public, then chooses to sanction racing, where safety
has to be a primary concern. Why are AMA racers required to wear helmets
at their events, why isn't that a matter of so-called "personal freedom"?
Another way of looking at it is, how can you trust a group to look out
for racer's safety when they openly oppose safety on the street? Are
guardrails, oncoming trucks, and cows in the road less likely to result
in a head injury than airfence and wide runoff areas?
The irony is entirely irreconcilable...
dr rags
md...@hsc.usc.edu says...
--
I realize that this may be losing the thread, but... What dirty tricks and
mayhem are you refering to? As far as I can tell these are two lobbying
organizations that cater to the wishes of its constituents. I belong to both
for the "Strength in numbers" in representing my political view. I haven't
noticed any dirty tricks or mayhem.
;-------------------------------
; Dr_...@ix.netcom.com
; "Only two things are infinite, the universe and
; human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
; Albert Einstein
;-------------------------------
dr rags
--
You've missed the point. The AMA is against the helmet LAW, not the helmet. I
and the AMA think you would be a complete dolt to ride without one. That's not
the question. The question is, how far do you want the government to be
allowed to intrude on your existing rights? Are helmet LAWS are OK, but are
ninja clad storm troopers busting in to your house at night on a "tip" not OK?
I realize this may be an extreme example, but where do you draw the line?
The same irony exists in another current topic, loud exhaust noise for the
street, but hey, we know there are no noise policies on the track. That and
similar issues are what the AMA is about, not racing. The AMA is a political
organization, primarily, not an Activity organization.
I agree with the current of this thread; if the AMA isn't cutting it for you,
go with CCS, WERA, etc...
Michael Dube
On 3 Feb 1996, dr rags wrote:
> You've missed the point. The AMA is against the helmet LAW, not the helmet. I
> and the AMA think you would be a complete dolt to ride without one. That's not
> the question. The question is, how far do you want the government to be
> allowed to intrude on your existing rights? Are helmet LAWS are OK, but are
> ninja clad storm troopers busting in to your house at night on a "tip" not OK?
> I realize this may be an extreme example, but where do you draw the line?
I have not missed the point. Again, why is there not the "personal
freedom" not to wear a helmet in AMA-sponsored competition? Is it not
the same issue?
Your example is too extreme to be taken seriously and is not applicable
to the argument. The line is hard to draw and opinions are too diverse
to come to a consensus. I am more concerned about the image of our sport
(motorcycling in general, not just racing) than what happens to the brain
of someone who is stupid enough to not wear a helmet. When "organized
motorcycling" opposes helmet laws I believe it puts our sport in a bad
light in the minds of the general public. It makes us look irresponsible
as a group, right or wrong.
Michael Dube
On 3 Feb 1996, dr rags wrote:
> >On 2 Feb 1996, RokStedy wrote:
> >
> >> Strength in numbers.
> >> Another example: the NRA.
> >
> >Excellent example! Let's promote our sport by joining in on dirty tricks
> >and promoting mayhem.
>
> I realize that this may be losing the thread, but... What dirty tricks and
> mayhem are you refering to?
Sorry, I was referring to the NRA and not the AMA. I am just hoping the
AMA does not stoop to NRA-type tactics. It would put our sport in even
worse light in the eye of the general public. I would be even less
inclined to re-join the AMA.
Michael Dube
I recommend reading the letter to the editor from a Robert Bourne in the
January 31 edition of Cycle News. Man do I wish I had written that one!
I would immediately join the AMA if they followed his suggestion on
being allowed to direct my membership fees away from the anti-helmet
effort.
Bruce Clarke
: I recommend reading the letter to the editor from a Robert Bourne in the
That's funny: it's the AMA's anti-*helmet-law* stance that made me want to
join up.
--
Bruce Clarke AMA 356285 '90 Kawasaki EX-500 Victoria, B.C., Canada
brcl...@islandnet.com
For motorcycle FAQs, try to login anonymous to the FTP site ftp.cecm.sfu.ca
"On the Internet, no one knows you're a pig."
Mr. Bill
MD> I recommend reading the letter to the editor from a Robert Bourne in the
MD> January 31 edition of Cycle News. Man do I wish I had written that one!
MD> I would immediately join the AMA if they followed his suggestion on
MD> being allowed to direct my membership fees away from the anti-helmet
MD> effort.
BC == Bruce Clarke <brcl...@islandnet.com> replies:
BC> That's funny: it's the AMA's anti-*helmet-law* stance that made me want
BC> to join up.
Ditto. I don't get Cycle News, so I can't read Bourne's letter. But I
can comment on Dube's interpretation of it, or of his spin on reality:
The AMA is NOT anti-helmet. They repeatedly state that they are pro-helmet.
Instead, the AMA is anti-helmet *law*. There's a BIG difference, Michael.
Mr. Bill
--
Bill Leavitt, lea...@cs.umd.edu | "Blow it out your ass, motorcycle man!
AMA, ICOA, Lemans, KTC, DoD #224 | I am THE DEVIL, do you UNDERSTAND?"
HON: 82 CBX, 79 CX500, 76 CJ360* |________--Frank Zappa, "Titties & Beer"
SUZ: 82 GS850G, 76 RE5, 2-75 RE5 KAW: 72 H2 *For sale, VG cond, $400/bo
Dennis McGuire
On 2 Feb 1996, Michael Dube wrote:
> I joined the AMA in 1993 as a concerned member of the motorcycling
> community to help preserve the Right to Ride. Shortly after I did I
> started getting mailings from the NRA, which pissed me off to no end. I
> tried to get an AMA official to fess up to sharing the mailing list with
> the NRA and they would neither confirm or deny it, which is the answer
> right there. I eventually got fed up with paying for the anti-helmet
> campaign that the AMA so strongly endorses and wrote a letter protesting
> their stand. I told them I would not renew my AMA membership until they
> addressed my concerns. They never replied, and I am no longer an AMA
> member.
I've been an AMA member for 20 years and I've never received
anything from the NRA.
Bruce Clarke
: lea...@cs.umd.edu (Mr. Bill) wrote:
: >The AMA is NOT anti-helmet. They repeatedly state that they are pro-helmet.
: >Instead, the AMA is anti-helmet *law*.
No, Micheal, he's right: the AMA is pro-helmet and anti-helmet *law*. If
you don't believe it, why don't you write the AMA and ask them to clarify
their position?
: I do not wish to enter the argument about personal rights, I merely wish to
: support organized motorcycling's attempts to preserve the "Right to Ride"
: without having to support the AMA position
I see: you only want the AMA to support the type of motorcycling _you_ like
to do. Sorry Micheal, but the AMA wants to protect *all* motorcycling rights
for *all* motorcyclists. I think that it's good you want to work within the
AMA to change its policies, but I suspect the vast majority of members
will not support your opinion.
: There is so much more important work to be done.
True.
Michael P. Dubé, M.D.
>The AMA is NOT anti-helmet. They repeatedly state that they are pro-helmet.
>Instead, the AMA is anti-helmet *law*. There's a BIG difference,
In your opinion, you mean. The letter I am referring to suggests that
the AMA let each individual member decide whether or not their membership
fees go to the anti-helmet campaign. I do not wish to enter the argument
about personal rights, I merely wish to support organized motorcycling's
attempts to preserve the "Right to Ride" without having to support the
AMA position, as Mr. Bourne aptly termed it, "an individual's right to
splatter his brains on the asphalt".
RCook323
WHAT THE HELL DOES ANY OF THIS HAVE TO DO WITH RACING!!!!!
TwoClub
They waste everyones money on the anti-helmet crucade.
While I don't think there shoud be laws requiring helmets, I think the
opinion of anyone who wants to ride without one is worthless. Forget it.
The real issue is that AMA is bad for racing. Wouldn't it be great if
everyone quit racing with AMA? (and instead supported WERA or their
favorite alternative)
Allen Wilson
>lea...@cs.umd.edu (Mr. Bill) wrote:
Helmet law???? We should wear them, but not made to. enuf said
However, on the AMA .... I was a member for over 12 years, then
discovered the truth. They really are just a bunch of self serving
... that are really not interested in doing anything FOR YOU. If
they were out for you, there wouldn't be rain grooved roads
(especially in Ohio, where they headquarter, and there are plenty) or
motorcycle restricted highways. They claim to have been working on
these issues since 1970 (that's 26 years now). Anybody see any major
results with the millions$ they have collected!!!
Anti-AMA forever!
Allen
So much for wasted bandwidth!
BTW- it used to be the American Motorcycle Association
Janet Penelope Gunn
writes:
>
>Where NASCAR is a orginization dedicated to racing, the AMA's
membership has a
>majority of street riders who do not race. Can you say W-E-R-A ... as
racers
>let's go there!
Also, they still have a
>stigma of being a second class event, if a WERA rider were to pop out
winning
>GP that would all change ... that's why we need FI back!
CAn you spell F-R-E-D-D-I-E S-P-E-N-C-E-R?
Janet Penelope Gunn
writes:
>if the AMA isn't cutting it for you,
>go with CCS, WERA, etc...
Unfortunately, it isn't that simple.
You can't get an AHRMA license without being an AMA member.
You can't get a Daytona Pit Pass (except for corner workers) without
being an AMA member.
Janet Gunn
Chuck Smillie
Freddie was WERA? I didn't know that. He was also big AMA, dirt track and road
race. The point is the FI class, now being non existant, is where we train
riders for FI racing not superbikes classes. Seen Russell on a GP bike? From
what I recall it was not easy for him to do. Also, look at Kosinkis (sp -5pts)
transistion from 250's to 500's it was not as graceful as from FII AMA to FII
GP. As a matter of fact it was down right ugly. Maybe a year of AMA FI racing
would have made the transistion clean ... and he'd have a FI title????
As for WERA stars on the World Champ league, what about Polen? Still not a
Formula One STAR but a STAR all the same.
Smillie
Ye Wild Rider
: lea...@cs.umd.edu (Mr. Bill) wrote:
: > The AMA is NOT anti-helmet. They repeatedly state that they are
: > pro-helmet. Instead, the AMA is anti-helmet *law*. There's a BIG
: > difference,
:
: In your opinion, you mean.
no, he DIDN'T mean that. opinion has nothing to do with the FACT that
AMA is pro-helmet, anti-helmet LAW.
if you're incapable of grasping the difference, i seriously wonder how
you made it through med school...
gears,
ye wilde ryder
--
wal...@neta.com | 91 zx-11 "black beauty" 83 v65 magna "animal"
wro...@amex-trs.com | 86 cr250 "dirt devil" 79 it250 "mr reliable"
"E Pluribus Unix" | 82 v45 magna "elliot" (D.O.A.) Support the RKBA
"I have no heart to lie, I can't pretend a stranger is a long awaited friend."
darkstar
>[I had a woman state
>senator who had never been on a motrocycle try to explain to me her idea
>of a rigid pole which was attached to the helmet and attached via a corset
>deal to the chest of the rider. This would prevent neck injuries. She
>was not kidding!]
>
>
Now that's scary. And they say motorcycles are dangerous? It's
government that's dangerous.
*** dark...@superlink.net '73 ironhead '67 Tiger chopper ***
*** FLIP YER PATCH ! ***
*** Recycle Motorcycle 'zine http://mars.superlink.net/darkstar/ ***
*** chop: v. to cut, cut off ,reduce in size or length, remove ***
kre...@glenayre.com
>
> "Michael P. Dub?, M.D." <md...@hsc.usc.edu> wrote:
>
> >lea...@cs.umd.edu (Mr. Bill) wrote:
>
> >>The AMA is NOT anti-helmet. They repeatedly state that they are pro-helmet.
> >>Instead, the AMA is anti-helmet *law*. There's a BIG difference,
>
> >the AMA let each individual member decide whether or not their membership
> >fees go to the anti-helmet campaign. I do not wish to enter the argument
> >about personal rights, I merely wish to support organized motorcycling's
> >attempts to preserve the "Right to Ride" without having to support the
> >AMA position, as Mr. Bourne aptly termed it, "an individual's right to
> >splatter his brains on the asphalt".
>
> >There is so much more important work to be done.
>
> Helmet law???? We should wear them, but not made to. enuf said
>
> However, on the AMA .... I was a member for over 12 years, then
> discovered the truth. They really are just a bunch of self serving
> ... that are really not interested in doing anything FOR YOU. If
> they were out for you, there wouldn't be rain grooved roads
> (especially in Ohio, where they headquarter, and there are plenty) or
> motorcycle restricted highways. They claim to have been working on
> these issues since 1970 (that's 26 years now). Anybody see any major
> results with the millions$ they have collected!!!
up to date on the results of the AMA's efforts. See the post from Robert
Fourney (2/3); that will give you an idea of how effective the AMA can
be.
Daniel Nitschke
dark...@superlink.net (darkstar) writes:
:: Now that's scary. And they say motorcycles are dangerous? It's
:: government that's dangerous.
There are those of us who have been saying that for a long, long time.
>> dan -- Ignorant Yank (tm) #1, none-%er #7 <<
Dan Nitschke ~ ParcPlace-Digitalk ~ nits...@parcplace.com
^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-
I told her I knew when I was going to die because my birth
certificate has an expiration date. -- Steven Wright
Michael Dube
On 7 Feb 1996, Ye Wild Rider wrote:
> Michael P. Dub=E9, M.D. (md...@hsc.usc.edu) wrote:
> : lea...@cs.umd.edu (Mr. Bill) wrote:
> : > The AMA is NOT anti-helmet. They repeatedly state that they are
> : > pro-helmet. Instead, the AMA is anti-helmet *law*. There's a BIG
> : > difference,
> :=20
> : In your opinion, you mean.
>=20
> no, he DIDN'T mean that. opinion has nothing to do with the FACT that
> AMA is pro-helmet, anti-helmet LAW.
By being anti-helmet LAW, you are condoning some degree of helmet=20
non-use. The only FACT here is that the AMA SAYS that they are=20
pro-helmet but the FACT is that if there are no helmet laws a lot of=20
people will not use them out of ignorance, wish for the Easy Rider look,=20
or because they diverted their funds from a helmet purchace to that=20
straight pipe purchase.
The February 14 edition of Cycle News "In the Wind" section mentions a=20
check for $22,254 from the AMA to the NOrthwest Motorcycle Association to=
=20
help fight a court battle to keep open an off-road trail. They go on to=20
say that "the money came from a fund established by the AMA to solicit=20
donations for this legal battle".
You can look at this 2 ways - either the AMA thinks that fighting for acces=
s=20
to off-road sites is an optional activity that ought to be funded=20
separately, on a voluntary donation basis, or that they spend so much on=20
the anti-helmet law campaign that there is not enough money left over to=20
do this other stuff. Is this what the AMA should be doing? is my question.
Kenneth Rosenberger
<md...@hsc.usc.edu> writes:
>
>
>On 7 Feb 1996, Ye Wild Rider wrote:
>
>> Michael P. Dub=E9, M.D. (md...@hsc.usc.edu) wrote:
>> : lea...@cs.umd.edu (Mr. Bill) wrote:
>> : > The AMA is NOT anti-helmet. They repeatedly state that they are
>> : > pro-helmet. Instead, the AMA is anti-helmet *law*. There's a
BIG
>> : > difference,
>> :=20
>> : In your opinion, you mean
The only FACT here is that the AMA SAYS that they are=20
>pro-helmet but the FACT is that if there are no helmet laws a lot
of=20
>people will not use them out of ignorance, wish for the Easy Rider
look,=20
>or because they diverted their funds from a helmet purchace to that=20
>straight pipe purchase.
This is what you call a matter of principle. Yes, the AMA thinks you
should choose to wear a helmet. Yes, they most likely think you're a
fool if you don't. And they go to an enormous amount of trouble to
demonstrate how important wearing a helmet is. On the other hand, why
can't we just enjoy our sport without Big Brother's guiding hand?
We're big enough to take care of ourselves. We accept responsibility
and we don't need Uncle Useless to protect us. Besides, it's the old
slippery slope theory. First helmet laws, then power to weight ratio
limits, then outright sportbike bans, then...you don't wanna know.
Sounds crazy, right? Some cities and towns already ban bikes. We're
still somewhat of a crazed religious cult in the eyes of Mr and Mrs
Mainstream America.
Ken
Dennis McGuire
On 10 Feb 1996, Kenneth Rosenberger wrote:
> slippery slope theory. First helmet laws, then power to weight ratio
> limits, then outright sportbike bans, then...you don't wanna know.
> Sounds crazy, right? Some cities and towns already ban bikes. We're
> still somewhat of a crazed religious cult in the eyes of Mr and Mrs
> Mainstream America.
Current speed limit laws are a pretty effective ban on most
sportbikes! Take 'em to the track!!!
Josh J Fielek
Michael Dube <md...@hsc.usc.edu> wrote:
>
>
>On 2 Feb 1996, RokStedy wrote:
>
>> Strength in numbers.
>> Another example: the NRA.
>
>Excellent example!
Yep.
> Let's promote our sport by joining in on dirty tricks
>and promoting mayhem.
He said NRA, not the Democrats.
J. Fielek
--
Joshua J. Fielek DoD#385 AMA#517381 WERA#968 The Garage of Xanadu:
Inter-National Research Institute, Inc. 1981 R80G/S-PD* 1990 906 Paso*
j...@inri.com 1975 RD350 1990 EX500(cold backup)
What can I say... I'm a moto-slut. 1988 EX500* 198X Aero 80(Turbo)*
darkstar
>On 10 Feb 1996, Kenneth Rosenberger wrote:
>
>> slippery slope theory. First helmet laws, then power to weight ratio
>> limits, then outright sportbike bans, then...you don't wanna know.
>> Sounds crazy, right? Some cities and towns already ban bikes. We're
>> still somewhat of a crazed religious cult in the eyes of Mr and Mrs
>> Mainstream America.
>
us. To me, being a biker _is_ a spiritual and cultural thing that
affects my life in more ways than most people's religions or ethnic
backgrounds do. It's who I _am_. But _they'd_ never get it. They
think its a voluntary sport/hobby....sigh.
It would be interesting if someone tried to start "The Church of the
Open Road" or something.. hmmm..couldn't _hurt_...
jr...@watson.ibm.com
>>
>>On 10 Feb 1996, Kenneth Rosenberger wrote:
>>
>>> slippery slope theory. First helmet laws, then power to weight ratio
>>> limits, then outright sportbike bans, then...you don't wanna know.
>>> Sounds crazy, right? Some cities and towns already ban bikes. We're
>>> still somewhat of a crazed religious cult in the eyes of Mr and Mrs
>>> Mainstream America.
>>
>If only we were a religion, then no one could discriminate against
>us. To me, being a biker _is_ a spiritual and cultural thing that
>affects my life in more ways than most people's religions or ethnic
>backgrounds do. It's who I _am_. But _they'd_ never get it. They
>think its a voluntary sport/hobby....sigh.
>
>It would be interesting if someone tried to start "The Church of the
>Open Road" or something.. hmmm..couldn't _hurt_...
>
True, true - Every Sunday morning (well, every one I can) I tell my
daughter that while she goes to church with her mom, I'm going to
*my* church. At Marcus Dairy. Can't wait till I can take her along
with, as well.
===========================================================
1959 BMW R50 Jim Rozen
1969 BMW R60US (JRR0 @ watson.ibm.com)
1975 BMW R75/6 (The "new" one)
===========================================================
Robert S. Fourney
Allen Wilson <all...@america.com> wrote:
>
>However, on the AMA .... I was a member for over 12 years, then
>discovered the truth. They really are just a bunch of self serving
>... that are really not interested in doing anything FOR YOU. If
>they were out for you, there wouldn't be rain grooved roads
>(especially in Ohio, where they headquarter, and there are plenty) or
>motorcycle restricted highways. They claim to have been working on
>these issues since 1970 (that's 26 years now). Anybody see any major
>results with the millions$ they have collected!!!
>
or "study the use of" some slippery as shit crack sealer that they were
using and which was causing lots of moto wrecks.
Bob Fourney
Ye Wild Rider
: On 7 Feb 1996, Ye Wild Rider wrote:
: > Michael P. Dub=E9, M.D. (md...@hsc.usc.edu) wrote:
: > : lea...@cs.umd.edu (Mr. Bill) wrote:
: > : > The AMA is NOT anti-helmet. They repeatedly state that they are
: > : > pro-helmet. Instead, the AMA is anti-helmet *law*. There's a BIG
: > : > difference,
: > : In your opinion, you mean.
: >
: > no, he DIDN'T mean that. opinion has nothing to do with the FACT that
: > AMA is pro-helmet, anti-helmet LAW.
: By being anti-helmet LAW, you are condoning some degree of helmet
: non-use.
wrong.
you are condoning freedom of choice in a country that is supposed to be
BASED ON individual liberty & personal freedom.
: The only FACT here is that the AMA SAYS that they are pro-helmet
sigh.
are you REALLY that obtuse?
look at the pictures in their magazines -- see anybody riding lidless?
eh? have you ever once read an article in which an AMA officer
condoned helmetless riding?
: but the FACT is that if there are no helmet laws a lot of
: people will not use them out of ignorance, wish for the Easy Rider look,
: or because they diverted their funds from a helmet purchace to that
: straight pipe purchase.
that is THEIR PERSONAL CHOICE. (see above reference to individual
liberty if you're still struggling with the concept of personal
choice...)
(BTW, the AMA is also anti-noise, so you will hear them speak out
against that straight-pipe purchase, too. does that meet with your
personal agenda?)
: The February 14 edition of Cycle News "In the Wind" section mentions a
: check for $22,254 from the AMA to the NOrthwest Motorcycle Association
: to help fight a court battle to keep open an off-road trail. They go
: on to say that "the money came from a fund established by the AMA to
: solicit donations for this legal battle".
yes, so?
: You can look at this 2 ways - either the AMA thinks that fighting for
: access to off-road sites is an optional activity that ought to be
: funded separately, on a voluntary donation basis, or that they spend so
: much on the anti-helmet law campaign that there is not enough money
: left over to do this other stuff. Is this what the AMA should be
: doing? is my question.
the helmet law question is fundamental to personal freedom. off-road
trail usage is a shared resource that is not about personal freedom at
all, but about allowing motorcyclists to share a resource with others.
helmet laws intrude on one's personal life & has nothing to do with
"sharing a resource" with others. thus, fighting helmet laws has a
higher priority.
Michael Dube
On 12 Feb 1996, Ye Wild Rider wrote:
> you are condoning freedom of choice in a country that is supposed to be
> BASED ON individual liberty & personal freedom.
I am not "condoning" freedom of choice. I am discussing what is in the
best interest of motorcycling in general and whether or not the AMA is
really in our general interest.
> are you REALLY that obtuse?
Save your bait for someone else.
> (BTW, the AMA is also anti-noise, so you will hear them speak out
> against that straight-pipe purchase, too. does that meet with your
> personal agenda?)
No.
> the helmet law question is fundamental to personal freedom. off-road
> trail usage is a shared resource that is not about personal freedom at
> all, but about allowing motorcyclists to share a resource with others.
> helmet laws intrude on one's personal life & has nothing to do with
> "sharing a resource" with others. thus, fighting helmet laws has a
> higher priority.
To you, you mean. To me it is a waste of resources and has the effect of
making motorcyclists further alienated from the non-motorcycling public
who views efforts to oppose helmet laws as irresponsible and may come
back and hurt us ultimately - just my opinion but I have not noted
opposing viewpoints. The "personal freedom" issues are worthy of
discussion but this is a separate issue.
Douglas Barton
In article <4fmmj7$2...@earth.superlink.net>, dark...@superlink.net (darkstar)
writes:
|>
|>If only we were a religion, then no one could discriminate against
|>us. To me, being a biker _is_ a spiritual and cultural thing that
|>affects my life in more ways than most people's religions or ethnic
|>backgrounds do. It's who I _am_. But _they'd_ never get it. They
|>think its a voluntary sport/hobby....sigh.
|>
|>It would be interesting if someone tried to start "The Church of the
|>Open Road" or something.. hmmm..couldn't _hurt_...
Well, I have a web page for the "Altar of the Divine Apex" :)
you might like to check it out... URL below...
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Douglas Barton - Research Scientist, CRC for Distributed Systems Technology,
EMAIL: bar...@dstc.edu.au VOICE: (BH) +61 7 3864 2799 (AH) +61 7 3344 4292
WWW : http://www.dstc.qut.edu.au/~barton FAX: +61 7 3864 1282
Bike : '95 GSX250F, see: http://www.dstc.qut.edu.au/~barton/bike/bikes.html
BrisBike: BrisBike T's?
Bruce Clarke
: To you, you mean. To me it is a waste of resources and has the effect of
: making motorcyclists further alienated from the non-motorcycling public
: who views efforts to oppose helmet laws as irresponsible and may come
: back and hurt us ultimately - just my opinion but I have not noted
: opposing viewpoints. The "personal freedom" issues are worthy of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: discussion but this is a separate issue.
Several people (including myself) have stated that they disagree with you and
they think the AMA _is_ helping motorcycling in general by opposing helmet laws.
This sure seems like an opposing viewpoint to me.
Ryan John Cousineau
>On 15 Feb 1996, Bruce Clarke wrote:
>> Several people (including myself) have stated that they disagree with you and
>> they think the AMA _is_ helping motorcycling in general by opposing helmet laws.
>> This sure seems like an opposing viewpoint to me.
>Sorry for not being more clear about what specifically I am getting at.
>Yes you and many others have felt that the AMA is helping motorcyling in
>general. My specific point being: When orgnanized motorcycling openly
>opposes helmet laws, it makes us look irresponsible in the
>non-motorcycling, majority, public eye. Most people think motorcyclists
>are nuts to begin with.
Statistically, we are. Never fool yourself: the best numbers I have are
that you're about 15 times as likely to die on a bike as in a car. To a
certain extent, we will not be able to shake that nutso image because it
doesn't particularly suit us; Sportbike nuts like myself glory in
garishly painted bikes, worse helmet graphics (trust me, I have seen more
than one that make hair look safe), and leather suits, a decidedly
_distinctive_ fashion choice. Cruiser fans have benefitted from a recent
trend towards upscale respectability, but it was not so long ago that
riding a Harley of any kind, especially if you wore the requisite leather,
was enough to lose a tee time at any golf course on the planet. Nowadays
a Road King or Fat Boy is the ultimate in parking-lot chic. As for the
long distance Iron Butts, even I think they're nuts.
My point is that the anti-social nature of motorcycling is not only
largely inherent and unavoidable, but even _desirous_ to some people. The
good news is that most developed countries are willing to permit such
mayhem. The bad news is they keep trying to restrict it. The history of
motorcycling has been characterized by attempts to restrict riding,
reduce privileges, and so forth. Companies have tried to ban workers from
riding to work (possibly most famously, NBC. An employee named Jay Leno
spearheaded the campaign against that). A laudable move: commuting
on a bike is a relatively fatal thing to do (at least when compared to
busing or driving) and presents a poor image of the company. As
motorcyclists, we should all be willing to do our part for the image of
the sport and permit this, right? I don't think so. I don't mind
companies having the choice to do this, because they're companies, and I
suppose they can make company policy as they like, and there's no law
saying I have to work for company x (as a matter of record, I could
not work for a company that banned riding to work because right
now a bike is my only transportation. Their loss), but I think the AMA
should do its part to oppose such policies as a matter of representing
the views and interests of its members.
Can you think of other precedents that support a notion that
>if you impose safety regulations on a particular activity that this will
>inevitably lead to the extinction of said activity?)
Well, I know that this particular safety restriction will prevent some
people from wanting to ride again; there are certain people who will not
ride with a helmet for whatever reason. I think they're stupid, but as
long as they understand the risk, I wish them well. They're not going to
injure anyone but themselves.
But a good point; I can't think of one offhand, except that three-wheel
ATVs have been banned as a safety regulation. The knock against them is
that they're not very stable, require balance and discretion to ride, and
can kill the rider if ridden improperly. Now the same people are going
after four-wheel ATVs. I don't think there's any doubt ATVs can be
dangerous, and I've rode one around a bit when I was younger. I can make
the following comments: the three-wheelers are weird suckers which
require you to lean out in a turn and lift the inside wheel. Something
roughly similar should apply to the four-wheelers but with slightly less
chance of rolling over. I'd note that the same can be said about sidecar
rigs, a vehicle which I have a fair bit of experience riding, including
flipping one over on myself, a maneuver which says more about my own
stupidity than my ability to prudently assess and choose personal risks.
Safety restrictions will inevitably change the character of a sport,
sometimes unacceptably. I don't know anyone who plays lawn darts now that
those stupid safety darts are the order of the day; of course, I like
bocce better anyways. All kinds of safety schemes are constantly being
proposed, usually by non-motorcyclists. Don't forget Joan Claybrook's
ill-fated rear-wheel steering motorcycle. I'd also mention that in
Canada, due to a rather silly gun-control bill, the federal government
just made some types of Olympic target-shooting pistols illegal to possess,
thus royally screwing up what was a medal-winning shooting team.
These are cases, collectively, of public safety of some sort taking
precedence over the desire of some people to participate in a relatively
dangerous activity, although the danger posed by a locked-up target
pistol is beyond my fathoming, and I don't own a gun. In each case, an
activity has been modified or banned in order to render it safer. In two
of the cases, I don't think there's any intent to stop at the present
point: as I noted, four-wheel ATVs have many enemies, and in Canada there
is no doubt that proponents of gun control will not be satisfied until
private possess of any firearm is illegal.
I guess as a summation of this lenghty stream of consciousness, I'd say
that the AMA opposes helmet laws from two grounds: first, there is
precedent for safety restrictions to lead to yet more safety restrictions
and ultimately to prohibition, and motorcycling has many enemies who would
like to ban it, and second, there are people who feel that the experience
of riding a bike is fundamentally altered by wearing a helmet. While I
don't agree with the latter, I do know that I disagree with the safety
measure of 100 horsepower restrictions, which are in force in some
European countries. I don't own a 100 horsepower bike myself; my 60-pony
FZR produces enough output to get myself in trouble quite nicely, but
someday I will be able to afford a CBR 900, a ZX-11, or a GSX-R 750, and
I'd like to know that such a bike will be available should I want one. As
well, the Europeans even proposed a law against interchangable parts on
motorcycles that might cause power enhancements. Such a move would
effectively mandate drastic changes in the FZR 400 and 600, as the 600
motor will fit in the 400 frame with no modification. More to the point,
such a move would effectively eliminate Triumph, as their motorcycle
range relies on interchangable engines and components. I also want to be
able to ride a Triumph someday, and so I'm willing to support those
who want to be able to ride without helmets because I understand that the
principle is the same, and I don't think it's a good idea for the
government to regulate something that will only have an effect on my own
safety. For heaven's sake, we legalized suicide, but not wearing
a helmet is illegal?? I don't get it. Killing yourself is way more
hazardous to yourself than forgetting your skid lid at home.
>Opposing viewpoints are welcomed...
Thank you! More people should be so understanding; it makes for easier
dialogues. However, You'll get no such openness from me. Persons of
opposing viewpoints will be mailbombed :).
--
Ryan Cousineau, Madman, Catholic, Vice President CSSS
writing from sunny SFU, close to Vancouver, BC
3 Bikes: latest is '89 Yamaha FZR 400 Special: Jenny
This message sponsored by Wired Cola: It's Cybermorphic!
Ye Wild Rider
[ ...excellent post megasnip(tm)'d... ]
very well said, ryan.
gears,
ye wilde ryder
--
wal...@neta.com | 91 zx-11 "black beauty" 83 v65 magna "animal"
wro...@amex-trs.com | 86 cr250 "dirt devil" 79 it250 "mr reliable"
"E Pluribus Unix" | 82 v45 magna "elliot" JHLO#0002 Support the RKBA