Why I will not Join the AMA…..
Sunday, September 16th, 2007 at 7:00 pm by gothicbeaST
Over the years, many people have asked why I am not a member of the AMA. The single answer I can give is, I don’t agree with the AMA’s policy on helmets
The AMA believes there is a clear distinction between the use of helmets and mandatory helmet use laws. Some view the helmet solely as a mechanical safety device, similar to seat belts. Many motorcyclists view the helmet as an accessory of personal apparel — its use or non-use is connected with a chosen lifestyle and their right as adults to make their own decisions.
My republican friends remind me how society needs reasonable laws. Speed limits are required as personal freedom ends when it puts others a risk, People should not be allowed to euthanize themselves, and women should be told what to do with their reproductive organs. So even my right wing republican friends believe society should tell people what to do, as long as they agree with it 
Considering of this, I refuse to be a member of the AMA due to their public stance on helmet usage. I find the opinion that helmets might be an “Accessory of personal apparel” and the use of it should be connected with a chosen lifestyle by the AMA to be silly. The flip side is, AMA Roadracing does not allow any competitor to race without a helmet. This is not just the AMA Roadracing, but motorcross, hill climbs, dirt track and trials. In the racing lifestyle of the AMA the fashion of helmet wearing is without question.
The AMA and others like ABATE wave the banner than more education is required to prevent accidents. They argue that motorcycle helmets are an after the fact safety device, and would not be required if rider and driver education completely eliminated all traffic accidents. No matter that over half of motorcycle accidents are single vehicle accidents, it is somehow the fault of someone else that a motor vehicle collision occurs between a motorcyclist and another vehicle. When does personal responsibility to prepare for an unfortunate event come into play
The personal freedom argument by groups like the AMA and ABATE does not hold much water. I read nothingof the AMA, ABATE or even the autoclub (AAA) fighting against mandatoryseatbelt usage in cars. All 50 states have laws requiring occupantsto wear seatbelts, in one form or another. My current state of Arizonahas a “Click it ot Ticket” campaign, and I have not heard a peep outof anyone over this oppressive government action to legislate a personsfreedom of choice. People argue over and over that seatbelts couldprevent someone from getting out of a vehicle when it catches on fire. But for the most part vehicles catching on fire happen after an accident,and an incapacitated person is not able to free themselves from a vehicle even when the seatbelt is not being used. On the motorcycle side the ABATE crowd likes to argue that helmets restrict vision, reduce hearing and contribute to neck injuries. The facts that helmets provide 210degrees of vision, which nearly equal to the range of vision while looking forward has no importance. The sound restriction is universal for all sounds, while reducing the wind noise caused by turbulent airflow around the ear. Any reduction in sound is offset by an equal or greater reduction of noise at the same time. The use of a helmet has been found to reduce spinal\ninjuries. I can go on, but NHTSA has a lovely webpage to help debunk the myths presented by the anti-helmet community.
Driving a motorcycle on public roads has the same lack of freedom attached to it, as driving a car. You are required to carry a license to operate the vehicle, you must stop at red lights, yield to oncoming traffic and attempt to avoid injuring other vehicle operators. In Arizona you are required to have eye protection on at all times when riding your motorcycle. In cars you can receive a ticket if you have a cracked windshield in your car. All of this points to the fact that absolute freedom stops when the rubber meets the public road.
I have given up suggesting to people they should wear a helmet. At this point I believe the jean pool is improved by people not wearing helmets. If the blatantly obvious can not be absorbed though the gray matter of the freedom riders of ABATE, then so be it. Get on your bike, ride your heart out and I hope you don’t have an accident. If something unfortunate occurs, I will be championing the cause to prevent the public to help care for them in a financial way. No proof of medical insurance when they arrive, no accident care. I extend this same provisions to drunk drivers, people trying to avoid the police and those who attempt suicide and fail.
The AMA gets my thumbs down for their lack of support for helmet laws.
Permalink
Filed under: 
In rebuttal, I submit this article by W. E. Williams :
= = = = = =
“CLICK IT OR TICKET”
BY WALTER E. WILLIAMS
JUNE 15, 2005
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), an office within the U.S. Department of Transportation, just finished its annual campaign to get us to wear our seatbelts under a program called “Click It or Ticket.” States receive federal subsidies to ticket drivers if they or their passengers are not buckled up.
Some states, such as Maryland, are so eager that they’ve equipped their officers with night vision goggles, similar to those used by our servicemen in Iraq. Maryland state troopers bagged 44 drivers traveling unbuckled under the cover of darkness. The NHTSA’s “Click It or Ticket” program is another step toward making Americans serfs of the state.
Let’s look at it. I personally believe that wearing seatbelts is a good idea, and I buckle up and remind my passengers to do so as well. Because seatbelt usage saves lives, mandating such is an abomination in a free society. There are many other legislative actions that are offensive to liberty and can have saving as their justification, a matter I’ll turn to later. But let’s talk about the immorality of mandated seatbelt usage.
Let’s start with the question: Who owns Walter E. Williams? Is it President Bush, the U.S. Congress, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, or do I own myself? I’m guessing that any reasonable person would agree that I own Walter E. Williams. The fact that I own myself means that I have the right to take risks with my own life but not others’. That’s why it’s consistent with morality to mandate that my car have working brakes. If my car doesn’t have working brakes, then I risk the lives of others, and I have no right to do so. If I choose not to wear a seatbelt, then I risk my own life, which I have every right to do.
Of course, if it’s stipulated that President Bush, the Congress or the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania owns me, I have no such right; I’d be risking their property. Some might rejoin by saying, “Williams, if you’re not wearing a seatbelt, and don’t do us the favor of dying in an accident and become an incapacitated vegetable, society will have to bear the expense of taking care of you.” That’s not a problem of liberty and self-ownership. It’s a problem of socialism.
There’s no moral case for forcing anyone to care for me for any reason. When we buy into socialism, we buy into paternalistic government. It reminds me of what my mother used to say during my rebellious adolescent years: “Boy, as long as you’re living in my house and I’m paying the bills, you’re going to do what I say!” Paternalism is OK for children, but is it suitable for adults? For those who agree with “Click It or Ticket” because it saves lives, would they agree with other possible lifesaving mandates?
Each year, obesity claims the lives of 300,000 Americans and adds over $100 billion to health care costs. Should government enforce a 2,000-calorie intake limit per day? There’s absolutely no dietary reason to add salt to our meals. Salt can lead to hypertension-induced heart attacks that kill thousands. Should government outlaw salt consumption? Sedentary lifestyles have been shown to lead to shorter and less healthy lives. Should there be government-mandated exercise programs?
The justifications used for “Click It or Ticket” can easily provide the template for government control of our diets and other lifestyle features. Maybe I’m a bit out of touch with today’s Americans. With the silence in the face of attacks on Burger King and McDonald’s, alleging they cause obesity, maybe Americans are pining for more government control over their lives — and “Click It Or Ticket” is just softening up the rest of us for what lies ahead in the future.
Source : www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/05/ticket.html
= = = = = =