"Daniel J. Stern"
I did? Strange, I don't seem to recall making that claim.
"And, of course, you would apply the same rules to unhelmeted automobile drivers and pbuttengers, unhelmeted bus riders and drivers, unhelmeted pedestriansd crossing the street, mountain climbers, water skiers, snow skiers and snowboarders, scuba divers, hikers, campers, persons who are overweight, persons who smoke, persons who fail to exercise, persons who fail to eat right, persons who engage in casual unprotected love, etc, etc, etc; correct?
My Accident was an ACT OF GODI was just driving down the road when suddenly I crashed into a car. Both his and my car were seriously damaged. The police came and asked me...
Because once you've costed out one activity that *you* define as being above acceptable risk levels, I expect you to apply the same rules to every other activity with unacceptable risk levels, and EVERY single one of those I listed above are unacceptable to me, and I wear a helmet every time I ride my motorcycle."
Yes, I do. You want to impose mandatory helmet laws on some road users and not on others. You want to single out certain taxpayers fro the buttumption of certain risks, while giving a free pbutt to others. The burden of proof for dissimilar laws lies with you, my hypocritical friend.
Aww, you've mistaken me for your kitten. Watch out, my Harley might run over the little precious.... and I *WILL* be wearing my helmet, so no worries about slipping on the guts...
Nope. You're the one who wants to pbutt discriminatory laws. Provide the scientific basis for your discrimination or shut up. I'm perfectly happy to let both car drivers and motorcycle riders ascertain the level of risk that they're comfortable with.
