Now
Fair
29°
High
47°
Low
29°
Full Forecast

Jobs

Cars

Homes

Rentals

Alerts

Subscribe
Home > Opinion > Letters
Bookmark Us   •   Make Us Your Homepage

Letters, 1/9: Helmet law is bad for business

Comments 55 comment(s)  
E-mail Story E-mail Story
Print Story Print Story
Share  Share
Text Size: 
Tools Sponsor

Wednesday, Jan 09, 2008 - 12:26:58 am CST

The Lincoln Journal Star presented a negative view of LB253 (LJS, Jan. 5), which will partially repeal the helmet requirement and permit “freedom of choice” for riders who are 21 years of age or older, with respect to whether they wear helmets. 

The story was silent on the fact that the act will translate into significant economic benefits for the state of Nebraska urban and rural communities, as well as significantly improve motorcyclist safety.

A motorcycle rally is held in Sturgis, S.D., each year that draws more than 500,000 motorcyclists.  A large number travel in states adjoining Nebraska because Nebraska currently has the helmet law.

If only 10 percent of the motorcyclists who go to the Sturgis rally each August would cross Nebraska, the economic benefit to Nebraska would easily be over $8 million each year, sustainable annually — saying nothing about potential for success of one or two future annual rallies held in the Grand Island-North Platte regional area.  As these rallies mature, benefits could easily reach tens of millions of dollars annually.

We should commend Sen. Kent Rogert of Tekamah for making it possible to bring LB253 to the floor of the Legislature for debate and passage. Every small business, restaurant and motel owner, as well as every county and city interested in increasing economic activity within Nebraska, should give their senator a call and ask that they become a co-sponsor of LB253 and pass it with no threat of filibuster or unneeded delay, so attention can be focused on other important legislation in Nebraska.

Milo Cress, Eagle

Hysteria over global warming

Regarding “Natural cause for warming,” (LJS, Jan. 6): Finally, a glimmer of common sense on global warming breaks through in what until now has been an entirely one-sided debate.

That global warming is occurring and melting sea ice in the Arctic region is not in question anymore; the evidence is overwhelming that it is.

But to limit one’s arguments about the causes of global warming to human activity alone, and to disregard any natural phenomena that may be contributing, represents a fundamental lack of understanding about climate and the natural world.

Based on the information in this study, it can safely be said that if all manmade sources of global warming were to cease today, the data would continue to reflect that the earth is in a warming phase.

We do irreversible harm to our environment by polluting it day after day. But in the global-warming debate, it seems that hysteria took over long before all factors were taken into consideration.

Eric Foster, Lincoln

Bill would cause more harm

It was discouraging to hear a bill is being proposed, with the backing of Attorney General Jon Bruning and Gov. Dave Heineman, that would reverse the recently passed bill that would allow children of illegal immigrants to be eligible for in-state tuition.

This week during the Republican presidential debate, candidate Mitt Romney directed a very pointed attack at Mike Huckabee over his decision to do the same thing as governor of Arkansas. Huckabee gave a very good answer and pointed out something we’ve all heard and know to be true. This country does not hold children accountable for the wrongdoings of their parents.

Effectively denying access to college for these young adults does nothing to combat nor is it a deterrent to illegal immigration. There are other effective ways, such as controlling the border.

This measure would simply deny opportunity and thus cause more harm to our local economy and society in general. Denying them a chance to further their education is just simply wrong.

To think this very issue may have been Tom Osborne’s undoing in the Republican primary for governor is even more disturbing. Sometimes it seems as a nation we are losing our way. 

Jeff Weber, Denton


$1 Sunday Delivery - Subscribe Today!
Letters > Back to Top of Story

Post Your Comment

Standards and Rules
All posts to JournalStar.com are subject to our Terms and Standards.
Your posted comment will appear after it has been approved.
Frequently asked questions about story commenting.
(optional)
   
Hide Comments Hide Comments   Newest First Newest First  
Western Nebraskan wrote on January 9, 2008 6:24 am:
" I cannot believe that there are sensible people wanting to change the helmet law for motorcycle riders in Nebraska, especially using economics as their major reason. If their wearing a helmet or not affected just them (the riders), I would say go for it! But sadly, it doesn't. These people injured with massive head injuries that could have been greatly reduced or prevented with helmets demand both substantially higher immediate medical attention, which is a problem for medical facilities because a higher percent of cyclists have no insurance. But that cost pales compared to lifelong costs of some of these injured bikers. Even if they have insurance, it often is short term, and the seriously injured ones become literally wards of the state and society financially for the rest of their non-productive life. And we haven't even touched on the mental and financial anguish of those around these injured people. So it goes way beyond "personal freedom", and to use a few dollars that may be spent in Nebraska as justification for repealing the helmet law, borders on the insane. "

 helmets wrote on January 9, 2008 6:56 am:
" the money collected from the tourism could be set aside if a person gets a head injury from an accident. "

 global warming wrote on January 9, 2008 6:58 am:
" although global warming is natural at natures pace, humans have helped speed it along faster than if we would have been more global friendly back in the 70's when this was discovered. "

 Me too! wrote on January 9, 2008 7:09 am:
" I want in-state tuition in every state because I am a US citizen. Just because I don't live in that state doesn't mean I should have to pay nonresident tuition. Sounds fair doesn't it??

Huckabee said that if illegals went back to Mexico and then applied through proper channels and came back that their children would then be eligible for education at all levels. "

 stignob wrote on January 9, 2008 7:15 am:
" Anybody against LB253 hates individual freedom. "

 Oh please wrote on January 9, 2008 7:50 am:
" Someone commented "Anybody against LB253 hates individual freedom. ". I can guarantee you I appreciate freedom, however I believe helmets save lives. I also hate seatbelts, but believe they save lives so I wear one. I've seen first hand the evidence of a motorcycle accident where someone was wearing a helmet. The doctors said if it wasn't for the helmet, she'd probably be dead. I've also seen the results of head injuries, it's not pretty and is with you the rest of your life, sucking strength from family and friends. And if you think a simple trip to the hospital is expensive, imagine what a lifetime of care will cost you. If you want to ride without a helmet, you should have to sign a legal document that says the government and insurance co's aren't responsible for your care. That was no ones insurance rates go up because you want the wind blowing in your face. Also, your family will have to sign papers saying they will never become elgible for gov aid because you are a financial burden on them. "

 Jared wrote on January 9, 2008 8:04 am:
" I cannot believe that in an era where it is apropos for every state to require seatbelts when a person is a passenger in a car, and with 75 mile-per-hour speed limits on the interstates, that we are honestly having a debate about helmets that only talks about 8 million dollars a year in benefits. I can almost guarantee you that it would only take 4 or 5 unhelmeted motorcycle wrecks a year to eat up that 8 million in hospital bills and property damage. Additionally, there is a large percentage of these people who believe in the bottle-to-throttle method of motorcycle riding. I.e. one for the road is okay--when it is clearly not.

So, I say, if we want to repeal the helmet law, repeal the public's duty to pay their medical bills. No exceptions. "

 Helmets Save Lives wrote on January 9, 2008 8:11 am:
" You want to drive a recreational vehicle such as a Motorcycle then you should have to wear a helmet. Motorcycles are a nuisance, they have unregulated exhaust that blairs up and down the road ways, the use of a helmets needs to be expanded.
Indivdual freedom... hmmmmm The No smoking law sure does work! Your Helmet may save your noggin, and my money. Wear the helmet, and be glad that you have the freedom to ride a bike at all. "

 Helmet wrote on January 9, 2008 8:33 am:
" Here's my take on the helmet law and I'm a rider. On the highway at that rate of speed, more than likely a helmet will not help much. Perhaps the difference between being a vegetable and death. In town at slower speeds I believe they are invaluable. the difference between death/vegetable and a minor if any head trauma. IMO. There is something to "Let those who ride, decide", but for me my helmet is a trusted friend. Just like my leather, my glasses and my vigilance when riding. "

 Old Biker Guy wrote on January 9, 2008 8:44 am:
" From the time I left Lincoln to head for Sturgis South Dakota then back home, my wallet was missing $2500, I didn't ask the 16 people that left Lincoln with me how much they spent but I think more than me, we hoteled up in Nebraska and continued our journey. I think it would take an accomplished mathmatition to figure the economic impact on Nebraska just for the Sturgis rally alone, then you add Hog stock, hot Harley nights, thunder in the Rockies and about 6 more rallys and it is impossible for the mind to figure the loss Nebraska has been sustaining all these years in lost revenue. Changing the helmet law is a gigantic step in the right direction, next you need to work on law enforcement attitude toward bikers, we are not outlaws, the people that ride with me are mostly retired baby boomers just enjoying life.
You law makers need to know that Dr. Joel Johnson who strongly opposes this helmet law change is going through life with blinders on and his oposition to this law is robbing our state of several millions of dollars in much needed revenue and tourism.
I am shocked that Christian Hornbaker, director of Nebraska travel and tour is not outraged with the existing
helmet laws when the one big thing he could do to make the most impact on tourism is right before his eyes. "

 Karl wrote on January 9, 2008 8:47 am:
" No one is debating or denying natural causes for global warming - they're focusing on the changes we cause that we can control. We can't legislate solar cycles or volcanoes. We can make sure that we don't make it worse. "

 SB wrote on January 9, 2008 8:51 am:
" If helmets save so many lives I think people should be required to wear them driving in their car – a lot more car accidents then motorcycle accidents every day. But wait; that would impede on everybody’s right for personal freedom, rather than the non-riders wanting to dictate what the riders do because they think they know what’s best for them. How many people support abortion rights (the right to kill an unborn human being) or smoking rights (the right to affect the public’s health), but don’t support helmet rights (the right to choose to protect one’s own health)? Western Nebraskan - Where is the data that riders don’t carry insurance? Why is it unreasonable to use economics as a debate point – especially when they only good reason (the only reason that doesn’t dismiss a person’s freedom and civil rights) you note is because a rider may become disabled and a financial burden on the state? If you’ve ever driven or lived in a surrounding state during the summer you would truly understand what a silly decision it is to restrict a riders’ rights and the huge economic resource Nebraska is missing out on. "

 Big Chief wrote on January 9, 2008 9:01 am:
" I have been riding motorcycles for close to fifty years. I am going to be riding my motorcycle to the coffee shop this afternoon. The first thing I will do after I put on my cold weather gear will be to put on my helmet. I would wear that helmet even if there was no law mandating it. I wear it by choice. However in July, when the temperature and the humidity are both high, I WOULD NOT wear a helmet if I had a choice. I am convinced that in hot humid conditions helmets may cause accidents and deaths. For all of you so called experts the next time the thermometer goes over 90 degrees put on a helmet and wear it for a few hours. For that one reason it should be a voluntary decision. Pass 253 and get rid of a bad law. "

 BYOB wrote on January 9, 2008 9:05 am:
" I have been riding a motorcycle since 1963, been everywhere, Kansas, Colo, California, South dakota, Iowa, Wyoming etc. and I could add more, much experiance? absolutley. My take on helmet laws is that they are good.
My take on Nebraska helmet laws is that they are totally antiquated and bad for all of us. riders from 16 to 21 sometimes don't think or ride like they should especially on those Ninja type motorcycles, I think they need full body armour the way they ride. Change the laws and keep up with the other states around us. "

 Josh wrote on January 9, 2008 9:06 am:
" So let me see if I read this correctly....not wearing motorcycle helmets will increase safety? Bizarre. Also, Mr. Foster's letter demonstrates "...a fundamental lack of understanding about climate and the natural world." By "...by polluting [the environment] day after day", we have set in motion an accelerated warming cycle that we cannot hope to stop. However, if we stop "polluting it day after day," we may be able to slow the process or at least lessen its impact on future generations.
"

 Where? wrote on January 9, 2008 9:11 am:
" Where is Milo getting that 8 million from? And until he can show that it costs the state substantially less to care for people in a persistant vegetative state as a result of a motorcycle accident (currently estimates are 100,000/year for an individual) it doesn't matter. "

 RC Out West wrote on January 9, 2008 9:21 am:
" I will agree to a "no helmet" law when the State of NE will NOT be responsible for ANY medical treatment for an injured motorcyclist. If you want to explode your head then either personally pay for your medical needs or just die. Don't expect the taxpayers of NE to pay for your medical care just because you want to drive "with the wind in your hair". "

 Here's an idea wrote on January 9, 2008 9:21 am:
" If you are injured while riding a motorcycle and you aren't wearing a helmet (same could go for cars and seatbelts), you become ineligible to receive any "free care" beyond a trip to the emergency room. There, problem solved. If you are dumb, you have to pay for it yourself with your own insurance or cash. "

 Eric wrote on January 9, 2008 9:44 am:
" No one is claiming there aren't other factors that contribute to global warming. However, the vast majority of the scientific community believes humans are CONTRIBUTING to global warming. Therefore, humans can CONTRIBUTE to lessening the effects. "

 Chris wrote on January 9, 2008 9:55 am:
" Eric Foster does hit on a good point in that the global warming issue has been plagued by those with political agendas. Its simply ignorant to claim that global warming is happening solely by human activity alone. This is Al Gore's fallacy, as well as not seeming to want acknowledge the role of industrial world beyond the U.S. On the otherside it is ignorant to simply write off global warming as a mere trend in climate that humans have nothing to do with. In order to gain consensus we need take the politicians like Gore out of the global warming issue. Gore and others seem more interested in gaining notoreity than workable solutions we can all agree on. "

 joni wrote on January 9, 2008 10:04 am:
" After a motorcycle accident the surgeon stated. " Those with $5 heads wear $5 helmets". My family member wore a $200 helmet, has a fully functioning brain and a plate in his collar bone from the helmet impact. Those who want to repeal the helmet law must have no brain!!!!! "

 peb wrote on January 9, 2008 10:07 am:
" Since motorcyclists usually travel via interstates and Nebraska has only an east-west interstate, why would a motorcyclist on their way to Sturgis go through Nebraska? "

 helmets wrote on January 9, 2008 10:07 am:
" if you crash your motorcycle, or god forbid a car wipes you out, your helmet really isnt going to do a whole lot. And it should be the choice of the rider. If they are willing to get brain damage, so be it. "

 Wake up people wrote on January 9, 2008 10:33 am:
" Its interesting the tuition issue did have some
undoing in the Republican primary for governor for Tom
Osborne. Even more interesting, all the years of huge
bucks put in his pocket, he has no concern for all those
citizens that helped fill his pockets, and now right ready
to join the rich in stuffing the white elephant arena in
the Haymarket "rich friends" grip, while the rest of the
city is filled with bars, taverans, drunks and crime.
The vision of the 2015 just plain stinks and anybody
that can't see its ALL FOR their money stock piles and
they could care less for the citizens of Lincoln or Nebraska. And comparisons with Omaha in arena, sales
taxes or anything is propaganda, and compare any of
Nebraska with any other state for progress and you will
laugh your head off. If you've been in other state you
will understand, if not, you'll take the propaganda hook
line and sinker unfortunately!! I have worked in building
citys in other states and they don't drain the property
owners with taxes doing it!!!!! Its called progress, in Nebraska it called greed!!!!
"

 Individual freedom to be stupid wrote on January 9, 2008 11:16 am:
" Oh yeah, repeal the helmet law because it would be good for the economy. After all, dollars count for more than lives, right? I ride. I wear a helmet because I'd like to continue to ride, and to live. An old family friend was killed at Sturgis a few years back; he crashed at an EXTREMELY low rate of speed and should have had only slight injuries. Except, he wasn't wearing a helmet. It would have saved him. But by all means, repeal the law. Increase the state coffers, and the coffins. "

 JT wrote on January 9, 2008 11:21 am:
" I'll make a deal with you non-helmet motorcycle people. I'll support the no helmet law if you put a muffler on your bike. You know it impinges on my personal freedom when I have to stop a conversation so a guy having a midlife crisis can feel cool revving his Harley. If you don't wear a helmet you can also never wreck and go to the hospital. Because then my wife, who's a nurse, will have to take care of you, that takes away her freedom too. "

 To Old Biker Guy wrote on January 9, 2008 11:30 am:
" I bet 2400 of your 2500 that you spent was in South Dakota and not Nebraska. I drove a SUV 2 years ago out to San Diego and back, a total of almost 4,000 miles and spent less than 1,000 for gas, food and lodging. Now, tell me you spent all 2,500 in Nebraska.

As to Milo's guesstimate of how much revenue the state is losing because of the helmet law, maybe all the bikers who show up at Sturgis don't spend 8,000,000 in total there.

If you are going to argue economic loss, use figures that are reasonable and not some huge number.

BTW, I am a biker and do not mind the helmet law one bit. "

 To SB: wrote on January 9, 2008 11:42 am:
" Actually, studies have been done on the percentage of injured motorcyclists relying on public funds to pay for their hospital bills. Estimates from the Harborview Medical Center and the University of North Carolina's Highway research center put the percentage at anywhere from 50-63%. There's no reason to suppose that Western Nebraska would be any different. "

 Car analogies? Really? wrote on January 9, 2008 11:43 am:
" To the "helmets in cars" analogy people. The equivalent of a helmet law in a car is the seat belt law. In addition, a car possesses several safety features not possible in a motorcycle such as a padded interior and airbag. That analogy is just silly. "

 Jay wrote on January 9, 2008 12:03 pm:
" Personally, I agree with SB. It's legal to kill a baby if you want to, it's legal to smoke, and slowly kill yourself and others around you if you want to, but we gotta make those bikers wear those helmets. I would like to think that most bikers would be intelligent enough to ride with their helmets on when it is most dangerous, ie in town driving, even if there were no law requiring them to. But to make them wear it all of the time, especially out on the open road, is a violation of their personal freedom IMHO. "

 Jim wrote on January 9, 2008 12:13 pm:
" Huckabee favors a plan that would have illegals go back and come through the process legally. That is a totally different subject than the fact that he (as Governor) supported allowing in-state children of illegals attend college and pay in-state tuition - and then he gave his reasons why. No one is saying that an illegal would get in-state tuition in a state other than where they are living (and paying taxes most likely). "

 Nina wrote on January 9, 2008 12:21 pm:
" What Milo's letter says to me is that at least 10% of bikers going to the Sturgis rally put personal freedom above common sense. Since the Bible tells us we are indeed our brothers' keepers, I guess we need a helmet law. "

 ol' Farmer wrote on January 9, 2008 12:30 pm:
" Auto safety vs. motorcycle safety percentages are available in insurance company tables, and are revealing to look up. I witnessed a motorcycle fatality (no helmet) on Hwy 2 going through Lincoln one time, and the woman's head was mush spilling out on the road. I also came upon an accident where a Harley had hit a deer at 65 mph, with helmets in use. Both riders' helmets were shredded, but still protected them enough that all they had were head cuts that were stitched up and left them fully functional. They were lucky in that they also had on leather chaps, so the road burns weren't fatal. It is plain common sense to protect yourself no matter what you're driving or riding. "

 LEGAL American wrote on January 9, 2008 12:33 pm:
" Hey Jeff...the children of illegal aliens can continue their education...in their parent's country of origin! Why are we so quick to assist illegals vs. our own legal citizens who need help? Let's take care of our own first! "

 A Rider wrote on January 9, 2008 1:23 pm:
" I am glad the helment bill is comming up again this year and I hope it goes thru this time. i am tired of the government and others out there and they know who they are tring to force us to wear helments. I lost two close and I mean close Freinds to motorcycle accidents almost two years ago and they were both wearing a legal helment, let me repeat this they were both wearing legal helment and they are both gone today. People out there need to realize that helments can give you a false sense of security. If you are in a bad enough accident a helment isn't going to save you no matter what. We motorcyclist should have the choice. i am for having the law say 21 and older and have plenty of insurance. My tax dollars also pay for those out there and I'll bet more of my tax dollars go to smokers out there who are sitting in a hospital or hospis dying from there freedom of choice. If we are going to be that particluar lets get rid of tobaccoo also and all the things out there that could cause us harm. the government needs to stay out of our lives and prtect us from the real dangers out there, terrorism and ILLEGAL aleins. I have been in some bke accidents my fault or whoevers fault and my head is still in one peice, it's my choice not yours. i have heard all the sides. Remember when nebraska passed the helment laws back in the 90's and they said my insurance would go down, well has it? No One Darn Bit. so there again is a falsehood the government tries to persuade or force us to believe. Everyone out there who fight this I would like to find something close and dear to you that could cause you harm if you mess up and find something to force you do somethinng thqat you don't like. STAY OUTA OUR LIVES!! "

 RJ wrote on January 9, 2008 1:53 pm:
" One of the few times I agree with Heineman & Bruning. We have a lot of our own children that want an education & don't get those breaks. Heineman & Bruning need to go a lot further on this law. Employers prosecuted HARSHLY for hiring the illegal, no excuses. No illegal child gets a US citizenship unless 1 parent is legal. Illegal's
are responsible for their children. They should be ashamed to use their children to get around the laws of our country. Let ICE, the Border Patrol do their job and
the legal citizen,s should be standing up for the Ice, Border patrol, instead of letting the do gooders help the
illegal's break the laws. They can all be sent home, no
if's and about it. They are illegal, then no benefits of
any kind, nor should they be allowed to use their children for breaking our laws of this country. Treat them as there country would treat us for breaking the
laws. HARSHLY. "

 Dr Marcus Welby wrote on January 9, 2008 2:03 pm:
" Who is sponsoring this new law, the Nebraska Medical Association? Wearing a helmut is a no-brainer. Literally. "

 Dave wrote on January 9, 2008 2:23 pm:
" To Legal American: Why would would we allow the children of illegal immigrants the benefit of in-state tuition? Because they were born here, they are for all practical purposes raised as an American, gone to school k-12, probably held a job where taxes have been withheld, they are human beings, educating them will allow them to be more productive citizens thus contributing to society rather than hiding in the "shadows" of society, and furthermore - they didn't make the decision to come here. This is not the way to curb the illegal immigration problem. And... they are in most cases paying most forms of taxes - although property ownership is certainly lower - they do hold jobs in which income tax is withheld - not to mention all other types of taxes. We can solve this problem and still retain some dignity in how we treat fellow human beings.h "

 Reduce our Liability wrote on January 9, 2008 3:17 pm:
" Here's a though... Motorcyclists that do not weat helmets put all of us at financial risk. If they are low income and can not afford medical care, WE as taxpayers take on that burden. If they are in an accident and the other driver is liable, they are forced to pay significantly higher amounts if bodily injury occurs due to trauma to the head. But, alas, it should be freedom of choice.. we are a "free" country afterall. But, there should also be an implied waiver of all medical expenses resulting from the lack of a helmet. If they want to make that choice, they need to choose to be on their own for the financial ramifications as well. "

 Nina wrote on January 9, 2008 3:38 pm:
" Legal American, I have answers to your questions. These (mostly Mexican) children cannot get an education in their own home country. Their parents wouldn't risk their lives and well-being, or risk separation as a family if they could. It's the same reason as why the Pilgrims came over here - no opportunity and desperate poverty where they came from. Why are we eager to help children not our own? Simple compassion for innocent lives that could be made better. If you wish to take care of our own before them, that's one issue you can admit, but the rest of it is venomous, and you can be grateful your own ancestors didn't encounter such an attitude to live here. "

 Isn't this suppose to be a.... wrote on January 9, 2008 4:25 pm:
" a free country? But now not only do I have to wear a helmet, I am required to wear a seatbelt. Isn't it my choice if I want to die or not? All you people ok with this are obviously not advocates of your civil liberties and individual freeedom. What is next freedom of speech? Speed monitors on our cars? Cameras on street corners? This is the gov't way of slowly controlling all of us by making it look like they care, trust me they don't! And you people relating this to money are just as pathetic as the ones you call pathetic for not wearing a helmet. "

 I agree with rider and SB wrote on January 9, 2008 4:33 pm:
" 100%!!!!!!!! All you people who don't ride and want to get in our own decision choices, do you get this upset with abortion? Smokers? And for that matter are you overweight? Because obesity kills much much more than a person not wearing a motorcycle helmet. "

 unbelievable wrote on January 9, 2008 6:17 pm:
" It amazes me that everytime this debate come up you go on and on about the uninsured motorcyclists. What about all the people currently driving cars with no insurance? I want to see some statistics on what percentage of people in this state, legal, illegal, suspended license, revoked license etc. There are thousands of people driving cars with no insurance and I do not see the uproar of citizens worrying about these people who are a menace to the law abiding citizens of Nebraska. The motorcyclist not wearing a helmet is the least of your worries. Is a motorcycle rider without a helmet as a serious threat to your family in your huge SUV as an uninsured person in another vehicle. Which one would you rather have crash into you? Think about it. "

 Jan wrote on January 9, 2008 6:41 pm:
" For all the nits who keep saying if you don't wear a helmet you don't get medical care. How bout we make a helmet law for pedestrians? You can't walk outside without one on. Or how about people who work on roofs etc etc. It is not our governments job to protect us from ourselves. "

 to RJ wrote on January 9, 2008 8:46 pm:
" you say our own children want an education and don't get those breaks? I don't think you understand the issue. "Our own children" have the same "breaks" of in-state tuition. And how are the illegal immigrant parents "using" their american born children to break the law - don't quite follow that. The proposed law that Bush and McCain were backing would have required most families to return to Mexico and reapply to get in plus pay a fee that most of the don't have. But that wasn't strict enough somehow for the hysteria of the hardliners. So we do nothing, and continue status quo. What do you want - probably put on freight trains and ship them south right. Once again - the topic was in-state tuition, and how denying that is NOT taking anything away from other natural citizens, and its not the way to solve the illegal immigrant problem. "

 Dougaba wrote on January 10, 2008 7:55 am:
" Want to ride helmet fee is ok with me.. but make it mandatory they sign a organ donor card first.. Seems like a fair trade off. "

 LEGAL American wrote on January 10, 2008 9:40 am:
" Nina, My ancestors came here LEGALLY and were afforded a great opportunity. No, it wasn't easy for them but they persevered. Why can't you beeding hearts get it that they have broken our laws? Are you suggesting we only obey the laws we agree with? How many of these people deliberately had "anchor babies" so they get a free pass? How can we continue to afford their education, medical care, etc? Do you want your taxes raised even higher? No, we shouldn't bear the burden of their parent's poor judgement. That's where the blame lies, squarely on the irresponsible parents you placed their their children in such a predicament! Come here legally and we will welcome you with open arms!! "

 Mid wrote on January 10, 2008 10:49 am:
" I have been riding a motorcycle since I was 20, I would wear a helmet with or without the law, but I don't think that it should be mandated. I agree with requiring those under 21 (especially passengers) to wear one. I also feel however that if an adult wants to risk his own health and safety that government should not interfear. Maybe stipulate that anyone riding without a helmet be an organ donor, that way we can harvest them for people who need healthy parts and pieces. "

 big fist wrote on January 10, 2008 12:49 pm:
" If we have to have a helmet law, fine. BUT include with it mandatory use of shirts, long pants, and shoes!!!! The riders that ride with only a helmet, shorts, and flip-flops must think they are safe because they have a helmet on. Wait till they experience road rash or a burn from a hot exhaust. Seems like common sense is in short supply in this wholoe issue. "

 SB wrote on January 10, 2008 1:01 pm:
" In most states they require non-helmet riders to carry higher insurance coverage, if the problem is that insurance companies are passing their claims to public care, that’s a different problem that goes beyond the issue at hand. I think we all know there are more non-insured car drivers out there – and yes I still believe requiring auto drivers to wear helmets is a viable argument if we’re going to argue accident injuries costs taxpayers. "

 Reduce Liability wrote on January 10, 2008 2:25 pm:
" Jan, to answer your questions. I firmly believe that there should be no liability to drivers that hit pedestrians crossing illegally outside of a designated crosswalk. Individuals that work on roofs are already covered under Worker's Comp insurance to cover any failures on their part. And besides, working possibly dangerous jobs is completely different than being irresponsible and reckless in your personal decisions. I do agree that this should be a free country. If you don't want to wear a helmer, or a seat belt, more power to you. I just don't want to have to pay for it when you get hurt. "

 This is comical wrote on January 10, 2008 4:28 pm:
" If you want your freedom to not where a helmet, i want the freedom to not pay for your ignorance when you are seriously injured or killed

"

 Nina wrote on January 10, 2008 4:31 pm:
" Legal American, when my ancestors came here, there wasn't any way to come illegally! I suspect it was not an issue when yours arrived, either. I'm interested to know your solution to (as I've posted in the past) it taking two years to get a green card, longer to get citizenship, over $2000 for a lawyer, and numerous trips to Omaha each year, for a person with a doctorate to live here. How easy do you think it would be for regular folks? Also, your take on the numerous (in the 100's) of non-citizens fighting for our country, losing their lives in Iraq in the US Army? You wouldn't allow their kids to be educated here either, I suppose. It takes a broad mind to see the broad picture, and I resent the taxes I pay that the rich should be paying but don't, thanks to Bush, much more than than the miniscule amount going to help educate immigrants' kids. "

 Ol' Farmer wrote on January 10, 2008 4:46 pm:
" A quick way to get legal citizen status is available for the more than 25,000 noncitizens fighting in the US military now it to get wounded badly. They get almost immediate citizenship then. They also get it posthumously if they're killed for the US, but then they would miss out on seeing their kids get an education anyway. Just the facts. "

 Bikes are loud for a reason wrote on January 10, 2008 5:39 pm:
" A lot of people on here have complained about how loud bikes are. Well they are loud so that other drivers know they are there. I know there are a lot of really good motorcycle drivers out there, but there are also too many who sit in blind spots and weave through traffic. I personally think wearing a helmet is a non-issue, but this is a fragmented section of society. I don't think comparing bikes to cars is a fair comparison. Let people over 21 not wear a helmet if they don't want to. It shouldn't be our call anyway. "

Ads by Yahoo!