Judge says MB antibike rules unconstitutional

[jwfranklin]

I'll be there 4 days the second week of May. won't be staying downtown as usual. Probably to late to make any offical difference this year. But maybe city leader will think twice about enforcing the new ordianced

http://www.scooternews.net/node/2399

Wayne

 

[ataDude]

.
I don't get it. Why would anyone want to go spend their hard-earned money in a place that doesn't want them?

.

 

[bone crusher]

I'll be there 4 days the second week of May. won't be staying downtown as usual. Probably to late to make any offical difference this year. But maybe city leader will think twice about enforcing the new ordianced

http://www.scooternews.net/node/2399

Wayne

I can't believe anyone would want to ride without a helmet...studies are so clear on this topic...I guess if people want to crack their heads open, it's their business...let them do it...just don't cost anyone else any money!

 

[Derwin]

I can't believe anyone would want to ride without a helmet...studies are so clear on this topic...I guess if people want to crack their heads open, it's their business...let them do it...just don't cost anyone else any money!

In regards to this new "law" that they have imposed, I guess this is your answer...

Toal suggests this creates a tiered court system, which would be unconstitutional.

 

[Roaddog2]

.
I don't get it. Why would anyone want to go spend their hard-earned money in a place that doesn't want them?

.

:agree::agree:

 

[jwfranklin]

.
I don't get it. Why would anyone want to go spend their hard-earned money in a place that doesn't want them?

.

I won't be going in the city limits of MB, very little of the Rally has ever beeen there anyway. The rest of Horry county, the cities of North Myrtle Beach. Murrells Inlet, Surfside, Garden City and others have let it be known that bikers sre appreciated. The mayor of North Myrtle Beach had a press release assuring bikers they are appreciated. In fact a lot of business's inside the city limits are biker friendly. I'll be staying about a mile outside the city limits, and I know my way around MB. I fell sorry for a lot of the biker friendly business's. There is not much going on untill Memorial day. The campground In Town where I usually stay, has told me it's a ghostown untill the Rally. Than they are full.

 

[bone crusher]

In regards to this new "law" that they have imposed, I guess this is your answer...

Helmets are mandatory in many states due to the studies that show that they save lives. When I was traveling in Iowa, I saw that nobody was wearing a helmet...I just thought to myself that they were not too bright...sure, the open air is nice, but concrete on your bare skull is not too forgiving. I lost a friend in college to this situation as he was riding on the back of someone's bike when the bike hit a big 'bump', he fell backward, cracked his skull, and died...had he been wearing protective headgear, this wouldn't have happened...the stories and studies are numerous on this topic.

In MB, they lose the Memorial Day holiday to the bike week...the city would prefer a more family-based environment as places like Barefoot Landing and the rest of the tourist industry suffer with bike week.

I own houses and property there and the locals are not fond of bike week...I know this first hand and hear it whenever I go down there...

If bike week fell on a non-holiday weekend, it might be better recevied...esp. if it was before or after the prime vacation season.

 

[Magic Man]

.
I don't get it. Why would anyone want to go spend their hard-earned money in a place that doesn't want them?

.

:agree::agree::agree:

We won't be back!

MM

 

[Dudley]

Seems simple enough. If someone doesn't want you in their house, you don't go. If their neighbor invites you, you go there and visit. No law is broken and a visit is shared. It's a lot more complicated in MB, but it could probably work to have the gathering out of the city limit where others will enjoy your visit and your money. Let MB have their visitors and the surrounding area have theirs.

 

[Roaddog2]

Seems simple enough. If someone doesn't want you in their house, you don't go. If their neighbor invites you, you go there and visit. No law is broken and a visit is shared. It's a lot more complicated in MB, but it could probably work to have the gathering out of the city limit where others will enjoy your visit and your money. Let MB have their visitors and the surrounding area have theirs.

Ya but what about the Hair Dresser Convention that go's on in MB at the same time :shemademe_smilie:

 

[Roger]

Yup it's true the locals don't like bikers but i wonder if they realize how much money they pump in to the economy? MB obviously don't need any money. and like it was stated before their is very little going on in the city anyway.

 

[FANG]

.
I don't get it. Why would anyone want to go spend their hard-earned money in a place that doesn't want them?

.

I would have to agree with ataDude. If not wanted why attend. Let them do without the biker money for a while and see how the economy does - especially as bad as the economy has been - when business start hurting they will turn the heat up on the govt. :dontknow:

 

[Derwin]

Helmets are mandatory in many states due to the studies that show that they save lives.

But this wasn't a question of "state law". This was about a local ordinance that some see as being unconstitutional. That's the point in regards to the specific subject brought up in this thread.

I lost a friend in college to this situation as he was riding on the back of someone's bike when the bike hit a big 'bump', he fell backward, cracked his skull, and died...had he been wearing protective headgear, this wouldn't have happened...the stories and studies are numerous on this topic.

Yep. I understand very well. My cousin got into a terrible accident, and became cripple from a bike accident where he was not wearing a helmet. I think most all of us have similar stories to tell.

But I still believe that the LESS government interferes in our personal lives, and our personal choices, the better. I live in Illinois, where we are not required to wear a helmet when riding (yet!). I think it's great. I think giving people the FREEDOM to wear a helmet, or not wear a helmet, is fantastic. It's my opinion that people should have the freedom to choose, as long as it is not endangering OTHER people.

Is it smart to wear a helmet? You bet. But let the individual make that decision, not the government.

Derwin

 

[jwfranklin]

Helmets are mandatory in many states due to the studies that show that they save lives. When I was traveling in Iowa, I saw that nobody was wearing a helmet...I just thought to myself that they were not too bright...sure, the open air is nice, but concrete on your bare skull is not too forgiving. I lost a friend in college to this situation as he was riding on the back of someone's bike when the bike hit a big 'bump', he fell backward, cracked his skull, and died...had he been wearing protective headgear, this wouldn't have happened...the stories and studies are numerous on this topic.

In MB, they lose the Memorial Day holiday to the bike week...the city would prefer a more family-based environment as places like Barefoot Landing and the rest of the tourist industry suffer with bike week.

I own houses and property there and the locals are not fond of bike week...I know this first hand and hear it whenever I go down there...

If bike week fell on a non-holiday weekend, it might be better recevied...esp. if it was before or after the prime vacation season.

A couple of things, do you realize that helmets are only required in 20 states. In the other 30 they are NOT. I agree that helmets should be used, I had a accident about 6 years ago where someone pulled out in front of me, I hit them, went over the bars ripping off the windshield, bounced off the car, and ended up in a ditch face down. When my helmet was examined a big hunk was knocked out. My head apparently hit the pavement. Probably won't be here without it, But from what I've seen at Rallys, including Sturgis, Daytona, MB and many others. And the fact that 30 don't require them and, and several others are in the process of changing the law, including North Carolina, A lot and probably the majority don't agree with you. I personally think it should be a personal decision. We have enough goverment interference in our lifes as it is.
Second, as I have stated before, and you quoted me on once, but you can't seem to understand. Myrtle Beach Bike Week is the second week of May, before the prime vacation season, NOT MEMORIAL DAY WEEKEND. Atlantic Beach Bikefest, aka Sport Bike Week, aka Black Bike week, is Memorial Day weekend.

 

[Dudley]

The helmet law has been debated for years. I wear one because I only have one head and it cannot be replaced and have worn one everytime I get on a bike to ride since 1966. If I have an accident, will a helmet save my life? I don't know and neither does anybody else. If it gets totally destroyed and kills me I would have died without it also. If it gets badly damaged and I live, then it saved my life. I'll take my chances with a helmet. But that's my choice. If I travel in a state that does not have a helmet law, I will still keep mine on, and so will my wife. The MB situation is a city within a state, imposing a helmet law where the state does not. That's like a city saying it's citizens cannot drive until they are 21 when the state's driving age is 16. The state law should prevail.
Except for breaking a tradition, another location along another beach where motorcycles were permitted would probably work just as well. MB doean't want motorcycles, then riders don't want MB. Even exchange!

 

[Roger]

Just got off the phone with my sister it seems she was involved in an accident. She was parked at the waffle house on hwy 501 in conway,SC it's about 14 miles west of myrtle beach and a trike lost control came in the driveway hit my sisters car the female bike passenger flew over the car and hit her head on the telephone pole. She passed away the next day. No she nor the driver of the bike had helmets on. the driver will be ok and both my sisters will be fine just a little sore.ray:ray:ray:

 

[vt228]

ower prayers go with them and we are still going to MB in may and if anyone neads a place to lay there head call us we have a condo there .hyea:

 

[Star Cruiser]

But this wasn't a question of "state law". This was about a local ordinance that some see as being unconstitutional. That's the point in regards to the specific subject brought up in this thread.

Yep. I understand very well. My cousin got into a terrible accident, and became cripple from a bike accident where he was not wearing a helmet. I think most all of us have similar stories to tell.

But I still believe that the LESS government interferes in our personal lives, and our personal choices, the better. I live in Illinois, where we are not required to wear a helmet when riding (yet!). I think it's great. I think giving people the FREEDOM to wear a helmet, or not wear a helmet, is fantastic. It's my opinion that people should have the freedom to choose, as long as it is not endangering OTHER people.

Is it smart to wear a helmet? You bet. But let the individual make that decision, not the government.

Derwin

Our government makes us have a separate license just to ride a bike! I think if we choose to drive or ride, government shouldn't make us pass a test. If I choose to take a course, or meet a certain standard it should be my choice (tongue in cheek - obviously, I hope)
Next thing you know They'll take away freedom of speech by not allowing swearing on TV....

 

[Derwin]

Our government makes us have a separate license just to ride a bike! I think if we choose to drive or ride, government shouldn't make us pass a test.

In this case, my friend, the government just wants to make sure that you know HOW to drive a bike, or whatever, for the protection of OTHER people on the road. This is a legitimate use of government.

If I choose to take a course, or meet a certain standard it should be my choice (tongue in cheek - obviously, I hope)

Yes. Your choice. As long as you can PROVE to the government that you know how to ride, and won't kill anybody ELSE on the road. But when it comes to helmet laws, your not endangering anybody ELSE.

Next thing you know They'll take away freedom of speech by not allowing swearing on TV....

I think your mixing apples and oranges here. Again, the proper role of government is to set standards that will make it less likely that one person harms another person. If a guy is riding without a helmet, he is not endangering anybody else but himself. And he should have the FREEDOM to CHOOSE whether to wear a helmet or not. As most people have pointed out, the INTELLIGENT choice is to wear a helmet. But we should at least have that choice.

In the case of swearing on television.... I think we can all say that those regulations by the FCC have been "loosened" a great deal over the past several decades. But, again, that's an entirely different discussion and/or debate.

I know some disagree with this point of view, and think that the government should be involved in every aspect of our lives. Before we know it, they might even outlaw bikes altogether because they come to the conclusion that they're too dangerous. Then we won't even have the freedom to choose to ride a motorcycle anymore.

If not wearing a helmet does not harm another person or their property, then why should we be required to wear one? I'm just very happy that only 20 states have a mandatory helmet law, and I DON'T live in one of them! (although I do wear a helmet most of the time!)

Derwin

 

[Dudley]

In this case, my friend, the government just wants to make sure that you know HOW to drive a bike, or whatever, for the protection of OTHER people on the road. This is a legitimate use of government.



Yes. Your choice. As long as you can PROVE to the government that you know how to ride, and won't kill anybody ELSE on the road. But when it comes to helmet laws, your not endangering anybody ELSE.



I think your mixing apples and oranges here. Again, the proper role of government is to set standards that will make it less likely that one person harms another person. If a guy is riding without a helmet, he is not endangering anybody else but himself. And he should have the FREEDOM to CHOOSE whether to wear a helmet or not. As most people have pointed out, the INTELLIGENT choice is to wear a helmet. But we should at least have that choice.

In the case of swearing on television.... I think we can all say that those regulations by the FCC have been "loosened" a great deal over the past several decades. But, again, that's an entirely different discussion and/or debate.

I know some disagree with this point of view, and think that the government should be involved in every aspect of our lives. Before we know it, they might even outlaw bikes altogether because they come to the conclusion that they're too dangerous. Then we won't even have the freedom to choose to ride a motorcycle anymore.

If not wearing a helmet does not harm another person or their property, then why should we be required to wear one? I'm just very happy that only 20 states have a mandatory helmet law, and I DON'T live in one of them! (although I do wear a helmet most of the time!)

Derwin

If not wearing a helmet does not harm another person or their property, then why should we be required to wear one? I'm just very happy that only 20 states have a mandatory helmet law, and I DON'T live in one of them! (although I do wear a helmet most of the time!)

What do you do when you leave your "no helmet" haven? You can't ride in a state that has helmet law even though yours does not. Oh well, to each his own. Mine fits pretty good on my head. And I strongly disagree about the government being involved in every aspect of our lives!