If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(MLive.com)   Michigan governor signs bill repealing motorcycle helmet requirement, or as it will soon be known--the Natural Selection Law of 2012   (mlive.com) divider line 467
    More: Stupid, Governors of Michigan, Rick Snyder, Natural Selection Law, Michigan, Jennifer Granholm, natural selection, Michigan Senate  
•       •       •

3604 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Apr 2012 at 2:04 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



467 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-13 02:24:18 PM

natazha: I don't ride any more, but the accidents I've seen (or been in) fell into two groups: low speed oops where a helmet didn't matter.


I'm sure most low speed drops don't make it into the statistical data... which says that for reported accidents about 40% of the time initial impact is in the jaw region. Those beanies don't do squat but keep bird shiat off your head. For the record I am fine with no helmet as a rule - though I will personally choose to wear a full-face DOT approved helmet 100% of the time.
 
2012-04-13 02:24:56 PM

o5iiawah: JackieRabbit: You just can't legislate personal responsibility.

In that case, I expect my social security payments to date to be returned to me within the next 90 days.


I don't see what personal responsibility has to do with Social Security. But then, this is Fark. You haven't made any social security "payments." You have paid a FICA tax, which is used to pay current recipients their benefits. Your future benefits are based upon how much you earn during your life, not what you have paid in taxes. You'll get far more back than you ever paid in. But, if you don't like Social Security, participation in it is 100% voluntary. When you reach retirement age, simply don't apply for benefits. Maybe you'll be alright. Or maybe you'll learn, as did so many millions of elderly people did back before Social Security, that dog food is edible.
 
2012-04-13 02:25:09 PM

hillbillypharmacist: And why does the AMA have to license "physicians"?


The individual state medical boards license physicians, not the AMA.
 
2012-04-13 02:25:16 PM
I know you have to wear eye protection, I don't ride, but one time while driving my car with my arm out the window a huge beetle hit my arm, and it farking broke the skin. Could you imagine taking a huge sharp bug to the forehead or cheek? You'd think the rider would lose control and eat it.
 
2012-04-13 02:25:16 PM
The real losers in this move are the public libraries, they were receiving all of the money from the tickets written for not wearing a helmet.
 
2012-04-13 02:26:19 PM

Fade2black: God forbid people take responsibility for their OWN actions, Libtard. Last time I checked, when a motorcycle crashes into someone else, the other party affected had no worse injuries because the cycler did or did not wear his own helmet.

I know you masturbate at night trying to figure out how to pass more laws and control behavior, but you'll have to fantasize about something else for a change...like actual women.

A cyclist not wearing his helmet has zero bearing on your life. Get over yourself.


You can say the same thing about gay marriage or abortion. How does a gay couple getting married affect straight people? How does a female, whom you have never met, getting an abortion affect you directly?

Plus, motorcyclists without wearing a helmet can indirectly have a bearing on your life. They could potentially increase healthcare costs for injuries that could have been avoided by the helmet.

/ I'm OK with motorcyclists not wearing helmets in Michigan... it is their heads, not mine.
 
2012-04-13 02:26:35 PM

LarryDan43: When all of your car insurance rates go up remember to thank a helmetless biker.


So outlaw motorcycles.
 
2012-04-13 02:26:57 PM

aaronx: Just so's you all know, Michigan will, supposedly, require helmet-less riders to be over 21 years of age and to, additionally, carry special 'dumbass' insurance that will cover their injuries.

My hope is that cops start pulling over every helmet-less rider they see to check their papers.


I agree with the first part but am vehemently opposed to the second.

Sure, if a helmetless biker is going 30 over the speed limit and gets pulled over, then go ahead and check to see if he has Darwin Insurance and lock him up if he doesn't. But a motorist obeying all traffic laws (or at least as many as can be obeyed, what with the limitations of physics and whatnot) shouldn't have to worry about being stopped by the Stasi to have their Papieren checked -- even if they are riding a motorcycle without a helmet.
 
2012-04-13 02:27:49 PM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: They pulled a similar stunt in TX a number of years ago, claiming that helmet laws were just another government infringement on bikers' liberty.

The stupidity of today's 'conservative' mindset is amazing.


I thought Liberals were all for Darwinisn?
 
2012-04-13 02:28:27 PM

King Something: aaronx: Just so's you all know, Michigan will, supposedly, require helmet-less riders to be over 21 years of age and to, additionally, carry special 'dumbass' insurance that will cover their injuries.

My hope is that cops start pulling over every helmet-less rider they see to check their papers.

I agree with the first part but am vehemently opposed to the second.

Sure, if a helmetless biker is going 30 over the speed limit and gets pulled over, then go ahead and check to see if he has Darwin Insurance and lock him up if he doesn't. But a motorist obeying all traffic laws (or at least as many as can be obeyed, what with the limitations of physics and whatnot) shouldn't have to worry about being stopped by the Stasi to have their Papieren checked -- even if they are riding a motorcycle without a helmet.


Would it be OK if they are Mexican? You know, just in case they're illegal.
 
2012-04-13 02:28:43 PM

DrewCurtisJr: LarryDan43: When all of your car insurance rates go up remember to thank a helmetless biker.

Why? How much in surgery and rehabilitation do dead people cost?


I posted in another thread about helmets the other day, but my sister's bicycle accident (even with helmet) showed a bill of over $130,000 before the insurance did their thing. And that was just impacting an SUV going 20 mph tops down a hill. So if they don't die... yeah, it's gonna be damn expensive.
 
2012-04-13 02:29:17 PM

LeroyBourne: I know you have to wear eye protection, I don't ride, but one time while driving my car with my arm out the window a huge beetle hit my arm, and it farking broke the skin. Could you imagine taking a huge sharp bug to the forehead or cheek? You'd think the rider would lose control and eat it.


Rain can feel tingly. Feels like standing in a blizzard with sleet pelting your face.
 
2012-04-13 02:30:24 PM

jst3p: CapeFearCadaver: If you ride and don't wear full-gear Every. Farking. Time. You. Ride. then you deserve to have your brains handed to you in your brain-bucket of a beenie helmet.

I don't ride yet, and I intend to wear gear but your statement is fairly absurd.

The benefit for wearing "full gear" is that the more gear a person wears the safer they are. The logical extension of that argument, considering how much more dangerous a motorcycle is than a car, is that it is stupid to ride a motorcycle at all.

It seems as if you are saying there is an arbitrary amount of risk that is acceptable and that line is drawn at a place you decide.


Riding a motorcycle is inherently dangerous on it's own. That's part of the thrill of riding. Full gear, especially in the case of a full face helmet, is paramount to personal safety if you ride for both utility and for the fun/thrill of it. There is a large amount of risk associated with motorcycling period. No arbitrary lines needed. However, making certain that your skull and face are covered, your feet and ankles are protected with the proper boots, your knuckels protected with the proper gloves, and a decent jacket that either has built in armor for shoulder/elbow/back bone protection or a decent leather; is what will help keep your insides inside and your bones from splintering and your skin off of the highway in case grandma doesn't see you coming down the road and pulls out in front of you.
 
2012-04-13 02:30:26 PM

oldfarthenry: How does one declare a Michigan citizen legally brain-dead as opposed to just, like, being a normal Michigan citizen?


Hey now. :)

As far as I could tell, anyone I talked to thought the repeal was farking idiotic. And yet... Here we are. I don't know how shiat gets passed these days.
 
2012-04-13 02:30:30 PM
The shiatty thing is insurance rates go through the roof for all bikers in Michigan now. So even if you're one of the ones who always wears a helmet, because it is no longer required your insurance will go up.
 
2012-04-13 02:30:33 PM
I don't know any bikers that have 'needed' their helmets due to accidents, but I know at least a few that have taken stray road debris, gravel, etc in the head/face area that the helmet protected them from. At the very least, it saves you from taking a small piece of rock to the forehead at 70 mph. That loud THUD and chip in your window...? imagine that on your face.
 
2012-04-13 02:30:41 PM

The Southern Dandy: King Something: aaronx: Just so's you all know, Michigan will, supposedly, require helmet-less riders to be over 21 years of age and to, additionally, carry special 'dumbass' insurance that will cover their injuries.

My hope is that cops start pulling over every helmet-less rider they see to check their papers.

I agree with the first part but am vehemently opposed to the second.

Sure, if a helmetless biker is going 30 over the speed limit and gets pulled over, then go ahead and check to see if he has Darwin Insurance and lock him up if he doesn't. But a motorist obeying all traffic laws (or at least as many as can be obeyed, what with the limitations of physics and whatnot) shouldn't have to worry about being stopped by the Stasi to have their Papieren checked -- even if they are riding a motorcycle without a helmet.

Would it be OK if they are Mexican? You know, just in case they're illegal.


No.

It would not be okay for ANYONE to get pulled over at random just to check that they're not breaking any laws.

/not Mexican, but can easily be mistaken for one
 
2012-04-13 02:30:58 PM
I don't think the natural selection factor is too great.

Jeb Bush killed Florida's helmet laws more than a decade ago, yet Florida still earns its Fark tag daily.

/I guess increasing motorcycle deaths 67% just isn't enough selection pressure, to raise IQ, but at least it makes for more organ donors.
 
2012-04-13 02:31:05 PM

King Something: aaronx: Just so's you all know, Michigan will, supposedly, require helmet-less riders to be over 21 years of age and to, additionally, carry special 'dumbass' insurance that will cover their injuries.

My hope is that cops start pulling over every helmet-less rider they see to check their papers.

I agree with the first part but am vehemently opposed to the second.

Sure, if a helmetless biker is going 30 over the speed limit and gets pulled over, then go ahead and check to see if he has Darwin Insurance and lock him up if he doesn't. But a motorist obeying all traffic laws (or at least as many as can be obeyed, what with the limitations of physics and whatnot) shouldn't have to worry about being stopped by the Stasi to have their Papieren checked -- even if they are riding a motorcycle without a helmet.


That Darwin insurance is only $20k. Its mostly useless. The MCCA fee assigned to all motor vehicles in the state will cover any medical costs over $500k. Medicaid will also take a hit with this as the vegitables will eventually get enrolled in those programs.
 
2012-04-13 02:32:44 PM
If you want to ride without a helmet, you should have to register as a helmetless rider and pay a higher rate of insurance to pay for your future vegetative state. Maybe have a designation on your license plate to show you can ride without - Perhaps a sprig of broccoli or a cabbage.
 
2012-04-13 02:33:12 PM

CapeFearCadaver: jst3p: CapeFearCadaver: If you ride and don't wear full-gear Every. Farking. Time. You. Ride. then you deserve to have your brains handed to you in your brain-bucket of a beenie helmet.

I don't ride yet, and I intend to wear gear but your statement is fairly absurd.

The benefit for wearing "full gear" is that the more gear a person wears the safer they are. The logical extension of that argument, considering how much more dangerous a motorcycle is than a car, is that it is stupid to ride a motorcycle at all.

It seems as if you are saying there is an arbitrary amount of risk that is acceptable and that line is drawn at a place you decide.

Riding a motorcycle is inherently dangerous on it's own. That's part of the thrill of riding. Full gear, especially in the case of a full face helmet, is paramount to personal safety if you ride for both utility and for the fun/thrill of it. There is a large amount of risk associated with motorcycling period. No arbitrary lines needed. However, making certain that your skull and face are covered, your feet and ankles are protected with the proper boots, your knuckels protected with the proper gloves, and a decent jacket that either has built in armor for shoulder/elbow/back bone protection or a decent leather; is what will help keep your insides inside and your bones from splintering and your skin off of the highway in case grandma doesn't see you coming down the road and pulls out in front of you.


So some risk is OK. More risk than you find personally acceptable is not.

That is the definition of arbitrary.
 
2012-04-13 02:33:42 PM

aaronx: Just so's you all know, Michigan will, supposedly, require helmet-less riders to be over 21 years of age and to, additionally, carry special 'dumbass' insurance that will cover their injuries.


The argument I've heard is that the dumbass insurance will still not be enough to cover the potential injuries since they are generally far more intensive. Expensive injuries, small insurance pool... :\

Mind you, I'd like to see a crackdown on people who wear flip-flops and ride, so I'm clearly biased.
 
2012-04-13 02:33:58 PM

Aidan: oldfarthenry: How does one declare a Michigan citizen legally brain-dead as opposed to just, like, being a normal Michigan citizen?

Hey now. :)

As far as I could tell, anyone I talked to thought the repeal was farking idiotic. And yet... Here we are. I don't know how shiat gets passed these days.


Corporations buy politicians, who then do what the corporations want. Insurance companies probably love this one since the fatalities are much higher than with autos.
 
2012-04-13 02:34:05 PM

sweetmelissa31: Since there have been warnings on cigarette cartons, higher taxes on cigarettes, and laws against smoking in the workplace, smoking rate has declined from 42% to 19% among Americans. A decrease in chronic diseases due to smoking will represent a large decrease in burden for American spending on healthcare (although unfortunately the increase in fatties replaces a lot of that burden). But the point stands that the change in smoking came about from direct government action.


Both the increase in government action and the decrease in smoking correlate to the increase in social awareness and stigma against smoking in general.

You also mentioned "spending on healthcare." As more of that burden is shifted to the government, the government will have more incentive to regulate anything it can tie to healthcare. You mentioned fatties, and yes there are people that want to regulate sugar. I'm not sure that's the road you really want to go down. If we're following this argument, then we should ban motorcycles altogether.

Where I live, they removed the helmet requirement. I really don't know what the stats are for accidents and injuries before or since. I know that the argument was that helmets decrease your range of vision, causing the bike rider to drive less safely. I have no idea what the real stats are.

I personally think bikers are stupid when I see them without helmets - and I see them all the time. There's a biker club down the road from me. But I can say that on trips to the convenience store, which is a couple blocks down 25 MPH roads, I would probably skip the helmet, too.
 
2012-04-13 02:34:06 PM

Big Man On Campus: [www.harry.hirschman.com image 600x435]

Helmets are of limited utility to the insane.


"My helmet is a planet, your argument is invalid."
 
2012-04-13 02:34:26 PM
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=116857&page=1

"After two years without mandatory helmet laws, trauma doctors at hospitals in Florida, for instance, say they are treating more and more patients who hit the road without a helmet. "

"A recent study in the Journal Trauma found that two-thirds of all bikers had no insurance, leaving the taxpayer to foot the bill. And for those riding without helmets, the average medical cost rises to $55,000."

"All in all, the federal government estimates taxpayers and insurance companies would save $10 billion if all bikers wore helmets."

When Billy Bob is on a ventilator for 5 years cause he flipped his Hawg without a helmet on...who do you think is playing for that? These motorcycle lobbyists groups or us?

Glad Michigan has nothing better to fix than this VITAL piece of legislation.
 
2012-04-13 02:34:49 PM

sweetmelissa31: Since there have been warnings on cigarette cartons, higher taxes on cigarettes, and laws against smoking in the workplace, smoking rate has declined from 42% to 19% among Americans. A decrease in chronic diseases due to smoking will represent a large decrease in burden for American spending on healthcare (although unfortunately the increase in fatties replaces a lot of that burden). But the point stands that the change in smoking came about from direct government action.


This is 100% false. Smokers (and the obese) die earlier and end-of-life costs for non-smokers are higher than the cost of dealing with smoking-related or obesity-related disease.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-04-08-fda-tobacco-costs_N.ht m
 
2012-04-13 02:35:06 PM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: They pulled a similar stunt in TX a number of years ago, claiming that helmet laws were just another government infringement on bikers' liberty.

The stupidity of today's 'conservative' mindset is amazing.


Your patronizing attitude towards other's freedom of choice is amazing as well.

/oh, must match the other portion... Communiberal nazi
 
2012-04-13 02:35:19 PM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: They pulled a similar stunt in TX a number of years ago, claiming that helmet laws were just another government infringement on bikers' liberty.

The stupidity of today's 'conservative' mindset is amazing.



So the government should legislate and mandate every good idea. Got it. Your Friendly Government Minder will be on the telescreen tomorrow at 7am, sharp, to ensure that you do your compulsory exercise routine, comrade.
 
2012-04-13 02:35:42 PM
Wife was in EMS for years. According to her, helmets really make little difference if the accident is bad enough to cause death. In the EMS community where she worked, the vehicles in question were called Donorcycles.

Both she and a guy I went to college with (also in EMS) told me stories about cleaning up helmets with perfectly intact heads still inside them, just no longer attached to bodies.
 
2012-04-13 02:36:06 PM
Al Franken: This morning... you said you were against mandatory motorcycle motorcycle helmets because it's a limit to personal freedom; and then later this afternoon you said you were against decriminalizing marijuana because it causes brain damage...

Ronald Reagan: What's your question?

Al Franken: Well, can't not wearing a motorcycle helmet cause brain damage a lot quicker than marijuana by, for example, the head splitting open so that actual material from the road enters the brain?


/Favorite Al Franken moment
 
2012-04-13 02:36:20 PM
Link (new window)

Have a nice day.
 
2012-04-13 02:36:45 PM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: "They pulled a similar stunt in TX a number of years ago, claiming that helmet laws were just another government infringement on bikers' liberty."



And how are they not, exactly?

Let's look at some facts: Motorcycles kill about 4,000 people a year in the U.S. Diabetes alone -- not even talking about heart disease -- kills between 70,000 and 230,000.

And yet when someone brings up the idea of regulating fast food consumption among children, we freak out because it should be up to the individual to decide what they eat....and then when someone suggests that it should be up to the individual to decide how they ride, we freak out because individuals are stupid and can't be trusted to make such a decision for themselves.

Yeah, that makes sense...
 
2012-04-13 02:37:32 PM

Danger Mouse: And if they get injured and not insured, I don't want to foot the bill.


This, for the law to be applied to you, you should have to sign a waiver that says we can pull the plug on you if and when you become a vegetable from your inevitable accident.
 
2012-04-13 02:37:59 PM

timujin: More used motorcycle parts on the market for the rest of us.


More used body parts, too.

/if you're in to that sort of thing, that is
//thanks, donorcycle riders!
 
2012-04-13 02:38:08 PM

o5iiawah: JackieRabbit: You just can't legislate personal responsibility.

In that case, I expect my social security payments to date to be returned to me within the next 90 days.


Hint - They don't have the money. You can't legislate government responsibility either.

aaronx: Just so's you all know, Michigan will, supposedly, require helmet-less riders to be over 21 years of age and to, additionally, carry special 'dumbass' insurance that will cover their injuries.

My hope is that cops start pulling over every helmet-less rider they see to check their papers.


Yea, I'm sure they will never run into problems with being sued for harassment.

Harleys are expensive, the people riding them nowadays aren't H-As so much as they are doctors, lawyers, and other older people with money.

moops: Yay! More organ donors!


Everybody wins?

Onkel Buck: It should be a choice. You libs are usually all about choice


Just like conservatives they are all about the choices they approve of. You're too stupid to be trusted with too much freedom.
 
2012-04-13 02:38:27 PM
http://www.freep.com/article/20120329/NEWS06/203290449/Helmet-option-b ill-passes-Senate

"Under the legislation, riders 21 and older could doff their helmets after buying a $20,000 medical insurance rider on their motorcycle policies."

Wow. An. Extra. $20K of insurance.

Do you know how quickly a major trauma case goes through $20K? In about the first 10 minutes.

"Pete Kuhnmuench of the Insurance Institute of Michigan said states that eased their helmet laws in recent years saw a sharp increase in fatalities.

"The consequences of the motorcyclist's decision not to wear a helmet is borne by all of society through higher insurance premiums, lost productivity and increased health care costs," he said."

Unbelievable.
 
2012-04-13 02:38:44 PM
As long as they have insurance to take care of their brain injuries, they can have at it. Can't fix stupid.

I'd wear crash gear if I rode a motorcycle. Road rash sucks on a bicycle, I can only imagine what it's like to go sliding down the road at 30 mph, on your back/side, wearing nothing but a tshirt and shorts. ouch.
 
2012-04-13 02:39:12 PM

RoxtarRyan: See how stupid you sound?


Ok. That's fine. But at least my brains will stay in my skull, where they belong.

/Damn, I knew I shouldv'e tried to snap a picture of the squid I saw yesterday: no helmet, wife beater, cut-off jean-shorts and flip-flops. They'd be spending months trying to scrap him off the pavement.
 
2012-04-13 02:39:29 PM
Teabagger legislature - Lets repeal seat belts! Big government baaaaad. Personal responsibility goooooood.
:::a few years later:::
Teabagger legislature - Why do we have so many brain-dead patients on life support? Why has the cost of medical care skyrocketed? We have to outlaw abortion!
 
2012-04-13 02:39:54 PM

RoxtarRyan: LeroyBourne: I know you have to wear eye protection, I don't ride, but one time while driving my car with my arm out the window a huge beetle hit my arm, and it farking broke the skin. Could you imagine taking a huge sharp bug to the forehead or cheek? You'd think the rider would lose control and eat it.

Rain can feel tingly. Feels like standing in a blizzard with sleet pelting your face.


Tingly? Feels like damn needles getting thrown at you!
 
2012-04-13 02:39:56 PM
Motorcycle deaths went up in FL when the mandatory helmet law was passed...

Helmets make people want to tempt Darwin.
 
2012-04-13 02:40:07 PM
As a rider, I have to say that I couldn't care less what the law says. I wear a helmet because I value my brainpan. (Half helmet since my face isn't worth saving.)
 
2012-04-13 02:40:08 PM
Its okay, he has loud pipe to keep him safe.
 
2012-04-13 02:40:47 PM

bikerbob59: RoxtarRyan: LeroyBourne: I know you have to wear eye protection, I don't ride, but one time while driving my car with my arm out the window a huge beetle hit my arm, and it farking broke the skin. Could you imagine taking a huge sharp bug to the forehead or cheek? You'd think the rider would lose control and eat it.

Rain can feel tingly. Feels like standing in a blizzard with sleet pelting your face.

Tingly? Feels like damn needles getting thrown at you!


THIS!
 
2012-04-13 02:40:53 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: FlashHarry: why stop there? why not repeal seatbelt laws?

Indeed. Why not? Are you that farking stupid that you need to be told to wear one?


Agreed.
Operators and passengers under 18 must be belted/wear helmets.
 
2012-04-13 02:41:12 PM

ha-ha-guy: The shiatty thing is insurance rates go through the roof for all bikers in Michigan now. So even if you're one of the ones who always wears a helmet, because it is no longer required your insurance will go up.


I pay $350 a year in WI for my bike. I wouldn't call that 'through the roof' type of payment.
 
2012-04-13 02:41:33 PM

Sanduskyed In The Shower: First you get get rid of helmets, next you're going to get rid of seatbelts. Smart move govoner! Smart move indeed.


Govoner??

He's not "getting rid of" anything, dumbass. He's getting rid of the government telling you that you HAVE to do something FOR YOUR OWN SAFETY. I have been against personal safety laws, especially seatbelt and helmet laws, since the day some overpaid busybody wet-dreamed them up.

It's great to see the nanny-law pendulum swinging the other way for once. Before the 80s, there was no such thing as a seat-belt law or a helmet law, and I don't think we as a country were any worse off for it. I rode a motorcycle pre-helmet-law in CA, and used it almost all the time, unless I was just driving leisurely down a country road and really wanted the wind in my hair. The freedom to use or not to use was good and went along fine with the principles of freedom our country once enjoyed.

Most people nowadays are accustomed to using safety features without government coercion. All those laws really do now is give the police extra power to detain you for something simple like forgetting to buckle up before driving to the corner store, then using that as a pretext to either grab money from you or search your vehicle for even more violations.

Any law that is "for one's own good" is a hallmark of the police state.
 
2012-04-13 02:42:11 PM

BigNumber12: Grand_Moff_Joseph: They pulled a similar stunt in TX a number of years ago, claiming that helmet laws were just another government infringement on bikers' liberty.

The stupidity of today's 'conservative' mindset is amazing.


So the government should legislate and mandate every good idea. Got it. Your Friendly Government Minder will be on the telescreen tomorrow at 7am, sharp, to ensure that you do your compulsory exercise routine, comrade.


That's pretty standard false dichotomy, but I think yours needs more "sheeple". I did enjoy how you used "comrade" instead of "citizen" like most people do with this cliche'. The commie angle was nice.
 
2012-04-13 02:42:54 PM
I've always heard, "if you have a $10 head, wear a $10 helmut". Guess that puts this law in perspective.
 
Displayed 50 of 467 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report