UN pushing Motorcycle Helmet laws

[BehindBlueI's]

Oh my gosh, a non-binding resolution.

http://www.fiafoundation.org/Docume...y_resolution_improving_global_road_safety.pdf


I'd be more worried if it wasn't something they've done periodically over the last 10 years with zero affect on US laws in those 10 years.

2003:

WHO | UN General Assembly passes second resolution on the Global road safety crisis

5 NOVEMBER 2003 -- On 5 November 2003, the UN General Assembly passed Resolution A/RES/58/9, on road safety.

 

[in625shooter]

Oh my gosh, a non-binding resolution.

http://www.fiafoundation.org/Docume...y_resolution_improving_global_road_safety.pdf


I'd be more worried if it wasn't something they've done periodically over the last 10 years with zero affect on US laws in those 10 years.

2003:

WHO | UN General Assembly passes second resolution on the Global road safety crisis

5 NOVEMBER 2003 -- On 5 November 2003, the UN General Assembly passed Resolution A/RES/58/9, on road safety.

I posted it simply for informational purposes. Yes the UN has made suggestions on things year after year but most folks don't hear about anything other than firearms since firearms seem to be a little dearer to us Americans and out history/constitutional amendments. They thing that gets me is I am afraid that at some point these suggestions/ideas will take hold. I wear a helmet personally but would never berate a fellow rider that does not. I also don't tell them what I think because that is THIER choice/business etc. A body consisting of other nations should not either!

 

[BehindBlueI's]

They thing that gets me is I am afraid that at some point these suggestions/ideas will take hold.

Do you really believe Indiana's legislators, or the nation's legislators for that matter, are suddenly going to have an epiphany about helmet laws because of a UN resolution to tell countries about ways to reduce traffic fatalities? Some states have helmet laws, some don't. Has any legislator in the states that do have one cited the UN as the reason they are for it?

I think its interesting to post it up and then see if people will actually read it, who will just assume its an assault on our sovereignty, and those who will decry it as the beginnings of a slippery slope. The same thing happened with the UN small arms deal, there was hysteria and talk of blue helmeted soldiers doing house to house confiscation...and what we really got was nothing.

This isn't a treaty, its not a law, its the equivalent of when our Congress does resolutions, which also have no force of law and are basically opinion pieces. The last one the Senate has put forward is about remembering the Armenian holocaust's anniversary. It doesn't force you to think about Armenians. It just says we think its a good idea if you do.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Do you really believe Indiana's legislators, or the nation's legislators for that matter, are suddenly going to have an epiphany about helmet laws because of a UN resolution to tell countries about ways to reduce traffic fatalities? Some states have helmet laws, some don't. Has any legislator in the states that do have one cited the UN as the reason they are for it?

I think its interesting to post it up and then see if people will actually read it, who will just assume its an assault on our sovereignty, and those who will decry it as the beginnings of a slippery slope. The same thing happened with the UN small arms deal, there was hysteria and talk of blue helmeted soldiers doing house to house confiscation...and what we really got was nothing.

This isn't a treaty, its not a law, its the equivalent of when our Congress does resolutions, which also have no force of law and are basically opinion pieces. The last one the Senate has put forward is about remembering the Armenian holocaust's anniversary. It doesn't force you to think about Armenians. It just says we think its a good idea if you do.

+1
...and I imagine this way probably aimed at Asian nations anyways. Lot of scooter fatalities over there, because helmets are viewed as "not cool."

 

[in625shooter]

Do you really believe Indiana's legislators, or the nation's legislators for that matter, are suddenly going to have an epiphany about helmet laws because of a UN resolution to tell countries about ways to reduce traffic fatalities? Some states have helmet laws, some don't. Has any legislator in the states that do have one cited the UN as the reason they are for it?

I think its interesting to post it up and then see if people will actually read it, who will just assume its an assault on our sovereignty, and those who will decry it as the beginnings of a slippery slope. The same thing happened with the UN small arms deal, there was hysteria and talk of blue helmeted soldiers doing house to house confiscation...and what we really got was nothing.

This isn't a treaty, its not a law, its the equivalent of when our Congress does resolutions, which also have no force of law and are basically opinion pieces. The last one the Senate has put forward is about remembering the Armenian holocaust's anniversary. It doesn't force you to think about Armenians. It just says we think its a good idea if you do.

Indiana's legislatures NO, very comfortable with the State of Indiana. The National Legislatures.. YES, not so comfortable with them.
Again I simply posted it as an FYI. Just a link from the ABATE of Indiana site. Everyone was free to read it. Whether they did or what conclusion they came to if they did read it is all them!

 

[ModernGunner]

Can't stand the U.N., serves NO useful purpose for the U.S., except costing us tons of tax dollars for the simply 'purpose' of allowing anti-American rogue nations a podium to bash us. The U.S. should immediately (as in yesterday) remove itself from the U.N., kick the entire U.N. off U.S. soil, and turn the grounds and building into a REALLY COOL indoor / outdoor gun range!

That said, I will absolutely respect and willingly adhere to that non-binding resolution.

Dear U.N. - NEXT time I'm riding my bike IN the U.N. building, I swear I'll wear a helmet!
'Til then, go **** yourself.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

Hear ya gunner. Complete waste of US dollars to fund the UN. They couldn't survive without our support.

I always wear my helmet and that's not the point at all.

 

[El-Cigarro]

Why do they even CARE??? Get US out of the U. N.... N O W!

 

[Kutnupe14]

Can't stand the U.N., serves NO useful purpose for the U.S., except costing us tons of tax dollars for the simply 'purpose' of allowing anti-American rogue nations a podium to bash us. The U.S. should immediately (as in yesterday) remove itself from the U.N., kick the entire U.N. off U.S. soil, and turn the grounds and building into a REALLY COOL indoor / outdoor gun range!

That said, I will absolutely respect and willingly adhere to that non-binding resolution.

Dear U.N. - NEXT time I'm riding my bike IN the U.N. building, I swear I'll wear a helmet!
'Til then, go **** yourself.

I'm pretty sure that since the 70s or 80s, the US has used it's veto power more than any other nation, and as far as paying money into it, I know we've refused to pay plenty of times, and are behind more than a billion dollars. So essentially, in modern times, the US has had a forum to block other nation's actions, and haven't even been footing as much of the bill as the UN would like. Kinda sounds like, in a cost benefit ratio, a benefit.