Comment by lostmsu
3 days ago
I don't see why not. Maybe no need to ban altogether, but a heavy tax on both might be useful. For motorbikes maybe just exclude accidents from coverage.
3 days ago
I don't see why not. Maybe no need to ban altogether, but a heavy tax on both might be useful. For motorbikes maybe just exclude accidents from coverage.
I guess they aren’t very widespread anymore, but should this cover police who ride motorbikes? Or farm/ranch workers (they might ride ATVs)?
I guess we could do something like:
But I think we will have trouble puzzling out the last term!
One has to draw the line somewhere. What you are doing is called a slippery slope fallacy.
I’m not sure it is a slippery slope. With a slippery slope we expand the scenario through a sequence of “if X, when what’s to stop Y,” right?
Motorcycle cops are an obvious subset of people who ride motorcycles. It isn’t an extension at all to include them in your logic.
ATVs might be more of an extension. But, I bet if we wanted to we could find all sorts of jobs that are more dangerous than motorcycle riding.
(Edit: just to be specific, you say we have to draw the line somewhere. Well, then where?)
3 replies →
> For motorbikes maybe just exclude accidents from coverage.
From personal experience, this is de-facto true regardless of what anyone thinks the law says.