another darwin candidate

[Maverick]

I drew that conclusion from a little book I got, called 1,001 rules of thumb.  It stated that if you shifted in park at over thirty miles per hour, you would break the parking pawl.  If you were going under thirty miles per hour, you would be peeling your face from the windshield.

-Penguin

Shifting into park is not activating the brake system at all. The shift lever is part of the transmission operation equipment as is the parking pawl. The parking pawl is meant to hold a stationary vehicle stationary by locking the drive train.

The emergency brake is a totally separate device and operates a portion of the service brakes. Service brakes being the design brakes meant to stop the vehicle when in motion. One was designed to stop the vehicle, the other never intended for that purpose. One does not stop a vehicle by shifting into park, or even reverse, one does so by using the brakes. Those emergency brakes work the same with a manual transmission vehicle where there is no park detent to shift into.

[CAP1]

has anyone ever read the decal usually hidden in helmets somewhere? it starts off with something like "some reasonably foreseeable impacts may exceed this helmet's ability to protect the wearer."

[RTHolmes]

blah blah blah

read it again. endanger.

I'm starting to appreciate the old adage: children should be seen and not heard.

[Penguin]

read it again. endanger.

I'm starting to appreciate the old adage: children should be seen and not heard.

I read it again, and my point still stands.  If you are convicted of vehicular manslaughter, you're going to prison for a long time.  I'm starting to question the old adage: with age comes wisdom.

-Penguin

[dedalos]

There is a way that not wearing a helmet can harm someone else.  Here is a perfect example.  You are driving down the road, happy as a clam.  You come to a four way intersection, and by your own negligence get into a crash with a motorcyclist.  The motorcyclist is catapaulted from his/her motorcycle, and hits his/her head on something (e.g., another car, the road itself) and is killed or horribly disfigured.  If they were wearing a helmet, this wouldn't have happened, and you would pay far less to cover their medical expenses.

As you can see, there is a significant advantage to mandating safety gear.  This advantage is a lack of vehicular manslaughter charges levied against you.

-Penguin

Or the guy with the helmet gets catapulted and hits a little kid in a wheel chair waiting to cross the street.  The kid gets killed by the impact because he got hit by the helmet in the head.  The medical expert/state trooper that showed up stated that the kid would have survived if it had not been hit by the helmet and if it was wearing a sit belt.

We can come up with BS scenarios all day long.  That does not mean we need a law for everything.  I eat too much meat too and there is a possibility that it would lead to death by a heard attack or I may end up with a hospital bill that my insurance will have to pay.  OMG!  WE NEED A LAW ON MEAT CONSUMPTION.   

How about a license for operating a ladder? Statistics show that they are the cause of a very high percentage of household accidents.

Should I go on?  The point we are trying to make is that we cannot afford to have a law for everything that will inconvenience an insurance company.  They can put it in their service contract if they want to.

[Shuffler]

This is the kind of malarkey that would be taught in schools if the nazis had won the war.

I can't speak for every country but the US was initially founded as a place to have freedom.  Not wearing a helmet or a seatbelt does not infringe on the rights of anybody and I think it's ridiculous that we consider it criminal in some states to ride without one.  
The bottom line with me is that people seem to fail to realize that the human body was never intended to go any faster that we can run.  Travelling at any speed above 10-15mph can be dangerous and accidents can happen at any time.  There is no way to prevent all accidents/injuries and until Superman takes over for Captain Hindsight, we need to realize this as a society.

As long as my insurance is not higher and it doesn't affect me..... I say let them run around bare headed. If they ride a bike with no helmet no problem. But their insurance cost should reflect that without me having to pay more for it.

With freedom comes responsibility. You want it, you have to take responsibility for it.

[Puma44]

These days it seems to come down to a complete lack of personal accountability for one's own actions.  More often than not "it's someone else's fault".    

[Reaper90]

most hospitals or medical emergency treatment centers will bill the person they treat, if they have no insurance. they can, and i think will put a lien on ones property should they not pay. they get their money.

What if that person owns no "real" property upon which to place a lein? I know a lot of my tenants that, apart from their car (which they presumably just wrecked), own nothing of any substantial value. And I wouldn't be surprised to learn that half of those probably lease their cars.

I think you'd be shocked and disgusted to find out how much debt hospitals write off as uncollectable. I'll bet you a few fresh Benjamins that if you go to your local ER waiting room and look at the people sitting there and could "crystal ball" it you'd see that for about half of those people, the hospital will never collect the full bill. Of that half, some will settle for a portion of it but the bigger percentage will never pay a dime.

Oh yes, though, you're right... the hospital will get its money. Thay'll do so by billing your insurance company and my insurance company two or three times that actual cost for most services and procedures. You and I indirectly pay theirs for them. That's why so many low-income folks use the ER as a "free clinic" - they know they'll never pay for it and the ER cannot refuse them treatment like a General Practitioner can.

[dedalos]

As long as my insurance is not higher and it doesn't affect me..... I say let them run around bare headed. If they ride a bike with no helmet no problem. But their insurance cost should reflect that without me having to pay more for it.

With freedom comes responsibility. You want it, you have to take responsibility for it.

Your insurance will go up if I trip and fall because I did not tie my shoes,  because I broke a leg climbing on my roof, because I grabbed a live wire thinking I was an electrician, because I hurt my back moving a couch, because I got drunk fall of my balcony, because I had a hard attack due to my diet, because I rear ended someone while I WAS wearing a seat belt, because I cut my finger cutting drywall, bla bla bla.  Non of this bothers anyone I guess since there are no laws against them and your insurance will go up if your company decides they are losing money because of all this.  But, riding with out a helmet  

Let me ask this.  If you think it is irresponsible to ride without a helmet and some how your insurance will go up if I have an accident, how responsible is it to get on that bike in the first place?  They offer no protection what so ever and any accident while riding one of them will result in injury.  It is a question of how bad.  So helmet or not, you can rack up a pretty good bill at the hospital, lose a limb, become paralyzed, or die.  Shouldn't then be also elegal to even ride a bike?  How is that different?

[Reaper90]

If your not wearing a helmet or seatbelt in something going 50-MPH. You deserve to die. Your IQ is low enough to warrant you being removed from the Gene Pool.

This is the kind of malarkey that would be taught in schools if the nazis had won the war.

I can't speak for every country but the US was initially founded as a place to have freedom.  Not wearing a helmet or a seatbelt does not infringe on the rights of anybody and I think it's ridiculous that we consider it criminal in some states to ride without one.  
The bottom line with me is that people seem to fail to realize that the human body was never intended to go any faster that we can run.  Travelling at any speed above 10-15mph can be dangerous and accidents can happen at any time.  There is no way to prevent all accidents/injuries and until Superman takes over for Captain Hindsight, we need to realize this as a society.

Sorry Rob, nothing wrong with what PacMan said.. he never said it should be law that you have to wear a helmet when on a motorcycle. He just pointed out the fact that, while you are free to choose not to wear a helmet, riding without one indicates you are among the group of people who are likely so stupid that their removal from the breeding stock will in the long term greatly benefit mankind as a species.  

No, the human body was not intended to survive a crash at 50+ mph, helmet or not. But the FACTS show that wearing one increases your chances of survival exponentially.... not purposefully choose not to wear one seems to indicate some sort of impaired brain fuction in the logic and reasoning department.

[Reaper90]

Or the guy with the helmet gets catapulted and hits a little kid in a wheel chair waiting to cross the street.  The kid gets killed by the impact because he got hit by the helmet in the head.  The medical expert/state trooper that showed up stated that the kid would have survived if it had not been hit by the helmet and if it was wearing a sit belt.

We can come up with BS scenarios all day long.  That does not mean we need a law for everything.  I eat too much meat too and there is a possibility that it would lead to death by a heard attack or I may end up with a hospital bill that my insurance will have to pay.  OMG!  WE NEED A LAW ON MEAT CONSUMPTION.   

How about a license for operating a ladder? Statistics show that they are the cause of a very high percentage of household accidents.

Should I go on?  The point we are trying to make is that we cannot afford to have a law for everything that will inconvenience an insurance company.  They can put it in their service contract if they want to.

Ded finally said something that made sense!! 

[Reaper90]

Your insurance will go up if I trip and fall because I did not tie my shoes,  because I broke a leg climbing on my roof, because I grabbed a live wire thinking I was an electrician, because I hurt my back moving a couch, because I got drunk fall of my balcony, because I had a hard attack due to my diet, because I rear ended someone while I WAS wearing a seat belt, because I cut my finger cutting drywall, bla bla bla.  Non of this bothers anyone I guess since there are no laws against them and your insurance will go up if your company decides they are losing money because of all this.  But, riding with out a helmet  

Let me ask this.  If you think it is irresponsible to ride without a helmet and some how your insurance will go up if I have an accident, how responsible is it to get on that bike in the first place?  They offer no protection what so ever and any accident while riding one of them will result in injury.  It is a question of how bad.  So helmet or not, you can rack up a pretty good bill at the hospital, lose a limb, become paralyzed, or die.  Shouldn't then be also elegal to even ride a bike?  How is that different?

And then he went and said this and screwed up his streak!!  

Seriously? You think my insurance is going to go up or down based on injuries to you? My rates are calculated based on my habits and behaviors, and I've been paying insurance in varying forms for 26+ years... car, boat, homeowners, life, etc... and the only time any of my rates changed AT ALL is when I did something to effect them... like getting a speeding ticket, filing a claim against my homeowners for water damage, etc etc. Never have I had my rates go up because Bob down the street wrecked his motorcycle. His rates went up, mine stayed the same. Once that policy is written, it's a contract.

edit: upon further consideration, I can see your statement if you are referring to policies that have not been written yet, as in I try to go out and get motorcycle insurance tomorrow it might be more expensive than it was last month if there have all of a sudden been a lot of motorcycle wrecks... but still doesn't hold water for causing existing policyholders to suffer.

edit edit: My post is concerning auto and property insurance. I do not claim great knowledge with regards to medical insurance rates and any ability they may have to adjust after a policy is written and issued.

[CAP1]

Your insurance will go up if I trip and fall because I did not tie my shoes,  because I broke a leg climbing on my roof, because I grabbed a live wire thinking I was an electrician, because I hurt my back moving a couch, because I got drunk fall of my balcony, because I had a hard attack due to my diet, because I rear ended someone while I WAS wearing a seat belt, because I cut my finger cutting drywall, bla bla bla.  Non of this bothers anyone I guess since there are no laws against them and your insurance will go up if your company decides they are losing money because of all this.  But, riding with out a helmet  

Let me ask this.  If you think it is irresponsible to ride without a helmet and some how your insurance will go up if I have an accident, how responsible is it to get on that bike in the first place?  They offer no protection what so ever and any accident while riding one of them will result in injury.  It is a question of how bad.  So helmet or not, you can rack up a pretty good bill at the hospital, lose a limb, become paralyzed, or die.  Shouldn't then be also elegal to even ride a bike?  How is that different?

 but what if you were wearing a helmet when you tripped, you'd be ok.  

[dedalos]

And then he went and said this and screwed up his streak!!  

Seriously? You think my insurance is going to go up or down based on injuries to you?

   nop, read again.  I don;t think that at all but apparently a lot of Americans have been trained to think that (see response to suffler).  The first argument they come up with is "why should I pay higher rates because you are not responsible".  So, since they think that, I responded like that.  Look up sarcasm    I was just trying to say that if you really think your insurance goes up because of claims, it should go up because of all these other reasons and not only because of people without helmets.  And since we are all for creating laws against risky things (like not wearing a helmet or a sit belt), getting on a bike should also be elegal since it is what causes the risk in the first place.  (See sarcasm  again )

[Reaper90]

  nop, read again.  I don;t think that at all but apparently a lot of Americans have been trained to think that (see response to suffler).  The first argument they come up with is "why should I pay higher rates because you are not responsible".  So, since they think that, I responded like that.  Look up sarcasm    I was just trying to say that if you really think your insurance goes up because of claims, it should go up because of all these other reasons and not only because of people without helmets.  And since we are all for creating laws against risky things (like not wearing a helmet or a sit belt), getting on a bike should also be elegal since it is what causes the risk in the first place.  (See sarcasm  again )

A HA! Sarcasm, eh?!?! 

But here's the catch... if you are a participatory insurance (mutual) policyowner or happen to be stockholder as well as a policyowner in a "stock" insurance company, then you do lose when someone else does something stupid! 

But still, I don't believe the law has any place mandating these things, unless taxpayer money is involved in the medical treatment of the stupid unhelmeted rider. Like RTHolmes stated, if they can show proof of private insurance and thus guarantee the taxpayer that they are accepting financial responsibility for their action, they should be free to be stupid as much as they like. That is between them and their insurance company.