Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: B17Skull12 on August 06, 2006, 06:58:05 PM
-
Does colorado not have one or is everyone who rides motorcycles in colorado stupid. I just got back from a fishing trip there. Everyone who rode a motorcycle didn't have a damn helmet.
-
Colorado and New Mexico both...probably 20 states or so. If it upsets you then I suggest you wear one when you ride:aok
-
The H-D Touring Handbook only has Colorado, Illinois, and Iowa not requiring helmuts with no restrictions. Some states have exceptions > age, novice drivers, passenger, etc.
NM requires a helmut if you are under 18.
-
Motorcycle riders without helmets = organ donors.
Darwin's theory in practice.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Motorcycle riders without helmets = organ donors.
Darwin's theory in practice.
agreed.
-
Actually Virgil, it's not so clear cut or as bad as you think. The majority of motorcycle riders in bad accidents with helments tend to live on only with life support. While you're still alive, they're pretty much only keeping your organs flowing. And while this is happening, you are costing your family and your estate thousands of dollars.
If you're in a bad accident without a helmet, you simply die. No medical bills.
-
Bycycle riders without helmets = organ donors. Skateboarders without helmets = organ donors.
Virg, you read National Geographic? Nice odds of dieing chart, by reason, in the Aug issue. Look at the odds for cars.
-
That's one thing that really pisses me off about the anti-seatbelt campaign recently. They cannot at all come up with a morally sound reason why it is a law, so they reason that it is a law because it would hurt your family to see you get hurt.
Pure legislative bull****.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Motorcycle riders without helmets = organ donors.
Darwin's theory in practice.
hey, that's not a bad idea. if you die in a motorcycle crash and you are not wearing a helmet, your organs (including your skin if you took a faceplant) belong to the state.
-
Minnesota didnt require one last time I checked.
Is it right to use legislation to force someone not to do something stupid? I suppose there is some merit to it when the stupidity of others forces the rest of use to pay higher insurance premiums and taxes taking care of the dumb ones.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Actually Virgil, it's not so clear cut or as bad as you think. The majority of motorcycle riders in bad accidents with helments tend to live on only with life support. While you're still alive, they're pretty much only keeping your organs flowing. And while this is happening, you are costing your family and your estate thousands of dollars.
If you're in a bad accident without a helmet, you simply die. No medical bills.
Source?
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
If you're in a bad accident without a helmet, you simply die. No medical bills.
true however in a minor accident one that you would normally walk away from with roadrash could very likely be fatal with out a helmet. i allways wear simpson carbon fiber both on my hog and my crotch rocket. i have an valuable head i wear a good helmet.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Actually Virgil, it's not so clear cut or as bad as you think. The majority of motorcycle riders in bad accidents with helments tend to live on only with life support. While you're still alive, they're pretty much only keeping your organs flowing. And while this is happening, you are costing your family and your estate thousands of dollars.
If you're in a bad accident without a helmet, you simply die. No medical bills.
The big problem is the not-so-bad accident that becomes one because of the lack of a helmet. A crash that might have been easily survivable with minor or no injuries can become a catastrophe for lack of a helmet.
Your right about a bad accident, a helmet sometimes doesn't matter, and usually not when the torso contacts a tree or vehicle at high speed.
Again, its the lesser accidents where helmets make a huge differance. High sided off a bike in 1988, did some time airborne and came down on my helmet, but the full face Bell saved me. Shoulder was seperated, but no head injuries, and there would have been some otherwise.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
That's one thing that really pisses me off about the anti-seatbelt campaign recently. They cannot at all come up with a morally sound reason why it is a law, so they reason that it is a law because it would hurt your family to see you get hurt.
Pure legislative bull****.
IMHO, they shouldn't be trying to legislate morality at all.
-
Helmet and seatbelt laws are an affront to liberty. The only borderline case I could see for them would be for people under 18.
That said, I _never_ ride my Bandit 1200 w/o a helmet and never drive or fly w/o wearing a seatbelt.
-
Did anyone catch the Colbert report with Ralph Nader and they were discussing seatbelts. Colbert said it should be his decision to wear one or not. Nader responded by saying it's the government who has to scrape your body from the pavement, Colbert retorted by asking what if he didn't want them scraping his body off the pavement.
Point being, does it just annoy you hardly anyone wears helmets here or....? It's not really even your tax dollars scraping them off the interstate. I'm really not seeing your complaint.
-
Funny, I was just thinking about this subject today, seatbelts though, not helmets. I can't drive a car without being buckled in. I don't like the feel of sliding around in the seat. I have the belt cinched up tight which affords me a better feel for the car. If I am not belted I just feel like I am going for a ride.
The start of the whole seatbelt thing for me was in Feb. 1982 when my next door neighbor's wife and only son were in an accident. The son was driving, his girlfriend in shotgun and his mom in the back seat. To make a long story short the car ahead of him stopped when he wasn't looking. He decided to go around the stopped car...in the left lane directly into oncoming traffic. The son didn't die immediately, the throat laceration he recieved opened his jugular and he bled out in minutes. His mom, riding in the back seat, was flung head first into to the dash board. She made it to the hospital where she lived a few hours until it was determined she was clinically "brain dead" and her husband had to make the decision to "pull the plug" on her. The girlfriend lived albeit with 2 broken legs. She was the only one buckled in. I was 15 and it was the first time death took someone I knew, someone I grew up with, someone that I saw everyday. Since then I've always worn my belt, law or no law, for the fact that I like the feel of it as a driver. And, oh yeah, it does save lives.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
IMHO, they shouldn't be trying to legislate morality at all.
give me a break. if they weren't tring to legislate morality, then the population of us would be a big 1 million:O . Point being that these so call "stupid" little laws keep people alive. If you want to ride without a helmet or not follow these laws, then feel free. You wont get any tears or sorrow out of me. At 17 i've had a dirt bike accident where if not wearing a helmet, i would probably be a vegtable right now. I think there is a saying that goes like this
Better to be safe than sorry.
-
wear a helmet, brain or no brain.
seatbelts work wonders, too. wear your seatbelt.
-
I think anyone who rides without a helmet is an idiot. That doesn't mean I think there should be a helmet law: I don't believe that we should legislate against idiocy. I you want to forego a helmet that should be your choice, not mine or the state's.
-
they legislate morality [...] feel free.
That doesn't add up.
Sort of off topic, but riding a motorcycle, sometimes you get the feeling there's better odds of being hit or cut off by a driver "angry" that you're lanesplitting, then of hurting yourself, with or without a helmet.
-
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/22_1154943671_suckage.jpg)
-
The people that don't want to wear helmets don't care that it is the rest of us that pays for the lifetime care they will need. Kind of selfish.
-
dont forget to buckle(sp?) the helmet on!
1986 we lost a good friend because that, he forgot to buckle
the Helmet on and got hit from a car, the car hit his left side.
The Helmet went away and he hit the Street with his plain head fatally.
The doctor said beside some scratches he was actually ok and
would survive the impact if he had the Helmet still on. He died at age 16.
Like i said in abother thread, a helmet is like a reserve parachute,
you dont need it daily, but if something went wrong it can save
your live. And you dont need a law to know this.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
That's one thing that really pisses me off about the anti-seatbelt campaign recently. They cannot at all come up with a morally sound reason why it is a law, so they reason that it is a law because it would hurt your family to see you get hurt.
Pure legislative bull****.
Case #1 - One week before we got married in 1998, my wife got into a car accident. Her 1997 Taurus was deliberately cut off by some *******, he had his wife and kids in the car and was chatting on the cell phone. No sooner than he completed the "cut off maneuver" he slammed on the brakes. She hit him at about 55 mph. He never even asked if she was ok, or let her use the cell phone to call me. The Michigan State Trooper did.
Had she NOT been wearing a seat belt, she would have been dead.
Case #2 - One year before we got married, the best Man in our wedding (my buddy since the 7th grade) was in an accident on the way to work. He was working at Monrovia Nursery in Dayton, Oregon and was 100 yards from the driveway. A lifted Toyota was speeding and weaving, lost control, and my buddy's Escort went between the Trucks wheelbase and rolled onto and off of it. His right heel sheered from hitting the brake, and his left leg was behind his head. He laid there for 45 minutes. Two paramedics had given him up for dead, the third refused to call it, and found a faint pulse. He was in a coma for a month. I flew out in January when he came out. He had to "re-learn" how to walk.
Had he NOT been wearing a seat belt, he would have been dead.
Case #3 - Back in 1997, I was riding along with my old neighbor (he was the Midnight shift supervisor at Farmington Hills PD. We responded to a vehicular accident and I got out (really wasn't supposed to) and helped my neighbor (we were the first responders). Three women were on the way home for a Bachelorette Party. The driver had "been drinking the least" and was NOT wearing a seat belt. Her mouth hit the A-pillar, ripping her flesh and breaking (probably shattered) her jaw. My neighbor tried giving her CPR, but the torn skin wouldn't let him get a good seal. She died on the scene. She was the Bride.
Had she BEEN WEARING her seat belt, she would have lived.
I wear mine. To disagree with the seat belt law, especially calling it "pure Legislative bull*****" is incorrect.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
IMHO, they shouldn't be trying to legislate morality at all.
I'm currently reading "The Law" and I'm beginning to really agree.
Helmet and seatbelt laws are an affront to liberty. The only borderline case I could see for them would be for people under 18.
I agree exactly. If you're under 18, you have no choice about a helmet or seatbelt.
The people that don't want to wear helmets don't care that it is the rest of us that pays for the lifetime care they will need. Kind of selfish.
Actually just the opposite. It wasn't freedom or concerns about liberty that pushed through no-helmet laws, but the insurance lobby. And since the insurance lobby pushed it through, that means that it costs less medically for them instead of the person wearing a helmet. That means in the whole, it costs less medically for you to not wear a helmet.
It's very socialistic to say that it's selfish to do something you want to do. Be very careful young one.
Funny, I was just thinking about this subject today, seatbelts though, not helmets. I can't drive a car without being buckled in. I don't like the feel of sliding around in the seat. I have the belt cinched up tight which affords me a better feel for the car. If I am not belted I just feel like I am going for a ride.
Same thing for me. I grew up wearing a seatbelt. It just feels odd not to wear one while driving.
But I'd rather hammer each nut twice then ever take away another person's liberty to do what they want which does not affect other people.
-
helmets and seat belts (and air bags) only work after the incident, the emphases should be on prevention of such incidents by better driving habits.
no state has a law banning helmets, you want to wear one do it.
i started installing seat belts in my cars about 1959-60, not to help after a wreck but to give me better control of the car to prevent a wreck, (i drove verry fast when i was young and stupid).
-
I dont ride bikes. Its the other drivers Im afraid of. Things happen too quick and you can't strap into a bike like you can a car. But if I did ride Id have leathers,pads, and of course a helmet.
I live in NH. We dont have a helmet law. Just alot of brain injured residents. (This line is denied sig material)
-
It is not my business to tell anyone to wear a seatbelt or helmet. If I think I am paying too much for their care or injuries then I will get insurance that gives me a discount for helmet or seatbelt use and start wearing both.
How did you all like the big rebate check from the insurance companies you got when we all had to wear seatbelts and helmets? the HUGE drop in your rates?
Anyone not wearing a nomex firesuit in a car is an idiot.... Not wearing a nomex firesuit and helmet in a car = darwin candidate.
Lots of people fall asleep at the wheel... How bout we pass a law that every hour.... it is the law that every driver pull over and hop up and down on one leg while waving his arms around and making chicken noises? I bet that would wake him up and save us a bundle.... if it saved even one life eh???
My guess is that you wussies would all be hopping and flapping and clucking and paying the extra money for cops to check your log books and enforce the new law and then...
coming on here to defend it like the morons you are.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
It is not my business to tell anyone to wear a seatbelt or helmet. If I think I am paying too much for their care or injuries then I will get insurance that gives me a discount for helmet or seatbelt use and start wearing both.
coming on here to defend it like the morons you are.
lazs
This supercedes "money", at least for me it is. If you don't see beyond "the money", they are outlying issues that need to be taken care of.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/22_1154943671_suckage.jpg)
To each his own. But, I still think I'm looking at an idiot when I see someone ride by w/out a helmet.
Heavy So Cal freeway traffic snuck up and bit me in the bellybutton one day while riding my sportbike--didn't have anything more than a 1/2 second to react. I'm damn glad I had a full-face helmet on to protect my head when I went down. Scratch marks front to back...now, THAT would've been painful had it been my face and head bouncing off the freeway instead of my helmet.
-
Originally posted by Enduro
To each his own. But, I still think I'm looking at an idiot when I see someone ride by w/out a helmet.
Heavy So Cal freeway traffic snuck up and bit me in the bellybutton one day while riding my sportbike--didn't have anything more than a 1/2 second to react. I'm damn glad I had a full-face helmet on to protect my head when I went down. Scratch marks front to back...now, THAT would've been painful had it been my face and head bouncing off the freeway instead of my helmet.
Yep.
-
Originally posted by john9001
helmets and seat belts (and air bags) only work after the incident, the emphases should be on prevention of such incidents by better driving habits.
i started installing seat belts in my cars about 1959-60, not to help after a wreck but to give me better control of the car to prevent a wreck, (i drove verry fast when i was young and stupid).
Better driver ed is surely required as is stricter testing required to get a dirver's license.
Same here John. We had an 5 street intersection where we would try to do a donut in and still make the street we wanted to take. This was in the winter with ice and snow. Plastic seats and cold weather are not good. I found myself in the passenger seat after one donut attempt. This was in the mid-late '60s. Wore the belt ever since.
Do I wear a lid? You bet. Still have the old lid with the hole in it from road friction.
helmut story
In 2000 while on a road trip, the H-D needed an oil change so stopped in Cranbrook BC. When the mech took the bike around back to do the oil change, he wore a helmut. Asked why and was told a mech had died from head injuries when the bike went out from under him a ~10mph.
FiLtH, true only if you are 19 or older.
-
insurance companies give discounts for all sorts of lifestyle things like not smoking or being married or whatever.
The socialist trend and big business control issues these days are to sucker the sheeeeple into voting to have more and more government control over their lives..
All at the pretense of saving money or.... for their own good... the morons all suck up all the propoganda and gladly give up their freedom and gleefully repeat the slogans about darwing and saving lives and saving money and all the rest of the crap.
in the end... they are simply stupid people who have no concept of personal freedom and are easily propogandized.
When they are standing on the side of the road hopping on one foot, making chicken noises and flapping their arms.... they will deserve it.
Next they will want us all to be frisked and walk around with our shoes off at airports.
lazs
-
Helmet or no helmet, seatbelt or no seatbelt; neither make a bit of difference if you don't ride or drive responsibly.
I've cut the seatbelts off of as many dead people as alive, the only good thing I see that it keeps you behind the wheel in case your able to recover.
-
Why Helmet Laws SUCK! By Ted Pafford
When you buy a motorcycle helmet you are taking a gamble that the helmet has met Department of Transportation standards known as FMVSS 218. But as we all know, or you should know, most helmets are never tested by the DOT. Helmets are “ self certified” by the manufacturers of the helmet. The Government relies on the manufacturers word that the helmet has met the DOT standards. Yes, that’s right, it is based on the “honor system.” I have known very few “honor systems” that work very well when the almighty dollar is involved. If there is a way for somebody to scam a buck off of people, somebody will do it.
Let’s look at how the “honor system” typically works with helmet testing. This example is from 2001, but is usually the same each year. Out of hundreds of new models of helmets that come out each year, the DOT tested a mere 40 of them. Out of those 40 tested, 20% fail. The helmets that had failed in 2001 were manufactured by AFX, Fulmer, HJC, M2R, NEXL and THH. Sure the DOT might impose a fine on these manufacturers, but how does that help those of us that are depending on that helmet to possibly help save our life. The imposing of a fine on a manufacturer may come a little to late for some of us depending on these helmets to protect us in an accident. The manufacturer can enact a voluntary recall, but most people will never be aware they have one of these worthless “mushroom” head decorations they dare call a helmet. Which makes me wonder, if a helmet isn’t labeled properly in the first place, how would you know it has been recalled anyway? Hmmm recalled helmets… How is a person notified if their helmet is recalled? Do they send you a notice in the mail? NO. Do they inform you on the television or the newspaper? NO. Heck, even the local motorcycle retail store where you bought it probably doesn’t post them. And on a rare occasion that they do, it is displayed only for a limited time. It makes you wonder if they must be afraid it will cost them too much money if people find out. It sounds like the recall program leaves the impression that they care about our heads, but it is about as effective as the DOT certification “honor system.”
I’m assuming the manufacturers haven’t lost a lot of money from recalls. All of the manufacturers that had their helmets fail in 2001are currently (2004) in business and making helmets. It looks to me that making a substandard helmet is worth the minimal risk that the DOT might ever get around to testing it. It’s a numbers game, you can make a bunch of money with a very low chance that your helmet will be tested. What makes me the angriest is I thought my $170 dollar KBC helmet, which I blindly assumed could save my life because of the DOT sticker on the back, was manufactured in 1999 then recalled in 2004. WHAT… you mean I have been wearing this useless head decoration for the past 5 years and it doesn’t pass DOT certification and when the DOT finally tests it in 2004 they say it will crack like an eggshell with impact. WOW, who ran off with my $170 dollars for a substandard helmet? So who REALLY cares about my safety when it comes to helmets? The Government says they do. It was passed into law that we have to wear them, but yet they test so very few? The manufactures say they care, but at the same time they have helmets that fail testing every year.
If the Government is worried about motorcyclists, why aren’t they worried about other people’s safety? How about the bicyclists? Statistics show that bicyclist brain injuries can be reduced up to 88% with the use of helmets. Most bicycle fatalities are kids under the age of 15. Why is there not a state bicycle helmet law? The state say’s they “strongly encourage” people to wear bicycle helmets at all times. And what about those skate boarders, water skiers, snow skiers etc. That’s a lot of head injuries. Shouldn’t there be a law for them to wear helmets? Are we only concerned with the safety and well-being of motorcyclists, and not the general public’s safety? How about all the people that vote for the helmet law and are against freedom of choice? I’m sure that most people who vote in a general election don’t even ride a motorcycle yet they’re making this decision for me? All of those voters got to the polling site somehow, and that automobile they drove there…there are more head injuries in automobile accidents every year than motorcycle accidents. Why don’t we introduce a helmet law for automobiles, because we motorcyclists are concerned about head injuries in auto accidents? You don’t see race car drivers with out helmets.
Speaking of auto safety, how about the story of the old body style F-150 trucks (1999-2004 Heritage). It’s the best selling truck, but yet it’s the worst in crash testing. How do we know this you ask? Because the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety crash tested it. And you may ask yourself, why was the IIHS developed for automobiles crash testing when the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the auto manufacturers crash test their own vehicles? The auto manufactures said their vehicles were “safe.” Why then does another crash test organization test them? I think it goes back to the old “honor system.” Hmmm. Anyway back to the F-150. The old style F-150 failed the crash test miserably, however the new body style (2004-present) does extremely well. Oddly enough, even though the old style F-150 is one of the most unsafe vehicles, Ford will continue to produce them until June 2005 because they are so popular. Thanks again to government and manufacturers for being concerned about the public’s safety.
I am neither for nor against helmets. I am for freedom of choice. The helmet law has a lot of flaws in the system and it gives a lot of people a false sense of security. If we are truly concerned about motorcyclist’s safety then why do we allow the sale of helmets that haven’t been properly tested by the DOT? The Government chooses not to fund the DOT so it can function properly and at the same time they force us to wear a helmet that they themselves cannot guarantee will be safe. I’m hoping that people who are for or against the helmet law will find out all the facts of how flawed this system is before they vote again. Let the people who ride decide! If you won’t let us decide, then don’t put a helmet on a store shelf that’s not safe, because many of the ones that are currently out there will either get us an improper helmet citation or possibly killed in an accident by not protecting our head.
My list of some helmet manufactures. I randomly picked 3 manufactures to see how many models of helmets they make. The 3 add up to 42 helmets. This should give you an idea of how few helmets are tested every year by the DOT.
Cyber
CMS
Daytona
Craft
HJC
Davida
Bikers Choice
Devel
KBC
Ergon
M2R
FM
Nolan
Fulmer
Oneal
Grex
Scott
Icon
Shoei - 8
MHR
Tour Master
Momo
THH
MSR
Caliber
Nitro
Xpeed
NXT
Fox racing
NZI
Fly racing
OGK
Suomy
Rodia
Thor
Roof
Arai - 14
RST
AFX
Scorpion
Bieffe
Shark
AGV/Lazek
Simpson
Bell - 20
Spada
JKC
Uvex
Icom
DMA
Answer
Zamp
Gmax
Zues
Z1R
Cabers
Xtreme
Arashi
Shark
Airoh
Uvex
Blitz AFX
X-lite
Replica
Schuberth
Fly Racing
Lem
AXO mm zero
Vemar
Troy
Kiwi
Vega
MDS
Wolf Metallic
Zamp
VX-7
Tour lite
Starlight
-
jakal... all you will get out of this is that the morons will ask that yet another government agency open up to test each and every helmet in their governmentaly efficient way...
"please of please save me from myself and take more of my money to do it." they will shout... or "I wear em sooo... everyone should... I am tired of people laughing at my dorkiness and want to run other peoples lives."
Or... it will just be someones mom voting to protect the child that left home because.... because she can. Never let go of those apron strings..
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
jakal... all you will get out of this is that the morons will ask that yet another government agency open up to test each and every helmet in their governmentaly efficient way...
"please of please save me from myself and take more of my money to do it." they will shout... or "I wear em sooo... everyone should... I am tired of people laughing at my dorkiness and want to run other peoples lives."
Or... it will just be someones mom voting to protect the child that left home because.... because she can. Never let go of those apron strings..
lazs
Exactly. The point is people are being had. If that DOT sticker is not on your helmet you can be fined. ............even though it`s meaningless.
The people that don't want to wear helmets don't care that it is the rest of us that pays for the lifetime care they will need. Kind of selfish.
Tell ya what Dago..........you start wearing full body armour and a firesuit when you drive your cage and I`ll wear a helmet.
Highway motorcycle accidents are not usualy caused by the rider, but instead caused by cage drivers with their head up their backsides. Kind of selfish in my book.
As for full faceshield helmets, I`d just as soon ride with a blindfold and ear plugs.
-
To the people who argue that helmet laws are required because they make you safer, then why stop there? Why not simply outlaw motorcycles and bicycles completely? That'd be even safer yet! Or outlaw sport cars or any car other than public transportation, for that matter, the road fatalities would drop!
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
To the people who argue that helmet laws are required because they make you safer, then why stop there? Why not simply outlaw motorcycles and bicycles completely? That'd be even safer yet! Or outlaw sport cars or any car other than public transportation, for that matter, the road fatalities would drop!
Actually I'd like to see some of these Lance Armstrong wannabes that hold up traffic fined or have their POS bike impounded. Why? Because their is normally a BIKE PATH or sidewalk 6 feet to the right or left of em (depending on what side of the road).
Problem with "No helmet wearers" is, when they die in an accident, we pay for it with an insurance hike. My feeling on it, if you wanna be a dolt, sign a waiver. You get into an accident and were NOT wearing a helmet, leave the insurance company out of it.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Problem with "No helmet wearers" is, when they die in an accident, we pay for it with an insurance hike. My feeling on it, if you wanna be a dolt, sign a waiver. You get into an accident and were NOT wearing a helmet, leave the insurance company out of it.
Masherbrun, why not extend that to apply to ALL dumb was to get hurt?
If you get lung cancer because you smoke, no coverage! If you get injured because you pulled into traffic without looking, no coverage! If you trip andfall because you weren't paying attention, no coverage!
Hells bells, if you get pneumonia, why should you get coverage? You could have just dressed warmer!
By your logic, the only thing medical insurance should cover is if you, while at home safe behind walls, were to be struck by a meteor.
Of course, if you had invested in a thicker ceiling.... hell, NO COVERAGE!
-
mash... again... I ask you...
What did you do with the huge rebate you got when the insurance companies got their way and passed helmet and seatbelt laws?
Would you be happy if rates were higher (to cover costs) for non seatbelt users and non helmet users and/or wearers got a discount... like smoking for life insurance or married discounts or student ones or any of a number or other lifestyle discounts?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
mash... again... I ask you...
What did you do with the huge rebate you got when the insurance companies got their way and passed helmet and seatbelt laws?
Would you be happy if rates were higher (to cover costs) for non seatbelt users and non helmet users and/or wearers got a discount... like smoking for life insurance or married discounts or student ones or any of a number or other lifestyle discounts?
lazs
I won't make a difference. People will still not wear helmets and other's will end up footing the bill. It doesn't matter what we think, all I can do is say that from what I have witnessed, NOT wearing either is about as stupid as installing a light above a pool, while balancing on ladder. "It may not happen this time".
-
after the crash:
with helmet
(http://www.bbg.org/gar2/topics/kitchen/images/2001su_watermelon_1.jpg)
without a helmet
(http://www.konsument.at/konsumentmedia/images/ko_1999_05_12.jpg)
your choise ! ;)
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Actually just the opposite. It wasn't freedom or concerns about liberty that pushed through no-helmet laws, but the insurance lobby. And since the insurance lobby pushed it through, that means that it costs less medically for them instead of the person wearing a helmet. That means in the whole, it costs less medically for you to not wear a helmet.
On the other hand... the insurance companies didn't lower their rates after the laws were passed. Lower medical costs means higher profits.
It's all about the money.
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
after the crash:
with helmet
without a helmet
your choise ! ;)
Ghost, that's the thing, it's NOT our choice.
I'll wear a helmet every time I ride, but it's not appropriate for the government to tell me that I have to. It SHOULD be my choice if I'm an idiot or not, but it ain't.
-
Any kid in my neighborhood who wore a bicycle helmet woud have had his *** kicked daily:rofl
Leading causes of death in the United States - all ages, all races, both sexes
The 10 leading causes of death accounted for about 79 percent of all deaths occurring in the United States in 2002. The top two causes, Diseases of heart (heart disease) and Malignant neoplasms (cancer), accounted for more than one-half (51.3 percent) of all deaths in 2002. The rank order remained unchanged from 2001.
Top 10 Causes of Death - US
1.Diseases of Heart 28.5%
2.Malignant Neoplasms (cancer) 22.8%
3.Cerebrovascular Diseases (stroke) 6.7%
4.Chronic Lower Respiratory Diseases 5.1%
5.Accidents 4.4%
Motor Vehicle Traffic Accidents (41% of all accidents)
Poisoning (16% of all accidents)
Fall (15% of all accidents) 6.Diabetes Mellitus 3.0%
7.Influenza and Pneumonia 2.7%
8.Alzheimer's Disease 2.4%
9.Nephritis, Nephrotic Syndrome and Nephrosis (kidney diseases) 1.7%
10.Septicemia (blood poisoning) 1.4%
---All Others 21.4%
http://www.statisticstop10.com/Causes_of_Death_in_US.html
As I said, if they REALLY want to save people, fat people eating bad stuff and smoking would save a LOT more than seat belts (hence, insurance money)
-
Originally posted by Sandman
On the other hand... the insurance companies didn't lower their rates after the laws were passed. Lower medical costs means higher profits.
It's all about the money.
Oh, I already know. The difference between you and me though, is that you think it is bad or evil for them doing so. I think it's their right.
-
Here in FL there was this one biker who was asked, why he wasn't wearing a helmet..
He stated, because I don't have to.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Oh, I already know. The difference between you and me though, is that you think it is bad or evil for them doing so. I think it's their right.
Certainly, it is the right of every business to seek a profit. But insurance companies aren't like other businesses. Insurance is required by law.
I can see that insurance companies could easily abuse this position.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
But insurance companies aren't like other businesses. Insurance is required by law.
I can see that insurance companies could easily abuse this position.
i think that's whats called an under statement.
-
weather insurance companies are allowed to make a profit or not has no bearing on the issue.
The issue is that that are not going to lower prices no matter what silly bellybutton things they can make you sheeeeeple do.
Wear a seatbelt? higher insurance rates... wear a helmet? higher insurance rates.
If they made smoking illegal do any of you sheeeple think your insurance rates would go down? Your taxes?
Who here thinks giving the insurance companies and the government more power equals lest cost to them?
anyone? come on... a bunch of you morons bought into the propoganda so let's here you speak up and tell us how all this nannying is gonna save us money...
lazs
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Actually just the opposite. It wasn't freedom or concerns about liberty that pushed through no-helmet laws, but the insurance lobby. And since the insurance lobby pushed it through, that means that it costs less medically for them instead of the person wearing a helmet. That means in the whole, it costs less medically for you to not wear a helmet.
It's very socialistic to say that it's selfish to do something you want to do. Be very careful young one.
Been a while since someone called my 50 yr old butt "young one". But, since I have been in car and motorcycle accidents, since I pay taxes and high medical insurance premiums that among all the other things, support lifetime medical care for fools too stupid to wear a helmet, I will say I think it is selfish to put that burden of care on other people.
How about this, if you don't wear a helmet, and you suffer a serious accident, you just get euthanized or arrival at the hospital? Only the rider pays that way, oh, and also his family he didn't have the brains to think about when he rode helmetless.
-
Originally posted by -Concho-
Helmet or no helmet, seatbelt or no seatbelt; neither make a bit of difference if you don't ride or drive responsibly.
I've cut the seatbelts off of as many dead people as alive, the only good thing I see that it keeps you behind the wheel in case your able to recover.
During my years as a volunteer firefighter (400 calls per year), I never unbuckled a dead body, but I did help remove more than a couple dead bodies that weren't belted in. Even helped an old man out of a car that had been hit by a train. He had the biggest diagonal red stripe accross his chest from his belt, but he lived.
One night drove the ambulance so the paramedics could both work on the guy who had a car rolled over him after being ejected when he went off the road. Nope, no belt there or he would have been fine. He was screaming in pain in the ambulance. (among other injuries was a triple pelvis facture).
-
The anti-helmet law guys get all emotional when their right to be really stupid is at risk. They have to take the insult route. Kind of telling I guess.
I think not wearing one is selfish, it ignores the grief the family suffers and the financial burden put on others caring for the vegtables they become all to easily in a crash.
-
Dago i think i misunderstand this thread, now i think its about just the law
to wear a helmet and not if a helmet can help you survive a crash.
Imagine the Law would forbit to wear a helmet, hey i still would wear
one! :)
-
Clearly we all have our experiences and stories as to why its a good idea to wear either a seatbelt or a helmet.
I've been in a head on accident (hit at 35mph) where the belt saved me (pre airbag days)....I've also been hit twice on the motorcycle at slower speeds (in town, around traffic)...thanks to my helmet, the head bouncing I did from getting sideswiped was only a minor concussion and not a death.
To those who live with a state of mind that says the heck with helmets and seatbelts...I envy you. I really do.
But from what I've heard, read, seen and experienced...I'll keep buckling up and wearing the helmet when out on the bike.
You have to hate seeing these articles on the news where had they worn a belt, they wouldve been saved. Life is precious. Safetly is merely an inconvience.
-
I certainly won't drive without a belt. It's saved my life.
If someone does not wish to wear a belt, I support their right to be a fool... that is unless they're in the vehicle with me. Everyone is belted in my vehicle and it's for my safety, not theirs.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Everyone is belted in my vehicle
The law in germany, if you are the driver you are responsible for the people
who drive with you, they have to wear a belt.
But you are right, if you crash and the people at the rear seats are
not belt they will fly through the windshield, and behead you before they
hit the glas. Any driver who didnt think about that scenario are plain dumb.
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
Dago i think i misunderstand this thread, now i think its about just the law
to wear a helmet and not if a helmet can help you survive a crash.
Imagine the Law would forbit to wear a helmet, hey i still would wear
one! :)
Yeah, you're right, I am talking about wearing a helmet, and it really is about being required to wear one.
I think there should be helmet laws to protect those who so desperately desire to be accepted and thought of as cool. :D
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Actually Virgil, it's not so clear cut or as bad as you think. The majority of motorcycle riders in bad accidents with helments tend to live on only with life support. While you're still alive, they're pretty much only keeping your organs flowing. And while this is happening, you are costing your family and your estate thousands of dollars.
If you're in a bad accident without a helmet, you simply die. No medical bills.
I'm still waiting to see your source on this. Just thought you might have forgotten to post it and I'd remind ya of it.
-
Maverick you dont really believe in the nonsens he wrote?
Its like driving cars and use the throttle instead of the brake pedal
to get 100% sure you die in the accident.
-
It's simple to prove. Do you honestly think that legislators give two ****s about what we think or what we want?
Thus, the cause of these laws have to come from somewhere else. It's easy to understand that it would come from insurance companies. Insurance is a business, the purpose of a business is to make money. Hence, the only reason they would have backed this proposal is to make mmore money.
That logic is a killer, huh fellas? :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by bj229r
Any kid in my neighborhood who wore a bicycle helmet woud have had his *** kicked daily:rofl
Leading causes of death in the United States - all ages, all races, both sexes
The 10 leading causes of death accounted for about 79 percent of all deaths occurring in the United States in 2002. The top two causes, Diseases of heart (heart disease) and Malignant neoplasms (cancer), accounted for more than one-half (51.3 percent) of all deaths in 2002. The rank order remained unchanged from 2001.
Top 10 Causes of Death - US
1.Diseases of Heart 28.5%
2.Malignant Neoplasms (cancer) 22.8%
3.Cerebrovascular Diseases (stroke) 6.7%
4.Chronic Lower Respiratory Diseases 5.1%
5.Accidents 4.4%
Motor Vehicle Traffic Accidents (41% of all accidents)
Poisoning (16% of all accidents)
Fall (15% of all accidents) 6.Diabetes Mellitus 3.0%
7.Influenza and Pneumonia 2.7%
8.Alzheimer's Disease 2.4%
9.Nephritis, Nephrotic Syndrome and Nephrosis (kidney diseases) 1.7%
10.Septicemia (blood poisoning) 1.4%
---All Others 21.4%
http://www.statisticstop10.com/Causes_of_Death_in_US.html
As I said, if they REALLY want to save people, fat people eating bad stuff and smoking would save a LOT more than seat belts (hence, insurance money)
interesting stats but what would be, imo, more accurate on the subject would be death in the age group 16-55 years old. I guarntee you disease and sickness rates deaths would go down. while others would rise.
Lasorsailor, now i have no degree in economics but of course insurance compaines want seatbelts. That way they wouldn't have to pay millions a year on life insurance for people who died in car accidents. It is really sad.
I haven't really taken the time to think about seatbelts because i haven't needed to. It was never a question to me. Always buckle up. I have friends who don't wear them all the time. I am blessed to have parents who trained me well. I intend to pass it on to my kids when i have them. I know i don't have to worry about being in a car accident when i have one. Not if i have one, but when. Everyone will be in a car accident at somepoint in your life. Just like motorcycles. It is best to be prepared. And if like you said lasorsailor the insurance compaines realized this first. Then for whatever reason maybe they should be viewed as the dirty heavens we think they are. Although they are still bad.
ok rant donte for the tird time in this thread. :P
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
Maverick you dont really believe in the nonsens he wrote?
Its like driving cars and use the throttle instead of the brake pedal
to get 100% sure you die in the accident.
Ghost,
I know better than the stuff he dropped. I just gave him the chance to stand by it and he can't.
I spent a lot of time doing the investigation for folks who screwed up in the street. Some of them never got to do anything again.
I got asked several times by folks who weren't wearing a helmet if I was going to tell them they should wear one. I just pointed out that there was a teaching hopsital in town that did quite a few transplants and there were quite a few folks who could really use the parts. I also told them that if they didn't think their head was worth the price of a helmet I wasn't going to tell them it was.
If a driver is over 18 it was their head, their choice. I've gone to too many collisions, seen more than my share of folks who made their choices and found what the results were.
I'm not interested in trying to save the world. The world doesn't want to be saved and will actually fight you for trying.
-
yeah dago you tell those idiots that would ask for freedom of choice where your money is concerned... Next they will want to own guns and endanger us all eh? If you made everyone wear a nomex firesuit and helmet in their car it would save you money too eh?
sandie... I agree with you... If I am in your car you have the right to tell me to wear a seatbelt.
How it shakes out for me is... In my Lincoln town car.... I don't wear the seatbelt. In both of my Hot Rods I wear the lap belts. As unlikely as it is that I will ever get into an accident where a seatbelt will do me any good.... It is about 10 times more likely to happen in 12 second cars.
Dago is not young but he has bought into the propoganda... He thinks he is gonna get something if he forces others to do something he likes to do anyway... He will get lower insurance rates... Of course.. that is not true... he never got a break when the laws went into effect. And now... he is accepting that freedom does not count when money is involved.
You should not be able to vote on seatbelts or helmets and the government should not have the right to make you wear em.
lazs
-
mav... do you think that bikers who don't wear a helmet do not do so because they can't afford one? Maybe people who don't wear seatbelts don't do so because they forgot or... can't figure out how to use em?
Wouldn't a better way to save money and lives be to simply ban motorcyles... banning swimming would save us a bundle too. They allready ban swimming without a life jacket in some areas here in kalifornia... keep your eyes out folks... that is a law coming to a town near you.
lazs
-
I will never understand why people who dont ride motorcycles care if those that do ride motorcycles wear a helmet or not.
Almost to the point where they get pissed off at the site of someone not wearing one.
Just seems rather silly to me.
Worry about your own life.
and let the ones doing the riding decide if they choose to wear one or not.
That being said.
In really bad accidents, all the helmet does is preserve something to look at in the coffin
-
Originally posted by lazs2
mav... do you think that bikers who don't wear a helmet do not do so because they can't afford one? Maybe people who don't wear seatbelts don't do so because they forgot or... can't figure out how to use em?
Wouldn't a better way to save money and lives be to simply ban motorcyles... banning swimming would save us a bundle too. They allready ban swimming without a life jacket in some areas here in kalifornia... keep your eyes out folks... that is a law coming to a town near you.
lazs
I dont and wont wear a seatbelt. I hate the damn things or anything else that feels restrictive on me to the point I dont even wear a chain on my neck or a ring on any of my fingers cept on special occasions.
I'd rather just pay the ticket
-
Chip........chip.....chip.... ...chip...chip.
That`s the sound of your freedom and personal choice being slowly chipped away, a little at a time.
The only way it will stop is for you to put a stop to it.
It never comes head on. It just won`t work that way. Even the nanny worshipers have enough sense to see it if it is done head on.
It always comes a little at a time. You have to look for it. First of all you have to care enough to look for it.
The only other way it will stop is if you hand it over and give up your rights freely.
I`m not willingly handing mine over.
Noone knows what`s best for you other than you.
and Dago...........
Your examples above are pretty graphic and heart wrenching.................... .but they certainly don`t make the case.................even taking that stance.
I can tell you about one of my best friends dieing last year. He was killed by his own seat belt. (This can go either way. It`s not black and white)
I can also tell you about a some instances where helmets have snapped necks by hanging up in a crash.
The thing is.........it`s not about that. It is about personal choice and freedom.
I was a member and worked with Texas A.B.A.T.E. for quite a few years. Quite an eye opener.
If you wish to wear a helmet and the law don`t require it..............you can still do so.
The "it costs society" argument is so ludicrous that it is nearly laughable.
That dog won`t hunt.
How about this, if you don't wear a helmet, and you suffer a serious accident, you just get euthanized or arrival at the hospital?
I especialy like this little jewel.
Let`s reverse that.........How about the cage driver that put them in the hospital by having their head where the sun don`t shine treated the same way. (Which is usualy the case on highway accidents) Think that flys? ......Me either, but it makes a lot more sense than your statement.
But officer..........I didn`t see the motorcycle. I was on the cell phone. I was adjusting the radio. I was putting on makeup. I was reading and practicing my meeting presentation................. .Pick one.
If anything should be under scrutiny, it`s not this issue, but the question of.....Should you be qualified to operate a motor vehicle of any kind before you are allowed to drive?
-
heh now this thread turned into Helmet can kill you and Seatbelts too!
nice one ;)
-
The thing about the helmet law is this...it is MY head, MY life, and MY family. I do not need nor want anyone taking yet another personal liberty away from me. I live in NC, and this state requires a helmet. And it pisses me off everytime I get on my bike to know that "the state" cares so much about my health and my family..then hike up taxes to the point we are barely getting by...put an extremely high gas tax on per dollar to fix the roads...then let the roads fall apart...run a water line by my house and tell me to either use it or not...but I'm still gonna pay for it...tax the local commercial fisherman to the point of bankrupting them , etc etc etc.
Helmet laws are just another example of the safety nazi's in action. If I have to wear a helmet on my bike..then I think everyone in a car should have to too. Why? Because people still die of head injuries in auto accidents. Oh..also old people should have to wear helmets. Old people may slip and fall and hit there head..causing them to be injured. Also small kids...you know how toddlers are always falling down...they should have to wear a full face helmet and a padded suit...wouldn't want a kid to fall and get a bruise now would we? And lets not forget folks who play PC video games...especially flight sims...they could lean back in their chair...tip over and fall and possibly hit their head on some foreign object...like the family cat...and give themselves brain damage. So I will make a new law. From this day forward everyone who plays AH who has a family cat MUST wear a helmet when they play. If they do not...then they must do like a motorcyclist must do..pay me (I'm playing the role of the state here!) $75.00 for every infraction. Why? Because it is now a law..and that's the fee I'm gonna charge. No penalties on your license or against your insurance...but I want my $75.00 NOW!!!
Yes I'm bitter..I can ride 15 minutes away from my house and hit the SC line and pop my helmet off and ride in comfort all day.
And before ANYONE uses that friggin' HURT report please take the time to READ that piece of garbage before quoting it.
-
When it comes to motorcycle or bicycle helmets..
If your wearing one and wreck, I'm gonna do all I can to stop and assist you.
If your not wearing a helmet, screw you, your asking for death.
-
Originally posted by Hawklore
When it comes to motorcycle or bicycle helmets..
If your wearing one and wreck, I'm gonna do all I can to stop and assist you.
If your not wearing a helmet, screw you
It's good to know exactly where your compassion begins and ends. Most folks won't do you the courtesy of telling you exactly what standards they require before they extend basic human courtesies.
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
heh now this thread turned into Helmet can kill you and Seatbelts too!
nice one ;)
Swoooosh! Low flyer and you missed it.
No, the point is examples on either side of the fence can go two ways.
It`s about personal freedom and rights...........and how willing or not you are to giving them up and placing your choices in the hands of others.
I can understand how you can`t relate though.
Helmet laws are a sham. So are seatbelt laws.
How would you feel about laws that states you can only drive your vehicle on say....every other day acording to your BD or license number, etc?
Then how would you feel ,from that point, if it was changed to you can only drive it on Mondays and Fridays?
Then to one day a week?
How much of freedom are the nanny worshipers willing to give up..........or to what extremes are they willing to go to in order to cover their shame and wimpiness of willingly handing their freedom and a say in their very own lives over to others?
Some have handed their freedom over already to a great extent. The rest are being taken away bit by bit with no opposition and people from those countries are still trying to make excuses and saying everything is cool.
There are always two sides to every coin, but if you are afraid to look at the other side because you have been indoctrinated into believing you shouldn`t.....or you are afraid it would reveal just how much of a chump you have been, you will never see it and never admit it. Understandable for the weak and for those that have been had.
-
Originally posted by Hawklore
When it comes to motorcycle or bicycle helmets..
If your wearing one and wreck, I'm gonna do all I can to stop and assist you.
If your not wearing a helmet, screw you, your asking for death.
That has to be the most asinine thing I have ever heard spewed out on this BBS. How in the world could someone's PERSONAL choice make a person behave like that?
So if I see some small child getting mauled by a dog I won't help because I don't think it's right for someone to allow their children to play with an aggresive dog. That makes it ok right?
OR I see someone in a car wreck..the car is on fire..and they're inside unconscience because they didn't wear their seatbelt but I let them burn to death it's ok because they were ASKING for it.
Or I respond with my local fire department to someone's house which is on fire because they fell asleep with a cig in their hand and a whole family dies in a house fire because we didn't put any water on it because Hey..they smoked..they deserve what they get!
All these are good examples right?
-
Originally posted by Hawklore
When it comes to motorcycle or bicycle helmets..
If your wearing one and wreck, I'm gonna do all I can to stop and assist you.
If your not wearing a helmet, screw you, your asking for death.
LMAO bicycle helmets. Now there is an issue. :)
We will keep that in mind though if it comes to the point of you having to ask someone else if and when you can go to the john. I mean..they know what is best for you..right?
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
heh now this thread turned into Helmet can kill you and Seatbelts too!
nice one ;)
dale Earnhardt was wearing a helmet and died, the weight of the helmet snapped his neck, he was not the only driver to die that way, now all drivers have to have a device to restrain the helmet, he was also wearing a seat belt.
i wear a helmet in the shower because i might slip and fall and hit my head,then your insurance rates would go up. we can't have that.:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by john9001
i wear a helmet in the shower because i might slip and fall and hit my head,then your insurance rates would go up. we can't have that.:rolleyes:
You mean everyone doesn`t wear the D.O.S.A.B. (Dept. Of Showers and Baths)
approved helmet??????? The horror!
;)
I think what might be most misunderstood by some is........................... .
The word is not Freedumb .....it is freedom.
:aok
-
Originally posted by Dago
During my years as a volunteer firefighter (400 calls per year), I never unbuckled a dead body, but I did help remove more than a couple dead bodies that weren't belted in. Even helped an old man out of a car that had been hit by a train. He had the biggest diagonal red stripe accross his chest from his belt, but he lived.
One night drove the ambulance so the paramedics could both work on the guy who had a car rolled over him after being ejected when he went off the road. Nope, no belt there or he would have been fine. He was screaming in pain in the ambulance. (among other injuries was a triple pelvis facture).
How do you know he would have been fine? Who's to say his head would not have gotten inbetween the door post and the ground like 90% of roll over fatals? He could be the luckiest man alive that he only broke his pelvis.
Not to get into a noodle measuring contest with you but...
During my years as a State Trooper (several hundered accidents investigated) I have unbuckled or cut the belt on several dead bodies.
You can sit here and tell me war stories about one time at band camp and it will make no difference at all.
NHTSA test frontal impacts at 35mph.
Here is a scenario:
car A is traveling west at 70mph; car B is traveling east at 70mph. car A comes across the line and hits car B headlight to headlight. the total speed force is at 140mph. That is a hell of alot faster than the 35mph that car A got it's 5 star crash rating at.
Most of the crash testing stats are nowhere near highway speed and unless you have a nascar style seatbelt rig your screwed.
The best way to save yourself is to be a defensive driver and avoid a collision before it happens.
NHTSA (http://www.crashtest.com/explanations/nhtsa/usncap.htm)
-
Originally posted by -Concho-
Helmet or no helmet, seatbelt or no seatbelt; neither make a bit of difference if you don't ride or drive responsibly.
I've cut the seatbelts off of as many dead people as alive, the only good thing I see that it keeps you behind the wheel in case your able to recover.
I call BS on this gross exaggeration. "as many"? Yer the first person "in the law enforcement community" to ever make this statement, and I know a ton in the Metro Detroit area.
-
A couple points here.
Laz,
I didn't say the motorcyclist could not afford a helmet. I said if he / she didn't think their head was WORTH the price of a helmet I wouldn't tell them it was. They put the value on their head, not me and not their pocket book.
To those that think this is a personal rights issue. It isn't. You do not have a right to drive, therefore what you use or not use while performing the act of driving is also not a constitutional right either in regards to regulation of performing the act of driving. Driving is a priviledge extended by the state you are licensed in. That is why your driving priveledges are subject to suspension and revocation should the state decide to do so.
This is probably one of the best examples of the "danger" of allowing the state to regulate something. That which requires a license issued by the state is not a right, it is a priviledge and only granted by the sufference of the state.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
I call BS on this gross exaggeration. "as many"? Yer the first person "in the law enforcement community" to ever make this statement, and I know a ton in the Metro Detroit area.
Then call BS and call your friends.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
To those that think this is a personal rights issue. It isn't.
It certainly is. That`s all it is.
You do not have a right to drive, therefore what you use or not use while performing the act of driving is also not a constitutional right either in regards to regulation of performing the act of driving. Driving is a priviledge extended by the state you are licensed in. That is why your driving priveledges are subject to suspension and revocation should the state decide to do so.
At a certain point it was enacted that it be declared as a priviledge instead of a right through the manipulation of laws put in place to do so.
Chip...........chip.......... .chip........................ ...
It didn`t just start yesterday.
A trained monkey can pass a driving test in most states that will grant you , your so called priviledge, to drive.
The monkey would then be required to pay a fee for this and also be required to pay an insurance company a fee in order to be free to make use of this, more than gracious friggen , priviledge .
Chip.............chip.......c hip.........
Sham.
-
So, you think we shouldn't license anyone, shouldn't enforce traffic laws, shouldn't require insurance, and shouldn't register vehicles?
-
Originally posted by -Concho-
Then call BS and call your friends.
Don't need to call them.
-
ok mav.. then I guess I didn't get your point about the "cost" of a helmet?
Are you now saying that the "cost" is the hassle and sensory depravation as well as the price in dollars?
It may be a privildge to drive but I do not belive that it should be a privilidge to drive in a manner that does not endanger anyone else..
In other words.... It is the right of the state to enforce traffic laws like reckless driving or stop lights or even turn signals...but it is not their right to enforce your wearing seatbelts or helmets.
The seatbelt and helmets are personal prefernece that endanger no one in any manner other than you yourself.
If we all don't start to grow a pair pretty soon we will all find ourselves wearing helmets and life jackets in the shower.
lazs
-
hawklore... I have had several life threatening motorcycle accidents that did not in any way involve head inuries... I was not wearing a helmet in any of em...
Are you saying that you would allow a person to bleed to death because he wasn't wearing a helmet?
Would you allow a car crash victim to burn to death because he was not wearing a nomex suit?
lazs
-
Seatbelts and helmets are infringing upon personal liberty?? *shakes head in disbelief*
-
Originally posted by Nifty
So, you think we shouldn't license anyone, shouldn't enforce traffic laws, shouldn't require insurance, and shouldn't register vehicles?
yes, it is the STATE that says it is privilege to drive, not the people, lets put it to a vote.
why do we have to re-register the vehicle every year? same owner, same vehicle, but you have to pay the STATE more money or get fined (more money).
because we have to have insurance the insurance companies can charge whatever they want, and if everyone has to have insurance why do they try to sell us "uninsured motorist coverage"?
the drivers license is just one more way for the STATE to have more control over the people.
"where are you papers?" sounds like a WW2 "b" movie.
-
Laz,
Stop trying to put words in my mouth about what I posted.I did not post about the rights of the state. I merely pointed out the legal situation regarding driving. It is state regulated, licensed and is not a right granted by the constitution.
Going on with your post it is the "right", if you will, of the state to regulate that which is not covered by the Federal side and that which the population allows through the action of their representatives in their state capital. If the legislature mandates helmets and seatbelts it is that state's "right" to do so if their population does not prohibit it through their representatives. One might say that those regulations came about because some one put a bug the the ear of the state legislature and got it passed. If you don't like it you have 2 options. ignore it and pay the penalty for civil disobedience, or start a legislative review of it and get it repealed.
-
This stuff doesn't translate to bbs boards, but they are relevant stats:
http://www.abateflorida.com/html/body_dot-statistics.html
(NOTE: In the year 2004 which this table represents, helmeted and non-helmeted riders had about 3,800 accidents each--200 fatal accidents for those WITH helmets, 188 for those without....The only category that had appreciable difference was the ' no injury column--helmets had 270, non-helmets had 369... and these injuries were not serious)
To all Motorcycle Rights Organizations and interested parties
The following is an economic impact study done for the first five years of our amended helmet law. The motorcycle registration figures are compiled from the statistics of the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. The fees come from the license and registration bureau. From 1999 to 2004 our motorcycle registrations increased from 198,601 to 419,491. That is an increase of approximately 111%. The following is the estimated revenue increase from the registrations and bike purchases.
220,890 motorcycles at an average of $10,000 each 2,208,900,000.00
Sales tax at 6% 132,534,000.00
Registration fee for motorcycles 26.40 5,433,918.60
Change of title 29.75 6,571,477.50
Buy tag 10.00 2,208,900.00
---------------
Total 2,355,648,296.10
This is a low estimate as it doesnt include antique motorcycles or mopeds. This is over TWO BILLION DOLLARS in five years that has been put into the Florida economy. Over 145 million dollars in taxes alone went into the Florida state treasury. This does not include the almost 3 billion dollars put into the economy from Bike Week and Biketoberfest the past five years. Remember that the registration fees are annual so they would increase with each year from 1999 to 2004. I hope these figures will help anyone who has heard that Florida motorcyclist dont pay their fair share.
Respectfully,
James D. Doc Reichenbach II
Then there is the main-stream media take on the matter: (notice the salamanders don't mention the more-than-doubling of registered bikes in the state, which affect the stats more than anything else)
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/fl_cycle_deaths.html
Florida Motorcycle Deaths Soar After Helmet Law Repeal
August 8, 2005
Motorcyclist deaths in Florida have rapidly increased since Gov. Jeb Bush signed a law in 2000 repealing the state's mandatory motorcycle helmet law.
The number of fatal motorcycle accidents increased more than 81 percent in the three years after the repeal took effect according to a study by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
Throughout the country fatal motorcycle accidents increased 48 percent, in large part because of the growing number of aging baby boomers riding powerful motorcycles.
Deaths among Florida riders 21 and under nearly tripled after 2000. Riders younger than 21 are still required by state law to wear helmets.(so wtf does THAT have to do with helmet laws?)
''The numbers are pretty compelling that Florida has paid a high price,'' said Rae Tyson, a spokesman for the federal agency. ``There is enough here for any state contemplating a repeal to realize there are serious consequences.''
While the report suggests that some of the increase in motorcycle deaths can be attributed to increased ridership in the state, critics of the Florida helmet law repeal point out that the non-helmeted fatality rate per 10,000 registered motorcyclists increased from 0.7 fatalities in 1998 to 6.1 in 2002.
Medical costs for motorcycle riders involved in accidents in Florida followed the increase in fatalities. In 1998 and 1999, the acute care hospital charges for head-brain-skull principal injury cases per 10,000 registered motorcycles were $311,549 and $428,347 respectively.
The comparable figures for 2001 and 2002 were $605,854 and $610,386, adjusted for inflation.
The motorcycle group that successfully lobbied legislators in 2000 to lift the helmet requirement contends that NHTSA is biased against riders who do not use helmets. The group argues that the increase in deaths can be largely attributed to the increasing popularity of motorcycle riding.
The lengthy study was conducted for NHTSA by Preusser Research Group, a Connecticut research firm that specializes in transportation and highway safety issues.
The study does not fully blame the increase in deaths on riders without helmets, noting that alcohol use and speed also likely played a role
(Well the dipsticks CAN'T blame it on that, as in FLA the stats simply do not support their assertions---MY TAKE: kids on crotch rockets wear helmets because they match the paint job of the bike...purely style....Harley riders are more likley not to wear helmets, and are usually older--- 90% of all motorcycle fatalities are those who have been riding less than 2 years)
-
Originally posted by Nifty
So, you think we shouldn't license anyone, shouldn't enforce traffic laws, shouldn't require insurance, and shouldn't register vehicles?
License? You got to be pooping me. :)
Like I said ......... a trained monkey can pass a licensing exam in most states.
The monkey would still have to pay for the exam though and more than likely he could drive better than the majority on the road today.
I`d much rather about 75% of the morons behind the wheel nowadays be able to drive....period. I think common sense should be mandatory. :)
Only thing the license is, is a sham. A money maker.....................for nothing.
Of course a drivers license is a neat way to keep tabs on everyone that has one. :)
Traffic laws? Give me a break.
Insurance? Auto insurance is possibly the biggest scam ever legalized.
Vehicle registration? Oh yea. I think it`s just peachy to pay for registering an auto in order for it to be allowed to travel on a Federal, state or county road.......
.........that we have already paid for and continue to pay for their upkeep. Just peachy. :rolleyes:
-
(http://m2.aol.com/wayne4fish/df.jpg)
Look what I got!
It's just too damn easy nowadays.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
If you made everyone wear a nomex firesuit and helmet in their car it would save you money too eh?
lazs
I am kind of sick of that stupid comparison, as it is ridiculous in the context. Want to actually show me the risks of head injury for the average motorcycle rider versus the risk of serious burns for the average car driver?
With even half an effort you can figure out that the risk of head injury is great for the average biker without a helmet, it's extremely rare to be seriously burned in a car accident. Extremely rare.
Why don't you compare helmet use to seatbelt use, a better comparison? Oh, thats right, with pretty equal chance of the seatbelt actually making a differance in a vehicle accident as a helmet in a bike crash, it makes too much sense to compare, especially since SEAT BELT LAW is pretty much the accepted norm and required by law everywhere.
But, where is your protesting your right to drive unbelted? Where is your right to slam your head into a window post, or through the windshield? You really should fight to regain your right to a crushed chest on a steering wheel. And far be it from me to think you should be prevented against your will from destroying your knees on the lower dashboard.
I am still waiting to see who wants to accept automatic euthanasia versus expensive medical care if they ride a motorcycle without a helmet. Anyone signing that pledge, and having it on their drivers license, let your hair flow in the wind.
:D
-
Originally posted by Dago
I am kind of sick of that stupid comparison, as it is ridiculous in the context. Want to actually show me the risks of head injury for the average motorcycle rider versus the risk of serious burns for the average car driver?
With even half an effort you can figure out that the risk of head injury is great for the average biker without a helmet, it's extremely rare to be seriously burned in a car accident. Extremely rare.
Why don't you compare helmet use to seatbelt use, a better comparison? Oh, thats right, with pretty equal chance of the seatbelt actually making a differance in a vehicle accident as a helmet in a bike crash, it makes too much sense to compare, especially since SEAT BELT LAW is pretty much the accepted norm and required by law everywhere.
But, where is your protesting your right to drive unbelted? Where is your right to slam your head into a window post, or through the windshield? You really should fight to regain your right to a crushed chest on a steering wheel. And far be it from me to think you should be prevented against your will from destroying your knees on the lower dashboard.
I am still waiting to see who wants to accept automatic euthanasia versus expensive medical care if they ride a motorcycle without a helmet. Anyone signing that pledge, and having it on their drivers license, let your hair flow in the wind.
:D
Dago...did you read ANYthing I just posted?
-
Originally posted by bj229r
Dago...did you read ANYthing I just posted?
yup, read it all. Sorry if I dont believe everything someone posts.
I believe that motorcycle deaths do increase when helmet laws are rescinded. Thanks for that.
-
Originally posted by Dago
yup, read it all. Sorry if I dont believe everything someone posts.
I believe that motorcycle deaths do increase when helmet laws are rescinded. Thanks for that.
Well...you're right..they went DOWN:aok
-
yep dago... no need to read any facts about gun ownership either... the people who want em banned KNOW the truth that they are dangerous and cause 15,000 unneeded deaths and billions a year in medical costs for all of us... no need to look at the facts and... as you say... freedom of choice does not allow you to cost someone something.
mav... I get what you are saying. I was just take back by your "cost" comment. I am sorry but I still don't understand it or... what you meant.
In my opinion the feds acted illegaly in the helmet and seatbelt laws. They threatened to withold the states monies if these laws were not passed. This is abhorent to me.
And yes.. I do have the choice to either exercise choice or go to jail. I can be thrown in jail for my own safety.... does that not seem odd to anyone?
They will throw me in prison to protect me from the on in a hundred thousand chance that a seatbelt or helmet will allow me to survive a wreck that I would not have otherwise survived? What are the chances of me being harmed in prison?
What is the harm done by hiring more and more police to enforce these laws? What is the harm done to a person who simply loses his licence over not wearing a seatbelt or helmet? All those are tangible and absolute harms caused not by anything real.... but by a police state.
And for what? did anyone see a drop in either their medical or their vehicle insurance?
You are duped because you deserve to be duped.
lazs
-
Oh... I am not against the cops.. the cops are doing their job and... for the most part.. they are better guys than the average person I run into.
I got out of a seatbelt ticket the other day.
The cop asked me why I would do something so crazy as to drive a two ton car without bolting myself to the seat.
I said that.... "Oh.. I don't know... At my age... every once in a while.... I get all nostalgic for when this was a free country."
He laughed and said... "Haven't heard that one. Going to let you go with a warning. buckle up in the future." I even think he said "have a nice day"
for those who feel my evil habits are making your life a financial hell... I am one of the few guys in the neighborhood who isn't out on some kind of dissability that still allows them to build fences and do yard work.
I have my own medical insurance and I don't drink or smoke or even eat fast food. In my 50's... I am over 6' tall and weigh 185 I exercise and keep busy. I don't do drugs or skydive or climb mountains. I don't fly airplanes or ultralights anymore.
Most of you guys do things that are guarenteed to cost me a lot more money than any lack of my wearing a seatbelt or helmet will ever cost you.
I didn't do it for the first 50 years of my life and I never was inured where a helmet or seatbelt would have made a damn bit of difference. I have seen a lot more people cost me money because of habits that most of you have.
yet.... I still believe that if you want to climb rocks or be a fatso or drink yourself or drug yourself to death... that is none of my business and I have no right to even vote on it.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
License? You got to be pooping me. :)
Like I said ......... a trained monkey can pass a licensing exam in most states.
The monkey would still have to pay for the exam though and more than likely he could drive better than the majority on the road today.
I`d much rather about 75% of the morons behind the wheel nowadays be able to drive....period. I think common sense should be mandatory. :)
Only thing the license is, is a sham. A money maker.....................for nothing.
Of course a drivers license is a neat way to keep tabs on everyone that has one. :)
Traffic laws? Give me a break.
Insurance? Auto insurance is possibly the biggest scam ever legalized.
Vehicle registration? Oh yea. I think it`s just peachy to pay for registering an auto in order for it to be allowed to travel on a Federal, state or county road.......
.........that we have already paid for and continue to pay for their upkeep. Just peachy. :rolleyes:
In the case you are not trolling...
The exam is easy... but, it's necessary to ensure that people driving at least know the laws of driving. If we didn't have licenses, someone could legally get behind the wheel of a vehicle that had never driven before. I don't want this, do you? I agree that it is a money making endeavor, but to call it a sham is a bit far fetched.
Traffic laws, give you a break? What are you talking about? Which laws you want to do away with? Speeding? Obeying traffic lights and signs?
Car insurance is like all insurance. It's a scam until you NEED it. Someone else said "why do we need uninsured motorist if everyone is required to have it." Umm, people break laws all the time, and that includes not having car insurance. My car was crushed by a guy in a van (I wasn't hurt, fortunately.) The guy's insurance was well expired. Thankfully, I had uninsured coverage, so when my car was totaled, I got a check for $12k. Also, that coverage dealt with some idiot who had issues parking their vehicle next to mine. I come back to my car, and both driver side doors were scraped and dented. I've gotten more out of my car insurance than I've ever put it, and I haven't once caused an accident.
Vehicle registration is necessary too. Of course, unless you don't want the police to tell one red car from another red car. "Did you get the plate number of the car in the robbery?" "The what?"
-
Originally posted by bj229r
Well...you're right..they went DOWN:aok
Not according to this source:
Helmet Laws - A Review (http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/helmet_use.html)
5. How do helmet laws affect motorcyclist deaths and injuries? In states that either reinstated or enacted universal motorcycle helmet laws, helmet use increased dramatically, and motorcyclist deaths and injuries decreased. In states that repealed or weakened their universal helmet laws, helmet use declined sharply, and motorcyclist deaths and injuries rose.
* California's helmet use law covering all riders took effect on January 1, 1992. Helmet use jumped to 99 percent from about 50 percent before the law.10 During the same period, the number of motorcyclist fatalities in California decreased 37 percent to 327 in 1992 from 523 in 1991.11
* Nebraska reinstated a helmet law on January 1, 1989 after repealing an earlier law in 1977. The state then saw a 22 percent reduction in motorcyclist serious head injuries.12
* From 1968 to 1977, Texas had a universal helmet use law estimated to have saved 650 lives, but the law was amended in 1977 to apply only to riders younger than 18. The weakened law coincided with a 35 percent increase in motorcyclist fatalities. Texas reinstated its helmet law for all motorcyclists in September 1989. The month before the law took effect, the helmet use rate was 41 percent. The rate jumped to 90 percent during the first month of the law and had risen to 98 percent by June 1990.13 Serious injury crashes per registered motorcycle decreased 11 percent.14 But in September 1997, Texas again weakened its helmet law, requiring helmets only for riders younger than 21. Helmet use in Texas dropped to 66 percent by May 1998, and operator fatalities increased 31 percent in the first full year following the repeal.15
* In 2000, Florida's universal helmet law was weakened to exempt riders 21 and older who have at least $10,000 of medical insurance coverage. An Institute study found that the motorcyclist death rate in Florida increased by about 25 percent, after the state weakened its helmet law. The death rate rose from 31 fatalities per 1,000 crash involvements before the law change (1998-99) to 39 fatalities after (2001-2002). An estimated 117 deaths could have been prevented during 2001-02 if the law had not been changed.16 An evaluation of the Florida law change by NHTSA found a similar effect; motorcyclist deaths per 10,000 motorcycle registrations increased 21 percent during the two years after the law was changed compared with the two years before.7
And there in lies the rub. You can with hardly any research find someone who's research and statistics prove the point you want to prove.
If anyone actually believes that rescinding helmets laws results in reduced fatalities, then I can only state that they are an idiot.
Whether the right to decide should be left to the rider, I see the arguement, but I also see the cost to others from a persons poor choice. The rider doesnt care about the burden they will place on others if they suffer serious head injury. That is selfish, no matter how you try and spin it.
-
If anyone actually believes that rescinding helmets laws results in reduced fatalities, then I can only state that they are an idiot.
None of the stats cited took into account the total number of riders going up or down during the time span---it said Fla went up 25%, yet it conveneiently ignores that motorcycle regtrations more than doubled from 199 to 2004.
That being said, it's obviously a given that it is safer to wear a helmet than not, but taking that tact, I don't want to see a mandatory helmet law in ANY state that lets fat slobs go into McDonalds. (OR buffets..HOW many fat slobs do you see at buffets?) Health insurance for smokers and/or fat slobs with bad hearts, diabetes and all the other things that befall such people FAR AND AWAY outstrip whatever a few extra broken noggins each year wil cause. My car insurance for my main vehicle is 550 a year...my HEALTH insurance is 250 a MONTH, and that doesnt include the endless deductables, made ever higher by indigent care for illegals
-
Originally posted by Nifty
The exam is easy... but, it's necessary to ensure that people driving at least know the laws of driving.
LMAO
Don`t know how the driving exam is in your state, but here it goes something like this.
Do you know the difference between streets/highways and sidewalks?
Know what the big red signs are for?
Do you wish to register to vote?
Got your checkbook handy?
You did drop by your local ,friendly insurance company and get fleeced before coming here didn`t you?
Pay the man at the counter.
Laws of driving? Hilarious.
If we didn't have licenses, someone could legally get behind the wheel of a vehicle that had never driven before.
Yea, now you have to pay the man first. Doesn`t matter whether you have ever driven before or not.
If you have never driven before and you wish to get some experience under your belt before you go to get your license, you can either go pay a state approved driving school (read that more ripoffs)..........or you can actualy learn to drive first...with no license. Al icense doesn`t mean you can drive. It means you have close to brainpower of the monkey mentioned before....and a checkbook. :)
I agree that it is a money making endeavor, but to call it a sham is a bit far fetched.
OK ....a ripoff then. :)
Traffic laws, give you a break? What are you talking about? Which laws you want to do away with? Speeding? Obeying traffic lights and signs?
Most are neither enforced nor obeyed.
Car insurance is like all insurance. It's a scam until you NEED it.
LOL
Yea right. It`s an overpriced scam. A small amount to insure the insurance......the rest to use your money for investment purposes.
But we have seen that the state and federal reuglation and guideleines will take care of us on this............right?
Someone else said "why do we need uninsured motorist if everyone is required to have it."
An insurance company rep could answer that pretty well. "So we can add that added extra charge that should be included in the premium to begin with."
Umm, people break laws all the time, and that includes not having car insurance. My car was crushed by a guy in a van (I wasn't hurt, fortunately.) The guy's insurance was well expired. Thankfully, I had uninsured coverage, so when my car was totaled, I got a check for $12k.
Good thing you gave them that extra money. :)
Your rates go up? :)
Your tooling down the road and...BAM....you blow out a tire, skid into a tree and crunch your favorite ride.
No problem. I have insurance. That`s why I have paid all those premiums.
You slide on down to your Weroblegaly Insurance Company. Snidley Whiplash, the head of claims, escorts you into his office brushing off his new 1000 buck blue suit as he goes. (The chicks down at the country club really go crazy over a sharp dressed man.)
He has your policy file in hand an offers you a seat that looks like it came from Hugh Heffner`s.
"OK I have your claim form here and your policy Mr. Sucker. (Reads poiicy name Ima Sucker) Is it OK if I call you Ima? :)"
"Was there a police report filed on this?"
Ima.." Yes there was"
"We will need a copy of this for our files. You can pick one up and bring it in. We would do this for you , but we are trying to keep costs to the customer down"
"OK Ima, as soon as we get this report we can get you a check cut. You didn`t get a ticket did you?"
Ima... "Yes I did. Failure to control a motor vehicle."
" Hmmmmm not good, but we will worry about this later. Right now we want to concentrate on getting your claim to you A.S.A.P. I have it all calculated and ready to put in your hand......when we get that report, of course. I will have you a check cut for 11,000 dollars.when we get that report.
Ima.."But... but....I had an 18,000 dollar car. It was brand new."
"Ima,for starters your car was 6 months old. Depreciation when you pull her off the lot. Then you had a $1000 dollar deductible policy. Remember? I saved you ten bucks by going that route. Then we figure in depreciation and calculated it on a market value price....for our area. We picked up the $300 wrecker bill that has to be deducted. You didn`t have that clause on your policy. I saved you five bucks by going that route. Then filing fees, office charges, annual Christmas party fees and $5.00 for that cup of coffee you just had. Area loss adjustments were then figured in. I shaved expenses for you on every corner to cut down customer expense. That`s our motto. We serve you for less. Have a nice day and please remember to bring your replacement auto in for inspection and insured vehicle policy changes so you will be covered under your policy for the remainder of the term."
.................
Five months later, at renewal time, Ima drives his 5 year old Yugo down to pay his new premium.
Joe Stickemup gives him the premium amount for renewal of the policy.
Ima goes into a pale shade of green and wants to know why his premium is nearly double from his original policy.
Joe expalins.." Mr. sucker you filed a claim during the last policy period. Surely you don`t expect the company to bear all of the expense for your negligence, do you? According to the police report that was filed, you received a citation. This puts you into a higher risk classification, which increases you rates. Then there were over all area loss adjustments and over all premium hikes due to losses. I did , however save you 10 bucks by going with a thousand dollar deductible coverage policy. Ima , we do everything we possibly can here to save the customer money. We are proud to have you as part of our family. You want to give me the five bucks for that cup of coffee you just had?...or I can add it to the premium."
Jesse James at least had the common decency to use a gun. :)
I've gotten more out of my car insurance than I've ever put it
You can get more of that for a lower price if you will locate a reputable brothel. :rofl
and I haven't once caused an accident.
Snidley would be very proud of you. :)
Vehicle registration is necessary too. Of course, unless you don't want the police to tell one red car from another red car. "Did you get the plate number of the car in the robbery?" "The what?"
Hint!
WineO leaning against the lamp post...." Hey there Sherlock, unless that robber was trying to get an appearance on Americas Dumbest Criminals he wouldn`t have had the proper tag on it anyway."
A one time tag should be issued, from the dealer at the time of vehicle purchase. But then, of course, they couldn`t factor in the charges that you get at regular intervals to allow you to drive your auto on roads and highways that you paid to have built and maintained. I mean , after all, it just wouldn`t work out right to charge you that amount for a little piece of pressed metal made by the boys down at the Crossbar Motel for about a buck a piece........................ ...that you, as a taxpayer are paying to feed, clothe and house. :)
Yep............I surely can`t see where the average citizen is being picked like the bones of a dead cow by a bunch of vultures.......which, btw, we are also paying the ridiculous salaries for so they can continue to court us further.......without even a kiss.
It`s all on the up and up. :rolleyes:
-
Whatever the arguments for or against helmet laws. If I hadn't been wearing one the day my head smacked a curb. I would be dead for 15 years now. I'd give up a little loss of freedom for 15 years of life.
-
Originally posted by cpxxx
Whatever the arguments for or against helmet laws. If I hadn't been wearing one the day my head smacked a curb. I would be dead for 15 years now. I'd give up a little loss of freedom for 15 years of life.
do you mean that you would not have been wearing the helmet if it had not been required by law? Do you need a law to make you wear a helmet?
as i said before i was buying seat belt kits and mounting them in my cars in 1960, i don need no stinkn law to tell me what to do.
-
cpxx.. you are welcome to wear a helmet as far as I am concerned. It is none of my business.
dago.... you are talking a very small increase for a very large increase in riders... Did you also know that most motorcycle fatalities happen within the first 6 months of getting a motorcycle?
course.... your "source" is the insurance institute tho isn't it?
My point is that even if there is a small decrease... It is not the business of the government to protect adults from themselves.
If the stats had said that there was a small increase.. it would not be their business to make people stop wearing helmets.
I have no problem with insurance companies making a profit. They are welcome to charge more for not wearing a helmet or seatbelt. But... that wouldn't stop your outrage about people having free will now would it?
lazs
-
beside the protection, i wanna see someone drive a bike at 120mph
without a helmet *lol*
I once lost the windshield at my helmet, i can tell you your eyes are
done very fast even at 60 mph and with a little luck you will pick up
a flying bug too! 8D
-
Originally posted by john9001
do you mean that you would not have been wearing the helmet if it had not been required by law? Do you need a law to make you wear a helmet?
Possibly, there have been times when not wearing a helmet would have been convenient. I would generally wear a helmet but who is to say that on that particular day I had decided that the helmet was uneccessary or too hot or I forgot it. Same goes for seatbelts. The law removed that possibility.
Like it or not though, those laws exist for reason. Despite the notional or perceived loss of freedom. People are alive today because of them, possibly including me. No amount of sophistry can deny that reality.
Freedom is an important thing but not all freedoms are created equal.
-
LOL we used to ride with sunglasses.. they work fine at speed... if you turn your head just put a finger on the nose piece.
cpx... are you saying that you are happy there are such laws because... without being forced... you would be reckless and anti social?
fast food kills people and costs us billions... booze costs even more... Lack of exercise probly kills 100 times more people a year than riding without a helmet or driving wihout a seatbelt.... perhaps a federal agent at your home or work making you exercise would be a good idea?
Perhaps a ban on swimming or rock climbing or parachuting or whatever would be a good idea?
Where would you draw the line? at what point is freedom of choice worth some risk and expence? Perhaps freedom of choice is only worth it if it is somthing you like to do?
Perhaps other peoples freedom is worthless when it is somthing that you don't care about?
lazs
-
I could be reckless and anti social. It is a rare person indeed who could honestly deny they were once reckless and anti social.
As for freedom, well we all have our own boundaries. Yours is different to mine. My line includes seatbelt and helmet laws because they have demonstrably led to fewer deaths. It is a subjective view. My line does not include compulsory helmets for bicycles and I believe like you to some extent that excessive gun control does not work.
In a free society or the compromise free society we live in we accept some limitations. My Father once said that the only rights we have are those other people allow us. That may be an anathema to you but it is the reality we find ourselves in.
Absolute freedom would never work. So we accept a compromise. My compromise includes helmet laws. I wouldn't want a ban on swimming or rock climbing or parachuting or indeed motorcycling. All of them are potentially dangerous and require safety equipment and training. Most risky pursuits are regulated to some extent whether govermentally or locally.
I don't want to restrict other people's freedoms or have them restrict mine. But as I said I can let some freedoms go for the greater good. It's my compromise.
-
I like freedom. I don't want the state telling me what I can and can't do. However, when I was 15 I had a motorcyle accident and have little doubt that wearing a helmet, which I sorely despised, saved my life. I'm glad the law required it at the time, how can I not be? The argument for an age requirement to forgo the helmet makes sense except that it will be tough to enforce and no dobut be violated by many.
On principle I'm for choice, by conscience I want youth to wear them.
-
Ok, we seem to have a basic misunderstanding in this thread:
Group A: Feels that those of us who object to helmets(Group B) THINK THAT HELMETS DON'T WORK.
This is incorrect.
Group B _DOES KNOW_ that helmets SAVE LIVES, but it should be OUR DECISION about whether or not we wear them.
I hope that my use of caps will help clarify the situation.
-
cpx... fair enough.. but.. We are talking about personal freedom vs cost in dollars to society and the saving of the life of the person making the choice.
That is the line to me. cost can't be the reason. saving one from oneself can't be the reason.
An example would be all the people who drown. Would you favor a law that made all people wear lifejackets in any pool or waterway?
another would be not exercising... would you favor a law that made us all exercise? certainly those would be for our own good and save everyone countless billions of dollars.
luckster... I am talking about adults. whatever the age a person becomes an adult is the cutoff point. Pick a year.
fast food and obesity kill and cost more than any amount of deaths from the lack of a seatbelt or helmet.
Allowing laws to be made on seatbelts and helmets are abhorrant and against all human rights.
I would have no problem with a law that said that seatbelts needed to be provided or helmets needed to be available to passengers.... I would have no problem with insurance companies giveing a discount to people who wore helmets and seatbelts. I have no problem with kids being made to wear both..
I do have a problem with the government telling me I have to wear em for my own good.
Do you see the difference?
lazs
-
lazs2 since you compare swimming with riding a motorcyle
or a rock climber with parachuter, and the government should
not telling you what to wear while doing this different things.
Why the government telling you that you need a driving licence
before you can drive alone?
Why do you need to make a flying license before you can
fly alone?
I tell you something, people make expirience bad and good while
they live. With this knowledge over the years they build rules & laws.
I have the feeling you and some other in this thread just dont care
on the expirience others made. i.e. your government or a flightschool.
Why do the millitary have strictly rules?? you know it where it would
end without it.
But you are free to invent the wheel new...
-
Originally posted by lazs2
dago.... you are talking a very small increase for a very large increase in riders... Did you also know that most motorcycle fatalities happen within the first 6 months of getting a motorcycle?
Are you actually trying to tell me that a large increase in riders just happened to coincide with the rescinding of helmet laws? Because that was what the statistics I posted was about. Amazing coincidence. Ridership increased over years, I belive that stats I posted were for a 12 month periods in most instances. So, ridership increase was minor compared to the increase in injuries quoted.
-
Originally posted by cpxxx
Freedom is an important thing but not all freedoms are created equal.
[SIZE=8]WRONG![/SIZE]
This is the crux of socialism people. No matter what you tell yourself or which kind of feather you like to tickle yourself with, that does not change the fact that this IS SOCIALISM.
You should not legislate personal choice! YOU SHOULD NEVER LEGISLATE PERSONAL CHOICE!
Now I want you people to try something for me. Repeat this following line. Repeat it infront of someone else for best affect, like a good friend.
"I am a socialist."
Either you'll realize the folly of your ways, or you'll try to legislate more choice away from people.
-
Christ this "you're a socialist" **** gets old.
-
At least he didn't call me a [SIZE=10]LIBERAL[/SIZE] :lol :lol
-
I hope recess gets over soon. I want to go back inside and eat some paste.
-
Originally posted by cpxxx
At least he didn't call me a [SIZE=10]LIBERAL[/SIZE] :lol :lol
That's spelled "LIBRULE", dummy. You must have missed your neocon political reeducation class.
-
librules are so funny when they get upset.
"who you calln a librule, you---you---neo-con"
-
dago... you could look at this too but... I am not argueing that helmets and seatbelts may save a few lives.
http://www.bikersrights.com/statistics/hlfaq.html
I am saying that just saving someones life or protecting them from themselves or... protecting others from the expense of freedom of choice is not a good enough reason.
ghost... yes.. we are licenced and we have to obey traffic laws... those things are to protect others from harm by us. that is ok with me..
Take aviation... you have to have a licence to fly (no seatbelts oddly) because... you could kill many people if you did not know what you were doing in a plane... but.... I flew ultralights... they are restricted more for places they can fly but... you don't even need a licence to fly one. the theory being that they don't weigh enough to cause much damage to others.
Swimming... we have laws now that are making people wear life jackets to swim in rivers and lakes. That is insane and wrong and a violation of human rights. We also have boats licenced and pay to launch them and they must have life jackets on board...
They are about to pass laws that will allow no alcohol at all around waterways.
Sooooo where do you draw the line?
It seems simple enough... so long as you do not endanger others... you should, as a free adult be able to do as you please.
Die from being launced out of the windshield or having your mellon crushed in a bike accident.... die from any number of fatso diseases.... let your body go from lack of exercise... drug or drink yourself to death...drown drunk as a skunk... fall off a cliff or smash yourself flat falling from a plane parachuting... that should be a personal choice.
The hospitals are not clogged with seatbelt or helmet law abusers... they are clogged with indigent drug and alchohol users and fatsos and old people.
The vegetable wards are not full of non helmeted bikers... they are full of people who allmost drown or had other accidents.
Where do you socialists draw the line? I can make a good case using your logic to stop every kind of risky behavior...
is that how you girls want to live?
lazs
-
There was a time when I wanted one of these:
[
Hail...I still want one of these, but will probably never be able to afford one. Not unless the kids finally move out or start paying rent or if the wife or I either one inherits big money from a dead but formerly doting rich aunt or uncle or something tragic happens to one of us and we sue somebody's arse off and win big money in a lawsuit...then yeah...maybe.
On the other hand, south Arkansas may have the most dangerous two lane highways in the country. The roadsides are dotted with crosses where people have been killed in auto accidents. I've seen half-a-dozen wrecks commuting to work in the last year...two of them fatal.
When it comes to spotting motorcycles, local automotive drivers are blind, deaf, and insane. No helmet could keep you from going where they're going to send you.
(http://www.mcnews.com.au/wallpaper/HarleyDavidson/2006/wallpaper/Sportster_XL883_Low.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
On the other hand, south Arkansas may have the most dangerous two lane highways in the country. The roadsides are dotted with crosses where people have been killed in auto accidents. I've seen half-a-dozen wrecks commuting to work in the last year...two of them fatal.
Do they still have all those two way service roads in Arkansas? Man, those things are dangerous. Texas got rid of the vast majority of theirs 30 years ago. Same for most states I've lived in or driven through.
-
I rode Harleys for decades... real Harleys, you know.. the kind that women couldn't ride cause ya had to kick start em? Never wore a helmet.
Now... any cripple can ride motorcyles. They are not riding near as much as we did tho. It isn't as fun with a helmet.
My son gave me a BMW r75... kinda neat bike... I would ride it more but putting a helmet on in 100 degree weather is ludicrous...
I bought a fake one that weighs about 20 oz and is no doubt worthless but... looks like a helmet and doesn't get in the way too much...
Even at that.... it is nothing like the freedom of the old days.
I have a chevy powered Healey that has a fold down windshield... Love to see the envious looks the poor old "bikers" give me when I cruise by em with ray bans on and the wind blowing my hair straight back.
What kind of wussies are we growing in this ****ry these days?
lazs
-
I rode Harleys for decades... real Harleys, you know.. the kind that women couldn't ride cause ya had to kick start em? Never wore a helmet.
Like this one?:aok
(http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m248/bj229r/IM000139.jpg)
-
yep... sorta.. just take a lot of the junk off and paint it all black and paint some flames on the tank.
How do you feel about helmet laws?
lazs
-
Originally posted by cpxxx
At least he didn't call me a [SIZE=10]LIBERAL[/SIZE] :lol :lol
Want to try something fun? Define what "Socialist" is. Draw out everything they do, their social policies, so on and so forth.
Now, analyze what both republicans and democrats do and believe.
It'll surprise you.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
yep... sorta.. just take a lot of the junk off and paint it all black and paint some flames on the tank.
How do you feel about helmet laws?
lazs
I live in the country, (sw VA...a mandatory helmet state) and I don't wear one if I'm going to the country store , or driving around the mountain (cops don't come up here)---if not for the law, I'd likely never wear one. Don't know that I'd feel that way if I lived in LA or DC.....no fun riding a bike in metro areas.
My overall view of such things is that the government doesn't squealing have to protect me from myself. If they are concerned about total lives saved...start with smokers and fat slobs...come back to me and my bike after you have THOSE 100 million people under control:mad:
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Want to try something fun? Define what "Socialist" is. Draw out everything they do, their social policies, so on and so forth.
Now, analyze what both republicans and democrats do and believe.
It'll surprise you.
Oh no, life's too short.
Who put those Harley pics up? They're old men's motorised bicycles. :furious
-
Originally posted by bj229r
My overall view of such things is that the government doesn't squealing have to protect me from myself.
:aok
Yep, that kind of protection always ends up costing us with another little crack that makes it easier to chip for the next little gem in the personal freedom department.
You know, I got my bike license when I was 14 years old, which was possible back then. That was 40 years ago. I was riding without a license before that even, which wasn`t a big deal back then.
I have been around Harleys and bikers most of my life. Owned a biker supply business.I have friends in just about every club from the hardcore to the weekend warrior clubs. This thread has got me to doing some thinking.........In all those years I have lost exactly Zero to MC accidents in which they were in fault. Not friggen one. On the other hand I`m still sort of lost on how many have lost their lives due to cage drivers with their heads up the butts T-boning, the old left turn routine, "but..but...officer I din`t see the motorcycle", etc, etc.
I say let`s legislate against stupidity, those who can`t drive, those without common sense, but most of all against those who shout about helmetless riders costing them money when in fact it is their burden to bear.
I also have a list of things I`d like to see in place to be outlawed. Some of them are liberals, socialists, limp wristed panzies who either haven`t got enough sense to try to preserve what little personal freedom is left or are too big of wusses to stand up for it and take the lemming route. Another would be big government chipping away at my freedom to gain more control over those they are supposed to be servants of. (You do remember that......dontcha?)
-
So many miss my point. It is:
Your right to not wear a helmet should not override my desire to keep my money.
Your desire to become a vegtable is fine until paying for your stupid decision causes my taxes or insurance premiums to rise paying for your lifetime hospital care. And that does happen.
So, going back to my offer, if you agree not to be a medical and financial burden, to accept a quick mercy killing in case of a head injury, then fine, crash away. :)
-
Originally posted by cpxxx
Who put those Harley pics up? They're old men's motorised bicycles. :furious
What, you like those fancied up m/c where the driver is putting it to the gas tank? :D
-
Your right to not wear a helmet should not override my desire to keep my money.
And I'll say it one last time---if you're looking at the money angle, get the government to do something about fat slobs and smokers-- 10000 fold more of them
-
dago... you don't have a leg to stand on. You are being a socialist liberal ban wussie.
I allready told you that your insurance did not go down when the the helmet and seatbelt laws went into effect... they won't go up when the laws are abolished..
I have my own medical insurance. I cost a lot less tho than the smokers and drinkers and fatso's no matter what.
How bout if you get hurt or sick for any reason that is your fault.... we put you down? Sound fair? If you drink or smoke or eat red meat... you need to be off the insurance roles.
When kalifornia said that there were thousands of brain dead bikers that were in comas and the state was paying for because they had not worn helmets... ABATE challenged them to give the exact number.
That exact number was zero.
What costs you money is people living long enough to get cancer or need transplants or to be on medication for the last 20 years of their life.
This has opened my eyes tho... you like your gun rights but you are still willing to ban anything that you feel is not the right behavior. I knew such people existed but I never thought that they were gun owners.
cpx... have you ever rode an old Harley? The new rice rockets are a lot of fun... guys at work make me ride theirs whenever they get the latest and fastest or add 50 hp to one. they will wheelstand at 100 mph.
but... unless you are on the brink of death... they are no fun to ride. Old Harleys and such are just fun all the time... at any speed. When I see a ninja guy on his daglo bike in his daglo outfit... I try not to stare because I know how embarassed he must be.
lazs
-
When I see a ninja guy on his daglo bike in his daglo outfit... I try not to stare because I know how embarassed he must be.
:rofl
-
LMAO
I should add that to my wish list above-----> Rice Rocket Rodeoers who look like Darth Vader in drag. :) Yep, embarrassing.
Every time someone has brought up the " Whaaaaaaaa...it`s costing me money" whine, I get a visual of the toilet flushing...............on the final swirl. :)
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
What, you like those fancied up m/c where the driver is putting it to the gas tank? :D
And your problem is?:cool: You get twice the fun, extreme danger and sex;)
Ok Lazs, I'll allow that older Harleys are cool. It's just that all the newer Harleys I see are driven by guys aged about 65 who obviously have a Merc or a Lexus at home and are making up for their youth when all they could afford was a Honda CB175.
-
Come on lazs, how many smokers or overweight become vegtables or quadraplegic requiring state supported 24 hr medical care for life? Dang near none. While it is true they will have higher than average medical needs and expenses, it won't compare on a 1 to 1 basis with quadraplegics or vegetables.
And does insurance costs go down when helmet laws are put in effect? Heck no, you ever see an insurance company or gas company want to reduce prices? Only if forced by law. But the vegtable or dead wannabees are an excuse to raise prices, that will never go down again.
Reality is, helmet laws are necessary to protect those without the common sense to protect themselves.
-
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
And this is your way to admit you have nothing left to offer, can't argue, so you go personal. You lose.
-
Originally posted by Dago
Come on lazs, how many smokers or overweight become vegtables or quadraplegic requiring state supported 24 hr medical care for life? Dang near none. While it is true they will have higher than average medical needs and expenses, it won't compare on a 1 to 1 basis with quadraplegics or vegetables.
And does insurance costs go down when helmet laws are put in effect? Heck no, you ever see an insurance company or gas company want to reduce prices? Only if forced by law. But the vegtable or dead wannabees are an excuse to raise prices, that will never go down again.
Reality is, helmet laws are necessary to protect those without the common sense to protect themselves.
(You must admit Dago... it DOES look very socialist)
As for the first part:
Top 10 Causes of Death - US
1.Diseases of Heart 28.5%
2.Malignant Neoplasms (cancer) 22.8%
3.Cerebrovascular Diseases (stroke) 6.7%
4.Chronic Lower Respiratory Diseases 5.1%
5.Accidents 4.4%
Motor Vehicle Traffic Accidents (41% of all accidents)
Poisoning (16% of all accidents)
Fall (15% of all accidents) 6.Diabetes Mellitus 3.0%
7.Influenza and Pneumonia 2.7%
8.Alzheimer's Disease 2.4%
9.Nephritis, Nephrotic Syndrome and Nephrosis (kidney diseases) 1.7%
10.Septicemia (blood poisoning) 1.4%
---All Others 21.4%
http://www.statisticstop10.com/Caus...eath_in_US.html
Are you telling me that the few people each year that die/ get turned into veggies from bike wrecks (let's say 1/3 of whom may NOT have with benefit of space helmet), eclipse self-inflicted heart disease and lung cancer, which make up some 30-40 TIMES MORE DEATHS?
-
Originally posted by bj229r
(You must admit Dago... it DOES look very socialist)
As for the first part:
Top 10 Causes of Death - US
1.Diseases of Heart 28.5%
2.Malignant Neoplasms (cancer) 22.8%
3.Cerebrovascular Diseases (stroke) 6.7%
4.Chronic Lower Respiratory Diseases 5.1%
5.Accidents 4.4%
Motor Vehicle Traffic Accidents (41% of all accidents)
Poisoning (16% of all accidents)
Fall (15% of all accidents) 6.Diabetes Mellitus 3.0%
7.Influenza and Pneumonia 2.7%
8.Alzheimer's Disease 2.4%
9.Nephritis, Nephrotic Syndrome and Nephrosis (kidney diseases) 1.7%
10.Septicemia (blood poisoning) 1.4%
---All Others 21.4%
http://www.statisticstop10.com/Caus...eath_in_US.html
Are you telling me that the few people each year that die/ get turned into veggies from bike wrecks (let's say 1/3 of whom may NOT have with benefit of space helmet), eclipse self-inflicted heart disease and lung cancer, which make up some 30-40 TIMES MORE DEATHS?
Have you paid any attention to what I have been writing at all?????
I have been talking about brain destroying accident that leave someone in a vegetative state (with a nod to paralyzed also). I am not talking about death.
What the heck does a top 10 list of causes of death have to do with what I have been discussing?
Here is some info closer to the discussion:
A blow or jolt to the head can result in a traumatic brain injury (TBI), which can disrupt the normal function of the brain. The severity of the injury may range from mild, a brief change in mental status or consciousness, to severe, an extended period of unconsciousness (30 minutes or more), prolonged amnesia after the injury, or a penetrating skull injury. Any TBI can result in short- and long-term disabilities (CDC unpublished).
#
# 80,000 to 90,000 people experience the onset of long-term or lifelong disability associated with a TBI.
At least 5.3 million Americans—2% of the U.S. population—currently live with disabilities resulting from TBI (Thurman 1999).
(This estimate is based on the number of people hospitalized with TBI each year and does not include people seen in Emergency Departments who were not admitted to the hospital, those seen in private doctor's offices, and those who do not receive medical care.)
Causes
* The leading causes of TBI are vehicle crashes, firearm use, and falls (Thurman 1999).
* Crashes involving motor vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, and recreational vehicles are the primary causes of TBI (Thurman 2001).
In the U.S. in 1995, direct and indirect costs of TBI totaled an estimated $56.3 billion (Thurman 2000).
Public health strategies to prevent future TBIs, reduce TBI-related disabilities, and improve outcomes of brain-injured persons include:
* Increasing helmet use during recreation and sports activities (Thurman 1998).
Source - CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/tbi.htm)
-
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
-
This is way too long of a thread to read the whole way through, but I can tell you a few things in regard to the seatbelt issue thing, at least.
Having your seat belt on, and getting smacked with an airbag sucks.
Not having your seatbelt, not having an airbag, and flying into a windshield sucks even more.
If I had to repeat one of the two, I'd certainly choose the airbag.
I'd suggest buckling up...
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Motorcycle riders without helmets = organ donors.
Darwin's theory in practice.
u wanna talk about darwin theory, someone put there testicles in a ball washer an had there friend crank it, for a bet.
-
Originally posted by Dago
Have you paid any attention to what I have been writing at all?????
I have been talking about brain destroying accident that leave someone in a vegetative state (with a nod to paralyzed also). I am not talking about death.
What the heck does a top 10 list of causes of death have to do with what I have been discussing?
Here is some info closer to the discussion:
Source - CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/tbi.htm)
If you're in a 'extended living facility' via a brain-destroying accident, or a stroke/O.D. brought on by poor living, what is the difference? I'll see if I can find something that breaks it down.
-
Originally posted by bj229r
If you're in a 'extended living facility' via a brain-destroying accident, or a stroke/O.D. brought on by poor living, what is the difference? I'll see if I can find something that breaks it down.
There is a lot you haven't been able to see in this thread.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
Do you feel the level of risk is the same in a car versus on a motorcycle? If you do, I don't think you have ever ridden.
In a car, you are required to wear a seatbelt. That is very often all that is necessary to minimize serious injury. Since I gather you may not have experience in a motorcycle, I will point out that they tend not to come with seatbelts, and wouldn't make a differance if they did.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
I don't think you even know what a "socialist" is. I don't think you understand that term, you heard it elsewhere and thought you would use it. Pretty sure I never advocating the government control all goods, services and property.
Interesting that because I think and state that I believe riding a motorcycle without a helmet is stupid, and I think helmet laws are a good idea, I am now labeled a "socialist". I gather having an opinion and expressing it should not be allowed in a democratic republic like the USA, at least according to lasersailor.
-
I believe riding a motorcycle without a helmet is stupid, and I think helmet laws are a bad idea.
If you choose to ride without a helmet, well, that's your choice.
Insurance is required on cars and cycles and the insurance you choose (there's another one of your choices) should provide the coverage you desire and think you need.
If you crash and go vegetative, with or without a helmet, I don't see why the rest of our society should be responsible for caring for you like a favored houseplant for years on end.
If you want the very best of care in case you become a potted plant, then insure yourself accordingly.
-
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
And again, how does that statement make me a socialist? Maybe you should try fascist? Wouldn't really fit either, but have fun.
-
Ann wouldn't be in favor of socialist stuff;) (We had a big argument on this same subject on the ACOC forum when Rothlisberger got hurt..was a draw)
-
Originally posted by Dago
Do you feel the level of risk is the same in a car versus on a motorcycle? If you do, I don't think you have ever ridden.
The risk in riding comes from the car drivers. If you wish to lay blame and want to have some place to send a bill to, then do it right. It`s the cage drivers 99.9% of the time that cause the accidents to begin with.
Evidently you have a problem reading. I have ridden since I was big enough to touch the ground from the saddle. That`s been lots of years hoss.
Do you ride? Just curious.
Since I gather you may not have experience in a motorcycle, I will point out that they tend not to come with seatbelts, and wouldn't make a differance if they did.
LMAO
Thanks professor.
I have seen more "infamous left turners"...."but....but...officer I didn`t see the motorcycle"......... "T-boners".....and other assorted bonehead cage drivers than I care to recall. Somehow I have survived without the help of a Nanny and those who bow to one. In one instance, with my bike wedged up under a idiot left turn artist, he waited until the Highway Patrol officer arrived, then pulled a knife on him. It was better than going to the movies.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Do you ride? Just curious.
I don't have bike right now, but thinking about getting another one. Last one I totaled, and I have a banged up full face Bell on the shelf behind me as a reminder.
Why do you ignore the facts I present? Why do you ignore the differance of risk of a head injury between motorcycle and car as I mentioned, and instead try to shift the focus to accident fault? There is a huge differance in risk of injury between a car crash and a motorcycle crash, regardless of fault.
This thread has never been about who's fault an accident is, it is about the reality of the chance of head injury and the need versus right to choose regarding helmet use.
Why did you try to obscure with talk of fault?
-
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
-
I don't think anyone disputes the fact that it is safer to wear a helmet than not, futhermore that it is MORE safe not to ride a bike at all, that it is safer to drive a Caddy than a Morris, to live in a 1 story home away from tornado alley/hurricane alley, to be fit intstead of being 100 pounds overweight, to not smoke etc.... But at what point does the government make these decisions for you?
-
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
-
brain trauma;
Concussion -; Brain injury; Head trauma
Definition
A head injury is any trauma that leads to injury of the scalp, skull, or brain. These injuries can range from a minor bump on the skull to a devastating brain injury.
Head injury can be classified as either closed or penetrating. In a closed head injury, the head sustains a blunt force by striking against an object. A concussion is a type of closed head injury that involves the brain.
In a penetrating head injury, an object breaks through the skull and enters the brain. (This object is usually moving at a high speed like a windshield or another part of a motor vehicle.)
In a closed head injury, the head sustains a blunt force by striking against an object. A concussion is a type of closed head injury that involves the brain."
helmet hits object, skull hits helmet, brain hits skull=concussion.
no helmet made will protect your brain against a concussion/closed head injury.
-
Originally posted by john9001
no helmet made will protect your brain against a concussion/closed head injury.
I have to disagree, every helmet I ever wore had a liner which was designed to absorb the impact upon the shell distributing it to your skull over time and possibly a broader area.
I started riding when I was young and let a buddy drive mine with me on the back into the side of a car at about 45 mph. I hit the car with my helmet where the doors meet the roof and then flipped over the roof landing on the curb about 20 feet away. My helmet was deeply scarred but the only injury I suffered was a broken heel and some scrapes.
-
your brain floats inside your skull in fluid, when your skull suddenly stops moving ( hits the inside of the helmet) the brain keeps moving until it hits the skull causing a concussion.
that is how a boxer gets "knocked out".
-
Originally posted by john9001
your brain floats inside your skull in fluid, when your skull suddenly stops moving ( hits the inside of the helmet) the brain keeps moving until it hits the skull causing a concussion.
that is how a boxer gets "knocked out".
The liner is what makes your brain stop moving less suddenly.
Try wearing one in a boxing match, less likely to be knoocked out.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
At the point of my .30-06 they will stop.
The fact that you think it's right to legislate away other people's choices, makes you a socialist. What's even scarier is that you don't even think that you are one.
So tell us Dago. Which scares you most?
The idea that you might be a socialist?
Or the idea that you might be labeled as one?
I gather you still haven't bothered to learn what a socialist really is. Keep foaming, its amusing.
-
john, twisting plays a good part in knockouts. I'm pretty sure longitudinal acceleration isn't enough.
There was a big polemic between one or more helmet makers/ safety rating commisions (DOT or snell or whatever) a while ago: depending on the shape of the item struck by the helmet, helmets with the best safety ratings performed the best, or the worse. I.e. the cheapest 5 bucks helmet sometimes performed better than the most expensive multiple rating helmet.
The difference was among other things, in optimization for blunt, or sharp objects.
The polemic was that the safety organisations were effectively misleading the public and safety standards.
There's a few articles detailing the issue here: http://www.smf.org/articles.html
The polemic started with Motorcyclist mag's June2005 article, which I don't have a link to; but here's Snell's reponse:
http://www.smf.org/articles/pdf/btlo_tech_response_2.pdf
-
Lost cause. And.... Ignore.
-
I think stats will show at least a slight decrease in concussions among helmet wearers in accidents vs non wearers. Stats can be manipulated though. Consider the added weight of a helmet. Provided your head isn't meeting an unmoveable object, the extra mass moving with your brain helps to move it's opponent out of the way.
Even if concussions aren't a significant factor in the protection provided by a helmet there can be little doubt that helmets, like seatbelts, save lives.
Protect the young but allow adults the freedom to choose.
-
Ok dago...now I get it.... you are gonna buy a bike and you don't want to be one of the few wearing a helmet and looking like the guy wearing safety glasses to pee sooooo...
You want to force everyone to.
I see all your figures about dead non helmet wearing bikers but.... dead doesn't cost much. Where are the figures for vegetable ones that we are supporting for decades in their vegetable state?
And... why would you not be for simply allowing the insurance companies the right to charge more for insurance for those who do not wear helmets?
Many states don't force citizens to be socialists and wear helmets and their insurance companies survive... their hospitals are not crippled by the legions of brain dead vegetables gathering cobwebs in all their rooms.
probly cheaper for us to have a young guy smash his mellon and die than to turn into a fatso and need 47 heart surgeries before he succombs to a lingering and expensive tumor.
lazs
-
Wow, I am starting to think this board is full of overreacting nut cases. Just because I think (and girls, I am entitled to an opinion even if it is differant than yours) helmet laws are a good idea, you ladies go all ballistic and call names, stomp your feet and generally overreact.
Geez fellows, take a chill pill and get a life.
-
Dago,
Not all of us.
I ride for me. I wear gear because I am aware of the traffic situation and I am concerned for my safety.
I don't care what another niker rides or wears. I ride for me, not for show or to impress anyone.
-
There's a good motorcyclist! I used to watch people injure themselves driving down the Taunus mountains of Germany. They wouldn't be wearing gear, and since the road swirves in the "S" pattern, they would accellerate to speeds of about 80 KmH going down that hill. Next time you pass them the police is already investigating how the driver "slipped on black ice" in 26 degree celcius temperature.
Excuses Excuses.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Dago,
I don't care what another niker rides or wears. I ride for me, not for show or to impress anyone.
Congrats on having the self esteem and guts necessary to follow your own path. Too many buy overpriced noisy bikes to be part of the group, so they can belong.
-
dago... You are most certainly entitled to your opinion and.... I would be the last person to tell you that you couldn't wear a helmet or a seatbelt or.... a firesuit or whatever you wanted.
Your opinion is fine... you are not entitled to tell me what to wear tho. Only a socialist would think he had the right to tell others they had to wear seatbelts and helmets.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
dago... You are most certainly entitled to your opinion and.... I would be the last person to tell you that you couldn't wear a helmet or a seatbelt or.... a firesuit or whatever you wanted.
Your opinion is fine... you are not entitled to tell me what to wear tho. Only a socialist would think he had the right to tell others they had to wear seatbelts and helmets.
lazs
I am not telling you to wear a helmet or a seatbelt, that is what I think the government should do. :rofl
-
Originally posted by Dago
I am not telling you to wear a helmet or a seatbelt, that is what I think the government should do. :rofl
the government? who the hell is the government, somebody like mckinney?
the govt is a bunch of a-hole politicians that only want to get reelected.
you want people like that making your laws?
-
Originally posted by john9001
the government? who the hell is the government, somebody like mckinney?
the govt is a bunch of a-hole politicians that only want to get reelected.
you want people like that making your laws?
Ah dude, hate to be the one to break it to you, but they already do.
-
the house of representatives was never intended to be a permanent life time job, it was supposed to be for "common" people to go to congress and serve 2 years and then go back to their old lives.
perhaps it is time for a change back to what the signers of the Constitution intended.