Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: eagl on July 04, 2011, 06:24:08 AM
-
Another Darwin award candidate. Motorcycle rider in a protest against helmet laws falls off his bike, lands on his head, and dies. State trooper calls the accident survivable if the rider had been wearing a helmet.
http://news.yahoo.com/ny-motorcyclist-helmet-protest-hits-head-dies-225710487.html
:rock
-
Another Darwin award candidate. Motorcycle rider in a protest against helmet laws falls off his bike, lands on his head, and dies. State trooper calls the accident survivable if the rider had been wearing a helmet.
http://news.yahoo.com/ny-motorcyclist-helmet-protest-hits-head-dies-225710487.html
:rock
while i believe in wearing my helmet when i ride.......i do not believe anyone should have the right to tell me i must wear it. this rates right up there with seatbelts.
-
while i believe in wearing my helmet when i ride.......i do not believe anyone should have the right to tell me i must wear it. this rates right up there with seatbelts.
(http://forum.bodybuilding.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=1831341&stc=1&d=1242858412)
-
I personally would never get on my bike without full riding armour.
(http://www.gwknights.com/KnightOnBike.jpg)
The pike-axe is optional.
-
I personally would never get on my bike without full riding armour.
(http://www.gwknights.com/KnightOnBike.jpg)
The pike-axe is optional.
that's actually a pretty cool looking bike. and yes......the pike axe is a nice optional touch. :aok
-
while i believe in wearing my helmet when i ride.......i do not believe anyone should have the right to tell me i must wear it. this rates right up there with seatbelts.
Not directed at you CAP, and I do agree that no one person, group, or government should have the authority to tell me that I must do this, that, or anything such as wear a seatbelt or helmet, that only affects my personal safety and doesn't otherwise protect or endanger any other person....
That being said, the counterpoint to that "unlimited personal freedom" is that the moment that the insurance company finds out that the rider was not wearing a helmet (or seatbelt for driver), they may be allowed to immediately cancel all coverages and pay exactly ZERO for any claims what-so-ever, with no chance for appeal on the part of the rider or the rider's next of kin. In addition, medical personnel should be allowed to ask for payment up-front for emergency services once it becomes clear that this person was stupid enough to ride without a helmet or other protective equipment and get his/her coverages cancelled. The hospital should not have to absorb this financial loss, nor should other patients have to endure higher charges, in order to offset the loss.
We all have rights, and yes the right to be stupid is and should be one of them. However, the effects of that stupidity should be limited to the person who chooses to be stupid.
-
Not directed at you CAP, and I do agree that no one person, group, or government should have the authority to tell me that I must do this, that, or anything such as wear a seatbelt or helmet, that only affects my personal safety and doesn't otherwise protect or endanger any other person....
That being said, the counterpoint to that "unlimited personal freedom" is that the moment that the insurance company finds out that the rider was not wearing a helmet (or seatbelt for driver), they may be allowed to immediately cancel all coverages and pay exactly ZERO for any claims what-so-ever, with no chance for appeal on the part of the rider or the rider's next of kin. In addition, medical personnel should be allowed to ask for payment up-front for emergency services once it becomes clear that this person was stupid enough to ride without a helmet or other protective equipment and get his/her coverages cancelled. The hospital should not have to absorb this financial loss, nor should other patients have to endure higher charges, in order to offset the loss.
We all have rights, and yes the right to be stupid is and should be one of them. However, the effects of that stupidity should be limited to the person who chooses to be stupid.
+1 :aok
-
Not directed at you CAP, and I do agree that no one person, group, or government should have the authority to tell me that I must do this, that, or anything such as wear a seatbelt or helmet, that only affects my personal safety and doesn't otherwise protect or endanger any other person....
That being said, the counterpoint to that "unlimited personal freedom" is that the moment that the insurance company finds out that the rider was not wearing a helmet (or seatbelt for driver), they may be allowed to immediately cancel all coverages and pay exactly ZERO for any claims what-so-ever, with no chance for appeal on the part of the rider or the rider's next of kin. In addition, medical personnel should be allowed to ask for payment up-front for emergency services once it becomes clear that this person was stupid enough to ride without a helmet or other protective equipment and get his/her coverages cancelled. The hospital should not have to absorb this financial loss, nor should other patients have to endure higher charges, in order to offset the loss.
We all have rights, and yes the right to be stupid is and should be one of them. However, the effects of that stupidity should be limited to the person who chooses to be stupid.
i kind of agree with you. the insurance thing, and next of kin......that;s where personal responisbility comes in. like i said...i don't think anyone has a right to tell me i have to wear it. i've ridden without my helmet back when i was younger, and a lot dumber. i've ridden with those POS things that resemble helmets...again when i was younger and dumber.
my personal choice, regardless of law, is to wear a good helmet now....usually a full face.
i think the insurance companies could only cancel coverage if the lack of helmet were in a place requiring them, or if it were stated in the policy that one must be worn.
as for emergency personnel.......and medical care......to the best of my knowledge...and i could be wrong here.......but i had always been under the understanding, that if you're cared for, and have no insurance, nor a way to pay immediately, i thought they billed you. then if you stopped paying, i thought they put liens on your property.
-
I will always wear protective gear when riding, like the title, riders who don't are Darwin candidates. I will also support laws requiring their use. Like stated previously, insurance routinely denies payment which means we, the public have to pay for their stupid mistakes. Figure out a way to get rid of that caveat in some manner and I will support your decision to be stupid on the roads. I remember when the general public fought so hard to prevent laws requiring us to seat belt our children because no one has the right to tell us what to do. Well, actually I believe we the public do through our legislators. I will always support someone's right to be stupid right up to the point where that stupidity costs me money I worked hard for.
-
See Rule #14
-
I'm acquainted with several emergency room nurses. All say the same thing. When they hear a motorcycle accident victim is inbound, it's refered to as "an organ donor" inbound.
Just a a couple of weeks ago, one of our city motorcycle officers was off duty riding home on his personal motorcycle......without a helmet. A car pulled out in front of him at a T intersection. Dead on arrival after sliding to the curb and stopping the slide with his head.
Exercising his right to freedom. And his family and friends are free to deal with the aftermath.
-
riding is not a right but a privilege. you want to ride, you must follow the rules, and simon says wear a helmet.
semp
-
well, if we wanna push it to these limits.....then there should be laws requiring that we all wear helmets while driving our cars too. i mean after all......even with airbags, and seatbelts, there is still a chance of hitting your head on the windshield. or on the door pillar. or the steering wheel. we can't have that, now can we?
and kevlar driving suits too. :noid
-
See Rule #14
-
I will always wear protective gear when riding, like the title, riders who don't are Darwin candidates. I will also support laws requiring their use. Like stated previously, insurance routinely denies payment which means we, the public have to pay for their stupid mistakes. Figure out a way to get rid of that caveat in some manner and I will support your decision to be stupid on the roads. I remember when the general public fought so hard to prevent laws requiring us to seat belt our children because no one has the right to tell us what to do. Well, actually I believe we the public do through our legislators. I will always support someone's right to be stupid right up to the point where that stupidity costs me money I worked hard for.
Well, then by this argument, let's apply the same insurance practices and medical care withholding to all the drivers of vehicles that were stupid enough to pull into the path of 18 wheelers, trains, dump trucks... etc. Stupidity is stupidity.... don't go discriminating one from another.
I agree that wearing a helmet is the smart thing to do.. but it shouldn't be mandated.. as seatbelts shouldn't be mandated, nor airbags, nor abs, nor crumple-zones, ...etc. All safety equipment should be optional and purchased by those that wish them.
Today, everybody is so convinced they're safe, they can just drive around and plow into anything ( sans 18-wheelers, trains, and dump-trucks ) and reasonably expect to survive. So nobody spends a lot of time actually avoiding accidents.
My first car was a 66 VW beetle. 50 heart pounding horsepower, f/b weight ratio such that on wet pavement you may actually not be able to turn at the driveway you were expecting, and the only thing between you and meeting your maker ( i.e, the gas tank ) was the spare tire. I learned to avoid hitting things. It doesn't seem that way anymore.
-
while i believe in wearing my helmet when i ride.......i do not believe anyone should have the right to tell me i must wear it. this rates right up there with seatbelts.
Would you sign a waiver freeing your state taxpayers from any liability to care for you in case your brain were permanently damaged?
-
Well, then by this argument, let's apply the same insurance practices and medical care withholding to all the drivers of vehicles that were stupid enough to pull into the path of 18 wheelers, trains, dump trucks... etc. Stupidity is stupidity.... don't go discriminating one from another.
The decision to wear a helmet or not is a deliberate, consious decision... pulling into the path of an 18 wheeler or train is likely not, and if it is, it would be properly described as "suicide" but would more accurately fall into the category of an "accident." Granted, it may have been caused by recklessness or carelessness on the part of the driver, but the driver still didn't say "I think i'm going to go get into that car and go hunt for a train to pull out in front of."
Apples, oranges....
-
Would you sign a waiver freeing your state taxpayers from any liability to care for you in case your brain were permanently damaged?
Yeager,plz dont discourage stupidity you may need a new heart or kidney in the future!
:salute
-
The decision to wear a helmet or not is a deliberate, consious decision... pulling into the path of an 18 wheeler or train is likely not, and if it is, it would be properly described as "suicide" but would more accurately fall into the category of an "accident." Granted, it may have been caused by recklessness or carelessness on the part of the driver, but the driver still didn't say "I think i'm going to go get into that car and go hunt for a train to pull out in front of."
Apples, oranges....
Not quite.. I seriously doubt that anybody not wearing a helmet is expecting to be involved in an accident, either. The point is that the expenses you're wishing to avoid for the 'general populace' applies to both cases ( vehicle and motorcycle ).
-
Would you sign a waiver freeing your state taxpayers from any liability to care for you in case your brain were permanently damaged?
as a matter of fact, i would.
that being said, remember i said that i do believe in them, and personally wear them when/if i ride.
what's your opinion on people riding in shorts, and flip flops?
-
The decision to wear a helmet or not is a deliberate, consious decision... pulling into the path of an 18 wheeler or train is likely not, and if it is, it would be properly described as "suicide" but would more accurately fall into the category of an "accident." Granted, it may have been caused by recklessness or carelessness on the part of the driver, but the driver still didn't say "I think i'm going to go get into that car and go hunt for a train to pull out in front of."
Apples, oranges....
there is no such thing as an accident. negligence, yes...accidents.......not so much.
-
Not quite.. I seriously doubt that anybody not wearing a helmet is expecting to be involved in an accident, either. The point is that the expenses you're wishing to avoid for the 'general populace' applies to both cases ( vehicle and motorcycle ).
and we could take this statement well beyond vehicles.........like the girl down the street, that already can barely afford to pay her rent.....she "accidentally" got pregnant. who's gonna pay for the kid? and how do you accidentally get pregnant?
i could go on, but i don't want a vacation.......
-
what's your opinion on people riding in shorts, and flip flops?
makes my skin crawl and my toes curl every time I see that.
-
there is no such thing as an accident. negligence, yes...accidents.......not so much.
I absolutely agree, accident is an irrelevant word on our roads. Which is precisely why driving is not a right, it is a privelage. Thus the argument that a person operating on that public roadway shouldn't be told how to operate on that roadway, and what to operate is wrong. If the person operating that vehicle doesn't like the criteria they have a choice not to operate. Helmets while riding a motorcycle is a smart decision and one that if enacted will save countless lives operating on your roadway.
I am sure many remember the case where the motorcycle operator was hit in the head with flying debris, veered into an oncoming school bus and caused that bus to collide, hit a ditch, and cause the deaths of school aged children.
That helmet isn't just about you. There will always be people on both sides of this argument which is fair. Just know that our decisions for requiring helmets is abour our safety and our tax dollars, not about your freedom. <S>
Also agreed, people riding in shorts and flip-flops, ya just want to give the "here's your sign"
-
A good discussion, kinda hard not to talk politics IN this one.
Do yourself and family a favor, Wear the helmet :aok
:cheers: Oz
-
a friend of mine dropped his triumph daytona on a motorway at about 100. he just blacked out, had some kind of undiagnosed mini-seizure, doesnt remember anything at all. the blackout was the real worry (it hasnt recurred btw :)) - and all he had from the stack was lots of bruising and a very bent bike.
similar high speed sports bike stacks for my cousin (1 week coma, now fine) and another friend (3 day coma, now fine). all 3 would be dead now. thats what a decent helmet and leathers are for :aok
edit: forgot my aunt - massive stack racing in the 60s. had a really nasty one, fine now apart from one leg 1" shorter than the other. if she wasnt wearing a helmet and leathers, my cousin wouldnt have been alive to almost die on his bike ...
-
makes my skin crawl and my toes curl every time I see that.
mine too.....and you'd be surprised at how many i see. even on harleys, which i would least expect to see that on.
-
I absolutely agree, accident is an irrelevant word on our roads. Which is precisely why driving is not a right, it is a privelage. Thus the argument that a person operating on that public roadway shouldn't be told how to operate on that roadway, and what to operate is wrong. If the person operating that vehicle doesn't like the criteria they have a choice not to operate. Helmets while riding a motorcycle is a smart decision and one that if enacted will save countless lives operating on your roadway.
I am sure many remember the case where the motorcycle operator was hit in the head with flying debris, veered into an oncoming school bus and caused that bus to collide, hit a ditch, and cause the deaths of school aged children.
That helmet isn't just about you. There will always be people on both sides of this argument which is fair. Just know that our decisions for requiring helmets is abour our safety and our tax dollars, not about your freedom. <S>
Also agreed, people riding in shorts and flip-flops, ya just want to give the "here's your sign"
i wear my helmet.......i guess to shorten it up a little.....you can't legislate common sense. you can't legislate stupidity away.
i wear my seatbelt because i believe in them. i wear my helmet for the same reason. when i look back on the trips i took through Delaware, stopping as soon as i crossed the bridge, to remove my helmet, and hang it on the back........i can't imagine what possessed me to do such. but.......in Delaware, it's MY choice. when i go through there now, i choose to keep it on.
to be honest, i think my shadow's goin up for sale, and if i still wanna ride next year, it's gonna be on a goldwing.
-
A good discussion, kinda hard not to talk politics IN this one.
Do yourself and family a favor, Wear the helmet :aok
:cheers: Oz
i think we're all dancing very gingerly around it.
-
Yeah I posted about this on here yesterday, the guy was definitely not the sharpest knife in the drawer. If this wasn't enough to make the other guys riding with him on the protest start wearing a helmet then nothings going to make them, definitely not the threat of a traffic ticket for it.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,315994.0.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,315994.0.html)
-
See Rule #14
-
:aok
I too have cracked a couple helmets, walked away wiser and alive.
-
See Rule #14
-
I dont ride, but if I did, Id wear a helmet,leather etc. I live in NH, we dont have to wear them. Lots of folks scream down the road in a pair of cutoff jean shorts, a bandana, and sunglasses. A good family friend was wearing just that attire one day. He wiped out and spent the next month pulling the sheets off his scabs, and picking gravel out if his butt.
-
See Rule #14
-
what's your opinion on people riding in shorts, and flip flops?
That people are idiots by nature.
-
As I said in another thread, I don't understand why they can mandate seatbelts but not mandate helmets. That said, I always wear my helmet on my bike, no matter how hot it is, only recently have I stopped wearing my jacket on the really hot days. Riding around with a black leather jacket when it is 95 degrees with high humidity was actually decreasing my safety due to heatstroke.
When it comes to minors, they should be mandated to wear seatbelts in a car or helmets on a bike until they are old enough to make their own decisions legally.
-
See Rule #14
-
In both cases, the person at fault is the person that caused the collision. Nobody else. Had that person not committed the error, the deaths would have not occurred.
That is absolutely insane. Nobody ought to die just because human beings aren't 100% perfect decision makers.
-Penguin
-
Another Darwin award candidate. Motorcycle rider in a protest against helmet laws falls off his bike, lands on his head, and dies. State trooper calls the accident survivable if the rider had been wearing a helmet.
http://news.yahoo.com/ny-motorcyclist-helmet-protest-hits-head-dies-225710487.html
:rock
State trooper is a par-time doctor too ehh? Did he at list get to write the man a ticket?
-
See Rule #14
-
+1
Ahhhh, but the insurance company did not make it part of your contract to have a sit belt or a helmet on, did they? Nop, they were happy to sign it and get the money. Why don;t they just make it part of the contract that you will not be covered if you are not wearing a helmet or sit belt? Then I can choose the company I want to insure with.
Second, the medical personnel is not absorbing anything. They are just getting rich feeding on peoples suffering charging ridicules prices for everything. I have yet to see a doctor live an "average" life. They have taken an oath and they should focus in fulfilling that and how to get richer instead of if you deserved your injuries.
That been said, I always have my sit belt on and riding without a helmet and gear is just for idiots, but hey, we are supposed to be a free country. If it was not for the state collecting money and the insurance companies collecting but not wanting to pay these laws would not exist. But why stop there? Lets make a law that does not allow you to to spend your money in a stupid way (defined by the experts such as police) and write you tickets for it. After all, why should we all be burden by your stupid spending when you file for bankruptcy or state assistance?
-
See Rule #14
-
See Rule #14
-
See Rule #14
-
After my third bike accident, I sold it.
The first one, was just me being stupid in a nice drizzle and goosing it a little around some turns in a local town. No biggie. Nothing really hurt on the bike other then the blinker.
The second one was a little more serious, broke my femur hitting a mile marker doing about 50, The 18 wheeler apparently didnt see me and cut me off on a hiway, I had no choice but to end up in the shoulder where there was some construction debri, and the in the middle of the night, I never saw the mile marker till too late.
The last one though, almost killed me, was coming around a curve in the road, and there was car passing another car, which wound up on my side of the road. Needless to say I had maybe 3 seconds to react, and I wound up going over a cliff. The car that was passed stopped, and thank god they had a cell phone. Bike was more banged up then me.
Needless to say I picked the remains up of the damaged bike at the police impound, put it in a van. Drove to a scrap yard, and kicked it out, and said here. I still owed about a grand on the damn thing too.
Helmets, yeah I believe in them.
-
I think the negligence of not wearing a helmet stems from not really being able to quantify the small % of risk you are dealing with in any given ride. Say you have a 1 in 5000 chance of crashing and hitting your head in any given ride over 5 miles. That's a minute percentage in any given ride, hardly worth your attention. However if you extrapolate that out assuming two 5 mile rides per day, you will likely crash at least once in 7 years which might kill you.
-
See Rule #14
-
I'm with Cap. While I always wear my seat belt I don't agree with the requirement of doing so. The whole "driving is a privilege and not a right" argument is the best one I've heard to date about it and some good points were made there but I still share Cap's opinions. Same thing with motorcycle helmets.
Someone mentioned about hospitals being able to require payment up front or being able to deny their services to people who chose not to wear helmets/seat belts/etc... well that's just plain wrong. That's a slippery slope you don't want to try to go down. If something like that were to be practiced then what next? A hospital doing the same because a person is obese? Maybe a hospital denying emergency service to an elderly person who fell and broke their hip? Then it comes down to who gets to make the decisions as to who is considered obese, or who was driving recklessly? And I don't buy the whole "those kinds of people are why health care is so expensive" arguments either. There are MANY factors involved in why this is and I don't believe that stupid/obese people are even near the top of that list.
Going back to the seat belt/helmet argument. What really cracks me up is that it is required to wear seat belts and a helmet but yet driver's licenses are handed out to EVERYBODY! I've known many people throughout my life that had absolutely no business being behind the wheel of a car (and especially not in control of a motorcycle) who have accidents on a regular basis and who actually have to budget their finances to account for traffic tickets! It seems to me that stricter driving tests, required driver's ed, and harsher punishment of POOR DRIVERS would save many times more lives than seat belts, airbags, helmets, back up cameras, and accident avoidance systems combined! One specific example is a friend of my g/f who has had her Mazda 3 for six months. It's been in the shop because of accidents twice now, and there is a dent in her rear door from hitting a pole at a drive thru that she's afraid to report because she doesn't want her coverage to get dropped! At least twice a month she has to fork out a few hundred bucks to a traffic ticket lawyer to get the points dropped! That means that after at least a DOZEN tickets she still has no points on her license. Tell me why the heck is she still allowed to drive? These are the issues that need to be addressed - not miracle safety devices!
When I took my written test as a teen I studied the guide for less than ten minutes then passed the test. Less than two weeks later I took the driving test (which was a joke by the way!) and passed it too! It kills me that they focus more on your parallel parking skills than how well you actually drive! When I took my motorcycle test several years later I was surprised at how much difficult its test was. The written exam for the motorcycle test had a lot on there about defensive driving and reading other drivers' intentions and forecasting situations ahead... MUCH OF WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN ON THE NORMAL DRIVING TEST BUT WASN'T as far as I'm concerned.
But you know... that's how it is. We'll keep giving every person who wants one a license whether or not they can safely operate a 2-3 ton vehicle. It doesn't matter anyway as long as we have seat belts, helmets, and air bags right? Those things are MUCH more important that teaching people how to actually operate a vehicle, right?
-
I'm with Cap. While I always wear my seat belt I don't agree with the requirement of doing so. The whole "driving is a privilege and not a right" argument is the best one I've heard to date about it and some good points were made there but I still share Cap's opinions. Same thing with motorcycle helmets.
Someone mentioned about hospitals being able to require payment up front or being able to deny their services to people who chose not to wear helmets/seat belts/etc... well that's just plain wrong. That's a slippery slope you don't want to try to go down. If something like that were to be practiced then what next? A hospital doing the same because a person is obese? Maybe a hospital denying emergency service to an elderly person who fell and broke their hip? Then it comes down to who gets to make the decisions as to who is considered obese, or who was driving recklessly? And I don't buy the whole "those kinds of people are why health care is so expensive" arguments either. There are MANY factors involved in why this is and I don't believe that stupid/obese people are even near the top of that list.
Going back to the seat belt/helmet argument. What really cracks me up is that it is required to wear seat belts and a helmet but yet driver's licenses are handed out to EVERYBODY! I've known many people throughout my life that had absolutely no business being behind the wheel of a car (and especially not in control of a motorcycle) who have accidents on a regular basis and who actually have to budget their finances to account for traffic tickets! It seems to me that stricter driving tests, required driver's ed, and harsher punishment of POOR DRIVERS would save many times more lives than seat belts, airbags, helmets, back up cameras, and accident avoidance systems combined! One specific example is a friend of my g/f who has had her Mazda 3 for six months. It's been in the shop because of accidents twice now, and there is a dent in her rear door from hitting a pole at a drive thru that she's afraid to report because she doesn't want her coverage to get dropped! At least twice a month she has to fork out a few hundred bucks to a traffic ticket lawyer to get the points dropped! That means that after at least a DOZEN tickets she still has no points on her license. Tell me why the heck is she still allowed to drive? These are the issues that need to be addressed - not miracle safety devices!
When I took my written test as a teen I studied the guide for less than ten minutes then passed the test. Less than two weeks later I took the driving test (which was a joke by the way!) and passed it too! It kills me that they focus more on your parallel parking skills than how well you actually drive! When I took my motorcycle test several years later I was surprised at how much difficult its test was. The written exam for the motorcycle test had a lot on there about defensive driving and reading other drivers' intentions and forecasting situations ahead... MUCH OF WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN ON THE NORMAL DRIVING TEST BUT WASN'T as far as I'm concerned.
But you know... that's how it is. We'll keep giving every person who wants one a license whether or not they can safely operate a 2-3 ton vehicle. It doesn't matter anyway as long as we have seat belts, helmets, and air bags right? Those things are MUCH more important that teaching people how to actually operate a vehicle, right?
you forgot about the automatic lane holding, automatic braking, blind spot warnings, etc.
-
-snip-
Second, the medical personnel is not absorbing anything. They are just getting rich feeding on peoples suffering charging ridicules prices for everything. I have yet to see a doctor live an "average" life. They have taken an oath and they should focus in fulfilling that and how to get richer instead of if you deserved your injuries.
-snip-
I don't know about the rest of your post, but this part is utter baloney. The expense of becoming a doctor is staggering:
4 years to get a bachelors degree
4 years to get an MD
3 to 5 years of residency
That is 11 years just to become a general practioner. Any specialty will add on many more years. Furthermore, doctors work far longer than the average person. My mom (an endocrinologist) works at least ten hours each day; eight in the office and two to three hours at home. She also has to be on-call 24/7, and rush to the hospital if her services are required.
Let's look at how much she gets payed:
$20 for each regular, scheduled visit. These can last anywhere from half an hour to an hour. That's only two dollars more than the barbers in our town.
$100 for each consultation, these can run from an hour to two hours. These are not what you'd think, these are not scheduled, and she can be called in at any time.
Now let's look at her schedule, she usually works 11 hours each day, and makes $720 each day. That makes for $65 dollars each hour. My dad works for an investment company, and is only six years older than my mom. He makes around $120 each day working 9 AM to 5 PM. What did he do during his youth? He did theater and worked in the municipal management system. My mom spent her youth working over thirty hours at a stretch, and making almost no money.
Doctors are not monetary vampires, for the hours they work, the youth they sacrificed to study, and the stress of their work (do not underestimate the frustration crazy patients induce), they actually make very, very little.
-Penguin
-
I can barely stem the flow of tears in sympathy for the average doctor making $190k a year. how they manage to get by on such a pitiful salary is beyond me. maybe we should set up some kind of charity so we can all donate money to them.
edit: btw $190k is for GPs, the average specialist makes nearly $350k. poor things :cry
-
I don't know about the rest of your post, but this part is utter baloney. The expense of becoming a doctor is staggering:
4 years to get a bachelors degree
4 years to get an MD
3 to 5 years of residency
That is 11 years just to become a general practioner. Any specialty will add on many more years. Furthermore, doctors work far longer than the average person. My mom (an endocrinologist) works at least ten hours each day; eight in the office and two to three hours at home. She also has to be on-call 24/7, and rush to the hospital if her services are required.
Let's look at how much she gets payed:
$20 for each regular, scheduled visit. These can last anywhere from half an hour to an hour. That's only two dollars more than the barbers in our town.
$100 for each consultation, these can run from an hour to two hours. These are not what you'd think, these are not scheduled, and she can be called in at any time.
Now let's look at her schedule, she usually works 11 hours each day, and makes $720 each day. That makes for $65 dollars each hour. My dad works for an investment company, and is only six years older than my mom. He makes around $120 each day working 9 AM to 5 PM. What did he do during his youth? He did theater and worked in the municipal management system. My mom spent her youth working over thirty hours at a stretch, and making almost no money.
Doctors are not monetary vampires, for the hours they work, the youth they sacrificed to study, and the stress of their work (do not underestimate the frustration crazy patients induce), they actually make very, very little.
-Penguin
:rofl @ Penguin.
-
I can barely stem the flow of tears in sympathy for the average doctor making $190k a year. how they manage to get by on such a pitiful salary is beyond me. maybe we should set up some kind of charity so we can all donate money to them.
edit: btw $190k is for GPs, the average specialist makes nearly $350k. poor things :cry
According to Penguin, less than 100K if only work 8 hours lol.
2 years ago, I had to get 9 stitches for a cut on my hand. They billed my insurance 1,100$ and some change. It took about 10 to 15 minutes to get them done. I did not call them monetary vampires but man, he hit the nail on the head :aok
-
That is absolutely insane. Nobody ought to die just because human beings aren't 100% perfect decision makers.
-Penguin
Insane? No. Not at all. This is fundamental responsibility and accountability.
You are responsible for whatever effects your initial action ( in this case, the collision ) causes. If somebody dies as a result of events triggered by your action, you are responsible for that death.
This is basic stuff.. Would the person have died if there had not been a collision? No. Did the person die because of the collision? Yes. Did you cause the collision? Yes. You caused the death. End of argument.
-
Insane? No. Not at all. This is fundamental responsibility and accountability.
You are responsible for whatever effects your initial action ( in this case, the collision ) causes. If somebody dies as a result of events triggered by your action, you are responsible for that death.
This is basic stuff.. Would the person have died if there had not been a collision? No. Did the person die because of the collision? Yes. Did you cause the collision? Yes. You caused the death. End of argument.
You missed my point entirely. Did you even read the part about the child not knowing that a seatbelt would save him/her in a crash?
I can barely stem the flow of tears in sympathy for the average doctor making $190k a year. how they manage to get by on such a pitiful salary is beyond me. maybe we should set up some kind of charity so we can all donate money to them.
edit: btw $190k is for GPs, the average specialist makes nearly $350k. poor things :cry
Really? Then why does my mom makes $150k? That's $200k below average. She is a specialist, and apparently makes less than a GP. She even owns her own practice. Remember, there is more to work than just money/time. My mom has to work during her vacation, and can never be away for more than a few days.
-Penguin :rofl @ Penguin.
Is that the best you can come up with? Fail.
-Penguin
-
Doctors are not overpaid.
-
Really?
yes really. http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos074.htm (http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos074.htm).
-
Absolutely agreed, doctors are not overpaid.
-
People who say doctors are over payed were to stupid to figure out how to make as much as them.
8+years of school average college 4 year degree 30kx4=120,000$
Oh and then medical schools start at 50,000$ a year.
Doctors sacrifice a lot getting to their positions.
-
Doctors are worth every penny. Its the hospitals, medicines, equipment usage thats out of whack.
-
Doctors are not overpaid.
what he said.
i'm scared...i agreed with something grizz said. :noid
-
they operate to a pretty large degree in an oligopoly and cooperate to maintain rates above free market prices (price fixing), so many are overpaid. as a customer its hard to negotiate when the options are either pay up or die though.
-
my gf is a nurse, I know a lot of doctors. they're not exactly in the poor house. I have yet to see one living paycheck to paycheck. actually the ones i know work their 40 hours a week and go home. some others work more than 40 but the extra money is nice.
semp
-
my gf is a nurse, I know a lot of doctors. they're not exactly in the poor house. I have yet to see one living paycheck to paycheck. actually the ones i know work their 40 hours a week and go home. some others work more than 40 but the extra money is nice.
semp
one of my customers is a doctor. he works 5 days a week. he works some days 8-3, and some days 9 -11(pm) or later. he works his bellybutton off. could be why he has what he has.
-
my gf is a nurse, I know a lot of doctors. they're not exactly in the poor house. I have yet to see one living paycheck to paycheck. actually the ones i know work their 40 hours a week and go home. some others work more than 40 but the extra money is nice.
semp
But when they go home, they aren't done. This is what I'm stressing. Once they go home, they have hours of paperwork to fill out and phonecalls to make. Doctors don't work the eight hour days one might think they do, they often work eleven to twelve hour days.
they operate to a pretty large degree in an oligopoly and cooperate to maintain rates above free market prices (price fixing), so many are overpaid. as a customer its hard to negotiate when the options are either pay up or die though.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Have you ever thought about how much debt many of them accrue to pay for tuition in medical school? Hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of dollars. Also, those who work for hospitals are often cheated out of their pay (again, this happened to my mom and her friends). The working conditions as an intern, resident, and even fellow are often inhumane. How would you feel if you were to work a forty hour shift? Think of it like going through the spetznaz training course, only instead of excercise and shooting, you learn the human body inside and out.
-Penguin
-
Doctors are not overpaid.
Compared to what? Other people that save lives? What is the average pay for a fireman? Sure they did not have to go to college for 8 years but the risk they take to pull you out of a burning building is a little higher than the risk you take by being in class a few more years, no? What is the pay of a marine? So maybe you are right about the guys performing brain surgery, but the guys that you have to wait in line so they can charge your insurance e few 100$ to tell you you have a cold, yes, grossly overpaid.
-
Have you ever thought about how much debt many of them accrue to pay for tuition in medical school?
-Penguin
Yes, and I am going to my boss today to ask him for a raise because I accrued some debt to pay my school. Surprise surprise, other schools cost money too lol.
-
The decision to wear a helmet or not is a deliberate, consious decision... pulling into the path of an 18 wheeler or train is likely not, and if it is, it would be properly described as "suicide" but would more accurately fall into the category of an "accident." Granted, it may have been caused by recklessness or carelessness on the part of the driver, but the driver still didn't say "I think i'm going to go get into that car and go hunt for a train to pull out in front of."
Apples, oranges....
there is no such thing as an accident. negligence, yes...accidents.......not so much.
Totally not the point. The point I'm trying to make is there was no intent by the driver of the car that got into a collision with a train or 18 wheeler (we'll call it a collision since you don't believe that any incident in an automobile can be accidental).
But there certainly was intent on the part of the motorcycle rider to not wear his helmet.
This is not to say that not wearing the helmet caused the rider to be in an incident/crash/wreck, but the lack of proper protective equipment very well have caused the rider to suffer injuries that otherwise would have been avoided.
THAT is the point.
-
for the people who don't want the safety laws (helmet, seatbelts). that's perfectly valid argument if your only thinking of yourself.
but!!!
what about the fireman, police and ambulance workers who have to scrap up the remains?? Ive seen pics of crash victims and its not pretty.
do you really want to leave your wife / kids with out a husband / dad in a survivable accident just to prove a point?
-
Compared to what? Other people that save lives? What is the average pay for a fireman? Sure they did not have to go to college for 8 years but the risk they take to pull you out of a burning building is a little higher than the risk you take by being in class a few more years, no? What is the pay of a marine? So maybe you are right about the guys performing brain surgery, but the guys that you have to wait in line so they can charge your insurance e few 100$ to tell you you have a cold, yes, grossly overpaid.
Pretty simple, Ded, the guys are not paid based on the risk involved, but on the freaking BRAINS required to be in a position to save another life by removing a tumor, replacing a heart, operating on a brain.. etc. You want a guy who's special skill in life is spraying water from a hose standing over you with a scalpel when the time comes?
You're paying for the skill, knowledge, and ability to do something you cannot do yourself. Simple as that.
-
there is no such thing as an accident. negligence, yes...accidents.......not so much.
Totally not the point. The point I'm trying to make is there was no intent by the driver of the car that got into a collision with a train or 18 wheeler (we'll call it a collision since you don't believe that any incident in an automobile can be accidental).
But there certainly was intent on the part of the motorcycle rider to not wear his helmet.
This is not to say that not wearing the helmet caused the rider to be in an incident/crash/wreck, but the lack of proper protective equipment very well have caused the rider to suffer injuries that otherwise would have been avoided.
THAT is the point.
based on that, then we all should be wearing helmets in our cars. on our cycles, full leathers should then be required, along with reflective clothing. we should be required to be connected to a kill switch, much the same as bike racers use, so that when we do go down, the bike will shut off.
and you are correct calling the car/train thing a collision......i mean.......how do you "accidentally" pull in front of a train? really? you couldn't see 60 tons of loud diesel powered death doing 60mph comin at ya? negligence.
-
But when they go home, they aren't done. This is what I'm stressing. Once they go home, they have hours of paperwork to fill out and phonecalls to make. Doctors don't work the eight hour days one might think they do, they often work eleven to twelve hour days.
this applies to most self-employed people. doing billable work during normal trading hours and then administration in the evenings and weekends is SOP. once you get above subsistence income, people are a lot more likely to do overtime if they are making $100/h for it than $10/h.
the massive cost of training is a great example of a barrier to entry, an essential part of any oligopoly.
-
Doctors are worth every penny. Its the hospitals, medicines, equipment usage thats out of whack.
Actually the hospitol is under some duress from government requirements.
Have you noticed all the clinics that open around a hospitol in many areas. They do all kinds of specialty things like Catscans and such. The clinics are owned by Doctors. The reason for this is the fact that any Doctor doing business out of a hospitol is required to "donate" free time to treat folks who will not or cannot pay. It is a pretty large percentage of their time too. By opening a clinic and operating out of there, they circumvent this requirement.
-
for the people who don't want the safety laws (helmet, seatbelts). that's perfectly valid argument if your only thinking of yourself.
but!!!
what about the fireman, police and ambulance workers who have to scrap up the remains?? Ive seen pics of crash victims and its not pretty.
do you really want to leave your wife / kids with out a husband / dad in a survivable accident just to prove a point?
Not the point. I always have a sit belt on and would always wear a helmet and gear before getting on a bike. I just don;t need a law that the tax collectors can abuse to get money for the city. I use it because it would be stupid not too. Not because it is a traffic violation. I also don;t stick my fingers in electrical out lets and there is no law against that, is there?
-
Pretty simple, Ded, the guys are not paid based on the risk involved, but on the freaking BRAINS required to be in a position to save another life by removing a tumor, replacing a heart, operating on a brain.. etc. You want a guy who's special skill in life is spraying water from a hose standing over you with a scalpel when the time comes?
You're paying for the skill, knowledge, and ability to do something you cannot do yourself. Simple as that.
Haha, you conveniently ignored something I said. I hope you don;t tell the above to a fireman trying to save your life though lol.
Do you want a guy that is worried who is going to pay him and how fast he can get done with you so he can collect from someone else coming through the door of your burning building? Then worry about what company gives him the bigger kick backs for using their rescuing tools and using those whether appropriate for the job or not. If the rescue attempt fails accept 0 responsibility for the tools and methods he chose and for the delay while figuring out payment options? My guess is no, but you would let him operate on you :lol
-
Not the point. I always have a sit belt on and would always wear a helmet and gear before getting on a bike. I just don;t need a law that the tax collectors can abuse to get money for the city. I use it because it would be stupid not too. Not because it is a traffic violation. I also don;t stick my fingers in electrical out lets and there is no law against that, is there?
uumm.....can you stop with these sensible posts? i have to agree with ya now..........and that's only slightly less scary than agreeing with grizz......and it may get this thread locked. :devil :noid
-
based on that, then we all should be wearing helmets in our cars.
at least in theory, that what the seatbelts and airbags are for. Plus, for normal driving, a helmet causes more problems than it solves. At least in my state you'll get a ticket for operating a vehicle wearing a helmet.
And no, personally I wouldn't ride without a full-faced helmet and full leathers, but that's just me. And a kill switch insn't necessary, as we aren't strapped to our bikes.
and you are correct calling the car/train thing a collision......i mean.......how do you "accidentally" pull in front of a train? really? you couldn't see 60 tons of loud diesel powered death doing 60mph comin at ya? negligence.
The train I understand your point, OK. Other typs of "wrecks" you have to make an allowance for the possibility for such circumstances as obstructed view, unpredictable actions or responses on the part of the other driver, etc. Human error, basically. That's not exactly negligence.
-
Haha, you conveniently ignored something I said. I hope you don;t tell the above to a fireman trying to save your life though lol.
Do you want a guy that is worried who is going to pay him and how fast he can get done with you so he can collect from someone else coming through the door of your burning building? Then worry about what company gives him the bigger kick backs for using their rescuing tools and using those whether appropriate for the job or not. If the rescue attempt fails accept 0 responsibility for the tools and methods he chose and for the delay while figuring out payment options? My guess is no, but you would let him operate on you :lol
i've always thought firefighters, emt's, and most police are under paid.
this was brought home a couple of years ago, when on the way home from my part time job, i came up on an accident that had just happened......a car was on it's roof in the middle of rt 42 south, and the one that hit it was about 200 yards beyond it, and on fire.
i along with others stopped. some ran to the car on fire, and some of us ran to the one on the roof......we couldn't do anything for the lady in that car, except try to keep her calm. it was leaking fuel, so no one touched anything.....fire crews were there less than 10 minutes after we stopped.
it was truly amazing to watch those guys pull up, and go to work. the professionalism they exhibited was second to none, and they had her out of that car in mere minutes.
meanwhile, the guy that got out of the burning car got himself arrested, due to the fact he was chasing people away from his car with a handgun.
yea....fire fighters do not make nearly enough money.
-
at least in theory, that what the seatbelts and airbags are for. Plus, for normal driving, a helmet causes more problems than it solves. At least in my state you'll get a ticket for operating a vehicle wearing a helmet.
And no, personally I wouldn't ride without a full-faced helmet and full leathers, but that's just me. And a kill switch insn't necessary, as we aren't strapped to our bikes.
The train I understand your point, OK. Other typs of "wrecks" you have to make an allowance for the possibility for such circumstances as obstructed view, unpredictable actions or responses on the part of the other driver, etc. Human error, basically. That's not exactly negligence.
when i ride, i wear a full face. i don't wear full leathers though. if it's below 60F, i do wear a leather jacket though. if the kill switch isn't necessary, why then do they require it on race bikes?
for accidents.......2 second rule. if this is/was followed, all that you mentioned would be avoidable.
-
The two biggest reasons healthcare is so expensive are prescription drugs and equipment. Patents for drugs last too long, prices remain high and inflated.
Working in the health industry, one thing we have noticed is our competitors pricing when they offer a new service. A competitor will try to get an advantage by purchasing an MRI machine (note, not referring to hospitals). Soon after, every one of their patients needs an MRI, because they need to pay for that expensive machine. Soon prescriptions, and visits cost more.
-
So maybe you are right about the guys performing brain surgery, but the guys that you have to wait in line so they can charge your insurance e few 100$ to tell you you have a cold, yes, grossly overpaid.
Do you know the meaning of the term "misdiagnosis?"
-
Pretty simple, Ded, the guys are not paid based on the risk involved, but on the freaking BRAINS required to be in a position to save another life by removing a tumor, replacing a heart, operating on a brain.. etc. You want a guy who's special skill in life is spraying water from a hose standing over you with a scalpel when the time comes?
You're paying for the skill, knowledge, and ability to do something you cannot do yourself. Simple as that.
but your wrong..
http://www.nyc.gov/html/fdny/html/community/ff_salary_benefits_080106.shtml
is it as much as a doctor? no. there is more physical and mental risks at a fire scene then there are with a knife in hand. a hose line could blow and take your legs off, a beam could fall from above and crush you... you could be a pulling a victim out but be 30 seconds to late getting them and not know it until you get them out.
more to putting out a fire then spraying water from a hose... probably just as stressful as putting a blade into someone for the first incision knowing if you slip you could end it for them...
saddening how people dont see the risks involved... if you lived down the road from me i sure as hell wouldnt respond if i knew your house was burning.
-
based on that, then we all should be wearing helmets in our cars. on our cycles, full leathers should then be required, along with reflective clothing. we should be required to be connected to a kill switch, much the same as bike racers use, so that when we do go down, the bike will shut off.
and you are correct calling the car/train thing a collision......i mean.......how do you "accidentally" pull in front of a train? really? you couldn't see 60 tons of loud diesel powered death doing 60mph comin at ya? negligence.
Not necessarily. If you arrive at the right moment with brakes that have recently (I mean around thirty seconds ago) sufferred a major failure, there is no way that you could stop in time.
-Penguin
-
Not necessarily. If you arrive at the right moment with brakes that have recently (I mean around thirty seconds ago) sufferred a major failure, there is no way that you could stop in time.
-Penguin
why would you drive a car on brakes that dont work? they do make emergency brakes seperate from the brake system for a reason...and they dont call it an "Emergency" brake for nothing...
-
Like I said, the brakes had just failed, and it wouldn't have occurred to the driver that it might be a good time to call AAA. If one is going over thirty MPH (I'm not sure about this, I think CAP could help me), the emergency brake will snap like a dry twig.
-Penguin
-
Not necessarily. If you arrive at the right moment with brakes that have recently (I mean around thirty seconds ago) sufferred a major failure, there is no way that you could stop in time.
-Penguin
brakes will not suffer a major failure when they're not being used. when you hit the brakes, and suffer a catastrophic failure, if you're paying attention, and at least 2 seconds behind, you most likely will have some options. but, yes....catastrophic brake failure would be an exception.
-
The two biggest reasons healthcare is so expensive are prescription drugs and equipment. Patents for drugs last too long, prices remain high and inflated.
Working in the health industry, one thing we have noticed is our competitors pricing when they offer a new service. A competitor will try to get an advantage by purchasing an MRI machine (note, not referring to hospitals). Soon after, every one of their patients needs an MRI, because they need to pay for that expensive machine. Soon prescriptions, and visits cost more.
There is a certain drug used here, very expensive per tablet, that is used in europe on sheep. The tablet for the sheep is just a few cents. Here it is closer to $100 per pill.
-
Like I said, the brakes had just failed, and it wouldn't have occurred to the driver that it might be a good time to call AAA. If one is going over thirty MPH (I'm not sure about this, I think CAP could help me), the emergency brake will snap like a dry twig.
-Penguin
emergency brakes are designed to be used in case of service brake failure.
i myself suffered catastrophic brake failure on my 85 5th ave a few years ago. i was far enough behind the cars in front, that i had time to pump the pedal, yank the shifter into low gear, and get my left foot onto the emergency brake. this combination slowed me enough to avoid hitting anything, and i was able to limp the car the final mile to home.
-
There is a certain drug used here, very expensive per tablet, that is used in europe on sheep. The tablet for the sheep is just a few cents. Here it is closer to $100 per pill.
hhmm.....sheep? :noid
-
cap, you of all peeps should know its not a freaking emergency brake. its a PARKING brake, it was never designed to stop a vahicle in motion,but instead to keep an allready stopped vehicle Parked.
-
the emergency brake will snap like a dry twig.
-Penguin
Where did you happen to draw that conclusion from? You do know that the emergency brake uses part of the main braking system in most cases, the rear brakes. It is hardly suseptable to "snap like a dry twig".
-
Where did you happen to draw that conclusion from? You do know that the emergency brake uses part of the main braking system in most cases, the rear brakes. It is hardly suseptable to "snap like a dry twig".
the emergency brake is normally a series of cables connected to a lever inside the brake drum, or on the brake caliper, which will mechanically actuate the rear brakes. it won't give you anywhere near the stopping power, but if you've been paying attention, and following properly.....that meaning 2 seconds minimum behind the vehicle in front of you........it should be enough to avoid hitting them.
-
Cap, I'm familiar with the mechanics of the design and operation. I was asking where penguin got the snap like a twig bit from. I doubt he will reply.
IIRC he's all of 13 so his experiance with an automobile is going to be rather limited. He sure likes to post about things like he has a clue however.
:huh
-
Cap, I'm familiar with the mechanics of the design and operation. I was asking where penguin got the snap like a twig bit from. I doubt he will reply.
IIRC he's all of 13 so his experience with an automobile is going to be rather limited. He sure likes to post about things like he has a clue however.
:huh
-
frickin double post.
:furious
-
Cap, I'm familiar with the mechanics of the design and operation. I was asking where penguin got the snap like a twig bit from. I doubt he will reply.
IIRC he's all of 13 so his experience with an automobile is going to be rather limited. He sure likes to post about things like he has a clue however.
:huh
i know ya are....i only quoted yours 'cause it was right there.
and yea.
-
cobias right, the parking brake will do next to nothing. theres very good reasons why brakes are actuated by hydraulic lines with servos and not cables. try it - find a decent slope, release the parking brake, get to 20mph then try to stop the car using just the parking brake. and make sure theres nothing in front of you for at least a coupla hundred yards because you're going to need all of it.
-
Cap, I'm familiar with the mechanics of the design and operation. I was asking where penguin got the snap like a twig bit from. I doubt he will reply.
IIRC he's all of 13 so his experience with an automobile is going to be rather limited. He sure likes to post about things like he has a clue however.
:huh
i know ya are....i only quoted yours 'cause it was right there.
and yea.
-
cobias right, the parking brake will do next to nothing. theres very good reasons why brakes are actuated by hydraulic lines with servos and not cables. try it - find a decent slope, release the parking brake, get to 20mph then try to stop the car using just the parking brake. and make sure theres nothing in front of you for at least a coupla hundred yards because you're going to need all of it.
been there done that. was doin 40 though.
-
cobias right, the parking brake will do next to nothing. theres very good reasons why brakes are actuated by hydraulic lines with servos and not cables. try it - find a decent slope, release the parking brake, get to 20mph then try to stop the car using just the parking brake. and make sure theres nothing in front of you for at least a coupla hundred yards because you're going to need all of it.
The parking brake actuates only the rear brakes. Under normal braking the front brakes do most of the stopping.
Your parking brake can and will still stop you. If will be a greater distance than normal braking.
Many refer to the parking brake as an emergency brake. It is both.
-
The parking brake actuates only the rear brakes. Under normal braking the front brakes do most of the stopping.
Your parking brake can and will still stop you. If will be a greater distance than normal braking.
Many refer to the parking brake as an emergency brake. It is both.
that would be due to the fact that it is primarily an emergency brake. :aok
-
that would be due to the fact that it is primarily an emergency brake. :aok
you must have completely different systems in the US then, because over here its used for parking. engine braking is also used in an emergency, but its only designed as a primary function for braking in trucks (Jake-brakes.)
-
while i believe in wearing my helmet when i ride.......i do not believe anyone should have the right to tell me i must wear it. this rates right up there with seatbelts.
It also rates right up there with child safety seats by that thinking, CAP. Think about it. Sure, I agree and support that it's the American way to not tell you what to do and how to do it, and that's all and fine up until you're being held responcible for anothers irresponcibility.
These laws aren't to protect idiots who are too stupid to wear a helmet, but protect those that god forbid get into an accident with these idiots. Even if it's not my fault but I was involved in an accident where the other guy died as a result of the accident, you better believe I'll be at least spending the night in jail if not looking forward to a very long a grueling criminal court case facing manslaughter charges, and god have mercy on me if I had a single beer with the meal I had before the accident.
The next time you're makign a left turn and have a close call, and afterwards are contemplating "what if that idiot" just did one more thing different, you better prey that on that list of what-ifs is that if they have a child with them that they decided to fasten them into a car seat, or if they were riding a bike that they had helmets, otherwise it's your arse that is grass.
-
you must have completely different systems in the US then, because over here its used for parking. engine braking is also used in an emergency, but its only designed as a primary function for braking in trucks (Jake-brakes.)
well, there's a reason that they're easy to reach. i mean...how many people do you know that actually set it when they park? i do, for the record, in my truck, and jeep.....when i had my stang, i just left it in gear.
it is designed as a failsafe, incase your braking system fails.
that being said.....i'd suspect that the majority of drivers on the roads today wouldn't react nearly quick enough to use it, so it's kinda pointless anyway.
-
Cap, I'm familiar with the mechanics of the design and operation. I was asking where penguin got the snap like a twig bit from. I doubt he will reply.
IIRC he's all of 13 so his experience with an automobile is going to be rather limited. He sure likes to post about things like he has a clue however.
:huh
I said that I wasn't sure of whether or not the parking brake would snap like a twig. Allow me to offer a quote:
Like I said, the brakes had just failed, and it wouldn't have occurred to the driver that it might be a good time to call AAA. If one is going over thirty MPH (I'm not sure about this, I think CAP could help me), the emergency brake will snap like a dry twig.
-Penguin
Your reading comprehension is quite, quite poor. In fact, it's as if you didn't even read the parenthetical which clearly stated my lack of knowledge on the topic.
-Penguin
-
Cap, I'm familiar with the mechanics of the design and operation. I was asking where penguin got the snap like a twig bit from. I doubt he will reply.
IIRC he's all of 13 so his experience with an automobile is going to be rather limited. He sure likes to post about things like he has a clue however.
:huh
I said that I wasn't sure of whether or not the parking brake would snap like a twig. Allow me to offer a quote:
Like I said, the brakes had just failed, and it wouldn't have occurred to the driver that it might be a good time to call AAA. If one is going over thirty MPH (I'm not sure about this, I think CAP could help me), the emergency brake will snap like a dry twig.
-Penguin
Your reading comprehension is quite, quite poor. In fact, it's as if you didn't even read the parenthetical which clearly stated my lack of knowledge on the topic.
-Penguin
-
you must have completely different systems in the US then, because over here its used for parking. engine braking is also used in an emergency, but its only designed as a primary function for braking in trucks (Jake-brakes.)
well, there's a reason that they're easy to reach. i mean...how many people do you know that actually set it when they park? i do, for the record, in my truck, and jeep.....when i had my stang, i just left it in gear.
it is designed as a failsafe, incase your braking system fails.
that being said.....i'd suspect that the majority of drivers on the roads today wouldn't react nearly quick enough to use it, so it's kinda pointless anyway.
-
Cap, I'm familiar with the mechanics of the design and operation. I was asking where penguin got the snap like a twig bit from. I doubt he will reply.
IIRC he's all of 13 so his experience with an automobile is going to be rather limited. He sure likes to post about things like he has a clue however.
:huh
I said that I wasn't sure of whether or not the parking brake would snap like a twig. Allow me to offer a quote:
Like I said, the brakes had just failed, and it wouldn't have occurred to the driver that it might be a good time to call AAA. If one is going over thirty MPH (I'm not sure about this, I think CAP could help me), the emergency brake will snap like a dry twig.
-Penguin
Your reading comprehension is quite, quite poor. In fact, it's as if you didn't even read the parenthetical which clearly stated my lack of knowledge on the topic.
-Penguin
-
jeeze!! the bbs must've had mexican...it's farting all over the place. :devil
-
I said that I wasn't sure of whether or not the parking brake would snap like a twig. Allow me to offer a quote:
Your reading comprehension is quite, quite poor. In fact, it's as if you didn't even read the parenthetical which clearly stated my lack of knowledge on the topic.
-Penguin
Remove the parentheses idiot.
"If one is going over thirty MPH the emergency brake will snap like a dry twig."
Now do you see where there is a problem?
-
Whoa there, speedy gonzales. Don't go putting words in my mouth (or in this case, taking them out).
Sure, I'll remove the parentheses:
Like I said, the brakes had just failed, and it wouldn't have occurred to the driver that it might be a good time to call AAA. If one is going over thirty MPH I'm not sure about this, I think CAP could help me, the emergency brake will snap like a dry twig.
-Penguin
Now all you've got is a sentence in which I did not separate my clauses. Now if you want me to remove the parenthetical, that's just changing my post so you can attack it better. Let me give you an analogy to show how completely wrong your argument is:
Bob: The sky on Mars is green (or not, because I haven't seen the sky).
Alice: If you remove the parenthetical, you look like someone who is professing knowledge when one does not have it.
Bob: That's why I included it, to show that I did not know if it were correct.
As you can see I clearly stated that I was not sure of whether my idea was correct. You however, decided to put words in my mouth, and said that I claimed to have knowledge if I modified what I had already said to suit your wishes.
TL;DR: You are attacking a position that I did not take, therefore, your position is invalid. Your argument is also an extreme example of a strawman; you are attacking an argument that does not exist.
-Penguin
-
how many people do you know that actually set it when they park?
mmm ... everyone (except for cars that are going to sit for months on end to stop binding.)
-
well, there's a reason that they're easy to reach. i mean...how many people do you know that actually set it when they park? i do, for the record, in my truck, and jeep.....when i had my stang, i just left it in gear.
it is designed as a failsafe, incase your braking system fails.
that being said.....i'd suspect that the majority of drivers on the roads today wouldn't react nearly quick enough to use it, so it's kinda pointless anyway.
omg its not designed as a failsafe, it is designed to take the stress off of your parking pawl "located in your automatic trans" and your engine "for standerd trans" when parked on a hill.
-
omg its not designed as a failsafe, it is designed to take the stress off of your parking pawl "located in your automatic trans" and your engine "for standerd trans" when parked on a hill.
that too.
if that were it's only purpose, it would either be on or off. there would be no "in between" as there is now.
-
cap, i,m not saying it cant be used as a E brake i,m just saying that the primary design is parking not emergency stopping
-
I always set the brake in my trucks. Out of habit I do so in cars too. The ground is pretty flat here.
-
i've always thought firefighters, emt's, and most police are under paid.
yea....fire fighters do not make nearly enough money.
Agreed 110%. In a perfect world, these guys, along with teachers, would be living much better than they are financially, and lawyers and politicians would be "just getting by" if ya know what I mean.
-
There is a problem with that idea, you know. If we paid them too well, we'd see public servants who are only in it for the money. Also, the current system of tenure and seniority pay is under heavy scrutiny due to the lack of ability to remove teachers who are teaching poorly.
Take this paraphrase from TIME magazine for example. A teacher had committed sexual harrassment in his classroom, but the union was so powerful that he was reinstated in the very same class.
-Penguin
-
Agreed 110%. In a perfect world, these guys, along with teachers, would be living much better than they are financially, and lawyers and politicians would be "just getting by" if ya know what I mean.
Prosecutors are crime fighters too, and defense attorneys are necessary to make sure you are afforded the rights as given to you by the Consitution. Criminal lawyers don't make as much as their white-shoe corporate brethren anyways. Those are the ones who are paid $160,00 to review documents.
-
. if the kill switch isn't necessary, why then do they require it on race bikes?
Totally different environment. Motorcycle on the street, the logical thought process would say you're likely gonna crash at a much lower speed than a race bike (unless you're behaving in a highly illegal manner) and the chances of there being a catastrophic fuel spill from a ruptured fuel tank are higher in a race environment crash. The purpose of the kill switch (at least all of them I've ever been familiar with) is not just to kill the engine, but to disconnect all electrical power to the engine and harness, effectively reducing the chanced of an electrical spark that would ignite spilled fuel.
Not something that is needed badly enough to mandate for streetbikes. You would assume if there's an accident on the street there won't continue to be 100+ mph bike traffic in close proximity to the wreck as there would be on a racetrack, so the kill switch is a little more important in a race for that reason as well.
Why not require roll cages in street cars also?
Well, that one's obvious.
-
is it as much as a doctor? no. there is more physical and mental risks at a fire scene then there are with a knife in hand. a hose line could blow and take your legs off, a beam could fall from above and crush you... you could be a pulling a victim out but be 30 seconds to late getting them and not know it until you get them out.
more to putting out a fire then spraying water from a hose... probably just as stressful as putting a blade into someone for the first incision knowing if you slip you could end it for them...
saddening how people dont see the risks involved... if you lived down the road from me i sure as hell wouldnt respond if i knew your house was burning.
Congratulations on an EPIC collossal failure of reading comprehension, sir. :bhead
First, I believe EMTs, firemen, police, etc are all paid far too little considering the worth of their jobs and the risks associated with them. Nowhere in what I said did I state otherwise. All I said was that in my opinion Doctor's aren't paid too much given the amount of education, training, and liability required to be able to perform their job.
How many firemen or policemen do you know who have to carry multi-million dollar malpractice insurance policies, go to school for 10+ years and train for several additional years just to be able to get a job (plus be at the top of their class in undergraduate study just to be able to take the advanced study), and have to deal with government and insurance agency beurocrats just to collect their pay?
You find me a doctor willing to work for fireman or policeman pay and I'll tell you I don't want that SOB near me with so much as a stethoscope or tongue depressor.
-
Remove the parentheses idiot.
"If one is going over thirty MPH the emergency brake will snap like a dry twig."
Now do you see where there is a problem?
beg to differ... first hand expierence proves it works at 55 :aok ended up upside down in the woods...but had it not been manually released it wouldve stopped us...
-
I said that I wasn't sure of whether or not the parking brake would snap like a twig. Allow me to offer a quote:
Your reading comprehension is quite, quite poor. In fact, it's as if you didn't even read the parenthetical which clearly stated my lack of knowledge on the topic.
-Penguin
Speaking of reading comprehension here. Go back and read the post I made. If you will recall I asked where you drew that conclusion from.
The other post you quoted was not directed towards you as it was a reply to cap.
-
I drew that conclusion from a little book I got, called 1,001 rules of thumb. It stated that if you shifted in park at over thirty miles per hour, you would break the parking pawl. If you were going under thirty miles per hour, you would be peeling your face from the windshield.
-Penguin
-
I drew that conclusion from a little book I got, called 1,001 rules of thumb. It stated that if you shifted in park at over thirty miles per hour, you would break the parking pawl. If you were going under thirty miles per hour, you would be peeling your face from the windshield.
-Penguin
Actually it won't lock up... it'll just click till it stops.
-
I drew that conclusion from a little book I got, called 1,001 rules of thumb. It stated that if you shifted in park at over thirty miles per hour, you would break the parking pawl. If you were going under thirty miles per hour, you would be peeling your face from the windshield.
-Penguin
most cars will not go into park when moving forward that fast.
-
Well, I guess that rule of thumb was wrong. Anyway, have we reached a conclusion as to the inadequacy of a parking brake to stop a car moving at around 20 miles per hour?
-Penguin
-
Well, I guess that rule of thumb was wrong. Anyway, have we reached a conclusion as to the inadequacy of a parking brake to stop a car moving at around 20 miles per hour?
-Penguin
no, because it will stop you sufficiently to prevent an accident. putting the car in park will not. trust me.......i've done a lot of stupid stuff when i was young...including trying that.
-
If your not wearing a helmet or seatbelt in something going 50-MPH. You deserve to die. Your IQ is low enough to warrant you being removed from the Gene Pool.
-
If your not wearing a helmet or seatbelt in something going 50-MPH. You deserve to die. Your IQ is low enough to warrant you being removed from the Gene Pool.
This is the kind of malarkey that would be taught in schools if the nazis had won the war.
I can't speak for every country but the US was initially founded as a place to have freedom. Not wearing a helmet or a seatbelt does not infringe on the rights of anybody and I think it's ridiculous that we consider it criminal in some states to ride without one.
The bottom line with me is that people seem to fail to realize that the human body was never intended to go any faster that we can run. Travelling at any speed above 10-15mph can be dangerous and accidents can happen at any time. There is no way to prevent all accidents/injuries and until Superman takes over for Captain Hindsight, we need to realize this as a society.
-
I can't speak for every country but the US was initially founded as a place to have freedom.
Yep, initially :old:
-
I cant really see any reason why helmet laws are required in the US apart from the cost to other people in term of unpaid medical bills. I understand in some states its only an offense if you dont have medical insurance, which seems fair. I can only imagine pretty bizarre and extremely unlikely scenarios where lack of a helmet could endanger other people. in the UK it makes sense because the medical costs are usually paid for by the taxpayer. I guess there could be a waiver if the rider has private medical insurance which would cover it.
seatbelts otoh are different, purely because of the danger unrestrained people present to others in the car in the event of an accident. if anything its more important for rear seat passengers to wear them, as they present the most danger.
-
most hospitals or medical emergency treatment centers will bill the person they treat, if they have no insurance. they can, and i think will put a lien on ones property should they not pay. they get their money.
-
I cant really see any reason why helmet laws are required in the US apart from the cost to other people in term of unpaid medical bills. I understand in some states its only an offense if you dont have medical insurance, which seems fair. I can only imagine pretty bizarre and extremely unlikely scenarios where lack of a helmet could endanger other people. in the UK it makes sense because the medical costs are usually paid for by the taxpayer. I guess there could be a waiver if the rider has private medical insurance which would cover it.
seatbelts otoh are different, purely because of the danger unrestrained people present to others in the car in the event of an accident. if anything its more important for rear seat passengers to wear them, as they present the most danger.
There is a way that not wearing a helmet can harm someone else. Here is a perfect example. You are driving down the road, happy as a clam. You come to a four way intersection, and by your own negligence get into a crash with a motorcyclist. The motorcyclist is catapaulted from his/her motorcycle, and hits his/her head on something (e.g., another car, the road itself) and is killed or horribly disfigured. If they were wearing a helmet, this wouldn't have happened, and you would pay far less to cover their medical expenses.
As you can see, there is a significant advantage to mandating safety gear. This advantage is a lack of vehicular manslaughter charges levied against you.
-Penguin
-
I drew that conclusion from a little book I got, called 1,001 rules of thumb. It stated that if you shifted in park at over thirty miles per hour, you would break the parking pawl. If you were going under thirty miles per hour, you would be peeling your face from the windshield.
-Penguin
Shifting into park is not activating the brake system at all. The shift lever is part of the transmission operation equipment as is the parking pawl. The parking pawl is meant to hold a stationary vehicle stationary by locking the drive train.
The emergency brake is a totally separate device and operates a portion of the service brakes. Service brakes being the design brakes meant to stop the vehicle when in motion. One was designed to stop the vehicle, the other never intended for that purpose. One does not stop a vehicle by shifting into park, or even reverse, one does so by using the brakes. Those emergency brakes work the same with a manual transmission vehicle where there is no park detent to shift into.
-
has anyone ever read the decal usually hidden in helmets somewhere? it starts off with something like "some reasonably foreseeable impacts may exceed this helmet's ability to protect the wearer."
-
blah blah blah
read it again. endanger.
I'm starting to appreciate the old adage: children should be seen and not heard.
-
read it again. endanger.
I'm starting to appreciate the old adage: children should be seen and not heard.
I read it again, and my point still stands. If you are convicted of vehicular manslaughter, you're going to prison for a long time. I'm starting to question the old adage: with age comes wisdom.
-Penguin
-
There is a way that not wearing a helmet can harm someone else. Here is a perfect example. You are driving down the road, happy as a clam. You come to a four way intersection, and by your own negligence get into a crash with a motorcyclist. The motorcyclist is catapaulted from his/her motorcycle, and hits his/her head on something (e.g., another car, the road itself) and is killed or horribly disfigured. If they were wearing a helmet, this wouldn't have happened, and you would pay far less to cover their medical expenses.
As you can see, there is a significant advantage to mandating safety gear. This advantage is a lack of vehicular manslaughter charges levied against you.
-Penguin
Or the guy with the helmet gets catapulted and hits a little kid in a wheel chair waiting to cross the street. The kid gets killed by the impact because he got hit by the helmet in the head. The medical expert/state trooper that showed up stated that the kid would have survived if it had not been hit by the helmet and if it was wearing a sit belt.
We can come up with BS scenarios all day long. That does not mean we need a law for everything. I eat too much meat too and there is a possibility that it would lead to death by a heard attack or I may end up with a hospital bill that my insurance will have to pay. OMG! WE NEED A LAW ON MEAT CONSUMPTION. :old:
How about a license for operating a ladder? Statistics show that they are the cause of a very high percentage of household accidents.
Should I go on? The point we are trying to make is that we cannot afford to have a law for everything that will inconvenience an insurance company. They can put it in their service contract if they want to.
-
This is the kind of malarkey that would be taught in schools if the nazis had won the war.
I can't speak for every country but the US was initially founded as a place to have freedom. Not wearing a helmet or a seatbelt does not infringe on the rights of anybody and I think it's ridiculous that we consider it criminal in some states to ride without one.
The bottom line with me is that people seem to fail to realize that the human body was never intended to go any faster that we can run. Travelling at any speed above 10-15mph can be dangerous and accidents can happen at any time. There is no way to prevent all accidents/injuries and until Superman takes over for Captain Hindsight, we need to realize this as a society.
As long as my insurance is not higher and it doesn't affect me..... I say let them run around bare headed. If they ride a bike with no helmet no problem. But their insurance cost should reflect that without me having to pay more for it.
With freedom comes responsibility. You want it, you have to take responsibility for it.
-
These days it seems to come down to a complete lack of personal accountability for one's own actions. More often than not "it's someone else's fault". :joystick:
-
most hospitals or medical emergency treatment centers will bill the person they treat, if they have no insurance. they can, and i think will put a lien on ones property should they not pay. they get their money.
What if that person owns no "real" property upon which to place a lein? I know a lot of my tenants that, apart from their car (which they presumably just wrecked), own nothing of any substantial value. And I wouldn't be surprised to learn that half of those probably lease their cars.
I think you'd be shocked and disgusted to find out how much debt hospitals write off as uncollectable. I'll bet you a few fresh Benjamins that if you go to your local ER waiting room and look at the people sitting there and could "crystal ball" it you'd see that for about half of those people, the hospital will never collect the full bill. Of that half, some will settle for a portion of it but the bigger percentage will never pay a dime.
Oh yes, though, you're right... the hospital will get its money. Thay'll do so by billing your insurance company and my insurance company two or three times that actual cost for most services and procedures. You and I indirectly pay theirs for them. That's why so many low-income folks use the ER as a "free clinic" - they know they'll never pay for it and the ER cannot refuse them treatment like a General Practitioner can.
-
As long as my insurance is not higher and it doesn't affect me..... I say let them run around bare headed. If they ride a bike with no helmet no problem. But their insurance cost should reflect that without me having to pay more for it.
With freedom comes responsibility. You want it, you have to take responsibility for it.
Your insurance will go up if I trip and fall because I did not tie my shoes, because I broke a leg climbing on my roof, because I grabbed a live wire thinking I was an electrician, because I hurt my back moving a couch, because I got drunk fall of my balcony, because I had a hard attack due to my diet, because I rear ended someone while I WAS wearing a seat belt, because I cut my finger cutting drywall, bla bla bla. Non of this bothers anyone I guess since there are no laws against them and your insurance will go up if your company decides they are losing money because of all this. But, riding with out a helmet :O
Let me ask this. If you think it is irresponsible to ride without a helmet and some how your insurance will go up if I have an accident, how responsible is it to get on that bike in the first place? They offer no protection what so ever and any accident while riding one of them will result in injury. It is a question of how bad. So helmet or not, you can rack up a pretty good bill at the hospital, lose a limb, become paralyzed, or die. Shouldn't then be also elegal to even ride a bike? How is that different?
-
If your not wearing a helmet or seatbelt in something going 50-MPH. You deserve to die. Your IQ is low enough to warrant you being removed from the Gene Pool.
This is the kind of malarkey that would be taught in schools if the nazis had won the war.
I can't speak for every country but the US was initially founded as a place to have freedom. Not wearing a helmet or a seatbelt does not infringe on the rights of anybody and I think it's ridiculous that we consider it criminal in some states to ride without one.
The bottom line with me is that people seem to fail to realize that the human body was never intended to go any faster that we can run. Travelling at any speed above 10-15mph can be dangerous and accidents can happen at any time. There is no way to prevent all accidents/injuries and until Superman takes over for Captain Hindsight, we need to realize this as a society.
Sorry Rob, nothing wrong with what PacMan said.. he never said it should be law that you have to wear a helmet when on a motorcycle. He just pointed out the fact that, while you are free to choose not to wear a helmet, riding without one indicates you are among the group of people who are likely so stupid that their removal from the breeding stock will in the long term greatly benefit mankind as a species. :D
No, the human body was not intended to survive a crash at 50+ mph, helmet or not. But the FACTS show that wearing one increases your chances of survival exponentially.... not purposefully choose not to wear one seems to indicate some sort of impaired brain fuction in the logic and reasoning department.
-
Or the guy with the helmet gets catapulted and hits a little kid in a wheel chair waiting to cross the street. The kid gets killed by the impact because he got hit by the helmet in the head. The medical expert/state trooper that showed up stated that the kid would have survived if it had not been hit by the helmet and if it was wearing a sit belt.
We can come up with BS scenarios all day long. That does not mean we need a law for everything. I eat too much meat too and there is a possibility that it would lead to death by a heard attack or I may end up with a hospital bill that my insurance will have to pay. OMG! WE NEED A LAW ON MEAT CONSUMPTION. :old:
How about a license for operating a ladder? Statistics show that they are the cause of a very high percentage of household accidents.
Should I go on? The point we are trying to make is that we cannot afford to have a law for everything that will inconvenience an insurance company. They can put it in their service contract if they want to.
Ded finally said something that made sense!! :banana:
-
Your insurance will go up if I trip and fall because I did not tie my shoes, because I broke a leg climbing on my roof, because I grabbed a live wire thinking I was an electrician, because I hurt my back moving a couch, because I got drunk fall of my balcony, because I had a hard attack due to my diet, because I rear ended someone while I WAS wearing a seat belt, because I cut my finger cutting drywall, bla bla bla. Non of this bothers anyone I guess since there are no laws against them and your insurance will go up if your company decides they are losing money because of all this. But, riding with out a helmet :O
Let me ask this. If you think it is irresponsible to ride without a helmet and some how your insurance will go up if I have an accident, how responsible is it to get on that bike in the first place? They offer no protection what so ever and any accident while riding one of them will result in injury. It is a question of how bad. So helmet or not, you can rack up a pretty good bill at the hospital, lose a limb, become paralyzed, or die. Shouldn't then be also elegal to even ride a bike? How is that different?
And then he went and said this and screwed up his streak!! :lol
Seriously? You think my insurance is going to go up or down based on injuries to you? My rates are calculated based on my habits and behaviors, and I've been paying insurance in varying forms for 26+ years... car, boat, homeowners, life, etc... and the only time any of my rates changed AT ALL is when I did something to effect them... like getting a speeding ticket, filing a claim against my homeowners for water damage, etc etc. Never have I had my rates go up because Bob down the street wrecked his motorcycle. His rates went up, mine stayed the same. Once that policy is written, it's a contract.
edit: upon further consideration, I can see your statement if you are referring to policies that have not been written yet, as in I try to go out and get motorcycle insurance tomorrow it might be more expensive than it was last month if there have all of a sudden been a lot of motorcycle wrecks... but still doesn't hold water for causing existing policyholders to suffer.
edit edit: My post is concerning auto and property insurance. I do not claim great knowledge with regards to medical insurance rates and any ability they may have to adjust after a policy is written and issued.
-
Your insurance will go up if I trip and fall because I did not tie my shoes, because I broke a leg climbing on my roof, because I grabbed a live wire thinking I was an electrician, because I hurt my back moving a couch, because I got drunk fall of my balcony, because I had a hard attack due to my diet, because I rear ended someone while I WAS wearing a seat belt, because I cut my finger cutting drywall, bla bla bla. Non of this bothers anyone I guess since there are no laws against them and your insurance will go up if your company decides they are losing money because of all this. But, riding with out a helmet :O
Let me ask this. If you think it is irresponsible to ride without a helmet and some how your insurance will go up if I have an accident, how responsible is it to get on that bike in the first place? They offer no protection what so ever and any accident while riding one of them will result in injury. It is a question of how bad. So helmet or not, you can rack up a pretty good bill at the hospital, lose a limb, become paralyzed, or die. Shouldn't then be also elegal to even ride a bike? How is that different?
but what if you were wearing a helmet when you tripped, you'd be ok. :noid
-
And then he went and said this and screwed up his streak!! :lol
Seriously? You think my insurance is going to go up or down based on injuries to you?
:rofl nop, read again. I don;t think that at all but apparently a lot of Americans have been trained to think that (see response to suffler). The first argument they come up with is "why should I pay higher rates because you are not responsible". So, since they think that, I responded like that. Look up sarcasm :neener: I was just trying to say that if you really think your insurance goes up because of claims, it should go up because of all these other reasons and not only because of people without helmets. And since we are all for creating laws against risky things (like not wearing a helmet or a sit belt), getting on a bike should also be elegal since it is what causes the risk in the first place. (See sarcasm :neener: again )
-
:rofl nop, read again. I don;t think that at all but apparently a lot of Americans have been trained to think that (see response to suffler). The first argument they come up with is "why should I pay higher rates because you are not responsible". So, since they think that, I responded like that. Look up sarcasm :neener: I was just trying to say that if you really think your insurance goes up because of claims, it should go up because of all these other reasons and not only because of people without helmets. And since we are all for creating laws against risky things (like not wearing a helmet or a sit belt), getting on a bike should also be elegal since it is what causes the risk in the first place. (See sarcasm :neener: again )
A HA! Sarcasm, eh?!?! :lol
But here's the catch... if you are a participatory insurance (mutual) policyowner or happen to be stockholder as well as a policyowner in a "stock" insurance company, then you do lose when someone else does something stupid! :neener:
But still, I don't believe the law has any place mandating these things, unless taxpayer money is involved in the medical treatment of the stupid unhelmeted rider. Like RTHolmes stated, if they can show proof of private insurance and thus guarantee the taxpayer that they are accepting financial responsibility for their action, they should be free to be stupid as much as they like. That is between them and their insurance company.
-
Your insurance will go up if I trip and fall because I did not tie my shoes, because I broke a leg climbing on my roof, because I grabbed a live wire thinking I was an electrician, because I hurt my back moving a couch, because I got drunk fall of my balcony, because I had a hard attack due to my diet, because I rear ended someone while I WAS wearing a seat belt, because I cut my finger cutting drywall, bla bla bla. Non of this bothers anyone I guess since there are no laws against them and your insurance will go up if your company decides they are losing money because of all this. But, riding with out a helmet :O
Let me ask this. If you think it is irresponsible to ride without a helmet and some how your insurance will go up if I have an accident, how responsible is it to get on that bike in the first place? They offer no protection what so ever and any accident while riding one of them will result in injury. It is a question of how bad. So helmet or not, you can rack up a pretty good bill at the hospital, lose a limb, become paralyzed, or die. Shouldn't then be also elegal to even ride a bike? How is that different?
Your right.. it is absolutely impossible to protect yourself from stupid people. They are on the protected list and their numbers grow daily because of this. Back in the day they thinned theirselves out which also inhibited their numbers and they were unable to reproduce.
-
There is a way that not wearing a helmet can harm someone else. Here is a perfect example. You are driving down the road, happy as a clam. You come to a four way intersection, and by your own negligence get into a crash with a motorcyclist. The motorcyclist is catapaulted from his/her motorcycle, and hits his/her head on something (e.g., another car, the road itself) and is killed or horribly disfigured. If they were wearing a helmet, this wouldn't have happened, and you would pay far less to cover their medical expenses.
As you can see, there is a significant advantage to mandating safety gear. This advantage is a lack of vehicular manslaughter charges levied against you.
-Penguin
Circular logic
-
A HA! Sarcasm, eh?!?! :lol
But here's the catch... if you are a participatory insurance (mutual) policyowner or happen to be stockholder as well as a policyowner in a "stock" insurance company, then you do lose when someone else does something stupid! :neener:
Well, then, riding a bike should be made elegal to protect the stock holders. Even better, selling insurance seems a bit of a risky behavior given the crazy things we do. That should be elegal also :lol
BTW, I was asked by an insurance company 10 years ago to sign a paper that said that I would not ever sky dive again in order to keep the price of the life insurance down. See? It is doable without laws. Put it in the contract.
-
selling insurance seems a bit of a risky behavior given the crazy things we do.
when you aggregate the risks its actually quite lucrative :bolt:
-
That should be elegal also :lol
Are you just trying to cash in on the hip "internet e-age" by saying e-legal?
That should be illegal to speak that way! :lol