Helmet laws
- Thread starter bigern_05Busa
- Start date
RaveCrusader
Registered
It is touchy, but I like hearing the contrast of opinions. I think I am going to respond to the dude's post. He made some good points, really made me think hard to validate my opinion.
I like it when people make me re-think my own position on things. Nice to dust the cobb webs out of my gord.
RaveCrusader
Registered
The Dude makes some good points. Here are some counter points I came up with, some may not agree.How about you run through a few of your life choices?
You a smoker?
Do you like to drink? If so how often do you drink?
Do you have other dangerous hobbies(Jet skis, climbing)?
How fast is your car?
How often do you exercise?
Are you overweight?
How often do you eat red meat? Sugar?
We can all get vote together help you come up some better decisions to help you do things better for yourself. Sound good?
Yea, so that's my point.It's not so much the foot in the door as much as its none of your goddamn business how I choose to live.
Do you like to drink? If so how often do you drink?
How often do you eat red meat? Sugar?
How often do you exercise?
Are you overweight?
You a smoker?
The level of danger involved for eating red meat once, having one sugar cube, smoking one cigarette, having one drink, missing one day of exercise or being overweight is far lower then a single motorcycle ride. All those things can have a cumulative effect over time. On a single bike ride, no matter the distance or speed, whether it be your first ride or you 100,000 ride the danger from not wearing a helmet is always significant. It only takes one crash without a helmet to kill you. There is no real sliding scale unless you factor in rider experience but even then it is still virtually immaterial. Random things can happen to even the most experienced riders, way too many other factors apply simultaneously.
How fast is your car?
Even if your car is fast you still have to wear a seatbelt and obey regular traffic laws. The same safety rules apply because there is a minimum standard. A faster or slower car is not always a determinant of safety. If you are not wearing a helmet your danger of death from head trauma is still significant whether you are riding a Hayabusa or a moped. Anything over about 10 miles an hour has a potential to cause serious head trauma.
Do you have other dangerous hobbies(Jet skis, climbing)?
Dangerous hobbies are certainly where I classify riding. I would not classify wearing a helmet as a ‘lifestyle choice.’ Choosing to be a vegetarian or choosing to never drive a car is more of a lifestyle choice then safety. But even in dangerous hobbies safety has been legislated before, even at the state and local level. On many lakes and rivers there are ‘no wake’ zones or ‘life vest’ ordinances. I classify those in the same arena as helmet laws.
We can all get vote together help you come up some better decisions to help you do things better for yourself. Sound good?
What you do in the privacy of your own home is one thing but when using public facilities with other members of the general public, i.e. streets and roads, there should be minimum safety standards. That why there are safety standards on cars, speed limits and right of way laws. It is not about mothering as much as it is making rules that benefit everyone. It reminds me of the military or healthcare in some ways. There are times when you may not agree with or believe in a rule but it is there for a good reason. The overall affect of a rule or law should be definitive, significant and beneficial. I think that a helmet law qualifies in all three areas.
It's not so much the foot in the door as much as it’s none of your goddamn business how I choose to live.
I don’t consider a bare minimum safety law a significant intrusion into either my lifestyle or my freedom of choice. Anything beyond a helmet law or a helmet law that was suspiciously specific I would not agree with. I still think that people should wear more then just a helmet but I would never agree on legislating it. I think that riding is not a right, it is a privilege. And with all with all privileges there are rules to using them or you will lose them. I think that minimal safety provisioning when using some privileges is still acceptable.
Well done, and nicely thought out. Here is my response:
The level of danger involved for eating red meat once, having one sugar cube, smoking one cigarette, having one drink, missing one day of exercise or being overweight is far lower then a single motorcycle ride. All those things can have a cumulative effect over time. On a single bike ride, no matter the distance or speed, whether it be your first ride or you 100,000 ride the danger from not wearing a helmet is always significant. It only takes one crash without a helmet to kill you. There is no real sliding scale unless you factor in rider experience but even then it is still virtually immaterial. Random things can happen to even the most experienced riders, way too many other factors apply simultaneously.
Ok honestly this argument kinda lost me a tad.
I'll just say this and you can let me know if it addresses your argurment sufficiently:
It only takes one crash WITH a helmet to kill you(granted it might be slightly easier to die without it). Motorcycling in general can kill you quickly with or without a helmet, so should we consider legislation to ban it?
Conversely you can wreck several times without a helmet and live. In short (not that it particulary matters to my argument, if there was guaranteed death it still wouldnt matter) a helmet is not the sole (or the most important) determining factor of your survival in an accident.
Even if your car is fast you still have to wear a seatbelt and obey regular traffic laws. The same safety rules apply because there is a minimum standard. A faster or slower car is not always a determinant of safety. If you are not wearing a helmet your danger of death from head trauma is still significant whether you are riding a Hayabusa or a moped. Anything over about 10 miles an hour has a potential to cause serious head trauma.
Speed is a major contributing factor in survival of an auto accident so you don't mind if I speed restrict your car to 65 Instead of allowing you to use your own judgement to drive like a sane human being? Would that be ok(I can tell you the state would HATE that)?
Also statistically speaking your chance of death on a motorcycle is small, your chance of death due solely to head trauma based on not wearing a helmet is extremely small. I can calculate it if you like but trust me its extremely small risk. (not that any of this matters to my argument)
Dangerous hobbies are certainly where I classify riding. I would not classify wearing a helmet as a ‘lifestyle choice.’ Choosing to be a vegetarian or choosing to never drive a car is more of a lifestyle choice then safety. But even in dangerous hobbies safety has been legislated before, even at the state and local level. On many lakes and rivers there are ‘no wake’ zones or ‘life vest’ ordinances. I classify those in the same arena as helmet laws.
Personally I wouldnt classify riding as dangerous in the overall scheme of things (look at the statistics for deaths, its a tiny bit higher than cars) of course where I classify something is completly subjective to me. Maybe you think driving a car is "dangerous", I dont. The point is that we both have different levels of risk assessment. Answer me this: why your subjective opinion (and its nothing more than that) about the level of risk I should take is more valid than mine?
Also, the fact that something has been legislated before is not a very good argument. If my argument was that someone couldn't make a law that would be a good argument, but my argument is that they should't(not cannot) make a law. Lots of things have been legislated before doesnt exactly make them right(prohibition, segragation, suicide is about the funniest one, etc).
What you do in the privacy of your own home is one thing but when using public facilities with other members of the general public, i.e. streets and roads, there should be minimum safety standards. That why there are safety standards on cars, speed limits and right of way laws.
So I'm not allow to hurt myself in public? Not wearing a helmet is not going to make a significant difference to the other drivers safety in a motorcycle accident. Is my head a more lethal weapon without a helmet?
The point of safety measures are(or should be) to protect others(including car mfgrs) that dont share your same level of risk assesment from hurting you.
It is not about mothering as much as it is making rules that benefit everyone. It reminds me of the military or healthcare in some ways. There are times when you may not agree with or believe in a rule but it is there for a good reason. The overall affect of a rule or law should be definitive, significant and beneficial. I think that a helmet law qualifies in all three areas.
My belief(I hate that word BTW) in the rule doesn't have anything to do with it. I always(except 1 time) wear a helmet on the street. So I support wearing a helmet and not taking what is in my opinion an unnessesary risk. Of course that's my opinion, and I can respect that someone may not agree with my assessment. The point is that my wearing a helmet does not have a significant effect on anyone else's safety. Yes, I'm sure there is the rare case(bird in the head or something), but there is also the rare case where the helmet snaps your neck or slides over your eyes/etc.
I don’t consider a bare minimum safety law a significant intrusion into either my lifestyle or my freedom of choice.
We'll its certainly an intrusion into your freedom of choice, that much is a fact. Whether or not its significant is subjective. I can tell you its significant to some people.
Why should your opinon about someone else's choice be more important than their own? Especially when it has no direct effect on you? It makes you sound like a busy-body. Worse than that it goes against the defining principle that the country was founded on(freedom).
I really have a hard time understanding the justification of this attitude. Do you think you're(well not you specifically, I'm speaking in general terms) smarter/morally superior to everyone else? Or what exactly causes this?
Why is your(again, general) OPINION on how much risk someone should take better than that persons?
<!--EDIT|TheDude27
Reason for Edit: None given...|1150429461 -->
The level of danger involved for eating red meat once, having one sugar cube, smoking one cigarette, having one drink, missing one day of exercise or being overweight is far lower then a single motorcycle ride. All those things can have a cumulative effect over time. On a single bike ride, no matter the distance or speed, whether it be your first ride or you 100,000 ride the danger from not wearing a helmet is always significant. It only takes one crash without a helmet to kill you. There is no real sliding scale unless you factor in rider experience but even then it is still virtually immaterial. Random things can happen to even the most experienced riders, way too many other factors apply simultaneously.
Ok honestly this argument kinda lost me a tad.
I'll just say this and you can let me know if it addresses your argurment sufficiently:
It only takes one crash WITH a helmet to kill you(granted it might be slightly easier to die without it). Motorcycling in general can kill you quickly with or without a helmet, so should we consider legislation to ban it?
Conversely you can wreck several times without a helmet and live. In short (not that it particulary matters to my argument, if there was guaranteed death it still wouldnt matter) a helmet is not the sole (or the most important) determining factor of your survival in an accident.
Even if your car is fast you still have to wear a seatbelt and obey regular traffic laws. The same safety rules apply because there is a minimum standard. A faster or slower car is not always a determinant of safety. If you are not wearing a helmet your danger of death from head trauma is still significant whether you are riding a Hayabusa or a moped. Anything over about 10 miles an hour has a potential to cause serious head trauma.
Speed is a major contributing factor in survival of an auto accident so you don't mind if I speed restrict your car to 65 Instead of allowing you to use your own judgement to drive like a sane human being? Would that be ok(I can tell you the state would HATE that)?
Also statistically speaking your chance of death on a motorcycle is small, your chance of death due solely to head trauma based on not wearing a helmet is extremely small. I can calculate it if you like but trust me its extremely small risk. (not that any of this matters to my argument)
Dangerous hobbies are certainly where I classify riding. I would not classify wearing a helmet as a ‘lifestyle choice.’ Choosing to be a vegetarian or choosing to never drive a car is more of a lifestyle choice then safety. But even in dangerous hobbies safety has been legislated before, even at the state and local level. On many lakes and rivers there are ‘no wake’ zones or ‘life vest’ ordinances. I classify those in the same arena as helmet laws.
Personally I wouldnt classify riding as dangerous in the overall scheme of things (look at the statistics for deaths, its a tiny bit higher than cars) of course where I classify something is completly subjective to me. Maybe you think driving a car is "dangerous", I dont. The point is that we both have different levels of risk assessment. Answer me this: why your subjective opinion (and its nothing more than that) about the level of risk I should take is more valid than mine?
Also, the fact that something has been legislated before is not a very good argument. If my argument was that someone couldn't make a law that would be a good argument, but my argument is that they should't(not cannot) make a law. Lots of things have been legislated before doesnt exactly make them right(prohibition, segragation, suicide is about the funniest one, etc).
What you do in the privacy of your own home is one thing but when using public facilities with other members of the general public, i.e. streets and roads, there should be minimum safety standards. That why there are safety standards on cars, speed limits and right of way laws.
So I'm not allow to hurt myself in public? Not wearing a helmet is not going to make a significant difference to the other drivers safety in a motorcycle accident. Is my head a more lethal weapon without a helmet?
The point of safety measures are(or should be) to protect others(including car mfgrs) that dont share your same level of risk assesment from hurting you.
It is not about mothering as much as it is making rules that benefit everyone. It reminds me of the military or healthcare in some ways. There are times when you may not agree with or believe in a rule but it is there for a good reason. The overall affect of a rule or law should be definitive, significant and beneficial. I think that a helmet law qualifies in all three areas.
My belief(I hate that word BTW) in the rule doesn't have anything to do with it. I always(except 1 time) wear a helmet on the street. So I support wearing a helmet and not taking what is in my opinion an unnessesary risk. Of course that's my opinion, and I can respect that someone may not agree with my assessment. The point is that my wearing a helmet does not have a significant effect on anyone else's safety. Yes, I'm sure there is the rare case(bird in the head or something), but there is also the rare case where the helmet snaps your neck or slides over your eyes/etc.
I don’t consider a bare minimum safety law a significant intrusion into either my lifestyle or my freedom of choice.
We'll its certainly an intrusion into your freedom of choice, that much is a fact. Whether or not its significant is subjective. I can tell you its significant to some people.
Why should your opinon about someone else's choice be more important than their own? Especially when it has no direct effect on you? It makes you sound like a busy-body. Worse than that it goes against the defining principle that the country was founded on(freedom).
I really have a hard time understanding the justification of this attitude. Do you think you're(well not you specifically, I'm speaking in general terms) smarter/morally superior to everyone else? Or what exactly causes this?
Why is your(again, general) OPINION on how much risk someone should take better than that persons?
<!--EDIT|TheDude27
Reason for Edit: None given...|1150429461 -->
One more thing
How on earth does that first line make sense? How is it fundamentally any different than the helmet thing that you think should be legislated?
BTW whats the difference between a right and a privilege?
RaveCrusader
Registered
I don’t believe that I am smarter or morally superior to anyone. I am just a regular guy. I feel that I have an immense amount of freedom as an American, even if I do have to wear a helmet here in Nevada. I like the debate on the issue more then anything else. I still think you make some excellent points, really gets me thinking. I appreciate well thought points of view.
My experience in this area is uncommon. I have laid down a few bikes in my life and a helmet saved my one time, for certain. I grew up and learned how to ride in New Mexico, where there still is no Helmet law. I learned how to ride at 15 and have been riding ever since. I actually used to feel the same way about it that you do until I started working in Healthcare when I was 18. I started out as an EMT and working in the ER in the local Trauma center. Not only would we run on motorcycle wrecks of all types and severities but I saw, first hand, what the difference was between helmets and no helmets in overall injuries. I remember a couple of times what it was like to have to scoop someone’s brains up after a bad bike wreck.
You are right about one thing, statistics can be debated. I have seen statistics that show both sides, to me it seems more about how the input data is lined up. My assessment for the danger for head trauma I firmly believe in due to my medical training and experience in emergency medicine. It does not take much of a knock on the head to scramble your eggs pretty bad.
As for the rest, you are right. I cannot definitively prove, for many peoples’ satisfaction, that I am correct. I can only assure you that I am far from a ‘busy body’. I just feel that a lot of what I saw was avoidable if people would wear proper gear.
Seriously, you make some really good points dude. Hard to debate.
My experience in this area is uncommon. I have laid down a few bikes in my life and a helmet saved my one time, for certain. I grew up and learned how to ride in New Mexico, where there still is no Helmet law. I learned how to ride at 15 and have been riding ever since. I actually used to feel the same way about it that you do until I started working in Healthcare when I was 18. I started out as an EMT and working in the ER in the local Trauma center. Not only would we run on motorcycle wrecks of all types and severities but I saw, first hand, what the difference was between helmets and no helmets in overall injuries. I remember a couple of times what it was like to have to scoop someone’s brains up after a bad bike wreck.
You are right about one thing, statistics can be debated. I have seen statistics that show both sides, to me it seems more about how the input data is lined up. My assessment for the danger for head trauma I firmly believe in due to my medical training and experience in emergency medicine. It does not take much of a knock on the head to scramble your eggs pretty bad.
As for the rest, you are right. I cannot definitively prove, for many peoples’ satisfaction, that I am correct. I can only assure you that I am far from a ‘busy body’. I just feel that a lot of what I saw was avoidable if people would wear proper gear.
Seriously, you make some really good points dude. Hard to debate.
What irritates me the most about this whole debate is that I wear my helmet 100 % of the time. It doesn't matter what the temperature is or how good my haircut looks. I wear the helmet and while I think everyone should wear one... I don't think I have the Right to make them conform to what I think is right. My neighbor wears his helmet off and on... IT is his decision and should continue to be so. Its like my f-ing doctor telling me I have to quit smoking and then he takes my pack of cigarettes out of the trash and lights one up.
As far as those of you who think that wearing your seatbelt or putting your helmet on is going to reduce your insurance... YOUR out of your minds! It may reduce what insurance companies pay out but they are not going to reduce your rates. People should pretty much mind thier own f'ing business and worry about themselves.
<!--EDIT|jessup
Reason for Edit: "the f bomb slipped by..."|1150432305 -->
As far as those of you who think that wearing your seatbelt or putting your helmet on is going to reduce your insurance... YOUR out of your minds! It may reduce what insurance companies pay out but they are not going to reduce your rates. People should pretty much mind thier own f'ing business and worry about themselves.
<!--EDIT|jessup
Reason for Edit: "the f bomb slipped by..."|1150432305 -->
RaveCrusader
Registered
Good questions. I will answer them tomorrow. I have a test in the morning and then I have to work all day. But I will get back to them.One more thing
How on earth does that first line make sense? How is it fundamentally any different than the helmet thing that you think should be legislated?Spine protectors (which I wear), armor, etc can certianly make the difference between life and death.
BTW whats the difference between a right and a privilege?
Similar threads
