• Protip: Profile posts are public! Use Conversations to message other members privately. Everyone can see the content of a profile post.

bad bike accident

bodypainter said:
Well, that opens a can of worms. Can I decline to subsidize anyone's ass because they smoked and got lung cancer or because they were speeding and got in an accident or because they ate too much crap and got fat or drank until they got liver disease or masturbated until they went blind?
the government should have stayed out of health care. now that they are in it you can expect more and more BS. i look at it this way. smokers dies early and save billions in social security costs. the increased cost for medical care is offset by the decreased cost of the pensions. so smoking does not upset the feds nearly as much as riding without a helmet. that tends to kill young people before they have had a chance to pay 40% of their income into that sucking hole called the federal budget.
 
Zennsx said:
Whos to determine what a reasonable risk is? OURSELVES and not the government.

NO freaking way. You are not capable of determining what is reasonable. That is a societal issue.

You ride your stupid bike w/o a helmet and expect the State to cover the costs of your rehabilitation. I like how this works. Whatever YOU do is "reasonable" and whatever anyone else does is "idiotic." Pretty close?
 
liftshard said:
NO freaking way. You are not capable of determining what is reasonable. That is a societal issue.

You ride your stupid bike w/o a helmet and expect the State to cover the costs of your rehabilitation. I like how this works. Whatever YOU do is "reasonable" and whatever anyone else does is "idiotic." Pretty close?

I rest my case. :wink:
 
Zennsx said:
Why does the government feel the need to try and save us from ourselves? If you dont want to wear a helmet that should be your choice left up to you , not some bureaucrats in Washington. Where does it stop? And if you look hard enough you can find a statistic or a so called study to prove almost anything..

Welcome to Big Brother land.

What is next? Condom laws? I can just picture the cop writing the citation now...

"You wearin a rubber son?- No!? I am afraid I will have to cite you for a violation of section 6969 of the sexual contact code..." :eek:

Think about it... Unplanned parenthood has an effect on society, and healthcare costs too- Society better step up And make sure everyone having sex outside of wed-lock is rubberizing or you all might see a tax increase to subsidize the unplanned children!

The average Joe Schmoe shouldn't be able to make a decision that is going to affect me! What if he doesn't pull out in time?!?!?! There ought to be a law!

Or maybe that is going too far?

Where is "far enough" that we might determine "too far"?

Why does the government feel the need to protect me from myself?

Maybe the govenment should mind it's own business? Leave me with the consequences of my actions too...

I am willing to accept responsibility for my choices.

That isn't the way it is though is it? Nope! And it is never going to change either.

For this reason I hate seatbelt laws too- Why must the government go so far to protect me from myself? Insurance costs?

I like my seatbelt- I wear it pretty much all the time by choice, but the thought that I can now be pulled over for forgetting to put it on kind of pisses me off. I am an adult- I should be allowed to make my own choices.

We don't have helmet laws here in Texas, but the cops mandate that you wear them seatbelts buddy!

What a moron-a-thon. :rolleyes:

I admit, I am a helmet advocate- but ONLY FOR ME!
I don't ride motorcycles (yet) but I have been dreaming of one lately. When I get one I will probably wear a helmet and leathers.
I am the first to admit that I like helmets. I wear one when I ride my mountain bike- I do it because I want to, not because someone tells me I have to- I don't set out on a trail to ride smack into a tree, or to fall down at all, but I wear one anyway. Call it preventative maintainence.

That is a choice I make- for me, not because I have to, but because I WANT to.

Helmet laws- I am against them. You should be able to make your own choices.

Besides these laws designed to protect us go against Darwinian theory.
When I see that idiot pull up next to me at a stoplight- you know the guy- Early 20's- shorts, flip flops, t-shirt riding a Yamaha R-1; I figure that is just natural selection at work.
To insist on protecting that guy goes against SCIENCE! :D

- Then again, he probably doesn't pull out in time either...

You guys should be able to make your own risk assesments. I will make mine when the time comes.

Philip
 
Last edited:
H-carWizKid said:
Welcome to Big Brother land.

What is next? Condom laws? I can just picture the cop writing the citation now...

"You wearin a rubber son?- No!? I am afraid I will have to cite you for a violation of section 6969 of the sexual contact code..." :eek:

Think about it... Unplanned parenthood has an effect on society, and healthcare costs too- Society better step up And make sure everyone having sex outside of wed-lock is rubberizing or you all might see a tax increase to subsidize the unplanned children!

The average Joe Schmoe shouldn't be able to make a decision that is going to affect me! What if he doesn't pull out in time?!?!?! There ought to be a law!

Or maybe that is going too far?

Where is "far enough" that we might determine "too far"?

Why does the government feel the need to protect me from myself?

Maybe the govenment should mind it's own business? Leave me with the consequences of my actions too...

I am willing to accept responsibility for my choices.

That isn't the way it is though is it? Nope! And it is never going to change either.

For this reason I hate seatbelt laws too- Why must the government go so far to protect me from myself? Insurance costs?

I like my seatbelt- I wear it pretty much all the time by choice, but the thought that I can now be pulled over for forgetting to put it on kind of pisses me off. I am an adult- I should be allowed to make my own choices.

We don't have helmet laws here in Texas, but the cops mandate that you wear them seatbelts buddy!

What a moron-a-thon. :rolleyes:

I admit, I am a helmet advocate- but ONLY FOR ME!
I don't ride motorcycles (yet) but I have been dreaming of one lately. When I get one I will probably wear a helmet and leathers.
I am the first to admit that I like helmets. I wear one when I ride my mountain bike- I do it because I want to, not because someone tells me I have to- I don't set out on a trail to ride smack into a tree, or to fall down at all, but I wear one anyway. Call it preventative maintainence.

That is a choice I make- for me, not because I have to, but because I WANT to.

Helmet laws- I am against them. You should be able to make your own choices.

Besides these laws designed to protect us go against Darwinian theory.
When I see that idiot pull up next to me at a stoplight- you know the guy- Early 20's- shorts, flip flops, t-shirt riding a Yamaha R-1; I figure that is just natural selection at work.
To insist on protecting that guy goes against SCIENCE! :D

- Then again, he probably doesn't pull out in time either...

You guys should be able to make your own risk assesments. I will make mine when the time comes.

Philip


Hehehe - this thread is like a bear awakening from winter hibernation. Not my fault. :biggrin:

Having read the entire thread - here's my take:

1. Most of the posts, both for and against helmets, are guilty of "slippery slope" logic fallacy. Meaning, if something is taken as true/fact/given/accepted THEN THEREFORE a related but extreme example must/can also be taken as true/fact/given/accepted. In this case, helmets = safer = true = regulated SO, helmets = safer = car driving = ____ = regulated.

In other words, the government CAN stipulate that helmets are required for motorcycles without "necessarily" having to require them for other less dangerous activities such as driving or when walking your dog.

2. Risk assessment and statistics. Properly gathered statistics "aren't always wrong" as folks like to often think. It's the interpretation and use of the data that can really be misleading. This is critically important in peoples' INDIVIDUAL assessment of the risk of riding, with or without a helmet. Each person's decision is made by analyzing the *actual* risk of biking and that person's tolerance to that level of risk. Depending on which is greater, you'll either ride or not (or w w/o a helmet). While a person can potentially be "wrong" in assessing their personal level of risk tolerance, they are far more likely to be "wrong" in assessing the actual risk of the activity which is what gets people hurt - people can be so pitifully bad at interpreting data. Think Katrina, Iraq WMDs, as instances where we had data but interpreted it poorly. Further, interpreting data is most difficult when a person is already a participant in the data set. If you ask a motorcyclist for their actual risk assessment it will likely be lower risk than what a non motorcyclist would say. So, a biker might say "statistically, I have a 1/1000 chance of a no-fault wreck every time I ride, which I personally am willing to tolerate with a helmet. If the actual risk decreased to 1/5000, I would tolerate that lower risk even without a helmet." Now, a non-biker that has a low risk tolerance - if you asked that person what the actual risk was, they would likely say the actual risk is much higher, maybe 1/100. The actual risk is a single, statistically "provable" figure for a given area/time/etc, but people don't base their motorcycling decision on that single fact. Ask the guy that rode 100mph, in shorts, around a corner, in the rain, what he thought the actual risk of a crash was before he wrecked. His number would undoubtedly (no matter how risk tolerant) be much lower than what an impartial observer (knowing the biker's skill) would predict. Keep that prediction "error" in mind when you ask a biker "As long as I'm safe/responsible, how risky is it really???"
 
Back
Top