Bicycle Helmets

[repiV]

Would what you tell yourself about my opinions happen to be that I think government has a proper role in some things, and not in other things?

The mere fact that you referred to the roads as "government roads" suggests that, whether consciously or not, you see them as the property of the government and not of the public.

That would be absolutely retarded and in my opinion a place where government has no role. And there are currently laws enacted by the very same government to prevent things like this.

How is it any more retarded than a seatbelt law? It's the exact same principle.

We simply happen to disagree on the law of seatbelt safety... that's all there is to it.

No, it's not. It's not about seatbelt safety, it's about what aspects of life the government does and does not have the right to get involved in.

If the government has the right to make any laws which are "for our own good", then we are little more than children for the entirety of our lives.

Yeah... I don't know how things work in the UK, but here we have laws that restrict people how they're allowed to use their private property... their homes. If they own their homes, that doesn't give them the right to do anything they want. They can't open up a business in their home or on their property if they're not properly zoned for it.

As well, they cannot make certain constructions to their property or additions to their homes without having proper construction/building permits.

That's more of an administrative law rather than a prescriptive one. The purpose and effect aren't really comparable.

It doesn't hurt me... it hurts my car when you fly out of your vehicle through the windshield and ruin my paint job and body work.

Clutching at straws. Big time.

In fact, on the same principle shouldn't we ban motorbikes because I might fly off and ruin your paintjob and bodywork?

I'm so reckless on the internet I'm not only a danger to myself, I'm a danger to everybody around me.

There's one thing that you and everyone else who posts silly amounts on HL2.net have in common (except for Stern, as he's just whiling away his time at work) - you all seem to suffer from extreme depression. I'm afraid it's not a coincidence...

How is that missing the point? If you don't like it, don't do it. I completely understand that doesn't change the situation, but it's one of your only alternatives until you talk with your member of parliament or however it works over there in the UK, to get things changed.

You're missing the point because the point is that the government shouldn't have the right to put me in that position in the first place. Likewise, if I want to go tearing down empty country roads on my bike for my Sunday morning fun, that's none of their business either because it isn't harming anyone.

We happened upon a police speed trap last summer at 6am on a Sunday morning on a deserted road in the middle of nowhere that is frequented by bikers and hardly anyone else (certainly nobody at that time of day). Who exactly is that supposed to protect?

I live a happy, healthy and productive life, bring joy to others and make a positive contribution to the world whenever I can. If those authoritarian twats think they have the right to ruin my fun or otherwise interfere in my life "for my own good" and give me a patronising lecture in the process, they can **** right off.

 

[Sulkdodds]

I pay my taxes for those services. If you don't want to have to deal with things like that, don't work for one of the emergency services. Simple really.

...

So? If you take that argument to its logical conclusion, then we wouldn't be able to do anything that might maybe somehow possibly indirectly affect someone else.

I think Raziaar's gone off on rather a fruitless tangent in arguing against this, and his points aren't really making sense. They amount to "it's the government herp derp." But the point here is that it makes sense for the government to enact such laws when they're necessary. When you have a health service (and you should) then there is a certain point where personal safety should be enforced because the personal is linked to the public. There's no need to bring up the slippery slope of a "logical conclusion", though. All I'd propose is that when the benefit of safety measures is great enough, and when they are easy enough to observe, they should perhaps be enforced. A helmet should be personal choice because it's not necessarily very effective. But seatbelts have proven benefits and while I realise there's a principle at stake it is not asking much to put one on. It's an extra few seconds, a mere arm movement, and it doesn't affect your driving or comfort. It's probably more reasonable to demand everyone make that tiny effort than it is to pay for the care of people who would die without it.

Of course, I should probably prove that seatbelt legislation actually does make people wear seatbelts - otherwise there's rather a hole in my argument. Even then, here will always be some people who ignore the law. Not everyone who wears a seatbelt survives, not everyone who doesn't dies, and if nobody wore them they wouldn't all die - so it's a bit shaky. Nevertheless there may be a good case the balance of things.

EDIT: so yeah studies and shit I dunno

 

[Raziaar]

I think Raziaar's gone off on rather a fruitless tangent in arguing against this, and his points aren't really making sense. They amount to "it's the government herp derp."

 

[repiV]

I think Raziaar's gone off on rather a fruitless tangent in arguing against this, and his points aren't really making sense. They amount to "it's the government herp derp." But the point here is that it makes sense for the government to enact such laws when they're necessary. When you have a health service (and you should) then there is a certain point where personal safety should be enforced because the personal is linked to the public.

That attitude is exactly why they don't want a public health service in the USA.

There's no need to bring up the slippery slope of a "logical conclusion", though. All I'd propose is that when the benefit of safety measures is great enough, and when they are easy enough to observe, they should perhaps be enforced. A helmet should be personal choice because it's not necessarily very effective. But seatbelts have proven benefits and while I realise there's a principle at stake it is not asking much to put one on. It's an extra few seconds, a mere arm movement, and it doesn't affect your driving or comfort. It's probably more reasonable to demand everyone make that tiny effort than it is to pay for the care of people who would die without it.

Of course, I should probably prove that seatbelt legislation actually does make people wear seatbelts - otherwise there's rather a hole in my argument. Even then, here will always be some people who ignore the law. Not everyone who wears a seatbelt survives, not everyone who doesn't dies, and if nobody wore them they wouldn't all die - so it's a bit shaky. Nevertheless there may be a good case the balance of things.

EDIT: so yeah studies and shit I dunno

Either the NHS is for everyone, or it's for noone. Leaving aside the question of how exactly you are supposed to have a fair system for rating the danger level of various activities/habits and setting the bar at which it becomes unacceptable, I pay my taxes to be treated when I fall ill. The causes are ultimately irrelevant.

If that's going to change, then perhaps the Americans are dead right.

 

[Sulkdodds]

So you don't think there's any point whatsoever at which a safety measure is slight enough and beneficial enough that it makes sense to create a crime that has no victim but the public purse (and the perpetrator, voluntarily)?

 

[jverne]

You're all disregarding the safety of your hair; if I was to have an accident, I'd like to keep my hairdo intact, which is why I think we should mandate all cyclists wear hairmets.

Having your hair intact while your face looks like a pulp won't get you too many women.

 

[PvtRyan]

Why not: you get caught without a seatbelt and instead of getting a fine, your insurance premium gets raised. It'd be perfectly fair, but aside from that it's not the government doing it to you, what would be the difference?

 

[the cow says moo]

Having your hair intact while your face looks like a pulp won't get you too many women.

Well, let me ask you a queston. Would you rather slip into a coma or become mentally unfit because you decided to wear a face mask instead of a helmet, or would you rather have a scarred face... with great hair? If you're really lucky, you could pull it off and look badass with a scar. Then who's getting all the women?

 

[Vegeta897]

This thread is bicycle-helmet retarded.

 

[Raziaar]

 

[morgs]

I say personal choice, so the idiots who decide not to use them die and prevent their idiot genes from being passed on.

 

[Wanted Bob]

I voted for the first option, mostly because I'm not quite sure why this should be different from mandatory seatbelt laws (*goes back and reads thread*).

 

[BabyHeadCrab]

I feel somewhat biased seeing as bicycle helmets have saved my life on multiple occasions.

 

[Dynasty]

I wouldnt say a helmet has ever saved my life. But then again, I dont really fall off these days.

As a kid I used to wear them of course, but when you fall off as a kid, or for me anyway, it was always my arms or legs that got all the damage. You hit that tarmac or gravel and you lose half a stone.

I do remember hitting my head once though. Coming out, down my drive on my way to my first day of work I leant down to get round the corner onto the road, and my pedal smacked the pavement raised above the road. I went down like a sack of ***t on that side, slamming my head with a whiplash effect apparently (due to my mum being in the garden and seeing it happen).

As far as I remember, one minute I was going down thinking 'Uh oh', next I was looking up at the sky with my mum dragging me out from under my bike and back up the drive.

I was concussed and spent the rest of the day in hospital.

So yeah, they can help. But if you get hit by a car, which is more likely, a helmet wont save you.

Motorbikes are a complete different story though of course.

 

[15357]

I say personal choice, so the idiots who decide not to use them die and prevent their idiot genes from being passed on.

What about the kids? They might not know enough to use a helmet.

Also: Being an idiot doesn't mean that he is not part of the Labor Manpower pool.

 

[hool10]

This has nothing to do with riding a bike but if he was wearing one, he might be ok today. It's a good story too.

When I was like 8, I was friends with these 2 kids in my neighborhood who were slightly older than me. They were moving to Florida because the job that their father got required them to move. Well anyways they were two brothers and we all liked soccer and they had a little sister who was like 3.

Well we were kicking a soccer ball back and forth over the driveway to prevent it from getting into a goal net. Now Robert was extremely clumsy. He would constantly get hurt and the older brother would always be like "how did you do that to get hurt?!". Well when I had the ball I accidentally kicked the ball a little too short. Instead of kicking it where it was, Robert dove for the soccer and landed on his head onto the pavement.

Now what happened fairly quickly I will never forget. He was in immense pain and there was a bloody line on his forehead. I'm standing there in shock that I hurt my friend and his brother tries to help him up. Robert just wants to stay there with a bloody head so he goes for his mom. His mom is in total survival mode that her son is in danger and helps him up and says she has to dial 911. When Robert was going inside with a towel on his head he is dripping blood along the way. The little sister comes out wondering whats going on with her blanket. He accidentally drips blood on the sisters blanket and she starts screaming. In less than 3 minutes they leave.

That was the last time I played with my friends before they left. When they came back to pick up some things, we learned that Robert had a "linear skull fracture" http://www.webmd.com/fitness-exercise/head-injury and had tons of stitches on him. So I really urge to wear your helmet to prevent that or becoming brain dead. If you don't wear a helmet it's you and the object, not you>helmet>then object. I can't begin to describe the horror that I felt that the entire family went into survival mode and I felt like I caused it (when it really wasn't my fault).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLHedAnYc6k

I could tell you stories that I have had with seat belts too but this isn't about seat belts (but wear them).

 

[Dodo]

I live in Amsterdam and have been biking all my life. I can honestly tell you: you're all a bunch of girly fags.
I've never ever fallen in a way that a helmet would "save my life" and if I get hit by a taxi doing 60 a helmet wouldn't save my legs, ribs, spine or neck. Only my skull, which in turn doesn't matter as the helmet would come flying off after ripping off my jaw with that stupid strap. plus you look like a complete idiot, you might as well go shopping with your helmet on.

 

[15357]

I live in amsterdam and have been biking all my life. I can honestly tell you: youre all a bunch of girly fags.
I've never ever fallen in a way that a helmet would "save my life" and if I get hit by a taxi doing 60 a helmet wouldnt save my legs, ribs, spine or neck. Only my skull, which it turn doesnt matter as the helmet would come flying off after ripping off my jaw with that stupid strap. plus you look like a complete idiot, you might as well go shopping with your helmet on.

Why aren't you wearing leg pads, knee protectors, chest armor, spine plates, and neck holders?

 

[StarBob]

Why aren't you wearing leg pads, knee protectors, chest armor, spine plates, and neck holders?

Reading leg pads and knee protectors... I was thinking "this seems ok."

When I got to chest armor... I started thinking about medieval warriors.

Spine plates took me to a world of Stegosaurus.

Neck holders made me think of something along the lines of bookends.

 

[Eejit]

I'm a firm believer that issues of my personal safety are my personal choice, and not a matter for the state.

Seatbelts aren't just personal safety though, are they?
They prevent people from smashing around inside the car, quite likely injuring other occupants, as well as preventing them from flying out through the windscreen and potentially injuring other motorists or pedestrians.

I see them as quite a different issue from helmets.

 

[Insano]

I now visualize an accident where a guy is about to get hit by a car, but the car stops just in time. He sighs but a second later gets hit by ten people flying through the windshield.

 

[Eejit]

It's like that surfboard on top of that car in that Lethal Weapon film idk which one and the car brakes and it flies off and impales a driver in the car facing them. But with humans instead of surfboards.

 

[jondy]

I now visualize an accident where a guy is about to get hit by a car, but the car stops just in time. He sighs but a second later gets hit by ten people flying through the windshield.

haha like a busload of people

I wear a helmet because I've been in accidents where the outcome, which was completely beyond my control, was pretty severe concussion. Previous to that I thought they were pretty uncool, but after the vomiting etc. you learn to disregard that kind of thing and anyways with decent shades it doesn't look too bad.

I'm not sure they should be compulsory; like we see in this thread it's a long debate if you want to make them a legal requirement. Don't underestimate the protection they provide, though, and if you ride in a lot of traffic and do enough miles (commuters, mainly), chances are you'll be a situation beyond your control where a helmet will be useful.

 

[Raziaar]

Reading leg pads and knee protectors... I was thinking "this seems ok."

When I got to chest armor... I started thinking about medieval warriors.

Spine plates took me to a world of Stegosaurus.

Neck holders made me think of something along the lines of bookends.

That's EXACTLY how I read it and imagined it too! Though for neck holders, I was thinking pencil holder cups.

 

[repiV]

So you don't think there's any point whatsoever at which a safety measure is slight enough and beneficial enough that it makes sense to create a crime that has no victim but the public purse (and the perpetrator, voluntarily)?

No. If you want to save public funds, how about cutting all the total BS they spend the majority of the money on and putting some accountability into the system. Not by compromising people's freedom.

Besides which, as far as dangerous activities go, getting in a car without a seatbelt is very far down the list. Surely you'd have to ban everything that's more dangerous also.

Seatbelts aren't just personal safety though, are they?
They prevent people from smashing around inside the car, quite likely injuring other occupants, as well as preventing them from flying out through the windscreen and potentially injuring other motorists or pedestrians.

I see them as quite a different issue from helmets.

What if the other occupants are happy to take that risk? If they aren't, then it's their responsibility to say so.

Also, taxi drivers don't have to wear seatbelts.

 

[Raziaar]

No. If you want to save public funds, how about cutting all the total BS they spend the majority of the money on and putting some accountability into the system. Not by compromising people's freedom.

In a National Health Care System scenario... seatbelt legislation saves money.

I was recently reading a study I found on wikipedia that accidents involving people who weren't wearing their seatbelts increased hospital bills by as much as 25%.

The counterpoint to the libertarian view toward seatbelt laws is that mandatory usage not only reduces injuries and deaths but also reduces the economic cost to society. A University of Wisconsin study demonstrated that car accident victims who had not worn seatbelts cost the hospital (and the state in the case of the uninsured) on average 25% more.[6]

And that link to the pdf...

http://www.mcw.edu/FileLibrary/Groups/InjuryResearchCenter/Primary_Enforcement_of_Seatbelt_Laws.pdf

 

[repiV]

In a National Health Care System scenario... seatbelt legislation saves money.

I was recently reading a study I found on wikipedia that accidents involving people who weren't wearing their seatbelts increased hospital bills by as much as 25%.

And that link to the pdf...

http://www.mcw.edu/FileLibrary/Groups/InjuryResearchCenter/Primary_Enforcement_of_Seatbelt_Laws.pdf

I'm not arguing whether or not it reduces the economic cost to society. Of course it does. I don't see that as a relevant point in a free country.

I always wear a seatbelt anyway (although it generally seems very overkill after riding a motorbike), doesn't change the fact that it should be a choice.

The shit that vast sums of public money is spent on is absolutely unbelievable. Pointless IT systems which accomplish nothing but get the suppliers very rich, "equality and diversity officers" on sales manager wages, unaccountable quangos, personal crusades, advertising, keeping entire towns in work for the sake of it...stuff that should be considered fraudulent. And having experienced it first-hand, the work ethic in the public sector is nothing short of sickening. The senior management wouldn't last in an entry-level job in the real world.

How about cutting that out.

 

[Eejit]

What if the other occupants are happy to take that risk? If they aren't, then it's their responsibility to say so.

Also, taxi drivers don't have to wear seatbelts.

Yeah? How about if the other occupants are children? Or mentally handicapped? Or mute?

Taxi drivers are generally screened off from their passengers.

 

[repiV]

Yeah? How about if the other occupants are children? Or mentally handicapped? Or mute?

Then we invoke the time-proven concept of letting adults make their own choices and take care of their own responsibilities as they fit, rather than having big brother to step in and make those choices for them.

Taxi drivers are generally screened off from their passengers.

Not in minicabs, and minicab drivers don't have to wear seatbelts either.

 

[hool10]

Why do I wear safety glasses when I weld?

I mean they make you look like your retarded or something right? I can't tell you amount of times a piece of molten spatter has hit me or that time in which some crap has come flying directly in my eye. After it bounces off I always think "damn, it was a good thing I was wearing my safety glasses".

Steel toe boots are another thing. I had people calling me Frankenstein because I wore them at Jiffy Lube. If something falls on my foot, it will probably bounce off. The Mythbusters actually proved that they help to a certain point, but they proved they work.

Besides your insurance company is going to ask "was the client wearing X when he had the accident"? If not then it's your fault. Really there are reasons why people make things including welding helmets:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0bbj6CI3n0
or else you get "arc flash" then cataracts which then equals being blind.

 

[BabyHeadCrab]

I live in Amsterdam and have been biking all my life. I can honestly tell you: you're all a bunch of girly fags.
.

k. char

 

[CptStern]

I've never landed on the top of my head when I've fallen off my bike.

this guy did

On December 4, 1988, (Gary) Busey was severely injured in a motorcycle accident in which he was not wearing a helmet. His skull was fractured, and doctors feared he suffered permanent brain damage.[4] Busey has publicly discussed his Christian faith in the wake of this incident.

...explains a lot

also ..

and doctors feared he suffered permanent brain damage.[4] Busey has publicly discussed his Christian faith in the wake of this incident.

cause and effect?

 

[PvtRyan]

You convinced me Stern. To not wear a helmet, if it means I can be Busey crazy.

 

[Eejit]

WHY WOULD ANYONE WANT TO BE BUSEY CRAZY WHEN THEY COULD BE BLESSED CRAZY??!

 

[hool10]

Ya, plus you look Frankenstein'ish with all those bolts and pins in your head.