Helmet - No comment needed.

[Bob Denman]

Wear them to bed?? What will I do with the Cowboy Hat and Feather Boa??? :dontknow: :roflblack:

 

[ARtraveler]

Wear them to bed?? What will I do with the Cowboy Hat and Feather Boa??? :dontknow: :roflblack:

Don't you also have that case of 60 wt oil and the saddle? :roflblack::roflblack::roflblack:

 

[Bob Denman]

:gaah: Geez... Now EVERYBODY knows... :banghead: :roflblack:

 

[reverendg]

A lot of people engaging in "high risk" behavior, like motorcycling, think it is ok so long as you do it only to the degree that they feel is "safe enough"? Amazing how some know how much risk is OK for everybody else. Then they turn to "I would have to pay for it" to justify? Shouldn't they be driving Volvo sedans, under the speed limit, with the radio removed to avoid distractions, etc...? Then again, even a Volvo can have a bad day at the hands of a semi.

The fallacy in your argument is that you seem to think it is your choice. It is not.

So long as hospitals are required to treat first and establish payment liability later, knowing that the tax base covers all indigent care, it is not your choice. It has nothing to do with insurance. As long as everyone pays for the consequences, all should wear the proper safety gear. Decide not to wear the gear is deciding not to ride. Do so and loose your license to those privileges.

Again, as long as the consequences are borne by the group, the decision belongs to the group. At the moment the group (in Texas) has voted to allow you to do as you please. It was a close vote and has changed sides several times over history. I hope it will again.

The fallacy in your argument is that you think that outside influences can stop a person from making their own choices. People go against the group pressure all the time. You can make all sorts of things illegal, and create a whole lot of criminals, but you cannot take away my choice.
I am not a proponent of democracy. Group think can only extend so far. I much prefer the ways of the republic, where personal rights are not subservient to the whims of the majority.

 

[DrewNJ]

The fallacy in your argument is that you think that outside influences can stop a person from making their own choices. People go against the group pressure all the time. You can make all sorts of things illegal, and create a whole lot of criminals, but you cannot take away my choice.
I am not a proponent of democracy. Group think can only extend so far. I much prefer the ways of the republic, where personal rights are not subservient to the whims of the majority.

Extremely well said!

Sent from my Venue 8 3830 using Tapatalk

 

[Dan_Ashley]

Extremely well said!

Sent from my Venue 8 3830 using Tapatalk

Careful going is needed. That guy said he doesn't like democracy, and in previous posts defamed the use of logic to frame discussions.

edit: I didn't mean you, I meant the guy you are quoting.

 

[crazyspyder]

The fallacy in your argument is that you think that outside influences can stop a person from making their own choices. People go against the group pressure all the time. You can make all sorts of things illegal, and create a whole lot of criminals, but you cannot take away my choice.
I am not a proponent of democracy. Group think can only extend so far. I much prefer the ways of the republic, where personal rights are not subservient to the whims of the majority.

EXTREMELY well said....second that ! :thumbup:

 

[jcthorne]

The fallacy in your argument is that you think that outside influences can stop a person from making their own choices. People go against the group pressure all the time. You can make all sorts of things illegal, and create a whole lot of criminals, but you cannot take away my choice.
I am not a proponent of democracy. Group think can only extend so far. I much prefer the ways of the republic, where personal rights are not subservient to the whims of the majority.

If you are willing to become a criminal to enforce your individual choice, then you need to be willing to have that choice behind bars or what ever other consequences go with it. This was a discussion of legal activities, not illegal ones. Yes, folks rob banks instead of working for a living too, the right of free choice. Society has a standard response.

Unfortunately the only way to separate individual choice from majority financial responsibility is to allow the hospital system to NOT provide care unless financial responsibility can be established first. If you have the financial responsibility then I have no problem with you making your own choices on how to spend it. You do not get to individually decide how society as a whole will spend its limited resources rather than yours.

I do not see this ever happening here in the US. One goes with the other. I am a proponent of democracy, a founding principle of this country. I also am a proponent of individual rights. Its just that sometimes one negates the other. This is one of them.

 

[crazyspyder]

Unfortunately the only way to separate individual choice from majority financial responsibility is to allow the hospital system to NOT provide care unless financial responsibility can be established first. If you have the financial responsibility then I have no problem with you making your own choices on how to spend it. You do not get to individually decide how society as a whole will spend its limited resources rather than yours.

I do not see this ever happening here in the US. One goes with the other. I am a proponent of democracy, a founding principle of this country. I also am a proponent of individual rights. Its just that sometimes one negates the other. This is one of them.

but, I being in a taxpayers group see far more wasted resources, taking a blow from a small percentage of bikers getting medic help is nothing compared to sooo
many others costing us billions , thats why our national debt is in its trillions ...I can name a few ... but rather NOT. I dont complain it is what it is!opcorn:

 

[Bob Denman]

:clap: Thank you, for saying that so well... :2thumbs:

 

[jcthorne]

but, I being in a taxpayers group see far more wasted resources, taking a blow from a small percentage of bikers getting medic help is nothing compared to sooo
many others costing us billions , thats why our national debt is in its trillions ...I can name a few ... but rather NOT. I dont complain it is what it is!opcorn:

On this part we unfortunately agree. So much waste, so much mis-spent welfare.

 

[MRH]

In my personal opinion, if you don't wear a helmet, then neither the government, nor another driver (regardless of fault), nor their insurance company should be responsible for any head injuries.

If you choose to take the risk, knowing you have a far safer alternative, then the risk should be yours, and yours alone.

That also would apply to any government or employer benefits relating to the injury, including any right to medical care.

I'd say the same thing about seat belts.

Under 21, there should be no option.

 

[DrewNJ]

In my personal opinion, if you don't wear a helmet, then neither the government, nor another driver (regardless of fault), nor their insurance company should be responsible for any head injuries.

If you choose to take the risk, knowing you have a far safer alternative, then the risk should be yours, and yours alone.

That also would apply to any government or employer benefits relating to the injury, including any right to medical care.

I'd say the same thing about seat belts.

Under 21, there should be no option.

I'm a huge fan of as minimal government involvement and interference as possible. The less the better.

The problem with your idea is it just doesn't work and opens the flood gates for an already BS medical system.

The problem is the radicals with an agenda. Next, you start hearing about not getting medical care for people who drive convertibles, smokers, bicycle riders, people who eat fast food, watch to much TV, or even eat cheese.
With government intervention and the addition of more laws, the radicals just come out of the woodwork and make dumb laws even more stupid on a different stage with their own agenda.


Sent from my Venue 8 3830 using Tapatalk

 

[crazyspyder]

In my personal opinion, if you don't wear a helmet, then neither the government, nor another driver (regardless of fault), nor their insurance company should be responsible for any head injuries.

If you choose to take the risk, knowing you have a far safer alternative, then the risk should be yours, and yours alone.

That also would apply to any government or employer benefits relating to the injury, including any right to medical care.

I'd say the same thing about seat belts.

Under 21, there should be no option.

SO why does my employer pay $631.00 on medical insurance on my behalf, only to be turned away during an accident of any kind....according to your way of thinking.
that goes with my motorcycle , car, at work... maybe that's why we have insurance! insurance assures me and preserves my way of life.:thumbup: :chat:
I know you stated that its your own personal opinion and I respect that. :thumbup:

 

[wyliec]

I forgot, what was the purpose of the original post?

 

[crazyspyder]

I forgot, what was the purpose of the original post?

we are having a nice descent adult conversations on the aspects of helmets and their role in riding our :ani29: come on jump on the turnip wagon !hyea:

 

[IdahoMtnSpyder]

I forgot, what was the purpose of the original post?

To imply, with the use of the photos and the two clips from the news story, that maybe, just maybe, if the rider had been wearing his helmet instead of carrying it on his sissy bar, the injuries he suffered might not have been life threatening.

 

[IdahoMtnSpyder]

I really didn't intend for this thread to become a debate about individual rights to choose to wear a helmet or not. In summary, my view is:

1. Everyone has the right to decide for themselves, as an adult, whether or not to wear a helmet.
2. Statics show that wearing a helmet greatly reduces the likelihood of head injury in an accident. See the quotes and links below.
3. Every injured person will receive medical care, paid for by an insurance pool, or a taxpayer pool.
4. Many, if not most, of killed riders leave behind financial liabilities.
5. All the members of the pool contribute to the cost of that medical care.
6. All the members of the pool accept the risk that ordinary activities of life may result in an accident. Ordinary excludes high risk activities that are not usual activities engaged in by members of the pool and are totally optional for one's life. Many life insurance policies exclude coverage for sky diving, bungee jumping, etc.
7. The rider who suffers greater injuries, or death, because of not wearing a helmet, places a greater burden on the pool that is paying for his treatment and care.
8. No person who willingly, by his actions, potentially places a greater burden on the pool than is reasonably necessary, has a right to ask that pool to pay the increased costs because of his decision.
9. To identify the extent to which a person's injuries are directly attributable to not wearing a helmet, is virtually impossible.
10. An arbitrary charge to that person of an amount that hurts financially, but is not unduly excessive, is why I toss out the figure of $50,000.
11. Such a charge allows a rider to exercise his right to not wear a helmet, but attaches a reasonable cost to that decision if he is injured in an accident.

http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/pedbimot/motorcycle/safebike/costs.html

Helmet laws significantly reduce the strain on public resources. Unhelmeted riders cost more to treat at the hospital, spend a longer time in rehabilitation, and are more likely to require some form of public assistance to for pay medical bills and rehabilitation. In 1991, prior to enacting its helmet law, California�s state medical insurance program paid $40 million for the treatment of motorcycle-related head injuries. That figure dropped to $24 million after enactment of a universal helmet law.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6123a1.htm

During 2008–2010, a total of 14,283 motorcyclists were killed in crashes, among whom 6,057 (42%) were not wearing a helmet. In the 20 states with a universal helmet law, 739 (12%) fatally injured motorcyclists were not wearing a helmet, compared with 4,814 motorcyclists (64%) in the 27 states with partial helmet laws and 504 (79%) motorcyclists in the three states without a helmet law

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD004333.pub3/abstract [A fee is charged to access the full report.]

Sixty-one observational studies were selected of varying quality. Despite methodological differences there was a remarkable consistency in results, particularly for death and head injury outcomes. Motorcycle helmets were found to reduce the risk of death and head injury in motorcyclists who crashed. From four higher quality studies helmets were estimated to reduce the risk of death by 42% (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.68) and from six higher quality studies helmets were estimated to reduce the risk of head injury by 69% (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.38). Insufficient evidence was found to estimate the effect of motorcycle helmets compared with no helmet on facial or neck injuries. However, studies of poorer quality suggest that helmets have no effect on the risk of neck injuries and are protective for facial injury. There was insufficient evidence to demonstrate whether differences in helmet type confer more or less advantage in injury reduction.

 

[wyliec]

WasWinger

My previous comment was a bit of tongue and cheek. It seems that some feel that those that ride helmet less and are in an accident should be left to suffer if they can't afford medical care on their own. That means those whom sustain a TBI would be left to die or a be a vegetable as an example. I certainly don't like to pay for someone else's preventable (maybe) injuries; however, they still need medical care. My answer is, someday you may be a patient of mine for physical therapy and your insurance or lack thereof will not affect my treatment.

As far as wanting a republic or democracy, I leave that for others whom are more knowledgeable.

 

[jcthorne]

My previous comment was a bit of tongue and cheek. It seems that some feel that those that ride helmet less and are in an accident should be left to suffer if they can't afford medical care on their own. That means those whom sustain a TBI would be left to die or a be a vegetable as an example. I certainly don't like to pay for someone else's preventable (maybe) injuries; however, they still need medical care. My answer is, someday you may be a patient of mine for physical therapy and your insurance or lack thereof will not affect my treatment.

As far as wanting a republic or democracy, I leave that for others whom are more knowledgeable.

I am NOT a proponent of leaving an injured person to die or suffer if they were not wearing a helmet. No, my point was that since we as a society believe that medical emergencies should be handled regardless of ability to pay, the choice of wearing a helmet is no longer a personal one but one society makes as a whole.