Jump to content


Please note: You can easily log in to MPN using your Facebook account!

OT someone needs to clue in


Guitarzan

Recommended Posts



  • Replies 47
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Originally posted by Guitarzan:

but i don't want to wear my helmet....

do you feel stupid yet?

I see those things all the time, but I sill prefer not to wear a helmet. I realize it is a risk. So is rock climbing and bungee jumping et all.

I hate helmet laws. I think it is a choice. Dumb? I don't know. Risky? Absolutely. Could there be regrets? Yup.

I still prefer no helmet.

bbach

 

Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

from what i have seen on the news his driving wasn't on par with his lack of protection.

you probably drive accordingly.

i don't think helmetless driving is all bad. but one should keep it in mind and drive accordingly.

 

i understand bikes are invisible to some drivers, yes.

but knowing that would make me more defensive in my driving. i don't trust anyone else on the road and it is a good habit.

i hate my seatbelt but it is there for a reason and i use it and everyone in my car will as well or get out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Joe Bbach:

Could there be regrets? Yup.

I still prefer no helmet.

Well, I was going to get all sanctimonious and tell you that, if you become a vegetable after getting preventable head injuries, you won't be able to formulate anything as complex as regret.

 

But then again, I should wear a helmet when I'm cycling and yet I always find some sort of excuse. Usually it's to do with the heat.

 

And sure, I'm not cycling as fast as guys on motorbikes, but the guy in the car that will ultimately hit me one day will probably be doing a decent speed, so it all evens out.

 

And of course, there's the old non sequitur that goes "40% of car fatalities are due to head injuries. So why don't they make people in cars wear those stupid helmets?"

 

So yeah... I wish I could take the moral high ground and tell you to wear your helmet, but I can't really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joe Walsh said that after Duane Allman and then Berry Oakley died, he knew he'd have to give up bikes or drinking beer, so he gave up bikes. I worked ER long enough, and saw enough stuff that happened to folks on bikes with and without helmets on and off the road, and I figured out that there are less painful ways to be crippled for life, or die.

Always remember that you�re unique. Just like everyone else.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow - it made the international news... There are radio and tv news updates on his condition almost every five minutes here in the 'Burgh...

 

I think it was two years ago they repealed helmet laws in Pennsylvania - it's pretty rare to see anyone in helmets 'round these parts.

Go that way really fast.  If something gets in your way, turn.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Kramer Ferrington III.:

...And of course, there's the old non sequitur that goes "40% of car fatalities are due to head injuries. So why don't they make people in cars wear those stupid helmets?"...

They do. They're called seatbelts. A car frame provides more than reasonable protection from head injuries in most instances. I can't quote statistics, but I've heard varying, large percentages of fatal car crashes are blamed on two factors. Excessive speed and not wearing a seatbelt. The logic is pretty much impenetrable. Although there are exceptions that can cause fatal head injuries even with seatbelts, the odds are much higher than without. Think about it. Your body, sans seatbelt, becomes a 150 -250 lbs. flying object. Add just 20 mph. of acceleration and bracing yourself is asking your bones and muscles to hold off hundreds of pounds of pressure. Not gonna happen.

 

As for helmet laws, I'm for 'em. Sure, I like to feel the wind. But it's too easy for us to ignore the sheer power described in the car crash scenario above. Now replace the car, a steel frame with plenty of other mass designed to break away, taking with it some force from the crash, with a large object that offers no protection from the outside elements. The only chance you have to survive is dumb luck. But at least, with a helmet, not only do those odds increase, even if you don't survive at least your family will likely be able to have an open casket.

 

I have several friends who owe their lives to motorcycle helmets in instances where they likely would have died of head injuries. Sure, the Bell helmet cracked in one. But my friend's head didn't. Even with jeans on he had a hell of a road rash. His buddy with the pocket rocket that had also been tweaked, decided to take off from 40mph with no warning. He was on the back, holding on to seat handles. Before he knew what was happening, his legs were above his head and he skidded down the road. His friend didn't even realize he'd fallen until he turned to ask him what he thought about the acceleration. :rolleyes:

 

In my opinion, Big Ben's contract should eliminate compensation for stupidity. The guy is the focal point of the NFL Championship team. His body and his brain's ability to control that body is the commodity he's "renting", if you will, to the team. Riding around Pittsburgh without a helmet, for him, is tantamount to a musician playing the "Aliens" game, holding your hand down on a table and bouncing a knife, point down, in the spaces between each finger as fast as you can. Ben could've protected his and their investment in a big way with a helmet. He may well have walked away with a sore neck and abrasions.

 

Anyway, that's my opinion...

It's easiest to find me on Facebook. Neil Bergman

 

Soundclick

fntstcsnd

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by fantasticsound:

Originally posted by Kramer Ferrington III.:

...And of course, there's the old non sequitur that goes "40% of car fatalities are due to head injuries. So why don't they make people in cars wear those stupid helmets?"...

They do. They're called seatbelts. A car frame provides more than reasonable protection from head injuries in most instances.

... :) ...

Anyway, that's my opinion...

Well, the point was that it's a non-sequitur. Of course most people in cars are protected from head injury, that's what Vince said. non-sequitur.

 

As for the percentage of auto fatalities caused by head injury, I suspect that head injuries are less prevalent than other types of injury, but definitely more dangerous. That shows how important it is to protect your coconut from serious collisions with hard surfaces.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not for helmet laws, though I think riding a motorcycle, with or without a helmet, is too much of a risk. How many guys do you know who've ridden motorcycles for any length of time hasn't been in a serious accident?

 

As far as Ben goes, I think it's selfish...deosn't he realize how important he is to his team? He even got lectured by Cowher and Bradshaw about it well in advance. I'm really surprised if there isn't something in his contract about it. Look at Kellen Winslow Jr. He lost a ton of $$ from his little escapade. Someone needs to protect these 24 year olds from themselves, especially when they're worth so much to their teams. Like Bradshaw said, "Ride after you retire."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by fantasticsound:

They do. They're called seatbelts. A car frame provides more than reasonable protection from head injuries in most instances.

Like I said, I think helmets are a good idea it's just that I never get around to wearing one while I'm cycling.

 

Seatbelts are a good idea too, but like I said. If governments were really serious about safety, they'd make motorists wear helmets in the car. Seatbelts are obviously not enough, otherwise we wouldn't have airbags and we definitely wouldn't have fatalities, would we?

 

 

ANYWAY... it's a non sequitur. Just because people could conceivably wear helmets in their SUVs, that doesn't mean that it's safe to ride without a helmet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Kramer Ferrington III.:

[seatbelts are obviously not enough [...]

Well, maybe if they were 5-point seatbelts and we wore a flame-retardant suit and a helmet, we'd be better off.

 

But I think most people would be put-off if it took longer to get in and out of their car in NASCAR fashion than it did to drive to the grocery store. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me it doesn't come down to a safety issue. It doesn't come down to the odds of getting crippled or hurt. It doesn't come down to the horror that ER and ambulence workers see. No one has to convince me of that. It comes down to the freedom to decide for myself.

Helmets make sense. Wear them. I think it's good. However, I like to not wear them and I want the choice.

I feel the same way about seat belts. I wear them, but I sure do hate the laws that tell me I have to.

bbach

 

Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like what one radio host said. Get rid of all helmet laws, HOWEVER pass a law that says if you get major head injuries in a wreck, the state won't have to pay a cent for your upkeep and/or rehabilitation.

 

I've had the accident - T-Boned a car at only 20-25 mph. I remember the crack of my helmet hitting the pavement. I know I was out. I was too afraid to ride without a full face. I just had these visions of going over the handlebars and have the pavement do reduction surgery on my chin.

Raise your children and spoil your grandchildren. Spoil your children and raise your grandchildren.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Damn that makes my wimpy 45 mph crash sound impressive. I felt so luck to have worn boots and jeans! I wish I had have ignored the fact that it was hot and worn my jacket! I never went out. It sucked to know that I was going to have to pay for the crash. I didn't even have damage to anything but me and it cost me 10K.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This shouldn't be a political issue, it's an economic issue. Think about it, if I traded my Honda in for a Corvette (heh-heh!) my insurance would go up because it's a higher risk car. If you wear a helmet, your insurance should cost less. I don't know why we always turn to government to "solve" things, they just screw it up and make it cost more.
I was born at night but I wasn't born last night...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I road-raced motorcycles for years (WERA B-Superbike). I have gotten off motorcycles at very high speeds...I have a few titanium bits and pieces to show for it.

 

You could not melt me and pour me on a motorcycle without helmet, leathers, boots, and gloves. I KNOW what can happen...and how fast it can happen. I can handle a motorcycle...much better than the average bear...I have track and race schools behind me and years of track and race experience. I've found more ways to wad a perfectly good motorcycle up than you can imagine.

 

To me, riding a motorcycle without at least a helmet is just stupid. I'm not trying to insult anyone here, I just think that people that do that don't really realize the true depth of the risk they are taking. Same with leathers. I know it gets hot and uncomfortable in all that gear...but it's not nearly as uncomfortable as skin grafts and sitting in a wheelchair being spoon-fed cream of wheat for the rest of your life. Of course, if there's no vital organs in there to protect...well, then I guess a helmet isn't needed.

 

I am not in favor of helmet laws. I don't like government intrusion, plus I see them as sort of interfereing with the laws of natural selection...Darwin WAS right, you know. If someone is single and has no dependents and has good health insurance coverage ( coverage that will pay for lifetime round-the-clock nurses), then they have every right to ride a motorcycle without a helmet. If you have a family, you don't have that right any more...your rights end where your family's right to be able to depend on you starts. If you don't have health insurance, you don't have that right...your rights end where my right not to pay for your health care due to your stupidity starts.

"And so I definitely, when I have a daughter, I have a lot of good advice for her."

~Paris Hilton

 

BWAAAHAAAHAAHAAA!!!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Sasquatch51:

I am not in favor of helmet laws. I don't like government intrusion, plus I see them as sort of interfereing with the laws of natural selection...Darwin WAS right, you know. If someone is single and has no dependents and has good health insurance coverage ( coverage that will pay for lifetime round-the-clock nurses), then they have every right to ride a motorcycle without a helmet. If you have a family, you don't have that right any more...your rights end where your family's right to be able to depend on you starts. If you don't have health insurance, you don't have that right...your rights end where my right not to pay for your health care due to your stupidity starts.

Ive not really thought about it before, but this could be behind some of the reasoning that riding without a helmet is illegal in the UK... Because we get all our health care paid for by the govt. (well taxpayer really, but you get the point ;) )
Link to comment
Share on other sites

+1, Sas.

 

The reason the gov't makes seatbelt and helmet laws is because of the many who fail their obligation to protect themselves with adequate insurance then sue the other guy for catastophic medical expenses that should be all or partly their own responsibility.

 

If I, as a car driver, am at fault for an accident that puts a cycle rider in a coma after hitting their head, how do you determine my responsibility for their medical costs? Does the law have criteria to determine, had he been wearing a helmet, the likelyhood a motorcyclist might have survived with minor injuries. If so, does my insurance only cover reasonable first aid to the cyclist's other injuries?

 

Somehow I see changing civil laws to deal with high risk activities performed without safety equipment as far more difficult and prone to loopholes than requiring helmets on bikes (of all types), or seatbelts in cars.

 

I don't see why people refuse to accept that the same reasons there are laws requiring specific safety equipment on job sites are applicable to the most dangerous thing most of us do on a daily basis; Drive our car or ride our motorcycle.

It's easiest to find me on Facebook. Neil Bergman

 

Soundclick

fntstcsnd

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by fantasticsound:

+1, Sas.

 

The reason the gov't makes seatbelt and helmet laws is because of the many who fail their obligation to protect themselves with adequate insurance then sue the other guy for catastophic medical expenses that should be all or partly their own responsibility.

 

If I, as a car driver, am at fault for an accident that puts a cycle rider in a coma after hitting their head, how do you determine my responsibility for their medical costs? Does the law have criteria to determine, had he been wearing a helmet, the likelyhood a motorcyclist might have survived with minor injuries. If so, does my insurance only cover reasonable first aid to the cyclist's other injuries?

 

Somehow I see changing civil laws to deal with high risk activities performed without safety equipment as far more difficult and prone to loopholes than requiring helmets on bikes (of all types), or seatbelts in cars.

 

I don't see why people refuse to accept that the same reasons there are laws requiring specific safety equipment on job sites are applicable to the most dangerous thing most of us do on a daily basis; Drive our car or ride our motorcycle.

Plus, there's the fact that people tend to confuse the privelege of driving on public road with a right to drive on public roads. It is NOT a right...it is a privelege for which you are granted a license that can be revoked by the issuing agency. They also have the authority to tell you that if you want to use that privelege, then certain rules apply governing the use of that privelege...including the mandated use of safety equipment.

"And so I definitely, when I have a daughter, I have a lot of good advice for her."

~Paris Hilton

 

BWAAAHAAAHAAHAAA!!!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plus, there's the fact that people tend to confuse the [b[privelege[/b] of driving on public road with a right to drive on public roads. It is NOT a right...it is a privelege for which you are granted a license that can be revoked by the issuing agency.
Must resist, must resist espousing libertarian view point that my right to travel, to freedom of movement, is not a privledge granted by the state..... ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...