OT someone needs to clue in

[S. Yeti Bigfoot, Esq.]

Originally posted by Justus A. Picker:

Plus, there's the fact that people tend to confuse the [b[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.

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..... [/b]

YES! You most definitely have the right to travel freely....if you don't want to abide by the laws and regulations governing the privelege of driving a vehicle on public roads, then by all means you have an absolute right to walk anywhere you want to go! You may be subject to some laws restricting pedestrian traffic on Interstate Highways, but I liken that to riding a motorcycle without a helmet....the law is only a statement of the obvious....(if you want to end up as a foamy pink spot on the shoulder, have at it....)

[Justus A. Picker]

Originally posted by Sasquatch51:

Originally posted by Justus A. Picker:

Plus, there's the fact that people tend to confuse the [b[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.

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.....

YES! You most definitely have the right to travel freely....if you don't want to abide by the laws and regulations governing the privelege of driving a vehicle on public roads, then by all means you have an absolute right to walk anywhere you want to go! You may be subject to some laws restricting pedestrian traffic on Interstate Highways, but I liken that to riding a motorcycle without a helmet....the law is only a statement of the obvious....(if you want to end up as a foamy pink spot on the shoulder, have at it....) [/b]

I wonder what's going to happen with the recent moves towards privatization of various public highways in some states? Ohio is looking at privatizing the Ohio Turnpike, Illinois has already done so with at least one highway, Texas is looking at it also. It raises the question of what role the state and federal government can play in law-enforcement on what are technically no longer "public" roadways.

 

Without the access to federal dollars, federal speed limits on private roads become moot as would enforcement of seat belt and helmet laws. That raises the whole spectre of private police forces...Hmmm.

[S. Yeti Bigfoot, Esq.]

Actually, I think the privatization refers to maintenance and construction of highways, charging tolls instead of relying on tax dollars...but does not remove the highway system from the jurisdiction of the respective police agencies for law enforcement purposes and does not remove them from government ownership.

[Justus A. Picker]

Originally posted by Sasquatch51:

Actually, I think the privatization refers to maintenance and construction of highways, charging tolls instead of relying on tax dollars...but does not remove the highway system from the jurisdiction of the respective police agencies for law enforcement purposes and does not remove them from government ownership.

You might be right, I hope so, but the Ohio Turnpike is already a self-supporting toll road that receives no tax dollars. It strikes me as an idea that will end up biting us all in the posterior sooner or later.

[TimR]

I think in the UK it all came down to economics. Too many hospital beds in ITUs ware being taken by motor cylists who fell off at low speeds without helmets and car occupants who had low speed collisions without seat belts. If it costs the government money to patch up people who won't look after themselves the government will pass laws to make them look after themselves.

In the US you have private medical insurance. If the insurance companies start lobbying the government because they have to pay out for too many of these injuries, laws will be passed.

[fantasticsound]

Originally posted by Justus A. Picker:

...I wonder what's going to happen with the recent moves towards privatization of various public highways in some states? Ohio is looking at privatizing the Ohio Turnpike, Illinois has already done so with at least one highway, Texas is looking at it also. It raises the question of what role the state and federal government can play in law-enforcement on what are technically no longer "public" roadways.

 

Without the access to federal dollars, federal speed limits on private roads become moot as would enforcement of seat belt and helmet laws. That raises the whole spectre of private police forces...Hmmm.

You're confused on the concept, Justus.

 

These are long term leases for control over the administration of these toll roads. They excercize authority over toll amounts and other aspects of the road, but they are not private roads in the sense that these companies have autonomy to change speed limits, within or outside the federal and state mandated maximums. Law enforcement on these roads doesn't change under the leases. And as privately-run, public thoroughfares, these roads are still subject to the same state laws in effect before the leases.

 

Mayor Daley is also looking to privatize Midway Airport, with 90% of the proceeds going to the strapped, city pension plans that currently run around 5 billion dollars short. Do you think whoever administrates and operates the airport will be free of the TSA and FAA regs and federal laws? Not hardly.

[S. Yeti Bigfoot, Esq.]

Originally posted by TimR:

I think in the UK it all came down to economics. Too many hospital beds in ITUs ware being taken by motor cylists who fell off at low speeds without helmets and car occupants who had low speed collisions without seat belts. If it costs the government money to patch up people who won't look after themselves the government will pass laws to make them look after themselves.

In the US you have private medical insurance. If the insurance companies start lobbying the government because they have to pay out for too many of these injuries, laws will be passed.

All 50 states require seat belt use. A few inexplicably exempt pickup trucks. I think there are now about 12 or 13 states that do not require helmets on motorcycle riders. The rest do require them. At one point I think there was only about 3 states that did not require helmets...in the past 10 or 15 years that number has increased as states repealed the laws.

[Kramer Ferrington III.]

Originally posted by RicBassGuy:

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.

Yeah, but that's just it. "Safety" requires people on two wheels to take all sorts of precautions that are not required for cars.

 

Not because cars are any safer mind you, because there's no shortage of fatalities in cars.

 

The precautions are not enforced by law simply because people think they'd be uncomfortable, and we can't have that, can we?

 

And btw, how many of you that ride have ever crashed into another motorcycle or bicycle? And how many of you have had riding accidents involving a car?

 

So cars don't really guarantee driver safety and a large proportion of riding accidents involve cars.

 

So I am supposed to wear a helmet because vehicles with overrated safety standards are being driven by idiots.

 

Great!

[S. Yeti Bigfoot, Esq.]

Originally posted by Kramer Ferrington III.:

Yeah, but that's just it. "Safety" requires people on two wheels to take all sorts of precautions that are not required for cars.

 

Not because cars are any safer mind you, because there's no shortage of fatalities in cars.

Well, actually cars are much safer than motorcycles. Don't get me wrong, I love motorcycles...I spent much of my life on a motorcycle. But facts are facts. If you look at the percentage of crashes in cars that result in injury to the driver or passengers, then compare that to the percentage of motorcycle crashes that result in injury to the driver or passengers, there is just no comparison. An extremely high percentage (surprisingly close to 100%) of motorcycle crashes result in injury to the riders.

 

Originally posted by Kramer Ferrington III.:

So I am supposed to wear a helmet because vehicles with overrated safety standards are being driven by idiots.

 

Great!

Nope! You should wear a helmet because if you fall off a motorcycle and smack your head on the pavement, it can easily split your head open like a watermelon. It has nothing to do with what car drivers are doing....it has to do with keeping your brains inside your skull. You can easily crash a motorcycle without a car or truck in sight....animals...loose gravel...oil spots on the road....in fact, the vast majority of motorcycle crashes are single-vehicle accidents. Most occur because the rider thinks he(she) is going too fast to make a corner. 99% of the time they are still well within the capabilities of the motorcycle, but they don't know that...so, rather than to just keep pushing that inside bar down, they panic and check up and run off the road and crash. The actual cornering capabilities of the motorcycle far exceeds the nerve of the average street rider.

[Kramer Ferrington III.]

Originally posted by Sasquatch51:

Well, actually cars are much safer than motorcycles.

Ok, then make them COMPLETELY safe. Let's start by lowering their speed and mkaing motorists wear helmets too. Sure, I'm pushing this argument to the max but hey, if govts. are really concerned about road safety, why don't they follow through all across the board? They'd only be saving lives, right?

 

 

Originally posted by Sasquatch51:

Nope! You should wear a helmet because if you fall off a motorcycle and smack your head on the pavement, it can easily split your head open like a watermelon.

Ah, but see... that's the thing that really bothers me.

 

I don't ride a motorcycle. I'm a cyclist.

 

The helmet is really hot in Summer and it's not good to be completely sweated out by the time I get to the office. And the most likely source of an accident will be some sort of motorvehicle. I have been touched twice and it's been by cars both times.

 

Motorcycles are a different matter 'cause the speeds are higher and the heat problem is nowhere near as bad. If you're on a motorcycle, wear a helmet.

 

 

Originally posted by Sasquatch51:

..in fact, the vast majority of motorcycle crashes are single-vehicle accidents.

This one I'm really curious about.

 

Over various continents, and decades (I'm drawing on family stories and so on) I'd say that, in my experience, single vehicle accidents are not unheard of but they're rarer than those involving cars or other vehicles. What makes you say that single vehicle accidents are more commonplace? And does sliding on an oil slick really count as a single vehicle accident? How did the oil slick get there?

[Eric Iverson]

Unfortunately, many people do not want to take the necessary precautions to protect themselves and others.

 

In all honesty, I don't drive a lot. I would most definitely be tempted not to have automobile insurance or wear seat belts if I didn't have to. I definitely need the money for other things. But I'm glad there are laws that make me do so...

 

And yes, I've had a couple of fender benders where the insurance sure came in handy!

[Kramer Ferrington III.]

Originally posted by Sasquatch51:

You can't reasonably expect everyone else to stop driving cars because you want to ride a bicycle without a helmet. The facts of life are the facts of life...

First of all, I don't normally fall off my bicycle. Give me a little credit here, please.

 

And then, basically, let's call a spade a spade and just say that I have to wear a helmet because there's a large number of people out there who are too incompetent to take to the roads without being a serious threat to the lives and well being of others.

 

So "the facts of life" are basically that it's preferable for society to work around the basic ineptitude of a large number of motorists than to ensure that they drive properly and responsibly.

 

And of course, if people are incapable of driving, that's my fault and responsibility. And no doubt all those murdering idiots harrumph on about "personal responsiblity".

 

Thank you for explaining that to me.

[S. Yeti Bigfoot, Esq.]

Originally posted by Kramer Ferrington III.:

Originally posted by Sasquatch51:

You can't reasonably expect everyone else to stop driving cars because you want to ride a bicycle without a helmet. The facts of life are the facts of life...

First of all, I don't normally fall off my bicycle. Give me a little credit here, please.

 

And then, basically, let's call a spade a spade and just say that I have to wear a helmet because there's a large number of people out there who are too incompetent to take to the roads without being a serious threat to the lives and well being of others.

 

So "the facts of life" are basically that it's preferable for society to work around the basic ineptitude of a large number of motorists than to ensure that they drive properly and responsibly.

 

And of course, if people are incapable of driving, that's my fault and responsibility. And no doubt all those murdering idiots harrumph on about "personal responsiblity".

 

Thank you for explaining that to me.

First, the fact that you "normally" don't fall off your bike is completely irrelevant. I wouldn't expect that you do. (You seem much more intelligent and capable than someone that routinely falls off a bicycle). What is relevant is the one time that you do fall off your bike....that one bad ride sort of erases all the good rides you had, especially if you are incapacitated from permanent brain injury.

 

I guess we have to agree to disagree. I think that the wearing of a helmet has nothing at all to do with other drivers. It is simply to protect your head in the event of an accident....whether another vehicle is involved or not. It has nothing to do with lofty ideals and what is "right" or "wrong".

 

Besides...sometimes it is the bicycle rider's fault...a momentary lapse of attention...pull out in the path of an automobile....humans make mistakes no matter what they are riding or driving. The smart thing is to be prepared for the unexpected.

[Kramer Ferrington III.]

Originally posted by Sasquatch51:

I guess we have to agree to disagree. I think that the wearing of a helmet has nothing at all to do with other drivers. It is simply to protect your head in the event of an accident....whether another vehicle is involved or not. It has nothing to do with lofty ideals and what is "right" or "wrong".

Yeah, fair enough let's agree to disagree.

 

I don't want to get into an argument with you because a) I like you and b) it'd be a pointless bloody argument anyway.

 

I just hate being "protected" by the state even though the most sensible protection for everyone would be to raise driving standards.

 

Sometimes I wonder if making glass cars wouldn't encourage people to be a bit more safety conscious when they're behind the wheel.

 

'Nuff said.

[S. Yeti Bigfoot, Esq.]

Originally posted by Kramer Ferrington III.:

Originally posted by Sasquatch51:

I guess we have to agree to disagree. I think that the wearing of a helmet has nothing at all to do with other drivers. It is simply to protect your head in the event of an accident....whether another vehicle is involved or not. It has nothing to do with lofty ideals and what is "right" or "wrong".

Yeah, fair enough let's agree to disagree.

 

I don't want to get into an argument with you because a) I like you and b) it'd be a pointless bloody argument anyway.

 

I just hate being "protected" by the state even though the most sensible protection for everyone would be to raise driving standards.

 

Sometimes I wonder if making glass cars wouldn't encourage people to be a bit more safety conscious when they're behind the wheel.

 

'Nuff said.

Now, that I agree with!

[TimR]

There is a very famous motoring Journalist in the UK called Jeremy Clarkson. Everyone in the country knows who he is. He has a TV show etc.

 

He said once that it would be far better to replace the airbag with a metal spike. That would slow everyone down a bit too.

 

As I said earlier it really is a matter of econmics and statistics.

 

At what point does putting a helmet on interfere with the ease of travelling from one place to another, compared with the number of serious head injuries in any mode of transport. If you had to put on a helmet and then seatbelt etc. everytime you climbed into a car, even for short journeys, it would begin to impact on your ability to get to places quick and make money, and pay taxes. On a bike you just jump on and off you go. You can thread through the traffic so the time you loose putting on your helmet is more than made up on your journey.

 

In cars the main injury is to the lower leg from the pedals in a frontal collinsion. So you can either wear shin pads or the designers can design collapsable pedals. Or side impact air bags for side impacts. You can't have airbags that inflate on a bike so the next best thing is to have a permantly inflated airbag with hard shell on your head. Most people would chose a car with an airbag over one without.

 

I don't wear a helmet while cycling, or rock climbing unless I'm going on a long ride on a busy road or climbing where there is loose rock.

[pollock]

Was bob dylan wearing a helmet when he crashed?

[S. Yeti Bigfoot, Esq.]

Originally posted by pollock:

Was bob dylan wearing a helmet when he crashed?

Dunno. Gary Busey wasn't.