If helmets were optional...
Discussion
moanthebairns said:
sc0tt said:
moanthebairns said:
I am all for doing what you want, if it was up to me drugs would be legal, speed limits increased and id be able to say f
k on radio 2 at 9 in the morning. But when an action has a huge implication on society it has to stop and be made illegal.
Yes because drugs have no implications on society at all.k on radio 2 at 9 in the morning. But when an action has a huge implication on society it has to stop and be made illegal. I despair.
How many people died from overdosing on Port and Lemon?
moanthebairns said:
black-k1 said:
moanthebairns said:
Smoking is killing me, fact. But it doesn't have the wider financial and emotional implications a sudden death on the road will to society.
My father was a 60 a day man. He's now lying in a high dependancy bed attached to any number of expensive machines being looked after by an army of care professionals. He isn't going to be walking away from this! Your statement above is simply wrong!Additionally, emotional costs are difficult to quantify!!
Fleegle said:
moanthebairns said:
sc0tt said:
moanthebairns said:
I am all for doing what you want, if it was up to me drugs would be legal, speed limits increased and id be able to say fk on radio 2 at 9 in the morning. But when an action has a huge implication on society it has to stop and be made illegal.
Yes because drugs have no implications on society at all.k on radio 2 at 9 in the morning. But when an action has a huge implication on society it has to stop and be made illegal. I despair.
How many people died from overdosing on Port and Lemon?
two options, ban booze or legalise and control the quality of drugs, tax and educate. Otherwise you are a hypocrite
moanthebairns said:
I never said that at all. You've put words into my mouth, I knew smoking would come a long and I merely pointed out fat fks cost more than smokers.
The biggest problem I have with it is some poor fker who hits you or you him, be it at fault or not is now dragged through the legal process for years due to you not wearing a helmet. Your actions DO have an effect on others. What's so hard to understand about this.
Absolutely nothing. Nobody is pretending they don't understand that.ks cost more than smokers. The biggest problem I have with it is some poor f
ker who hits you or you him, be it at fault or not is now dragged through the legal process for years due to you not wearing a helmet. Your actions DO have an effect on others. What's so hard to understand about this.And I haven't put words in your mouth - you did say that, albeit tacitly, when you defended smoking by comparing it to the cost of obesity.
All people are saying is it would be nice if it were up to the individual to make the decision about what level of risk they want to expose themselves to. What riles people is meddling in things and adding rules that didn't used to be there.
It's utterly pointless getting into the financial cost to society as bottom line is, we all end up costing something (hence taxes) and if you go down this route far enough, then banning bikes completely would be more sensible, which I presume you wouldn't want.
Also, your poor f
ker who hits a biker I would argue is just as likely to be dragged through the legal process by a biker that survives than one who dies, so that's largely irrelevant as well.At the end of the day, it is human nature to seek thrills and danger and pleasure (especially in a society devoid of Civil War or a Great Depression to concentrate the mind on the fundamentals). You die your way and I'll die mine and that's about all there is to it.
As an aside, imagine if motorcycles were invented tomorrow - think there's any chance at all that a 1000CC super bike would ever be allowed to exist in modern UK? They exist only because they got there before the 'protect you for your own good' mob did.
I'm not an advocate of people doing whatever they want (that Russian Krokodil drug springs to mind) and society can go and hang. Prof Prolapse speaks sense about the fact that we need to cater to the good of society but I find that there is room for freedom within that.
(In the interests of fairness, I'm only 34 so have never known biking without a helmet. I wouldn't actually go out on my aprillia without one as it's too fast and the wind/bugs would hurt. That said, I see the appeal of trundling along on a Bonnie or somesuch and would quite like to be able to do that without a helmet if I wanted to. I'd definitely ride helmetless in the US states that allow it.)
I also am aghast that someone who is working as a DR cannot see the science and logic between having an accident with or without a helmet and why it would be mandatory to make everyone wear one. The greater good outweighs 'your personal freedoms'
I find it hysterical that some people think we have it so bad here. Maybe emigration is your friend in this situation.
I find it hysterical that some people think we have it so bad here. Maybe emigration is your friend in this situation.
black-k1 said:
moanthebairns said:
black-k1 said:
moanthebairns said:
Smoking is killing me, fact. But it doesn't have the wider financial and emotional implications a sudden death on the road will to society.
My father was a 60 a day man. He's now lying in a high dependancy bed attached to any number of expensive machines being looked after by an army of care professionals. He isn't going to be walking away from this! Your statement above is simply wrong!Additionally, emotional costs are difficult to quantify!!
k, these costs are going to the up keep of roads, emissions etcso my other point you think its fair to impact someones life by not wearing a helmet.
Disastrous said:
moanthebairns said:
I never said that at all. You've put words into my mouth, I knew smoking would come a long and I merely pointed out fat fks cost more than smokers.
The biggest problem I have with it is some poor fker who hits you or you him, be it at fault or not is now dragged through the legal process for years due to you not wearing a helmet. Your actions DO have an effect on others. What's so hard to understand about this.
Absolutely nothing. Nobody is pretending they don't understand that.ks cost more than smokers. The biggest problem I have with it is some poor f
ker who hits you or you him, be it at fault or not is now dragged through the legal process for years due to you not wearing a helmet. Your actions DO have an effect on others. What's so hard to understand about this.And I haven't put words in your mouth - you did say that, albeit tacitly, when you defended smoking by comparing it to the cost of obesity.
All people are saying is it would be nice if it were up to the individual to make the decision about what level of risk they want to expose themselves to. What riles people is meddling in things and adding rules that didn't used to be there.
It's utterly pointless getting into the financial cost to society as bottom line is, we all end up costing something (hence taxes) and if you go down this route far enough, then banning bikes completely would be more sensible, which I presume you wouldn't want.
Also, your poor f
ker who hits a biker I would argue is just as likely to be dragged through the legal process by a biker that survives than one who dies, so that's largely irrelevant as well.At the end of the day, it is human nature to seek thrills and danger and pleasure (especially in a society devoid of Civil War or a Great Depression to concentrate the mind on the fundamentals). You die your way and I'll die mine and that's about all there is to it.
As an aside, imagine if motorcycles were invented tomorrow - think there's any chance at all that a 1000CC super bike would ever be allowed to exist in modern UK? They exist only because they got there before the 'protect you for your own good' mob did.
I'm not an advocate of people doing whatever they want (that Russian Krokodil drug springs to mind) and society can go and hang. Prof Prolapse speaks sense about the fact that we need to cater to the good of society but I find that there is room for freedom within that.
(In the interests of fairness, I'm only 34 so have never known biking without a helmet. I wouldn't actually go out on my aprillia without one as it's too fast and the wind/bugs would hurt. That said, I see the appeal of trundling along on a Bonnie or somesuch and would quite like to be able to do that without a helmet if I wanted to. I'd definitely ride helmetless in the US states that allow it.)
As a result the individual got 6 points and a £300 fine. Worst case he was going to get a ban for a honest mistake.
if I wasn't wearing a helmet he'd be facing death by dangerous driving, imprisonment as a plausible outcome and a death he had to live with.
moanthebairns said:
Fleegle said:
moanthebairns said:
sc0tt said:
moanthebairns said:
I am all for doing what you want, if it was up to me drugs would be legal, speed limits increased and id be able to say fk on radio 2 at 9 in the morning. But when an action has a huge implication on society it has to stop and be made illegal.
Yes because drugs have no implications on society at all.k on radio 2 at 9 in the morning. But when an action has a huge implication on society it has to stop and be made illegal. I despair.
How many people died from overdosing on Port and Lemon?
two options, ban booze or legalise and control the quality of drugs, tax and educate. Otherwise you are a hypocrite
moanthebairns said:
I was knocked off a few year ago. Driver charged, taken through the courts, I skidded along the road with my head and then hit a traffic sign pole at 30 mph head on. without a helmet I would have died, simple.
As a result the individual got 6 points and a £300 fine. Worst case he was going to get a ban for a honest mistake.
if I wasn't wearing a helmet he'd be facing death by dangerous driving, imprisonment as a plausible outcome and a death he had to live with.
Ok. But that's just an anecdote that explains why you like helmets.As a result the individual got 6 points and a £300 fine. Worst case he was going to get a ban for a honest mistake.
if I wasn't wearing a helmet he'd be facing death by dangerous driving, imprisonment as a plausible outcome and a death he had to live with.
One from me:
I hit a deer a few years ago, went over the bars and bounced down the road. Nobody else was involved (bar the deer) and without a helmet I'd be dead. Simple.
I still wouldn't insist that others should wear them.
The fate of the driver in your story is just irrelevant to me I'm afraid. He knocked you off that day but his mistake could equally have been running over a child or knocking a cyclist under a truck. These things happen and it's sad but they won't ever go away. Wearing or not wearing a helmet because of how it might affect the guy that might or might not crash into me is beyond contemplation for me.
I'm glad to hear julian64 is a Doctor. His views echo those of most of my doctor friends who also seem to be pretty reasonable, balanced individuals. The world needs more people who see things that way.
sc0tt said:
Would you ever ride without one?
Having blasted round the streets of Asia on a "stallion" sans helmet I think I would for short trips.
Would you?
Why would you not wear one on short trips? In my mind it doesn't matter whether you're out on the road for 5 minutes or 50 minutes. Regardless of whether you ride slowly or not you could still be hit by a car / bus / horse / whatever.Having blasted round the streets of Asia on a "stallion" sans helmet I think I would for short trips.
Would you?
I would never ever ride a motorbike without full kit, let alone a helmet.
Also it would annoy me not wearing a helmet because of my long hair. My hair would get super messy and I'd have to carry hair straighteners and a brush with me every time I was out on the bike ;-)
julian64 said:
Prof Prolapse said:
any good citizen of a country knows their individual rights can be outweighed by the needs of society and their country.
Its all here. The 'needs' of society, not the 'whims' of society. If you take part in a minority activity you rely on the fact that the majority will only vote to stop it IF it directly affects them and the greater society, not simply because they have an uninformed opinion on it.I work as a doctor. I tell people what they should or should do my entire working life. Obviously a non smoker, but I was against the smoking ban right up until the studies came out on its secondary effects when societies rights, especially children, overruled the rights of the smoker in my opinion. If people understand the risks but want to take them for their perceived quality of life I don't stop them, nor do I suggest the state shouldn't help them when they suffer ill effects.
Saying that greater society is affected by the higher costs of medical bills isn't enough to deny people their freedom. You could easily stop people trekking across the poles, or ban every fifty plus from doing a marathon. Motorcycling would be out for a start.
Even your children analogy is flawed. Children don't learn from banning. They learn from the responsibility you are willing to risk to them for them to learn themselves when they are ready.
When a persons rights are outweighed by society then you do need to intervene. But that isn't motorcycle helmets, and politicians are generally far to quick to decide that opinion is worthy of law.
People who vote need to understand that a democracy is not about a collective majority dictator, is about the protection from a dictator
It's pretty obvious to me the costs incurred by people going to another country for an extreme activity, presumably with private insurance, or fifty year olds running marathons on mass are not comparable in terms of cost, both financial and societal. We're not just discussing medical bills, we're talking huge insurance pay outs for example, and the knock on effect on society when that happens. The insurance industry is in tatters because of vehicle hire, and a "where there's a blame there's a claim" culture. How could it possibly cope with the legal battles as a result of "Chavvy the potato"? It simply couldn't in it's current form. This is all before we even begin to imagine the impact on the wider impact to society.
The children comment, is actually an old saying not mine. The point was that we all have responsibilities, whether we want them or not, and the aspiration towards unreasonable person freedoms, is something only a badly taught child was aspire to. The rest us know where our laws and rule come from, and understand their benefits even if we don't agree with them per se.
Nothing is free. Not the fresh air, not the grand you walk safely on, you pay your way whether it be financially or by what you agree not to do. I agree it protects us from a dictator, instead we elect our representatives to make these decisions and bind us, they often make them badly, but that's democracy, and in any democracy one thing is certain, we get the government we deserve.
I work in clinical research. Experience has similarly taught me that just because you do not like the answer, that doesn't make slightest difference to whether it is correct.
Volition said:
sc0tt said:
Would you ever ride without one?
Having blasted round the streets of Asia on a "stallion" sans helmet I think I would for short trips.
Would you?
Why would you not wear one on short trips? In my mind it doesn't matter whether you're out on the road for 5 minutes or 50 minutes. Regardless of whether you ride slowly or not you could still be hit by a car / bus / horse / whatever.Having blasted round the streets of Asia on a "stallion" sans helmet I think I would for short trips.
Would you?
The answer is simple.
You can choose.
But if you choose not to wear a helmet, you are not eligible for the state to assist in your healthcare, or rehabilitation.
If you are fully aware of the risks, then taking no measures to mitigate them should increase your exposure to associated consequences.
I'm all for choice, but that needs to be balanced against risk and consequence.
You can choose.
But if you choose not to wear a helmet, you are not eligible for the state to assist in your healthcare, or rehabilitation.
If you are fully aware of the risks, then taking no measures to mitigate them should increase your exposure to associated consequences.
I'm all for choice, but that needs to be balanced against risk and consequence.
Steve Bass said:
The answer is simple.
You can choose.
But if you choose not to wear a helmet, you are not eligible for the state to assist in your healthcare, or rehabilitation.
If you are fully aware of the risks, then taking no measures to mitigate them should increase your exposure to associated consequences.
I'm all for choice, but that needs to be balanced against risk and consequence.
Balanced on whose scales?You can choose.
But if you choose not to wear a helmet, you are not eligible for the state to assist in your healthcare, or rehabilitation.
If you are fully aware of the risks, then taking no measures to mitigate them should increase your exposure to associated consequences.
I'm all for choice, but that needs to be balanced against risk and consequence.
As a net payer to the state system (I pay much more in than I take out) why would I not be entitled to state care?
Gassing Station | Biker Banter | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff