If helmets were optional...
Discussion
creampuff said:
you have just decided for yourself that compulsory helmets are good and agreeing with them makes you right and capacity or power limits are bad.
indeed, becuase thus far, no one has presented evidence to disprove it.with regards to power limits or such, I don't think they've worked in France but welcome to be corrected. What does work however is people building up experience on smaller machines before moving on to larger bikes. I would suspect that the majority of Superbike injuries are attributed to the new riders or reborn riders who jump on a bike with rusty sills or experience.
I started out when you could ride a 50 at 16 and a 250 on L plates at 17 and in hindsight, we had a tremendous amount of accidents. 5 mates at college killed, some fault, some not.
Then the 125 law came in as a direct result of the obvious facts that kids were killing themselves on 250's. So there was an effort to stem the losses. A government mandated law.
So as a side question, do you feel the capacity limits are acceptable or should anyone be able to get anything once they've passed their test, as it is with cars?
and for clarity, I'm neither for or against the mandatory helmet laws. i do however believe if people chose not to wear one should the law permit it, they be aware and accepting of the consequences. Whether that means paying fo rmedical care or having a cover policy is another issue.
sc0tt said:
Steve, are helmets obligatory in SA?
Yes. Even for cyclists too but not enforced.
Funnily enough, even in places like Malawi helmets are the law although their interpretation of what constitues a helmet can be somewhat flexible...When you buy a bike, they supply a helmet with the bike.
Due to the heat here however, there's lots of guys who rid ein shorts, vest and slops. No surprise SA has some of the best skin graft surgeons...
The road accident rate here is horrific. Drink driving is rampant, most offenses can be cleared up with a cheeky 100 rand (4 quid) gift to the officer and a woeful standard of driving and drivers who've "bought" their licenses.
then consider you can buy any bike you like on what they term a k53 learners license, (a piece of paper, no training) at any age it's no surprise really.
Edited by Steve Bass on Wednesday 3rd February 21:35
The only position in this discussion that I don't understand is that helmets should be mandatory due to 'the consequences to other people'.
Motorcycling as whole carries consequences to none motorcyclist. Any driver would rather (in the event of making a mistake) hit a car than a motorcycle. Emergency services regularly comment on the trauma of motorcycle RTAs.
If the deciding factor is the consequences to others, I think you've just voted for the banning of motorcycles (and I guess and cars that don't have high pedestrian impact safety etc).
I wouldn't ride without a helmet. I think on balance I support the law in keeping them mandatory. But with a high risk activity like riding a motorbike I'm not sure we can really claim to be wearing protective clothing to protect wider society?
Motorcycling as whole carries consequences to none motorcyclist. Any driver would rather (in the event of making a mistake) hit a car than a motorcycle. Emergency services regularly comment on the trauma of motorcycle RTAs.
If the deciding factor is the consequences to others, I think you've just voted for the banning of motorcycles (and I guess and cars that don't have high pedestrian impact safety etc).
I wouldn't ride without a helmet. I think on balance I support the law in keeping them mandatory. But with a high risk activity like riding a motorbike I'm not sure we can really claim to be wearing protective clothing to protect wider society?
Edited by Hungrymc on Sunday 7th February 09:03
George111 said:
Disastrous said:
Just occurs to me:
For 'us', is riding without a helmet or protective gear akin to say a professional rider doing the TT (in full gear)? On the basis that a crash probably means game over, it would seem to be about the same level of risk/consequence...
I'm probably not explaining well but when they sadly up for the TT, they must know deep down that one slip is most probably going to have very fking severe consequences. But we don't think they should stop doing that, do we?
But that's a sport and they don't plan to crash...For 'us', is riding without a helmet or protective gear akin to say a professional rider doing the TT (in full gear)? On the basis that a crash probably means game over, it would seem to be about the same level of risk/consequence...
I'm probably not explaining well but when they sadly up for the TT, they must know deep down that one slip is most probably going to have very fking severe consequences. But we don't think they should stop doing that, do we?
Pothole said:
George111 said:
Disastrous said:
Just occurs to me:
For 'us', is riding without a helmet or protective gear akin to say a professional rider doing the TT (in full gear)? On the basis that a crash probably means game over, it would seem to be about the same level of risk/consequence...
I'm probably not explaining well but when they sadly up for the TT, they must know deep down that one slip is most probably going to have very fking severe consequences. But we don't think they should stop doing that, do we?
But that's a sport and they don't plan to crash...For 'us', is riding without a helmet or protective gear akin to say a professional rider doing the TT (in full gear)? On the basis that a crash probably means game over, it would seem to be about the same level of risk/consequence...
I'm probably not explaining well but when they sadly up for the TT, they must know deep down that one slip is most probably going to have very fking severe consequences. But we don't think they should stop doing that, do we?
Not wearing leathers or boots etc usually doesn't kill you or prevent you earning a living - might be painful in a crash and you might lose a leg or foot or just have severe gravel rash but you're highly likely to be alive and after a few weeks/months be back at work and enjoying life.
I went on a course called "First Bike on the Scene" - a day long medical course for people who might be the first person to reach a motorcyclist who has had a serious crash, run by paramedics. They told us that they're not really too interested in leg and arm injuries when they first assess a victim as those injuries are not life threatening - they are interested in head injuries and then internal organs. They said the body can tolerate a lot of abuse - they see it every day, but the head is very sensitive and even low speed accidents can result in severe head injuries, even in cars where your head hits the side of the car.
Just seems sensible to take the one precaution which can prevent life changing injuries . . . why wouldn't you do that ? As you said, you don't plan to crash, but nobody does do they, it just happens sometimes !
George111 said:
Pothole said:
George111 said:
Disastrous said:
Just occurs to me:
For 'us', is riding without a helmet or protective gear akin to say a professional rider doing the TT (in full gear)? On the basis that a crash probably means game over, it would seem to be about the same level of risk/consequence...
I'm probably not explaining well but when they sadly up for the TT, they must know deep down that one slip is most probably going to have very fking severe consequences. But we don't think they should stop doing that, do we?
But that's a sport and they don't plan to crash...For 'us', is riding without a helmet or protective gear akin to say a professional rider doing the TT (in full gear)? On the basis that a crash probably means game over, it would seem to be about the same level of risk/consequence...
I'm probably not explaining well but when they sadly up for the TT, they must know deep down that one slip is most probably going to have very fking severe consequences. But we don't think they should stop doing that, do we?
Not wearing leathers or boots etc usually doesn't kill you or prevent you earning a living - might be painful in a crash and you might lose a leg or foot or just have severe gravel rash but you're highly likely to be alive and after a few weeks/months be back at work and enjoying life.
I went on a course called "First Bike on the Scene" - a day long medical course for people who might be the first person to reach a motorcyclist who has had a serious crash, run by paramedics. They told us that they're not really too interested in leg and arm injuries when they first assess a victim as those injuries are not life threatening - they are interested in head injuries and then internal organs. They said the body can tolerate a lot of abuse - they see it every day, but the head is very sensitive and even low speed accidents can result in severe head injuries, even in cars where your head hits the side of the car.
Just seems sensible to take the one precaution which can prevent life changing injuries . . . why wouldn't you do that ? As you said, you don't plan to crash, but nobody does do they, it just happens sometimes !
Could anyone offer an explanation as to why it's nearly impossible to have a dispassionate discussion or even for posters to just answer a question as it is posed without trying to dictate what others should or shouldn't do, think, say etc?
I'd dearly love to read, occasionally, a thread which was a series of straight answers to the OP's question.
I'd dearly love to read, occasionally, a thread which was a series of straight answers to the OP's question.
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.
Each fag I smoke I pay tax towards my treatment and to the government. smokers back in 2008 paid 9 billion in tax, this is much higher now. It cost the NHS 3 billion to treat smokers.
Fat bds now cost the NHS more but they pay nil to little tax.
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.
this just puts all your previous posts on this subject right into perspective.....Each fag I smoke I pay tax towards my treatment and to the government. smokers back in 2008 paid 9 billion in tax, this is much higher now. It cost the NHS 3 billion to treat smokers.
Fat bds now cost the NHS more but they pay nil to little tax.
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.
Steve Bass said:
not at all, but if it's one thing we know about people, it's that they're inherently stupid.
So if we took your degree of state intervention to its natural conclusion, you'd pretty much usher in the end of social order and a reign of anarchic mayhem.
remove the social constrainsts and you would have everyone doing what suits them exclusively. Get a job? fk that, i'll rob and steal because it suits me and there's no police so whats the risk?
Oh, you cut me up? How about i beat you to death? No comeback, the government lets me do what I want.
Screw the traffic laws, I'll do 120 passed you kids school whenever I want, it's my choice.
If you truly feel that way, I'd really encourage you to try it before you promote it.
Take a few years living in such countries and then see what you prefer. Until then, I'm not sure your argument stands up.
I believe in no state intervention where the decision of the individual doesn't affect anyone else, as in the case of helmets. I don't believe in anarchy and since killing or robbing someone clearly affects someone else, I believe in state intervention to stop that happening. You've used the involvement of paramedics, doctors and nurses etc as evidence of "it affecting someone else" and therefore needing state intervention but I still haven't heard why the perhaps 50% greater fatality risk from not wearing a helmet is unacceptable bit the 2000% (factor of 20) increase in risk just from riding a motorbike with a helmet is ok. So if we took your degree of state intervention to its natural conclusion, you'd pretty much usher in the end of social order and a reign of anarchic mayhem.
remove the social constrainsts and you would have everyone doing what suits them exclusively. Get a job? fk that, i'll rob and steal because it suits me and there's no police so whats the risk?
Oh, you cut me up? How about i beat you to death? No comeback, the government lets me do what I want.
Screw the traffic laws, I'll do 120 passed you kids school whenever I want, it's my choice.
If you truly feel that way, I'd really encourage you to try it before you promote it.
Take a few years living in such countries and then see what you prefer. Until then, I'm not sure your argument stands up.
Edited by Steve Bass on Wednesday 3rd February 18:25
At the risk of this thread kicking off again....
I noticed a guy bombing up and down the road on his quad bike today; I'm wondering why it is legal to ride a quad without a helmet, but not a bike?
Quad bikes seem to come under car rules (you need a car licence etc), but .Gov refers to them as bikes.
Seems odd really, considering how easy it is to fly over the handlebars in a head on collision. It surely can't just be about how many wheels you have? Do trikes require a helmet?
I noticed a guy bombing up and down the road on his quad bike today; I'm wondering why it is legal to ride a quad without a helmet, but not a bike?
Quad bikes seem to come under car rules (you need a car licence etc), but .Gov refers to them as bikes.
Seems odd really, considering how easy it is to fly over the handlebars in a head on collision. It surely can't just be about how many wheels you have? Do trikes require a helmet?
Gassing Station | Biker Banter | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff