If helmets were optional...
Discussion
It is worrying reading threads like this. Worrying that there are so many people who believe that they know better than me what level of risk I should be willing to take.
Until such time as I am medically certified not competent to make my own decisions, there is only one person qualified to judge the correct level of risk for me, and that’s me. Likewise, I am fully aware that the only person I am qualified to judge the correct level of risk for is me. (And my kids until such time as they can make their own decisions in an informed way.)
While I agree that riding without a helmet does increase the risk of head injury in the event of an accident, it’s a risk I’m very willing to take in certain circumstances and if the law didn’t require me to wear a helmet then why would that make me wrong/stupid/a complete prick?
Riding without fully certified protective clothing (and most motorcycle clothing isn’t certified) increases risk yet we all do this some time and some do it all the time. Riding at certain times of the day/week or on certain road types increases risk (sunny Sunday afternoons on country roads are pretty high risk) yet we all do it. Taking proper advanced rider training decreases risk yet many don’t do it. Hell, riding a motorcycle at all increases risk yet we all do it.
Anyone who feels "they know better" as to which risks I should and shouldn’t take are simply arrogant, condescending, egotistical t
ts but, unfortunately, knowing that tends not to stop them trying to impose their views on me and others.
Until such time as I am medically certified not competent to make my own decisions, there is only one person qualified to judge the correct level of risk for me, and that’s me. Likewise, I am fully aware that the only person I am qualified to judge the correct level of risk for is me. (And my kids until such time as they can make their own decisions in an informed way.)
While I agree that riding without a helmet does increase the risk of head injury in the event of an accident, it’s a risk I’m very willing to take in certain circumstances and if the law didn’t require me to wear a helmet then why would that make me wrong/stupid/a complete prick?
Riding without fully certified protective clothing (and most motorcycle clothing isn’t certified) increases risk yet we all do this some time and some do it all the time. Riding at certain times of the day/week or on certain road types increases risk (sunny Sunday afternoons on country roads are pretty high risk) yet we all do it. Taking proper advanced rider training decreases risk yet many don’t do it. Hell, riding a motorcycle at all increases risk yet we all do it.
Anyone who feels "they know better" as to which risks I should and shouldn’t take are simply arrogant, condescending, egotistical t
ts but, unfortunately, knowing that tends not to stop them trying to impose their views on me and others.anonymous said:
[redacted]
Blimey I put it in the simplest language I could. Perhaps a multiple choice.You see your next door neighbour holding a firework in his garden while lighting it. Do you.
a) see it as fun, go round there and grab a firework out of the box in a show of solidarity
b) think he's an idiot and go back to reading your porno mags
c) immediately call 999 as this guy obviously needs protecting from himself.
.
.
You views on helmets as posed on here represent c) when I believe the vast number of right thinking people would not venture to stick their noses in where they weren't wanted and would choose b)
The whole concept of sticking your noses in where they weren't wanted is the nanny state. And you are the queen of the curtain twitching nanny state.
If people don't want to wear helmets its their opinion. Disagreeing with it is your opinion. Suggesting the state should intervene to protect people from themselves is one small step from you and one giant leap for mankind toward the nannying utopia that you are too daft to see.
When a government is influenced by people like you to interfere in a persons personal choices no matter how daft they seem to you, the government has taken several steps too far.
If this is difficult for you to understand you shouldn't be voting.
julian64 said:
Blimey I put it in the simplest language I could. Perhaps a multiple choice.
You see your next door neighbour holding a firework in his garden while lighting it. Do you.
a) see it as fun, go round there and grab a firework out of the box in a show of solidarity
b) think he's an idiot and go back to reading your porno mags
c) immediately call 999 as this guy obviously needs protecting from himself.
.
.
You views on helmets as posed on here represent c) when I believe the vast number of right thinking people would not venture to stick their noses in where they weren't wanted and would choose b)
The whole concept of sticking your noses in where they weren't wanted is the nanny state. And you are the queen of the curtain twitching nanny state.
If people don't want to wear helmets its their opinion. Disagreeing with it is your opinion. Suggesting the state should intervene to protect people from themselves is one small step from you and one giant leap for mankind toward the nannying utopia that you are too daft to see.
When a government is influenced by people like you to interfere in a persons personal choices no matter how daft they seem to you, the government has taken several steps too far.
If this is difficult for you to understand you shouldn't be voting.
You see your next door neighbour holding a firework in his garden while lighting it. Do you.
a) see it as fun, go round there and grab a firework out of the box in a show of solidarity
b) think he's an idiot and go back to reading your porno mags
c) immediately call 999 as this guy obviously needs protecting from himself.
.
.
You views on helmets as posed on here represent c) when I believe the vast number of right thinking people would not venture to stick their noses in where they weren't wanted and would choose b)
The whole concept of sticking your noses in where they weren't wanted is the nanny state. And you are the queen of the curtain twitching nanny state.
If people don't want to wear helmets its their opinion. Disagreeing with it is your opinion. Suggesting the state should intervene to protect people from themselves is one small step from you and one giant leap for mankind toward the nannying utopia that you are too daft to see.
When a government is influenced by people like you to interfere in a persons personal choices no matter how daft they seem to you, the government has taken several steps too far.
If this is difficult for you to understand you shouldn't be voting.
catso said:
julian64 said:
Blimey I put it in the simplest language I could. Perhaps a multiple choice.
You see your next door neighbour holding a firework in his garden while lighting it. Do you.
a) see it as fun, go round there and grab a firework out of the box in a show of solidarity
b) think he's an idiot and go back to reading your porno mags
c) immediately call 999 as this guy obviously needs protecting from himself.
.
.
You views on helmets as posed on here represent c) when I believe the vast number of right thinking people would not venture to stick their noses in where they weren't wanted and would choose b)
The whole concept of sticking your noses in where they weren't wanted is the nanny state. And you are the queen of the curtain twitching nanny state.
If people don't want to wear helmets its their opinion. Disagreeing with it is your opinion. Suggesting the state should intervene to protect people from themselves is one small step from you and one giant leap for mankind toward the nannying utopia that you are too daft to see.
When a government is influenced by people like you to interfere in a persons personal choices no matter how daft they seem to you, the government has taken several steps too far.
If this is difficult for you to understand you shouldn't be voting.
You see your next door neighbour holding a firework in his garden while lighting it. Do you.
a) see it as fun, go round there and grab a firework out of the box in a show of solidarity
b) think he's an idiot and go back to reading your porno mags
c) immediately call 999 as this guy obviously needs protecting from himself.
.
.
You views on helmets as posed on here represent c) when I believe the vast number of right thinking people would not venture to stick their noses in where they weren't wanted and would choose b)
The whole concept of sticking your noses in where they weren't wanted is the nanny state. And you are the queen of the curtain twitching nanny state.
If people don't want to wear helmets its their opinion. Disagreeing with it is your opinion. Suggesting the state should intervene to protect people from themselves is one small step from you and one giant leap for mankind toward the nannying utopia that you are too daft to see.
When a government is influenced by people like you to interfere in a persons personal choices no matter how daft they seem to you, the government has taken several steps too far.
If this is difficult for you to understand you shouldn't be voting.
Whether you ought to wear one or not is irrelevant. The power to choose is what matters.
As an aside, do you not smoke, MTB? I'm sure I remember reading you mentioning it in another thread so apologies if I'm mixing you up with someone else.
You must know that is incredibly dangerous/bad for you? On a logical/health basis, I wonder if it might be even more stupid than riding a motorcycle without a helmet? I know a lot would see it that way.
Personally, I would defend your freedom to make the choice to smoke as it's your body and your lungs but lots of people would rather you weren't allowed to make that decision for yourself, or to drink or to eat red meat etc etc.
(all said as an ex-smoker turned occasional drunken smoker who is hardly militant about what others want to do)
julian64 said:
Blimey I put it in the simplest language I could. Perhaps a multiple choice.
You see your next door neighbour holding a firework in his garden while lighting it. Do you.
a) see it as fun, go round there and grab a firework out of the box in a show of solidarity
b) think he's an idiot and go back to reading your porno mags
c) immediately call 999 as this guy obviously needs protecting from himself.
.
.
You views on helmets as posed on here represent c) when I believe the vast number of right thinking people would not venture to stick their noses in where they weren't wanted and would choose b)
The whole concept of sticking your noses in where they weren't wanted is the nanny state. And you are the queen of the curtain twitching nanny state.
If people don't want to wear helmets its their opinion. Disagreeing with it is your opinion. Suggesting the state should intervene to protect people from themselves is one small step from you and one giant leap for mankind toward the nannying utopia that you are too daft to see.
When a government is influenced by people like you to interfere in a persons personal choices no matter how daft they seem to you, the government has taken several steps too far.
If this is difficult for you to understand you shouldn't be voting.
But your analogy isn't comparable Julian. The scale is completely out of kilter, the scale of the damage to individual, the wider effect on society, and the obvious fact that if you didn't have decent safety gear we'd quickly see our bikes being restricted to try and mitigate the damage so we probably actually benefit from it. I could go on but its moot.You see your next door neighbour holding a firework in his garden while lighting it. Do you.
a) see it as fun, go round there and grab a firework out of the box in a show of solidarity
b) think he's an idiot and go back to reading your porno mags
c) immediately call 999 as this guy obviously needs protecting from himself.
.
.
You views on helmets as posed on here represent c) when I believe the vast number of right thinking people would not venture to stick their noses in where they weren't wanted and would choose b)
The whole concept of sticking your noses in where they weren't wanted is the nanny state. And you are the queen of the curtain twitching nanny state.
If people don't want to wear helmets its their opinion. Disagreeing with it is your opinion. Suggesting the state should intervene to protect people from themselves is one small step from you and one giant leap for mankind toward the nannying utopia that you are too daft to see.
When a government is influenced by people like you to interfere in a persons personal choices no matter how daft they seem to you, the government has taken several steps too far.
If this is difficult for you to understand you shouldn't be voting.
You keep harping on about individual risk, citizenship, and your right to vote, but the simple fact of the matter is that that any good citizen of a country knows their individual rights can be outweighed by the needs of society and their country. In this case whether you believe it or not it is a fact that if safety laws are laxed including road speeds a greater number of people will die. Whether you like it or not this is true in the vast majority of instances.
It's not just their choice either. We all are born into society with an obligation to maintain it. If you're willing to take huge risks that is your choice but until you start paying your own hospital bills, recovery bills, and for the years of therapy for the road user that smeared you over the pavement, wider society is still picking up your pieces. The welfare state and poor lifestyle choice are still a huge burden on the UK's back. We need more intelligent laws before the system collapses, not less.
You harp on about voting, but if you don't understand that only badly behaved children get to do what they want, the rest of us understand that sometimes rules are there for a reason, and sometimes they're s
t. Rules sometimes exist for society, but not for the individual forcing people to wear safety gear, was put in place because people were fking idiots. Safety laws especially are created for this reason.anonymous said:
[redacted]
what a load of st, nanny state, its my life, what a load of "oppressed" bullst. Stick it to the man dude, this is my life not yours.Now lets look at this sensibly.
Your life, your health, so you feel that you shouldn't have to wear a helmet. Great, but lets actually look at the implications of this.
you have an accident or are involved in one that with a helmet you would have walked away from but in this situation your dead.
So instead of getting up and settling this minor accident with insurance we now have.
police RTA investigation,
ambulance crew,
Doctors,
A much bigger insurance problem,
A person going through hell who may or may not be to blame for the accident but as you are to liberal to not wear a f
king helmet will have years of torment through the courts till its settled. That's before you look at the mental implications witnessing this could have on others and being involved in the process. The financial costs become a burden along with using valuable stretched resources.
If you cannot see how this being a burden on society then frankly you shouldn't be voting. The reason we have common sense laws in this country is for people exactly like you. To thick to go, "I see no problem with this, this is a non event".
What do you want, a country with world leading safety standards at work and on the road or your "freedom" similar to countries that don't even have running water and high mortality rates.
It's a contentious issue really.
I completely see where MTB is coming from; in that wearing a helmet has no real disadvantage and huge positives against riding lidless. Likewise, I understand that people would prefer the option rather than have helmets mandatory as it undermines people's intelligence and right to choose.
Personally, I would always wear a lid. I don't take mine out unless I have kevlar jeans, jacket, boots and gloves as a minimum. The problem with accidents is that they're random occurrences; so even when the risk is low, it still exists.
If the government randomly decided to U-turn on helmet wearing, my only input would be that I'd like helmet wearing to be declared on your insurance. In that, you declare to your insurer that you would/wouldn't be wearing a helmet when riding and it is reflected in your premiums.
Otherwise I could see an increase in everybody's premiums in order to offset the increase people who suffer head injuries through accidents.
I completely see where MTB is coming from; in that wearing a helmet has no real disadvantage and huge positives against riding lidless. Likewise, I understand that people would prefer the option rather than have helmets mandatory as it undermines people's intelligence and right to choose.
Personally, I would always wear a lid. I don't take mine out unless I have kevlar jeans, jacket, boots and gloves as a minimum. The problem with accidents is that they're random occurrences; so even when the risk is low, it still exists.
If the government randomly decided to U-turn on helmet wearing, my only input would be that I'd like helmet wearing to be declared on your insurance. In that, you declare to your insurer that you would/wouldn't be wearing a helmet when riding and it is reflected in your premiums.
Otherwise I could see an increase in everybody's premiums in order to offset the increase people who suffer head injuries through accidents.
If you want such freedoms then go live in the America, its the land of the free 
you can ride without a helmet and carry an assortment of firearms on your person (just for fun)
but
there is only 1 state where you an ride a motorcycle properly and "filter" through traffic
I guess you have to give up some freedoms when it makes sense to ...assault rifles are fine, but motorcycle filtering is dangerous ...okay
you can ride without a helmet and carry an assortment of firearms on your person (just for fun)
but
there is only 1 state where you an ride a motorcycle properly and "filter" through traffic
I guess you have to give up some freedoms when it makes sense to ...assault rifles are fine, but motorcycle filtering is dangerous ...okay
Disastrous said:
Agreed.
Whether you ought to wear one or not is irrelevant. The power to choose is what matters.
As an aside, do you not smoke, MTB? I'm sure I remember reading you mentioning it in another thread so apologies if I'm mixing you up with someone else.
You must know that is incredibly dangerous/bad for you? On a logical/health basis, I wonder if it might be even more stupid than riding a motorcycle without a helmet? I know a lot would see it that way.
Personally, I would defend your freedom to make the choice to smoke as it's your body and your lungs but lots of people would rather you weren't allowed to make that decision for yourself, or to drink or to eat red meat etc etc.
(all said as an ex-smoker turned occasional drunken smoker who is hardly militant about what others want to do)
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. Whether you ought to wear one or not is irrelevant. The power to choose is what matters.
As an aside, do you not smoke, MTB? I'm sure I remember reading you mentioning it in another thread so apologies if I'm mixing you up with someone else.
You must know that is incredibly dangerous/bad for you? On a logical/health basis, I wonder if it might be even more stupid than riding a motorcycle without a helmet? I know a lot would see it that way.
Personally, I would defend your freedom to make the choice to smoke as it's your body and your lungs but lots of people would rather you weren't allowed to make that decision for yourself, or to drink or to eat red meat etc etc.
(all said as an ex-smoker turned occasional drunken smoker who is hardly militant about what others want to do)
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 b
ds 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 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. moanthebairns said:
what a load of st, nanny state, its my life, what a load of "oppressed" bullst. Stick it to the man dude, this is my life not yours.
Now lets look at this sensibly.
Your life, your health, so you feel that you shouldn't have to wear a helmet. Great, but lets actually look at the implications of this.
you have an accident or are involved in one that with a helmet you would have walked away from but in this situation your dead.
So instead of getting up and settling this minor accident with insurance we now have.
police RTA investigation,
ambulance crew,
Doctors,
A much bigger insurance problem,
A person going through hell who may or may not be to blame for the accident but as you are to liberal to not wear a fking helmet will have years of torment through the courts till its settled.
That's before you look at the mental implications witnessing this could have on others and being involved in the process. The financial costs become a burden along with using valuable stretched resources.
If you cannot see how this being a burden on society then frankly you shouldn't be voting. The reason we have common sense laws in this country is for people exactly like you. To thick to go, "I see no problem with this, this is a non event".
What do you want, a country with world leading safety standards at work and on the road or your "freedom" similar to countries that don't even have running water and high mortality rates.
If you actually believe this then the question has to be:t, nanny state, its my life, what a load of "oppressed" bullst. Stick it to the man dude, this is my life not yours.Now lets look at this sensibly.
Your life, your health, so you feel that you shouldn't have to wear a helmet. Great, but lets actually look at the implications of this.
you have an accident or are involved in one that with a helmet you would have walked away from but in this situation your dead.
So instead of getting up and settling this minor accident with insurance we now have.
police RTA investigation,
ambulance crew,
Doctors,
A much bigger insurance problem,
A person going through hell who may or may not be to blame for the accident but as you are to liberal to not wear a f
king helmet will have years of torment through the courts till its settled. That's before you look at the mental implications witnessing this could have on others and being involved in the process. The financial costs become a burden along with using valuable stretched resources.
If you cannot see how this being a burden on society then frankly you shouldn't be voting. The reason we have common sense laws in this country is for people exactly like you. To thick to go, "I see no problem with this, this is a non event".
What do you want, a country with world leading safety standards at work and on the road or your "freedom" similar to countries that don't even have running water and high mortality rates.
Why allow motorcycles at all?
moanthebairns said:
Disastrous said:
Agreed.
Whether you ought to wear one or not is irrelevant. The power to choose is what matters.
As an aside, do you not smoke, MTB? I'm sure I remember reading you mentioning it in another thread so apologies if I'm mixing you up with someone else.
You must know that is incredibly dangerous/bad for you? On a logical/health basis, I wonder if it might be even more stupid than riding a motorcycle without a helmet? I know a lot would see it that way.
Personally, I would defend your freedom to make the choice to smoke as it's your body and your lungs but lots of people would rather you weren't allowed to make that decision for yourself, or to drink or to eat red meat etc etc.
(all said as an ex-smoker turned occasional drunken smoker who is hardly militant about what others want to do)
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. Whether you ought to wear one or not is irrelevant. The power to choose is what matters.
As an aside, do you not smoke, MTB? I'm sure I remember reading you mentioning it in another thread so apologies if I'm mixing you up with someone else.
You must know that is incredibly dangerous/bad for you? On a logical/health basis, I wonder if it might be even more stupid than riding a motorcycle without a helmet? I know a lot would see it that way.
Personally, I would defend your freedom to make the choice to smoke as it's your body and your lungs but lots of people would rather you weren't allowed to make that decision for yourself, or to drink or to eat red meat etc etc.
(all said as an ex-smoker turned occasional drunken smoker who is hardly militant about what others want to do)
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 b
ds 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 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. Smoking = ok
Overeating = ban it!
Ridiculous position.
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.
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!Disastrous said:
moanthebairns said:
Disastrous said:
Agreed.
Whether you ought to wear one or not is irrelevant. The power to choose is what matters.
As an aside, do you not smoke, MTB? I'm sure I remember reading you mentioning it in another thread so apologies if I'm mixing you up with someone else.
You must know that is incredibly dangerous/bad for you? On a logical/health basis, I wonder if it might be even more stupid than riding a motorcycle without a helmet? I know a lot would see it that way.
Personally, I would defend your freedom to make the choice to smoke as it's your body and your lungs but lots of people would rather you weren't allowed to make that decision for yourself, or to drink or to eat red meat etc etc.
(all said as an ex-smoker turned occasional drunken smoker who is hardly militant about what others want to do)
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. Whether you ought to wear one or not is irrelevant. The power to choose is what matters.
As an aside, do you not smoke, MTB? I'm sure I remember reading you mentioning it in another thread so apologies if I'm mixing you up with someone else.
You must know that is incredibly dangerous/bad for you? On a logical/health basis, I wonder if it might be even more stupid than riding a motorcycle without a helmet? I know a lot would see it that way.
Personally, I would defend your freedom to make the choice to smoke as it's your body and your lungs but lots of people would rather you weren't allowed to make that decision for yourself, or to drink or to eat red meat etc etc.
(all said as an ex-smoker turned occasional drunken smoker who is hardly militant about what others want to do)
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 b
ds 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 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. Smoking = ok
Overeating = ban it!
Ridiculous position.
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.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!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.
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
Gassing Station | Biker Banter | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff