If helmets were optional...

[Steve Bass]

Prof Prolapse said:

I love that a byproduct of the American healthcare system is they can produce such accurate billing summaries.

Funnily enough the US states with partial helmet laws are recognising the fiscal impact and amending the laws in such a way as it's only legal to not wear a lid if..

you're over 21 AND
You've completed an advanced motorcycle training course AND

you have a first party medical insurance plan with a minimum of 20k USD.
given the most likely people to not wear a lid are poor and thus won't have medical insurance, the cost burden is being borne by the state. Something they're not liking.
Can you imagine the premium when you decalse you'll be riding without a lid??

really is the "Land of the Free".... if you can pay to be free

[Steve Bass]

Prof Prolapse said:

Yes all the best conclusions are come to by guessing.

I'm pretty certain that's the technique being employed at CERN. There are obviously senior guessers, but these are careful monitored by a team of "Magic 8" balls.

You utter plonker.

Our official title is

"Senior System Guessnician"

.

[freddytin]

To answer the OP

I have , I would ,and I will, where the law of the country allows and probably where I think the meagre fine is of no real financial concern.

I feel that I can exercise enough self control to mitigate the risk to a level that I find wholly acceptable.

I believe with hindsight, and way too much experience ( old fart ) that I personally I'm much more likely to suffer a K.S.I when I'm fully kitted up and feeling rather invincible .

[Andy XRV]

Steve Bass said:

black-k1 said:

Balanced on whose scales?

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?

because the ecommics of dealing with an RTA where a motorcyclist wasn't wearing a helmet is exponentially higher than those who were. The subsequet care costs are hugely more expensive unless you're happy that they just switch you off should you seem marginal? The ability to maintain life without quality has grown hugely,
You're arguing it's YOUR right to cost ME more tax to pay for your care or a poorer health service due to the huge sums diverted to care for those injured to a far higher level than had they been wearing a helmet. How is that fair to me?
The fact is helmets save lives AND money and resources. your level of input into the system doesn't dicate the level of care dispensed. With a finite amount of resources to go round, is it fair that huge sums be consumed by those who's injuries could be reduced?
talking of eliminating risk entirely is idiotic, but it's totally acceptable to take pracical measures to reduce that risk in a way that provided the biggest cost to benefit to personal libery ratio.

That is a totally flawed argument because where do you draw the line. Why should someone who believes in taking very few risks in life pay for others who have risky hobbies like us riding motorbikes, skiing and the like. How about we add in fat people and people that drink and smoke.

[Steve Bass]

freddytin said:

I feel that I can exercise enough self control to mitigate the risk to a level that I find wholly acceptable.

Sorry Freddy but this is absurd.
Are you the only road user now?? Since when did your self control have any bearing on the actions, or inactions of others?

[Prof Prolapse]

It's mental Steve.

I was in New York whilst they were doing some voting for "Obamacare" and it was opposed most vehemently by the very people who would benefit most from it.

I like the Americans, but we have very different ideas on society, it's like they did not gain the benefits of the Socialist movements in Europe.

This argument, could easily be for real in the USA, and I doubt the impacts on society would be a very good place to build an defence of a law.

[Steve Bass]

Prof Prolapse said:

It's mental Steve.

I was in New York whilst they were doing some voting for "Obamacare" and it was opposed most vehemently by the very people who would benefit most from it.

I like the Americans, but we have very different ideas on society, it's like they did not gain the benefits of the Socialist movements in Europe.

This argument, could easily be for real in the USA, and I doubt the impacts on society would be a very good place to build an defence of a law.

Indeed. i thnk America has become the warning notice of promoting the rights of the individual ove rthe rights of society.
Just look at the number of firearm deaths, even mass (4 or more) killlings and thats at almost one a day. yet they believe it's the inalienable right to bear arms.
well, with these decisions come responsibilities which lead consequences.
be careful what you wish for.....

[Andy XRV]

Steve Bass said:

Prof Prolapse said:

It's mental Steve.

I was in New York whilst they were doing some voting for "Obamacare" and it was opposed most vehemently by the very people who would benefit most from it.

I like the Americans, but we have very different ideas on society, it's like they did not gain the benefits of the Socialist movements in Europe.

This argument, could easily be for real in the USA, and I doubt the impacts on society would be a very good place to build an defence of a law.

Indeed. i thnk America has become the warning notice of promoting the rights of the individual ove rthe rights of society.
Just look at the number of firearm deaths, even mass (4 or more) killlings and thats at almost one a day. yet they believe it's the inalienable right to bear arms.
well, with these decisions come responsibilities which lead consequences.
be careful what you wish for.....

All good points but it comes to giving up person freedoms it can also be said be careful what you accept.....

[Steve Bass]

Andy XRV said:

Steve Bass said:

Prof Prolapse said:

It's mental Steve.

I was in New York whilst they were doing some voting for "Obamacare" and it was opposed most vehemently by the very people who would benefit most from it.

I like the Americans, but we have very different ideas on society, it's like they did not gain the benefits of the Socialist movements in Europe.

This argument, could easily be for real in the USA, and I doubt the impacts on society would be a very good place to build an defence of a law.

Indeed. i thnk America has become the warning notice of promoting the rights of the individual ove rthe rights of society.
Just look at the number of firearm deaths, even mass (4 or more) killlings and thats at almost one a day. yet they believe it's the inalienable right to bear arms.
well, with these decisions come responsibilities which lead consequences.
be careful what you wish for.....

All good points but it comes to giving up person freedoms it can also be said be careful what you accept.....

Absolutley agree andy.
I'm no bleeding heart socialist but I accept that as members of society, we need to accept some limitations on what we would want as individuals vs whats good for society overall.
But on a balanced view, the requirement of wearing a helmet is hardly a loss of basic human rights in the bigger scheme.

[Andy XRV]

Steve Bass said:

Andy XRV said:

Steve Bass said:

Prof Prolapse said:

It's mental Steve.

I was in New York whilst they were doing some voting for "Obamacare" and it was opposed most vehemently by the very people who would benefit most from it.

I like the Americans, but we have very different ideas on society, it's like they did not gain the benefits of the Socialist movements in Europe.

This argument, could easily be for real in the USA, and I doubt the impacts on society would be a very good place to build an defence of a law.

Indeed. i thnk America has become the warning notice of promoting the rights of the individual ove rthe rights of society.
Just look at the number of firearm deaths, even mass (4 or more) killlings and thats at almost one a day. yet they believe it's the inalienable right to bear arms.
well, with these decisions come responsibilities which lead consequences.
be careful what you wish for.....

All good points but it comes to giving up person freedoms it can also be said be careful what you accept.....

Absolutley agree andy.
I'm no bleeding heart socialist but I accept that as members of society, we need to accept some limitations on what we would want as individuals vs whats good for society overall.
But on a balanced view, the requirement of wearing a helmet is hardly a loss of basic human rights in the bigger scheme.

Power to the people!

[Steve Bass]

Andy XRV said:

Steve Bass said:

Andy XRV said:

Steve Bass said:

Prof Prolapse said:

It's mental Steve.

I was in New York whilst they were doing some voting for "Obamacare" and it was opposed most vehemently by the very people who would benefit most from it.

I like the Americans, but we have very different ideas on society, it's like they did not gain the benefits of the Socialist movements in Europe.

This argument, could easily be for real in the USA, and I doubt the impacts on society would be a very good place to build an defence of a law.

Indeed. i thnk America has become the warning notice of promoting the rights of the individual ove rthe rights of society.
Just look at the number of firearm deaths, even mass (4 or more) killlings and thats at almost one a day. yet they believe it's the inalienable right to bear arms.
well, with these decisions come responsibilities which lead consequences.
be careful what you wish for.....

All good points but it comes to giving up person freedoms it can also be said be careful what you accept.....

Absolutley agree andy.
I'm no bleeding heart socialist but I accept that as members of society, we need to accept some limitations on what we would want as individuals vs whats good for society overall.
But on a balanced view, the requirement of wearing a helmet is hardly a loss of basic human rights in the bigger scheme.

Power to the people!

Right on Wolfie

[julian64]

Steve Bass said:

stat stuff

Its completely irrelevant to be told its more dangerous to be without a helmet.
The interesting point of your stats is the cost per helmet worn. £30 per individual year not worn in mexico, and about £1200 per year not worn in the good old US of A, if I'm reading it correctly

If you did want to quantify the cost to the overall society as your main deciding factor for whether helmets vs personal freedom is worth it or not then you need those stats for the UK cos there is such a bizzare difference between those two costs.

[Steve Bass]

julian64 said:

Steve Bass said:

stat stuff

Its completely irrelevant to be told its more dangerous to be without a helmet.
The interesting point of your stats is the cost per helmet worn. £30 per individual year not worn in mexico, and about £1200 per year not worn in the good old US of A, if I'm reading it correctly

If you did want to quantify the cost to the overall society as your main deciding factor for whether helmets vs personal freedom is worth it or not then you need those stats for the UK cos there is such a bizzare difference between those two costs.

Not at all.
The important stuff is the info relating to numbers of deaths or critical injuries suffered by non helmet wearers vs those with no helmet and the associated costs of medical treatment for those individual groups.
Then look at the fact that once a state repeals the full helmet requirment, there is a consistent and inexorable slide into terrible figures related to the lack of helmet use to the point that some states then re-introduce the full requirement law to stem the tide.
Their figures bear no relation to cost or quality of helmet which as the Sharp figures would tell you, are of no bearing. if a helmet is approved then it's approved.
Those states that have introduced requirements to their partial helmet laws have not stipulated how much a helmet should cost because it's irrelevant. what is relevant however is the requirment for 20k of medical cover. What does that tell you?

Edited by Steve Bass on Tuesday 2nd February 17:02

[Rawwr]

I'd still wear one because they look cool and they cover up my ridiculous face.

[anonymous-user]

julian64 said:

Its completely irrelevant to be told its more dangerous to be without a helmet.
The interesting point of your stats is the cost per helmet worn. £30 per individual year not worn in mexico, and about £1200 per year not worn in the good old US of A, if I'm reading it correctly

If you did want to quantify the cost to the overall society as your main deciding factor for whether helmets vs personal freedom is worth it or not then you need those stats for the UK cos there is such a bizzare difference between those two costs.

I don't care about others safety, more the burden they are to others because they're daft enough to not understand risk? Do you think spaces in ER are free?

[cmaguire]

A lot of self-righteous nonsense as regards helmet use. The law will not be repealed so somewhat academic but if it were then no-one riding without one does so with the intention or expectation of ending up in an ambulance. And provided you don't part company with the bike then there is no reason you should do.

The state currently willingly treats all those who put themselves in its care as a result of smoking, drinking, over-eating and any number of other self-inflicted conditions that occur OVER time rather than in a moment of time. Those ending up in care actively put themselves into care.
Somebody riding a motorcycle without a helmet does no such thing.

Whilst we continue to treat the former (free of charge) I have absolutely no issue with treating anybody else.

[cmaguire]

I expect the reason a Yank without a helmet costs more than a Mexican has something to do with a lawyer as well as the actual care involved.

[freddytin]

Steve Bass said:

freddytin said:

I feel that I can exercise enough self control to mitigate the risk to a level that I find wholly acceptable.

Sorry Freddy but this is absurd.
Are you the only road user now?? Since when did your self control have any bearing on the actions, or inactions of others?

My level of self control when feeling exposed ,vulnerable, and very alive when riding without any form of protective clothing has a massive bearing on whether or not I can avoid serious injury or worse.

I can't really understand why people perceive the risk to be so much higher than other activities ..When carried out with due care and attention

[FredClogs]

I've had to replace two helmets, one was an off on a track day at Rockingham the other a wheelie gone wrong, I'm pretty sure in either event id have been dead without the helmet but conversely without the helmet I may not having been taking the risks I was.

I rode around Monaco for a few days on a tl1000 in shorts with no helmet on a holiday many years ago, felt like a feckin hero and sex god to be honest, isn't that what motorbikes are for?

[Gusto]

Rawwr said:

I'd still wear one because they look cool and they cover up my ridiculous face.

Haha! Best answer yet!