If helmets were optional...

[Fleegle]

Disastrous said:

It's an excellent subject for a debate, isn't it?

Not too contentious and doesn't ever drag in Islam/Immigrants like some the massive threads elsewhere.

Why are sihk's allowed to have the option on wearing protective headgear? Surely religion shouldn't be a factor when it comes to safety??

[Disastrous]

Fleegle said:

Disastrous said:

It's an excellent subject for a debate, isn't it?

Not too contentious and doesn't ever drag in Islam/Immigrants like some the massive threads elsewhere.

Why are sihk's allowed to have the option on wearing protective headgear? Surely religion shouldn't be a factor when it comes to safety??

Well played!

But do they actually? Every day is a school day if so. I'm becoming a motorsikhlist!

[Prof Prolapse]

Disastrous said:

Fleegle said:

Disastrous said:

It's an excellent subject for a debate, isn't it?

Not too contentious and doesn't ever drag in Islam/Immigrants like some the massive threads elsewhere.

Why are sihk's allowed to have the option on wearing protective headgear? Surely religion shouldn't be a factor when it comes to safety??

Well played!

But do they actually? Every day is a school day if so. I'm becoming a motorsikhlist!

I think the law was amended a few years after 1973 to allow them an exemption.

Our country has a long proud history of caving into bullst religious pressures.

[creampuff]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

A gas turban makes you go really really fast.

[sc0tt]

Prof Prolapse said:

Disastrous said:

Fleegle said:

Disastrous said:

It's an excellent subject for a debate, isn't it?

Not too contentious and doesn't ever drag in Islam/Immigrants like some the massive threads elsewhere.

Why are sihk's allowed to have the option on wearing protective headgear? Surely religion shouldn't be a factor when it comes to safety??

Well played!

But do they actually? Every day is a school day if so. I'm becoming a motorsikhlist!

I think the law was amended a few years after 1973 to allow them an exemption.

Our country has a long proud history of caving into bullst religious pressures.

There goes the thread

[anonymous-user]

Disastrous said:

Also driving abroad in helmetless countries?

What about cyclists?

So much illogical concern!

In both examples the rider has a choice. In the UK motorcyclists don't. When it's cold do you have to be told to wear a coat, or shall we go for the pro-hypothermia vote

[Biker's Nemesis]

I've seen a few video's on that FB thing were riders of different sized bikes have come off at not great speeds and suffered injuries that actually made me stop fking about on bikes without wearing a helmet. (motocross bikes)

One dude had crashed at a junction and had no lower jaw left from just above his neck, only his top teeth showing. The poor bugger was frantically trying to get a car driver to take him to Hospital or something.

I felt angry with the person that was videoing the aftermath instead of helping then felt disgusted with myself for watching it.

It really did upset me and I have skin thicker than a house brick.

(I can't be arsed with any smart arse replies to this so fk off in advance if you're thinking of being a smart arse.)

[Steve Bass]

Prof Prolapse said:

I've quite enjoyed this one. Steve Bass appears to have the afternoon "Pro" shift.

it's an interesting argument/discussion.
moot but interesting.
I love how some people really believe..
A. They can control the universe around them..
B. Their decisions impact no one else.
C. That their freedoms are sacrosanct.

When in fact...

A. They need to read up on Chaos theory and stop deluding themselves
B. If they live on the moon, possibly. Otherwise.... Nope.
C. They have no freedoms. Our lives are mandated in one way or another from cradle to grave. Deal with it.

[Disastrous]

yonex said:

Disastrous said:

Also driving abroad in helmetless countries?

What about cyclists?

So much illogical concern!

In both examples the rider has a choice. In the UK motorcyclists don't. When it's cold do you have to be told to wear a coat, or shall we go for the pro-hypothermia vote

I'd not want the law telling me when I had to wear a coat thanks!

And we know that riders in the UK (Sikhs excepted, it seems) don't have a choice about wearing a helmet as it stands. But we were discussing a hypothetical situation whereby helmets are optional like in some other countries and Sc0tt asked whether if this were the case, would midenginedcoupe consider it too risky to drive here...

I was adding to his question.

Have I missed something?

[Steve Bass]

creampuff said:

My comfort level for state intervention is for the state to not do a whole lot. Your is obviously for the state to do a bit more.

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.

Edited by Steve Bass on Wednesday 3rd February 18:25

[creampuff]

Steve Bass said:

When in fact...

A. They need to read up on Chaos theory and stop deluding themselves
B. If they live on the moon, possibly. Otherwise.... Nope.
C. They have no freedoms. Our lives are mandated in one way or another from cradle to grave. Deal with it.

Well:
A - Nobody has argued that wearing a helmet will not help prevent injury in the event of a crash and nobody has suggested they can prevent crashes by some amazing ability which makes helmet use redundant. Pro-helmet=anti-free choice riders should remind themselves that however much they like to poke fun at anyone who suggests helmets should not be compulsory, they themselves are choosing a mode of transport 20 times more risky than driving a car.

B - The presence or absence of a helmet does not affect others, even if you assume it does affect others then it affects no more people without a helmet than with it.

C - It is quite possible to argue the role of the state in everyday life, that is unless you can't see the difference between somewhere with a lot of state control over your life like say North Korea and somewhere with less state control over your life like some states in the United States or Somalia (to take two quite different examples of small government), or the United Kingdom in between.

[anonymous-user]

Disastrous said:

I'd not want the law telling me when I had to wear a coat thanks!

And we know that riders in the UK (Sikhs excepted, it seems) don't have a choice about wearing a helmet as it stands. But we were discussing a hypothetical situation whereby helmets are optional like in some other countries and Sc0tt asked whether if this were the case, would midenginedcoupe consider it too risky to drive here...

I was adding to his question.

Have I missed something?

Both are pure risk assessment. When that assessment is illogical it is safe to protect the individual, as you would with a child who doesn't know any better.

[freddytin]

Got to say I'm a tad bewildered at just how risk averse we are becoming as a society.

This is a motoring enthusiasts website , mainly consisting of fun loving petrol heads , Biker Banter in particular .

Yet the slightest hint of anyone venturing out not fully suited and booted seems to raise a totally disproportionate level of concern ( Very caring chaps ). These are the same Guys and gals who revel in building Heath Robinson track day specials and hurtling like maniacal monsters round and round whatever circuit they can find.

And as for the even more risk averse Big Jessies in the 4 wheeled section. Well, to them it's tantamount to suicide to venture out on the public highway without the latest super sticky sports tyres from one of the leading manufacturers ( Davanti thread )

Edit Mostly said tongue in cheek

Edited by freddytin on Wednesday 3rd February 18:43

[Wacky Racer]

[Disastrous]

yonex said:

Disastrous said:

I'd not want the law telling me when I had to wear a coat thanks!

And we know that riders in the UK (Sikhs excepted, it seems) don't have a choice about wearing a helmet as it stands. But we were discussing a hypothetical situation whereby helmets are optional like in some other countries and Sc0tt asked whether if this were the case, would midenginedcoupe consider it too risky to drive here...

I was adding to his question.

Have I missed something?

Both are pure risk assessment. When that assessment is illogical it is safe to protect the individual, as you would with a child who doesn't know any better.

Both what? Driving and riding?


So you're saying if helmets were optional then you would or wouldn't drive a car??

I feel like you're arguing a different topic...

[Steve Bass]

creampuff said:

Well:
A - Nobody has argued that wearing a helmet will not help prevent injury in the event of a crash and nobody has suggested they can prevent crashes by some amazing ability which makes helmet use redundant. Pro-helmet=anti-free choice riders should remind themselves that however much they like to poke fun at anyone who suggests helmets should not be compulsory, they themselves are choosing a mode of transport 20 times more risky than driving a car.

its not a case of pro helmet equals anti choice. if it were, you have to accept the natural extension of that arguement can be applied to ANY subject any individual takes umbrage at. ergo, we all do whateverwe like and sod anyone else.

creampuff said:

B - The presence or absence of a helmet does not affect others, even if you assume it does affect others then it affects no more people without a helmet than with it.

and this is the most worying argument. If a helmet can save lives or reduce injury as you concede above, then the absence of same will lead to more deaths or injuries natually. Which then affect hundreds of people. The enmergency services who attend an RTA that could of been a minor incident were a helmet worn.
The hospital staff an dcoctors who now need to see a patient that needn't be there.
Family members struggling to stay afloat as the bread winner is now in nappies.
The list is endless.
And for what? The non use of a helmet. EVERYTHING you do affects someone. it might be your choice to not wear a helmet, but many are affected by the consequences, so that arguement doesn't work.

creampuff said:

C - It is quite possible to argue the role of the state in everyday life, that is unless you can't see the difference between somewhere with a lot of state control over your life like say North Korea and somewhere with less state control over your life like some states in the United States or Somalia (to take two quite different examples of small government), or the United Kingdom in between.

But your arguement was that you preferred that the state do not a lot. Define not a lot?
yes, you can ratchet up the control to North Korea levels or you can ratchet them down to Somali levels. Where would you draw the line? Would you accept a road policy that saw thousands of people killed on the roads? Or would you ban any form of transport to mitigate that risk? or reduce speed limits to 5 mph??
The answer lies in finding balance. And when a reasonable, cheap and efffective means is found to significantly reduce that risk, it's not unrasonable to enact it.
I don't want to see the State legislate for every single thing, but some things are just common sense.

[Steve Bass]

freddytin said:

Got to say I'm a tad bewildered at just how risk averse we are becoming as a society.

This is a motoring enthusiasts website , mainly consisting of fun loving petrol heads , Biker Banter in particular .

Yet the slightest hint of anyone venturing out not fully suited and booted seems to raise a totally disproportionate level of concern ( Very caring chaps ). These are the same Guys and gals who revel in building Heath Robinson track day specials and hurtling like maniacal monsters round and round whatever circuit they can find.

And as for the even more risk averse Big Jessies in the 4 wheeled section. Well, to them it's tantamount to suicide to venture out on the public highway without the latest super sticky sports tyres from one of the leading manufacturers ( Davanti thread )

Edit Mostly said tongue in cheek

I don't think people are becoming more risk adverse, rather consequence aware. superbikes are fast, accidents happen. proper apparel can reduce the severity of injuries. If you choose not too, fine for you but accept the consequnces.
When I was young a friends mum worked in A& E in Sidcup and she begged us to always wear gloves and boots when riding.
The severity of injuries suffered by people in bike accidents not wearing these items was massive compared to those with them.
I'd rather buy new leathers than spend years having sin grafts...

[anonymous-user]

Disastrous said:

Both what? Driving and riding?


So you're saying if helmets were optional then you would or wouldn't drive a car??

I feel like you're arguing a different topic...

You quoted the OP, I stated it was about risk assessment, which it is.

[Disastrous]

yonex said:

Disastrous said:

Both what? Driving and riding?


So you're saying if helmets were optional then you would or wouldn't drive a car??

I feel like you're arguing a different topic...

You quoted the OP, I stated it was about risk assessment, which it is.

I was talking about Sc0tt's question?

[creampuff]

Steve Bass said:

and this is the most worying argument. If a helmet can save lives or reduce injury as you concede above, then the absence of same will lead to more deaths or injuries natually. Which then affect hundreds of people. The enmergency services who attend an RTA that could of been a minor incident were a helmet worn.
The hospital staff an dcoctors who now need to see a patient that needn't be there.
Family members struggling to stay afloat as the bread winner is now in nappies.
The list is endless.
And for what? The non use of a helmet. EVERYTHING you do affects someone. it might be your choice to not wear a helmet, but many are affected by the consequences, so that arguement doesn't work.

You keep repeating this same argument as if helmet use proves some hard line above which everything is unsafe and ending up in hospital, involving of nurses and doctors and paramedics is unacceptable and everything below which is safe - even though you are still massively more likely to end up in hospital from riding a bike compared to driving a car.

Why helmets? Why not engine capacity or power restrictions? In Vietnam where it is in practice difficult to obtain a licence for a bike over 175cc, motorcycle fatalities are actually relatively low considering the large number of bikes. So lets ban large capacity bikes. What about the earlier French 100hp limit on motorbike power? Maybe we should limit power here too, we already have statistical evidence that riders are more likely to be killed or injured on larger machines. Limiting engine power or engine capacity would likely lead to fewer fatalites - 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.