+- Madison Motorsports (https://forum.mmsports.org)
+-- Forum: Madison Motorsports (https://forum.mmsports.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Lounge (https://forum.mmsports.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Thread: Roethlisberger, helmets, and the law (/showthread.php?tid=4366)
- Maengelito - 06-16-2006
.RJ Wrote:Maengelito Wrote:i would personally never ride a motorcycle without a helmet, so i dont see why it shouldnt be imposed on everyone much like seat belt laws
That argument is completely retarded.
You dont smoke, so should we impose a no smoking law, too?
i'm not talkin about smoking, just the helmet law. i know you are all trying to make correlations to other situations, but thats not how laws are written. they usually address a specific concern. and yes we all know there are a lot of retarded laws out there, but as far as helmets are concerned, it doesnt matter to me if it was mandatory or not, i'd still wear one if i rode.
- .RJ - 06-16-2006
Maengelito Wrote:i know you are all trying to make correlations to other situations, but thats not how laws are written
Yes, the law is written for every situation, but supporting your argument with "well thats what I do so everyone else should do it too" is gayer than a bag full of dicks slung over richard simmons' shoulder
If you've got a reason for it, then support it with verifiable facts, not strawman arguments.
Edit: If i'm going to call Maeng out then I ought to contribute something too. If not wearing a helmet and crashing causes a significant impact to healthcare costs to society, then mandate it.... but most bike accidents are single vehicle (rider error) and if they bin it without a helmet on they're likely not going to make it. And even if its a law... people that dont want to ride with a helmet wont, or they will use the half-shell lids that barely satisfy the law without offering much protection at all. You're pissing into the wind with this, IMO.
Spend the $$ on promoting better rider training and making it available to the masses instead of wasting time/$$ fighting for helmet laws. I would rather have a group of better trained motorcycle riders than just requiring everyone put on a lid.
- white_2kgt - 06-16-2006
.RJ Wrote:Maengelito Wrote:i know you are all trying to make correlations to other situations, but thats not how laws are written
Yes, the law is written for every situation, but supporting your argument with "well thats what I do so everyone else should do it too" is gayer than a bag full of dicks slung over richard simmons' shoulder
If you've got a reason for it, then support it with verifiable facts, not strawman arguments.
Ok, how about it is a proven fact that medical bills are cheaper if you are riding a bike, wreck and wack your head against the pavement and are wearing a helmet vs not wearing one?
I fail to see the problem here?
- .RJ - 06-16-2006
white_2kgt Wrote:Ok, how about it is a proven fact that medical bills are cheaper if you are riding a bike, wreck and wack your head against the pavement and are wearing a helmet vs not wearing one?
How does it compare to the bill from the county coroner to clean your grease stain off the pavement because you werent wearing a helmet?
I'm of the opinion that if you bin it, and you're not wearing a helmet, then you're going to die.
- G.Irish - 06-16-2006
white_2kgt Wrote:Ok, how about it is a proven fact that medical bills are cheaper if you are riding a bike, wreck and wack your head against the pavement and are wearing a helmet vs not wearing one?
Sure, but what about people who obviously haven't been taking care of themselves who have heart attacks. If they had refrained from eating all those thickburgers and fried chicken they may not have had the attack. After all, about 700,000 Americans die of heart disease each year. It would save a heck of a lot more lives and money to legislate cardiovascular health.
- .RJ - 06-16-2006
Also, a DOT legal open face helmet would not have prevented any of the injuries our buddy Rothlesbooger sustained in his accident. So requiring "a helmet" wouldnt have saved any medical costs in this case.
- G.Irish - 06-16-2006
.RJ Wrote:Also, a DOT legal open face helmet would not have prevented any of the injuries our buddy Rothlesbooger sustained in his accident. So requiring "a helmet" wouldnt have saved any medical costs in this case.
He had a laceration to the back of the head so maybe he would've saved on stitches.
- Sijray21 - 06-16-2006
ok -
i understand Channing's argument and i somewhat agree with you, but it still is a matter of freedom. Opened my eye's a little and i understand why the government would put a helmet law, but i'm still not for it.
I can understand why a law would be put in place to wear helmets and seat belts: a) because the majority of the public would do it anyway for their own safety b) because it's easy to do c) it slightly boosts economy by making a product (helmets) madatory (little effect if intentional at all) d) to avoid major catastrophies on public roads...mostly that one is the one i'm going to expand on. case in-point is if a rider falls hard during rush hour (let's say on I-395 Northbound) without a helmet, cracks his skull and dies in the middle of the highway. Medical, Fire, and Police shut down I-395, having people late to work and failing to arrive to work on time and not earning their money (extreme case, yes i know) for a medivac or to establish a crime scene if it were not just a vehicle loss of control issue. This scenario is still very rare and i doubt that the mess of a death would be difficult to clean up (gross).
I do however understand that motorcycle accidents are more involved with the individual operating the vehicle (motorcycle rider) when compared to a car, leaving them at more risk for injury. I just think that setting up a law is a "quick-fix" for a problem that needs more attention. Instead influence and educate people to wear helmets (for those that are unaware, not for those who knowledgeable and choose to ride helmet-less) rather that simply making people wear them because it's the safe thing to do.
- .RJ - 06-16-2006
Sijray21 Wrote:d) to avoid major catastrophies on public roads...
If you go down with traffic around, people honk at you to get out of the way and they'll drive around you (happened to both paul and andrew).
If you're dead they'd probably just drive over you.
- Sijray21 - 06-16-2006
.RJ Wrote:Sijray21 Wrote:d) to avoid major catastrophies on public roads...
If you go down with traffic around, people honk at you to get out of the way and they'll drive around you (happened to both paul and andrew).
If you're dead they'd probably just drive over you.
the US needs to be more motorcycle friendly....
- .RJ - 06-16-2006
Raising motorcycle awareness would be another good use of time/$$ rather than more legislation
I avoid all major roads between 4 and 7pm.
- Maengelito - 06-16-2006
.RJ Wrote:If you've got a reason for it, then support it with verifiable facts, not strawman arguments.
well, tell me why helmet laws should be repealed? you have a lot more experience riding a bike than i do, so whats the drawback of wearing a helmet? i dont have more than 5 minutes experience riding a motorcycle but my guess is maybe a full face helmet would limit visibility? i would think that wind in your eyes from not wearing a helmet or goggles at the least would limit visibility moreso though...
i'm sure i could, but i dont really feel like googling DOT studies on injuries and fatalities in accidents for riders wearing and not wearing helmets.
- damnit458 - 06-16-2006
Maengelito Wrote:I think* the only drawback (if you can call it that) that they mean is that they limit your freedom of choice in the matter..RJ Wrote:If you've got a reason for it, then support it with verifiable facts, not strawman arguments.
well, tell me why helmet laws should be repealed?
- G.Irish - 06-16-2006
Maengelito Wrote:.RJ Wrote:If you've got a reason for it, then support it with verifiable facts, not strawman arguments.
well, tell me why helmet laws should be repealed?
Easy, because it is not the government's job to regulate the behavior of its citizens as long as their actiosn don't infringe upon the rights of other citizens.
Making laws to save people from themselves just sets a precedent for a lot of unnecessary government meddling and intrusion into people's private lives. Who determines what risks are acceptable and which ones are not? Why not ban skydiving, bull riding, cave exploration, sea kayaking, or mountain climbing? Again, if you want to risk your own life doing something you should be free to do it.
- Sijray21 - 06-16-2006
Maengelito Wrote:.RJ Wrote:If you've got a reason for it, then support it with verifiable facts, not strawman arguments.
well, tell me why helmet laws should be repealed? you have a lot more experience riding a bike than i do, so whats the drawback of wearing a helmet? i dont have more than 5 minutes experience riding a motorcycle but my guess is maybe a full face helmet would limit visibility? i would think that wind in your eyes from not wearing a helmet or goggles at the least would limit visibility moreso though...
i'm sure i could, but i dont really feel like googling DOT studies on injuries and fatalities in accidents for riders wearing and not wearing helmets.
there aren't many rational reasons for not wearing a helmet, more of the freedom of not having it. i once rode with a brain cover "helmet" and it was a pretty cool feeling. I just would rather not have it because i don't want to pay a fine and court fees if a cop is patrolling through my neighborhood and i'm moving my bike to the back yard without a helmet. Visibility is minimal, but i can tell you that if you land flat on your face/chest that you might have a sore neck (even a broken neck in the case for some skiiers with face guards on their helmets) but you'll have most of your face left. This is because of the area the helmet covers and how you hit the ground. It's really choosing the lesser of two evils in that scenario. Regardless i would always wear my helmet and having a helmet law really doesn't change my decision to wear mine with my riding style.
- .RJ - 06-16-2006
Maengelito Wrote:i'm sure i could, but i dont really feel like googling DOT studies on injuries and fatalities in accidents for riders wearing and not wearing helmets.
Instead of wasting your time with that, google the "hurt report".
- Evan - 06-16-2006
.RJ Wrote:I'm of the opinion that if you bin it, and you're not wearing a helmet, then you're going to die.Roethlisburger is not dead and it isnt going to die. And thats a head-first wreck in a busa
- Sijray21 - 06-16-2006
Evan Wrote:.RJ Wrote:I'm of the opinion that if you bin it, and you're not wearing a helmet, then you're going to die.Roethlisburger is not dead and it isnt going to die. And thats a head-first wreck in a busa
he's thick-headed, like most people who refuse to wear a helmet :lol:
- .RJ - 06-16-2006
Evan Wrote:Roethlisburger is not dead and it isnt going to die. And thats a head-first wreck in a busa
Let me help you
.RJ Wrote:I'm of the opinion that if you bin it, and you're not wearing a helmet, then you're going to die.
The risk of riding around without a helmet is so high, that the idea to me is completely absurd.
- Evan - 06-16-2006
So when presented with a fact that conflicts with your personal opinion, you just ignore it and keep on thinkin' what you think is true.
nice.