Some new helmet(less) injury stats

[redclfco]

So? Chance? What chance are you taking?

Hey man, if you secretly fantasize about being the HD rider, by all means, no one's stopping you. This be America, there ain't no slippery slope. It's just the off-camber of that road you're thinking about.

I think the actual meaning of what I meant to portray fell though the crack in the words...

What I meant is I am personally not in favor (not willing to chance) supporting legislature in making the right choice to limit themselves to making laws restricting some things like helmets then, leaving other issues to the individual's judgment.
What I am afraid of is the decision to ban one risky societal behavior will lead to others by osmosis and moral righteousness.

I used to ride a friends Harley for awhile. No fantasy needed. I now am quite happy riding my BMW...Harley's have never been my cup o tea!

Let’s not forget for a minute, Jonathan, I am a dedicated ATGATT/helmet type of guy...
But will support to the death the right of others to do with their life as they choose.

 

[sjbmw]

But will support to the death the right of others to do with their life as they choose.

Let's always hope it never comes to that.

One can legislate safety as well as they can morality.

Unless it's homegrown by the individual, it's fruitless.

 

[darrylri]

Motorcycle-related head injury deaths increased 66 percent, whereas non-head injury deaths increased 25 percent.


Am I missing something, or is this a misprint?
If this is accurate, how would wearing a helmet decrease non-head injury deaths? And why would non-head injury deaths increase after the repeal of the helmet law?

Perhaps there are other factors here, including the number of riders, miles travelled, and the type of riding done. If we assume it's due entirely to helmetless riders, the increase mentioned above seems contradictory, or maybe I'm just clueless.

I can't say whether it's a misprint, but I believe it was the poster's intent to show that head injuries increased at a much greater rate than the baseline of non-head injuries. The non-head injury number intended to act as a control value for the head-injury number. One would expect that helmet law repeal would have little or no effect on non-helmet injuries, so if head-injuries increased at a faster rate than non-head injuries, it could be attributed to the helmet law repeal.

 

[88bmwjeff]

Unfortunately, our insurance industry does not consider the benefits of riding with proper attire (whatever that may be) versus not riding with it. Therefore, the people who ride with proper attire feel that they are subsidising the costs for the people who do not. It seems easier to mandate proper attire (e.g. helmet use) than to change the insurance industry.

This is the issue at hand. I doubt we'd be having this discussion if the insurance industry was some able to charge more for those who choose not to wear helmets. Then what we are talking about here is overall rider/driver riding/driving habits. Some of which can be difficult to prove, while others are much easier.

The issue here really isn't helmets, but rather the higher costs associated with those who do not ride with one. That is what we are debating here. I can care less whether or not someone chooses to take an increased risk and rides without a helmet (personally I advise them against it, but I realize at the end of the day it's their choice). However, I do care if that action increases my insurance costs.

 

[ted]

I support helmet laws, and having been through a high-speed/multiple vehicle, bad accident wearing a full-faced Shoei RF-800 that sacrificed itself for me with deep gouges in the chin bar, screen and crown and impact gouges and cracks in three separate places, will always wear one regardless of whatever the law happens to be.

I support States making helmets mandatory, though don't believe this is something that should be nationally legislated. I still think one of the best stickers I have ever seen on a motorcycle is, "Loud pipes don't save lives, helmets do."

I doubt we'd be having this discussion if the insurance industry was some able to charge more for those who choose not to wear helmets.

States could always require carrying a minimum medical coverage, maybe $50K? I know in my State adding $25k in medical coverage only added an additional $137 per year.

 

[texanrt]

It's much more palatable when people are honest and state that ordering other people around due to an over inflated ego fueled by self righteousness gets one's rocks off. If they ever create a "mind your own business" law many would do hard time. "Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty."
ÔÇö Thomas Jefferson

It takes a giant evil-knievel snake river canyon leap to make the argument that supporting helmet laws equates to depotism -- or self-righteous egotism. But hey, I used to listen to talk radio too.

And Evil Knievel wore a helmet -- while riding a harley.

 

[easy]

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty."
ÔÇö Thomas Jefferson

And liberty was indeed tempestuous for Jefferson. He owned about 200 slaves during his lifetime, although he said he was against slavery. Upon his death he only freed 5.

He also thought you needed to be a white landowner in order to vote.

Easy

 

[BUBBAZANETTI]

And liberty was indeed tempestuous for Jefferson.

the co-opting of and boxing in the founding fathers is a right bestowed upon all good americans.

 

[redclfco]

Easy,

Based on your outstanding reputation of being a gentleman and all around good guy on line, I believe you have the strength to accept a bit of well intentioned criticism without taking offense:

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty."
— Thomas Jefferson

And liberty was indeed tempestuous for Jefferson. He owned about 200 slaves during his lifetime, although he said he was against slavery. Upon his death he only freed 5.

He also thought you needed to be a white landowner in order to vote.

Easy

yada yada...there is always somebody out there to point out the proliferous in the substance to hopefully poke holes in the true meaning. What you have stated in this post is like saying Tiger woods affair made his many achivements in golf absolutely worthless.

 

[sjbmw]

It takes a giant evil-knievel snake river canyon leap to make the argument that supporting helmet laws equates to depotism -- or self-righteous egotism. But hey, I used to listen to talk radio too.

And Evil Knievel wore a helmet -- while riding a harley.

Because he chose to. The government did not step in and make him wear one.
His choice, as it should be.

Despotism: "the exercise of absolute authority, an absolute or autocratic government. "

Get caught without a helmet in my state and one will experience a mild form of despotism. They will take your bike.

The issue is, who decides? Plain and simple. Who decides?

I like you all, but I would not trust any of you to run my life, sorry. AND THIS IS A LIKE MINDED GROUP.

There are some that beleive that making decisions is not a right that people should have, and the government should make them for them, and everyone else too while they are at it.

There are some that prefer to make their own decisions, and are perfectly willing to accept the consequences.

The individual vs the collective. I'll choose the individual every time.

No matter how smart one thinks they are for wearing a helmet over one who does not, there are thousands upon thousands of cagers that think you are a total idiot for riding a motorcycle at all, so let's not start believing our press clippings and getting on a high horse because the room is small.

 

[tessler]

Thomas Jefferson wore breeches and knee socks.

 

[redclfco]

Thomas Jefferson wore breeches and knee socks.

No ATGATT to be had on the plantation...

 

[easy]

Easy,

Based on your outstanding reputation of being a gentleman and all around good guy on line, I believe you have the strength to accept a bit of well intentioned criticism without taking offense:





yada yada...there is always somebody out there to point out the proliferous in the substance to hopefully poke holes in the true meaning. What you have stated in this post is like saying Tiger woods affair made his many achivements in golf absolutely worthless.

No offense taken and certainly none intended.

Tiger is in fact a great golfer, but I guess my point is that I wouldn't use him as a marriage counselor.

Easy

 

[wezul]

Hey man, don't those Bears suck?
And how about the Cubs, eh? Perennial losers, man they suck.
And the Bulls, geez I think Chicago has possibly the worst franchises across three sports, isn't that some kind of record?
And since this is like the old TOTG, can I get a drink? Or do we have to all agree or disagree otherwise we keep arguing, no I'm sorry, discussing until we either give up and agree to disagree or flip each other off verbally?

I mean, wear a helmet or don't but please don't tell me how if you don't you're supporting personal liberty or if you do you're reducing the likelihood of causing someone else harm because that's bullsh*t.

And if we mention ol' Tom Jefferson isn't that politics which means we sh*tcan this whole thread?

Now how'd I do, did I push all the right buttons?

 

[testinglogin]

OK guys, I think we've beaten this one into the ground, the discussion is getting heated, and no minds are being changed. Thread closed.