helmet laws

[AJHawkfan]

I agree EXACTLY with what he just said. I wear seatbelts, and helmets, I just want the government to stop passing laws that protect me from myself. If an adult wants to risk their own life then let them. Stop trying to regulate everything... damn pussies

It sounds like a nice idea, but it's just not realistic. Under that logic, the laws regarding everything from fireworks to guns to drugs to traffic would be relaxed or eliminated. There are just too many idiots out there who aren't smart enough to take care of themselves.

People would be killing themselves right and left, and on top of that, there would also be a lot of innocent people getting killed by these idiots.

 

[BuckeyeRyn]

I've been on a motorcycle a lot... In fact, had an accident and a helmet is the only reason I'm here today. I have only ever been on a motorcycle once without a helmet... I kept thinking to myself the whole time, "what the hell am I doing?" Lucky for me, the driver, a fellow BP lunatic , didn't crash us.

I guess I'm kind of torn on this topic. I don't like people (especially the governement) dictating over what choices I may or not make but insurance premiums, lots of human vegetables.. on the other hand, it is sort of a selcetive gene-pool cleansing... oh I don't know.. LOL...

grey matter on the pavement is grey matter, doesn't matter whose noggin it came from, it's all still disgusting so for this second in time, I say mandatory helmets. I reserve the right to change my mind though.

 

[buckeyegrad]

The thing is, if I don't smoke, but I get lung cancer from second hand smoke, who's decision was it?

It was your decision. You could have decided to avoid the second hand smoke by altering your activities.

 

[buckeyegrad]

It sounds like a nice idea, but it's just not realistic. Under that logic, the laws regarding everything from fireworks to guns to drugs to traffic would be relaxed or eliminated. There are just too many idiots out there who aren't smart enough to take care of themselves.

People would be killing themselves right and left, and on top of that, there would also be a lot of innocent people getting killed by these idiots.

You're missing the point. If people were forced to be responsible for their actions instead of having a coercive power protect them from themselves there would be less idiots out there because of the reality of consequences would be staring them in the face.

 

[martinss01]

are they just dying? Or are they often becoming critically injured, hogging hospital beds & limited staff as well as insurance funds?

not if you don't call an ambulance

I'd like to see a law in which claims against the state or the other driver would be limited if you refused to use your seat belt in a car or a helmet on a bike/motorcycle. It might even go so far as to make the injured party liable for a greater share of their medical costs. My thinking? Incentivise the use of safety equipment. More bees with honey than vinegar.

thats actually a really good idea.

It was your decision. You could have decided to avoid the second hand smoke by altering your activities.

like not going to work? used to be a lot of companies allowed their employees to smoke while working. let me guess, i should find a new job? ever heard the phrase, "your rights end where mine begin"?

 

[StooGrimson]

You're missing the point. If people were forced to be responsible for their actions instead of having a coercive power protect them from themselves there would be less idiots out there because of the reality of consequences would be staring them in the face.

You give people far too much credit. Many people are aware of the consequences of stupid actions and their personal responsibility for those actions all of the time, but they continue to pursue stupidity. Whether it's not smoking, drinking, wearing a seat belt, or strapiing on a lid while riding, there is a segment of the population that simply will never learn even when faced with consequences that may be deadly or worse never mind the consequences to others around them. If some goofball isn't wearing a helmet and that potentially affects my bike insurance or my health insurance premiums you can sure as hell bet that I support helmet laws.

 

[buckeyegrad]

ever heard the phrase, "your rights end where mine begin"?

Yes, I've heard of it, and I think intellectual and/or moral laziness is the cause of that attitude.

Except for the very occassional cigar, I don't smoke and I despise cigarette smoke; however, I don't see the need for laws to keep me safe as I can make good decisions to avoid it. There is nothing special about me, so if I can do it, why can't others?

Likewise, with motorcycle helmets. I have enough common sense to realize it is moronic to ride one without a helmet. If I can make such decisions based on common sense, then why is it wrong to expect others to do so?

I also don't buy the insurance issue. Why not have the insurance companies have a clause in their contracts that if you are not wearing a helmet or seatbelt when an accident occurs, then your co-payment triples and your monthly rates double. I don't know if those exact numbers work, but whatever does so as not to pass the expense to other customers.

 

[StooGrimson]

I also don't buy the insurance issue. Why not have the insurance companies have a clause in their contracts that if you are not wearing a helmet or seatbelt when an accident occurs, then your co-payment triples and your monthly rates double. I don't know if those exact numbers work, but whatever does so as not to pass the expense to other customers.

It's more an issue with health insurance than the bike insurance simply b/c med pay coverage (if your provider offers it for bikes...some don't) usually only allows for $5,000 in med pay coverage unless you've bought more for some reason. In the grand scheme of things that's not a huge chunk for most P&C providers as far as losses, but enough of a reason to inflate the premiums. Everyone's health care premiums are far more affected.

 

[BuckStocksHere]

NO. 'nuff said.

 

[martinss01]

Yes, I've heard of it, and I think intellectual and/or moral laziness is the cause of that attitude.

Except for the very occassional cigar, I don't smoke and I despise cigarette smoke; however, I don't see the need for laws to keep me safe as I can make good decisions to avoid it. There is nothing special about me, so if I can do it, why can't others?

Likewise, with motorcycle helmets. I have enough common sense to realize it is moronic to ride one without a helmet. If I can make such decisions based on common sense, then why is it wrong to expect others to do so?

those don't fit. you not wearing a helmet has 0 physical negative impact on me. you smoking beside me at my work place does have a negative physical impact on me. don't get me wrong, i think we are going a tad overboard on the smoking laws. but i think that you do not have the right to smoke wherever you are regardless of the wishes of others.

 

[AJHawkfan]

I don't see the need for laws to keep me safe as I can make good decisions to avoid it. There is nothing special about me, so if I can do it, why can't others?

I am assuing that you do not make your living working as a busboy, waiter, bartender, maitre d', bouncer, DJ or work in a factory where smoking is allowed? If you were, you would realiaze that although you are fortunate enough to be able to avoid smoke when you want to, not everyone has that luxury.

I used to work in the office of a factory that allowed smoking on the plant floor. I spent a lot of time in the factory and although I do not smoke, I went home every day feeling like I smoked a pack of Marlboros. If I developed an illness, who's insurance would have paid for it? Not the people who were smoking, I can assure you that.

In your line of thinking, why do air, water and ground pollution laws exist? If a company is polluting the air in your neighborhood, you can always choose to move to a new neighborhood, right? You can always buy bottled water, right? These are choices people have, so why are there laws?

 

[ArtilleryBuck]

I think you all are avoiding the main issue at stake here. When are they going to make a helmet that won't mess up your hair?

 

[FKAGobucks877]

I'll admit that I very rarely ride a helmet when riding my motorcycle. If I'm going to be on the highway, I do, but that's about it. If you ask me why, I don't know that I could answer. It's inconvenient, and it's a bit cumbersome, and, believe it or not, it's more enjoyable to ride without one.

Having said that, it's my choice not to wear one, and I have to live with the consequences. I certainly do not understand why there is a seatbelt law, but no helmet law, in states like Ohio. Until there is, though, it is my choice to make.

 

[cincibuck]

Having said that, it's my choice not to wear one, and I have to live with the consequences. I certainly do not understand why there is a seatbelt law, but no helmet law, in states like Ohio. Until there is, though, it is my choice to make.

Except that the consequences don't end with you turning into a celery stalk. As pointed out, those of us who buy insurance are picking up the 7 hour emergency surgery bill for Big Ben because he refuses to wear a helmet and thus his injuries were greater. Likewise we collectively pay for smoking in lost productivity, hospitalization, on and on...

Now how do you turn the behavior around? You could be punative, but even if the helmet law had been in affect it wouldn't have stopped someone as determined to ride helmetless as Ben evidently was... and before this is done someone's insurance, either Ben's or the other driver's, is going to cough up big chunks of bucks to cover this... so why not go the other way and incentivise wearing a helmet, using a seat belt, not smoking.

I LMAO at Thank You for Smoking, but underneath it all was a strong libertarian theme that we should all be conscious of our decisions. Much as I'm glad to see big tobacco in court, there are writings from the court of Elizabeth I documenting the fact that smoking is bad for your health. Don't you think humans would have put two and two together in a 400 year time frame? Take big tobacco to court and penalize them for encouraging kids to smoke or for hiding medical evidence, but then don't turn around and award those who were free to choose not to smoke, knew it was bad for them, and went ahead and smoked any way. Likewise don't incentivise Ben's preference of riding helmetless by allowing him to walk away from this with out paying for his choice.

 

[BuckeyeSoldier]

It sounds like a nice idea, but it's just not realistic. Under that logic, the laws regarding everything from fireworks to guns to drugs to traffic would be relaxed or eliminated. There are just too many idiots out there who aren't smart enough to take care of themselves.

People would be killing themselves right and left, and on top of that, there would also be a lot of innocent people getting killed by these idiots.

It's perfectly realistic, and I agree with most of what yo just said. Fireworks, guns, drugs.. most of them shouldnt be illegal or have far less restrictions on them. Smoking is slightly different because it can be forced onto someone. If you are that worried about the insurance crap then pass a law that says anyone not wearing a seatbelt or helmet forfeits all coverage other than liability.