Separate names with a comma.
Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.
Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by shabby, Jan 18, 2005.
I know its a yankee site but its got some good arguments
Yeah that's an interesting read
couldn't be bothered wadint through all that crap...
so they reckon that somehow, someway, you'd be safer without the helmet? i mean all that 'individuals rights' stuff aside, how the HELL can you possibly think that no helmet might help you in the event of an accident???
luckily for us here in australia it doesn't seem to be an issue. i wear a helmet cos its safer, not cos the law says i have to. if the law didn't say i have to, i'd still shove a $400 lid on my noggin.
dumbass yanks :?
Hey if they don't want to wear lids let em. Eventually they'll die out anyway. Probably doing us all a favour by not prolonging their existence.
You know. Darwin's theory of evolution.
The only thing however is when they are admitted to hospital they should
not expect any treatment for those injuries that would have been prevented by wearing a helmet. In other words like having a "doner" tick-box on your licence they should have a "soft headed num-nut" tick box for them. :?
Just like most fundamentalist movements, they present no evidence that not wearing a helmet is safer. They're premise at least is that they should have the choice to not wear one, not to whether it's safer or not. The only 'evidence' they offer is difference of opinions between 'experts' whether helmet's really safe rider lives or not. That there is a difference of opinion they use as a legal basis for saying they should have the choice to wear one or not.
Don't agree with them at all. Community is much greater affected, in many ways, from not wearing a helmet. Of course it's safer to wear one. But then I'm probably considered a radical too, since I have strong views on public usage/waste of resources on people like repeat drugo's etc
freedom of choice yanks are all about .
well when they are free to pay all there own medical costs attributed to not wearing a helmet then they can have there choice.
While I agree with most of you guys in regards to the wearing of helmets and safety gear, I don't have a problem with peoples right to have a freedom of choice.
Think about it, as much as we all love to go on about riding our machines, they are in fact dangerous vehicles, statistically much more dangerous than most other forms of transport. To the rest of the community we are a liability to their way of thinking, TAC charges costing the community millions because "most bikers are dangerous people and get themselves killed or injured".
The majority of society considers us what groberts03 has quoted "IDIOTS".
My arguement isn't about whether your are right or wrong in wearing a helmet, it is about a right to chose our fate, just like we chose our own fate every time we thumb the starter button on our machines. If want to wear a helmet great, fantastic I'm with you, but if you don't (while I don't agree with you) then you should have the right not to.
We are becoming a society of mollycoddled nancyboy's, where choices are being made for our own good because according to the legislators we are too dumb or stupid to look after ourselves. What next ? compulsory leathers or safety gear ? and if that doesn't work maybe ban bikes all together.
Compulsory helmets are even law for pushbikes now. Don't want to speak for the majority but I know for sure personally that I can do greater speeds and hence, potentially greater damage on the motorbike than I can on the pushbike.
Do find a helmet uncomfortable on the hotter days but rather that than pieces of my head scattered down the road...
yer, like i said, freedom of choice aside, these guys are pushing sloppy shit uphill with a toothpick. trying to argue that a helmet does more harm than good is just ridiculous!
i would agree with you twinpilot, if these same people that dont want to wear a helmet were to agree to not getting any help for head injuries. ie if they stack and are turned into a vegetable, then stiff shit, their family can look after them if they want to WITHOUT the help of the government. might even go as far as to say that they shouldn't even bother working on the head in horsepiddle either, just get the docs to patch up the skin as best they can and let them on their way.
of course thats a ridiculous idea, but i dunno, i reckon its got more merit than the notion of "helmet hurt head" that they seem to want to spin there
In 2003, more pedestrians died on the roads than did motorcyclists. I believe the statistic for 2004 is even higher for pedestrians.
And the drowning toll in Victoria was greater than the road toll for the first few weeks of January. So maybe we should all be wearing life jackets within 100 metres of water :?
I hear the rhetoric about wearing a helmet. Chances are that without one if you head smacks the bitumen at even 50kmph then it's going to hurt more that if you had one on. Yes you might be extremely unlucky and the helmet causes your neck to bed the wrong way and you may still be paralised but I think I'll take my chances with my neck may bend the wrong way and I may be paralised rather than I will have brain damage if I don't wear a helmet
people have stated that helmets are compulsory here in Aus which they are but what good is this law, when after loosing a chunk of a helmet the owner can top it us with super glue and colour it in. Many people still use a helmet after the helmet has suffered damage in an accident, the law does not require them to buy a new helmet it just requires us to wear one.
Also whats the latest stats on how long a helmet lasts it used to be 3 years, maybe now with new materials and such it may be 4 or 5 years, but how many helmets out there are older than this.
Now the funny part to what i have just typed is the people who wear such helmets on this forum and others have stated there disaproval of choice and to the point of saying its great to have compulsory helmet laws, but in wearing an unsafe helmet is that any different to not wearing a helmet?
good point shabby, but i think that even wearing an old or abused helmet is better than none. sure it doesn't have the same level of protection for a massive impact, but it'll still help a little.
doesn't mean i'd ride with an old shitter, just saying its better than nothing. i reckon an upgrade every couple of years would be the way to go, keeps you in with the latests fashions too
Ah, statistics. The comparative danger for each form of transport ISN"T measured by the total number of deaths, but by the proportion of people using that form of transport that actually die (or by deaths per million miles, or some similar measure). The divisor is included in the calculation to ensure that the comparison is scaled in a way that compares like with like.
A more sensible comparison is something like:
(pedestrians killed/total pedestrians) : (riders killed/total riders)
The problem with using raw figures is that you can make motorcycling without a helmet perfectly safe by wearing a ballgown , football boots and boxing gloves, because NO-ONE died last year dressed like that (as far as I know). Ergo, it must be statistically 100% safe.
I know this seems a picky point, but motorcyclists (and my other sport colleagues, the hang glider pilots) keep trotting out fishing, golf and walking as more dangerous "because more people died" and the argument is simply fallacious. They may well be correct, but not for the reasons they put forward.
I've never had a crash luckily, but I still dont see the appeal of riding without a helmet. I much prefer cleaning bugs off my visor then off my face... or the wind (and the wind noise)? bugger that
HAHA yanks have to pay their own medical bills anyway , you get no help their from anyone
if you have a big enough bank account you can get whatever medical work done you want