Irony takes a deadly turn.

tonyb

While were at it,lets mandate condoms for those one nighters. That child and unwed mother will cost society alot more than one dead biker. Not to mention any diseases you could spread. It's for your own safety, and the well being of the collective. Sounds about on par.
I want that job, to enforce that one.

steveinaz

BlueFox wrote: »

Apparently, for many people at Club Polk, freedom means they can do whatever they want, and somebody else has to pay for it. :rolleyes:

That's a nice spin, but not at all what this topic is about. Instead of demonizing people, and attempting to make them look like idiots, why don't you bring in argument to the table with some real substance? Or is this all you got? Familiar with the phrase "personal choice?"

I wear a helmet, for comfort more than anything else, but that doesn't mean I'm going to push my agenda on those who choose not to; nor do I think it makes them idiots. I think they simply enjoy riding that way. It affects absolutely NO ONE but them. So what's the beef?

...nevermind, just noticed you're from Cali. You're not at all familiar with personal choice. No wonder you're angry.

Upstatemax

steveinaz wrote: »

It affects absolutely NO ONE but them. So what's the beef?

Lets look at best case for that accident. They die from dumping a bike no one else involved...

Many of these people have wives, girlfriends, children, parents, friends... THEY are all effected by that choice to not wear a helmet. THEY have to live with the bills and cost of a funeral, raising children, depression...

Look behind it and I'm sure you'll find that the people pushing helmet laws are mostly people that have lost loved ones to avoidable deaths.


THEY are the ones effected by it.

NOW lets add in another vehicle, even if they were not at fault for the accident, THEY have to live with the fact that they were involved in an accident that killed another person. That has an effect on people, period. One of my best friends was involved in an accident that was no fault, the other driver was not wearing her seatbelt... She was thrown from the car and had her head smashed on a curb... Even still, her family sued him in a civil case. Took years and LOTS of money in lawyers fees to clear up.

Her stupid choice had a HUGE effect on him.

steveinaz

That argument might have an ounce of merit if we just assume that everyone who rides without a helmet, dies from it. Do you think people do anything with an expectation of dying? I love my family, but I am going to do what I want to do--and I expect them to do the same.

If you apply that logic to everyday life, I may as well just strap myself to the couch every morning--you know, so I don't hurt anyone. Come on, get real.

sucks2beme

No middle ground. Do what you want. It's your life.
And happy landings!

Upstatemax

steveinaz wrote: »

I love my family, but I am going to do what I want to do--and I expect them to do the same.

Considering this thread is about a person that died from not wearing a helmet, yeah I'm going to argue about what happens when they die...

That's the same mentality my older brother has...

I fear the day that I have to look at his two boys when he has his last racing accident.

Hell, even HE started to wear helmets/seatbelts when he had his boys! He still drives like an idiot and races...

exalted512

steveinaz wrote: »

that doesn't mean I'm going to push my agenda on those who choose not to; nor do I think it makes them idiots. I think they simply enjoy riding that way.

Actually, I think they're idiots.

steveinaz wrote: »

That argument might have an ounce of merit if we just assume that everyone who rides without a helmet, dies from it.

That argument does have merit...in fact, I'd say that's the ONLY argument that her merit for pro-helmet laws.

I'm not a perfect driver...I'm close, but not quite there yet I've never been in an at-fault accident, but I also think that has a little to do with luck. I'm very attentive. Being a motorcycle rider, I ESPECIALLY look out for motorcycles. But like everyone else, there is a possibility that in all the hours I will drive in my life, that there could potentially be 3-4 seconds where I'm not 100% paying attention. Maybe 92%. And just maybe in those 3-4 seconds and that 8% less attention paid could cause an accident with a motorcycle. What if he doesn't die? What if his face is just completely disfigured and I owe him millions of dollars in medical bills and for his pain and suffering for the rest of his life? ALL of which could have been prevented if he would've bought a $60 full face helmet and took the 5 seconds out of his day to put it on.

Or what about if he does die? It could be the difference between a 'simple' personal injury claim handled by the insurance company, and a wrongful death law suit.

I really don't care if you wear a helmet or not. If you don't think your head is valuable enough to protect, you're probably right. But I do have concerns with what I mentioned here
-Cody

steveinaz

sucks2beme wrote: »

No middle ground. Do what you want. It's your life.
And happy landings!

Sure there is a middle ground, let THE PEOPLE decide wether ror not to wear a helmet.

It's amazing the number of people who "prefer" to have their life dictated to them...wow. Glad that isn't me.

tonyb

What makes you so sure you won't die before your brother ? Fall off a roof,get hit by a car, heart attack, crap happens. People die from choices they make. I choose to not look both ways when crossing the street,so if I get killed, do we need a law ? You go up on the roof to clean the gutters,your wearing slippery sole shoes,you fall off and die. Do we need a law for a fence around every rooftop so people don't fall off.

Your life, your choice to cut it short by the decisions you make. There is inherit risk in everything we do,from the time that leg hits the floor in the morning to the time your head hits the pillow again. Thats life bro, no warranties included. But you may say the cost factor in those decisions to society are draining our resources, so we have to control them. Crock of B.S. if I ever heard one. We have a saying in the audio world, "snake oil saleman", that can be applied to these people that would sell you safety for freedom. I'm speaking in general here, not necessarily to helmet laws.

The insurance industry is all about managing risk, hence the push for helmet laws. Charge more for those who don't wear helmets. We charge more to those who get dui's, who provide a higher risk factor to an insurance company. Can't have a law for everything, it only feeds the other industry, lawyers.

steveinaz

exalted512 wrote: »

Actually, I think they're idiots.

Imagine that. I think people who depend upon the government to tell them what to do are idiots.

If you have a "lapse" in your driving skills that results in hitting a motorcyclist, helmeted or not--it's YOUR fault. That's known as personal responsibility. So that makes the non helmet wearing motorcyclist an idiot--because you have a "lapse."

Unreal.

steveinaz

Tony---they don't "get it" and they never will.

Good luck all. Oh, and GOD BLESS ARIZONA.

exalted512

Yes, that does make them an idiot.

To think that everyone is a perfect driver 100% of the time is F***ING STUPID. I never said it wouldn't be my fault. But hell, what if a deer jumped in front of you and you swerved to miss it instinctively. What if you have a true to life mechanical failure where it wasn't a condition of neglect or poor maintenance that causes you to lose braking power or something breaks that causes you to swerve. You could still be considered at fault.

But whatever, you obviously don't care to listen to anyone but yourself. No wonder we can't have political discussions here.
-Cody

WilliamM2

steveinaz wrote: »

I think they simply enjoy riding that way. It affects absolutely NO ONE but them. So what's the beef?

It does affect more than them. You're not looking at the big picture. Earlier there was a comment on banning motorcycle riding completely, and there are those trying to do that right now. Do you think more fatalities will slow that process down, or speed it up?

steveinaz

William
Given the attitudes reflected by MANY in this thread, motorcycles don't have a chance.

steveinaz

exalted512 wrote: »

But hell, what if a deer jumped in front of you and you swerved to miss it instinctively. What if you have a true to life mechanical failure where it wasn't a condition of neglect or poor maintenance that causes you to lose braking power or something breaks that causes you to swerve. You could still be considered at fault.-Cody

Apparently, if the deer isn't wearing a helmet--it's the deers' fault.

tonyb

When someone dies....from anything, it will effect someone else. So whats the point ? Don't die ? Good luck on that one.

I'd be willing to bet more people die every year from drowning than from riding without a helmet. Solution should be then to ban swimming ? Make a law to require every swimmer wear those floaties around their arms ? Rediculous.

steveinaz

Safety third, I always say. Enjoy your test-tubes.

Joe08867

I wear a helmet and always will. Not because I have too, but because I prefer some order of protection when I ride.

Do I think we need a law? No, Considering the amount of bikers in the world the Government should be using it's time more wisely. Honestly creating a law for 1% of the populous is ridiculous. I understand others don't want to pay my medical if I have an accident, but I don't want to pay for some illegals medical expenses but we do that everyday. The government has bigger fish to fry than some bikers.

A better law would be mandatory safety course for all new bikers, like they do in school for a regular license but geared toward motorcycle safety. Helmets, the S.E.E. method of riding etc.....

This would be of better use than mandating helmets for people that might not understand riding in the first place.

bobman1235

steveinaz wrote: »

Safety third, I always say. Enjoy your test-tubes.

YOu and Mike Rowe. There was a whole episode of Dirty Jobs about "Safety Third." It was awesome.

steveinaz

When they put me in the box, I want to be completely wore out, and know that I took it all in baby, in a FREE existence. I don't need another man telling me how to live.

These are the ABC's of me. Like it or not, I don't give a damn.

Joe08867

bobman1235 wrote: »

YOu and Mike Rowe. There was a whole episode of Dirty Jobs about "Safety Third." It was awesome.

That was an awesome episode. I laughed the whole time. :biggrin:

JustinHEMI

steveinaz wrote: »

Tony---they don't "get it" and they never will.

Good luck all. Oh, and GOD BLESS ARIZONA.

You mean like this???

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ihl1yMWKkE


Sorry, I couldn't resist. :P

I agree with everything you've said to this point on the topic.

Incidentally, a helmet saved my life while ATVing in Arizona. I never leave home without it..., I just want it to be my choice.

rooftop59

First of all, it is funny how every political or religious thread on here degenerates into centralization versus decentralization instead of focusing on the particular issue at hand. Personally, I guess I have to wonder how wearing a helmet is different that a seat belt? Or different than laws against drinking and driving? 30 years ago there were areas in Texas where you could have open containers in the car as long as there was one less than the number of passengers. 4 people, 3 open containers. Now it is assumed by most reasonable people that drinking and driving is wrong because it infringes on the rights and freedoms of others. It also infringes on my fun. I would like to be able to go to a party every once in a while without worrying about driving home, but that's the price we pay for balancing personal freedom with minimizing the pain and suffering that my freedom causes to another person, who has the same rights as me. This is one of Mill's basic arguments in On liberty, a text that has greatly informed this country's libertarian impulses. Seat-belts are similar. I am told that I have to wear one. Because it can potentially cause pain and heartache to others if I don't. My freedom and rights has to be balanced with the freedom and rights of others. I don't think that any reasonable person is staging a rally against seatbelt laws. So what's different about a helmet laws? We have to balance personal rights and freedoms with the rights and freedoms of others. The only reasonable position is somewhere in the middle...

And yes, sadly this was a deeply ironic event. See the MW dictionary: Irony - incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result (2) : an event or result marked by such incongruity

There was incredible incongruity between the desired and actual result of this particular event. And it is incredibly tragic, something the Greek playwrights would indulge in...

Joe08867

rooftop, are you saying you would rather be able to drink at a party and drive and not worry about the consequences of others? Really?

I can understand about not wanting to wear a seatbelt. But DUI is dangerous in a whole different way. It's like taking a loaded gun and giving it to a toddler. something bad is bound to happen. Not wearing a helmet is like not wearing a seatbelt and nothing like DUI.

steveinaz

Yeah.....umm, we've "compromised" a good portion of our freedoms away. For any act a human being can do, someone will find a way to explain how it somehow impedes on their freedom. Wether or not they really believe what they're saying is true, it doesn't matter--they just want to attempt to make a counter-point. It's a smoke-screen to hide their real agenda, which is....they simply don't like the issue. Well, you don't create laws because someone simply doesn't "like" something, or because you find it inconvenient for you--otherwise there will be laws for EVERYTHING---which, in a strange paradox, appears to be exactly what many here would like.

Oh, that's right, it's the "ME" generation. I forgot.

rooftop59

Joe,

The point was sarcastic. Yes it would be fun, no I wouldn't think of doing it. Yes there is a disconnect between DD and seatbelts, but they bear an important family resemblance. How does driving with a seatbelt impede upon the fun of driving? Its a small simple measure to avoid to the absurd loss of life that could have easily have been prevented, that as many have mentioned, does affect a number of other peoepl profoundly, like it or not.

And Steve, if you really care that little about your family that is incredibly selfish. I would imagine that you are just engaging in internet forum hyperbole, or at least I hope so...

steveinaz

no, I'm incredibly selfish.

I want my country back, and we're not going to get their suckin' on uncle sams hind ****.

Demiurge

It's funny how seat belt laws are now being used as a valid rationalization for helmet mandates for motorcyclists. Back when seat belt laws came into vogue across the nation these arguments we're having about motorcycle helmets and the government's intrusion on our ability to make choices for ourselves were occurring then about the seat belt laws.

When it's helmet mandates in your car, you'll be rationalizing that with seat belt and helmet laws. I can't be the only one amused by that.

Sheep are easy to herd, though.

bobman1235

I honestly can't see how they can enforce helmet laws on motorcycles but not in convertibles. And Jeeps. I'd love to see those all tied together, and see how many of you are whistling a differnet tune.

exalted512

bobman1235 wrote: »

I honestly can't see how they can enforce helmet laws on motorcycles but not in convertibles. And Jeeps. I'd love to see those all tied together, and see how many of you are whistling a differnet tune.

You're one of the last people I expected this post to be from.

Really dude?
-Cody