Ben Roethlisburger

shack

tommyboy wrote:

You just want the steelers to suck next year. Sorry to tell you man, but the Tennessee Titans don't have a chance now to do anything since they lost mcnair. They had their chance back in 1999. "He was just...one ...yard...short." hahahahahaha

Titans suck! Don't assume that because I live in TN that I care what the "Oilers" do. They can go 0 -16 and it won't bother me. They sure won't get any better with "Vick lite".

schwarcw

Bring back Kordell:D :eek: :mad: :rolleyes:

Demiurge

haha, Charlie Batch....He wasn't as good as Joey Harrington. That's bad. :eek:

jdhdiggs

Demiurge wrote:

haha, Charlie Batch....He wasn't as good as Joey Harrington. That's bad. :eek:

What? You mean having "couldn't beat out Joey Harrington" isn't a good thing to have on your NFL resume? Surely you jest!

avelanchefan

Little late coming to this thread, but I have worked in a Trauma ICU for most of my adult career. My job includes going to the trauma's when they first arrive, so most of the time I get to here or read the paramedics report.

Most times guys that do not wear a helmet are pretty messed up when they come in, and usually are major head traumas. If wearing a helmet, they are still messed up and usually present some type of head trauma. I would say 80+ percent of the time it is not the motorcycle drivers fault when being involved in a accident. I would even say that the number is probably closer to 90 percent.

Ben's motorcycle injuries on a Trauma ward would really be consided on the low side considering he was on a motorcycle, and basically be considered lucky that it was not worse.

One other thing. Out of 15 years doing what i do I have seen a helmet crack twice. Once when I first started and the other just last week. Both people died. The first one was an accident under 30 miles an hour, and I thought how could a low rate of speed do this to a helmet. Same thing last week, I beleive it was under 40 miles an hour, but if you hit that helmet just right it shatters.

steveinaz

I have no doubt that helmets are smart and save lives, but I'm against making them mandatory. I don't need the government playing daddy for me, I'll make those decisions on my own. Government is in our personal lives too much already.

avelanchefan

Agreed steve....just like seat belts.

shack

If seatbelt laws can be mandantory (and they should), boating personal safety gear is mandatory, etc., so should helmets (and they should). And I'm not talking those "skull cap" nothings some call helmets, I'm talking something that actually saves lives. Personal choice. You have a choice. If you choose to ride ...you wear a helmet...don't like it...don't ride. It's your choice.

Demiurge

Should we have laws on how much you can eat in a day too? I mean, c'mon. NONE of this crap should be mandatory.

jdhdiggs

Unfortunately the laws are there to protect us (the public) against the stupidity of others. Now if ER's didn't have to try to save someone without a helmet or seatbelt unless they could pay for it, then the laws would make no sense. Until then, they "help" keep the public liability down.

I'm against the mandatory laws in principle, but for them in practical terms.

avelanchefan

I am in favor of seat belts....that is seat belting your kids in. But as an adult, if you are over the age of 18 and don't want to waer one then who should say you can't.

Now if I was to drive a motorcycle I would be wearing a helmet....but no way would you ever get me on one of those death wheels. (No offense to motocyclists) Just seen to much in my life time.

shack

There is NO contitutional right to do whatever you want on publicly owned thouroughfares (which the roads and highways happen to be). They are owned by the collective public which in turn is under the perview and control of the government put in place by the public. Us/they/we have the right to set the terms under which you have the right to use those public thouroghfares...ie: you must have a valid license, must have proper insurance, must obey public laws/rules regarding speed, vehicle condition, etc, must not drive while impared, must wear a seat belt, must wear a helmet and so forth IF you choose to use those publicly owned roads. No one says that you must use them, it is your choice. If you want to drive a car or motorcycle on your private property the rules do not apply. This is not a matter of freedom and/or choice. It is the requirement to obey publicly approved rules and regulations in order to have the privelege to use public property. No more, no less.

madmax

Helmet = safety. There are reasons safety equipment is deemed necessary. You have to have lights, right? Hey, if I'm liable for these people getting hurt when I run them down then I have a say in what they are required to use as safety equipment. It is not their right to do as they please.
madmax

Demiurge

I don't think anyone said there was. I do think that the government needs to stay out of our lives as much as possible. Having a law on the books that forces people to protect THEMSELVES in a vehicle is a ridiculous revenue grab. It has absolutely no bearing on you or anyone else. Can you tell me why a seat belt fine is often $10 (at least it is here)? Why isn't at $300? Answer: Nobody would support it, it's just a dumb law, but when you don't attach any kind of a real penalty to it they can rake in the revenue and nobody will take it seriously or complain about it.

It's hasn't got a damn thing to do with public safety, but rather the government projection on the general public that they're too dumb to take care of themselves. Some people are, but that's their problem.

Wearing a seatbelt has no affect on using public owned roads. What a non-sequitur. It's not like not wearing a seatbelt damages anyones driving experience.

There's no end to this nanny crap, so there's no need to head down the slope to begin with. Most people have a personal connection to seatbelt and helmet laws when they argue so vehemently in favor of them. "If only there were a law my loved one would be here today." Well, not to sound callous, but you don't know that, and even with the law people don't wear always wear seatbelts. Nobody is scared of the legal ramifications, and they couldn't get away with larger fines.

Belts help save lives and prevent injury. So do helmets. No denying that, but you can't legislate common sense and protect the general population from themselves. Doing good ain't got no end.

Demiurge

madmax wrote:

Helmet = safety. There are reasons safety equipment is deemed necessary. You have to have lights, right? Hey, if I'm liable for these people getting hurt when I run them down then I have a say in what they are required to use as safety equipment. It is not their right to do as they please.
madmax

There's a difference betweeen personal safety (Protecting you from yourself), and public safety (protecting you from everyone else).

It's important to recognize the difference.

madmax

Demiurge wrote:

Belts help save lives and prevent injury. So do helmets. No denying that, but you can't legislate common sense and protect the general population from themselves.

Sure you can. The only reason I started wearing seat belts is because it is a law. After doing it for awhile I see the benifit and reasoning but before that they just made me feel uncomfortable. Also, growing up I remember never seeing anyone wearing a seatbelt, now it is the norm. That is because it is a LAW. So most certainly you can legislate common sense and protect the general population from themselves.
madmax

madmax

Demiurge wrote:

There's a difference betweeen personal safety (Protecting you from yourself), and public safety (protecting you from everyone else).

It's important to recognize the difference.

Why?

Demiurge

madmax wrote:

Sure you can. The only reason I started wearing seat belts is because it is a law. After doing it for awhile I see the benifit and reasoning but before that they just made me feel uncomfortable. Also, growing up I remember never seeing anyone wearing a seatbelt, now it is the norm. That is because it is a LAW. So most certainly you can legislate common sense and protect the general population from themselves.
madmax

Literally, yes you can, but figuratively speaking -- no, you can't. Why? Because it would be a neverending stream of laws. How can you say yes to seatbelt laws and no to the next law? Not to mention you open up a while new litany of law suits on state and local government for not protecting some dumbass from his own stupidity.

$10 fines aren't going to make me wear my seatbelt all the time. There are times I don't want it on, big deal? No, it's not, but I want that choice. It's just like J-Walking -- all sorts of nominal laws the majority doesn't obey.

Demiurge

madmax wrote:

Why?

See above.

F1nut

Why isn't at $300? Answer: Nobody would support it, it's just a dumb law, but when you don't attach any kind of a real penalty to it they can rake in the revenue and nobody will take it seriously or complain about it.

It's a big fine here and a couple of points on your driving record, I do believe.

Bottom line, there's a lot of stupid people out there, they need the law to tell them what to do and to protect me from them.

bobman1235

I'm glad so many of you are such sheep that you need the GOVERNMENT of all things telling you how to protect yourself.

The whole point of a safety law is to protect the INNOCENT. If you want to engage in risky behavior that will ONLY hurt YOU, then you should be allowed to. What a bunch of nonsense this ridiculous argument has become. Oh pretty please, all knowing and powerful government, tell me what I should and shouldn't do to protect myself, I'm a bumbling idiot!

Demiurge

F1nut wrote:

It's a big fine here and a couple of points on your driving record, I do believe.

Bottom line, there's a lot of stupid people out there, they need the law to tell them what to do and to protect me from them.

How does a seatbelt on someone else protect you? I mean, I have heard the financial argument, but it's a shaky one at best.

shack

bobman1235 wrote:

I'm glad so many of you are such sheep that you need the GOVERNMENT of all things telling you how to protect yourself.

The whole point of a safety law is to protect the INNOCENT. If you want to engage in risky behavior that will ONLY hurt YOU, then you should be allowed to. What a bunch of nonsense this ridiculous argument has become. Oh pretty please, all knowing and powerful government, tell me what I should and shouldn't do to protect myself, I'm a bumbling idiot!

I don't need the government telling me what to do. I need them to tell you what to do to keep me from having to pay for high auto insurance, high medical insurance and high medical care because you can't pay for the results of your choices.

shack

Anyway it is a moot point. Believe it or not....the majority of people want the safety laws that are on the books to remain. Since there is no "right" use public roads without obeying the laws...there is no recourse.

Demiurge

shack wrote:

I don't need the government telling me what to do. I need them to tell you what to do to keep me from having to pay for high auto insurance, high medical insurance and high medical care because you can't pay for the results of your choices.

So...what about a law that you have to wear shoes while driving? What type of sunglasses? Or better yet should they be mandatory? Driving with both hands on the wheel at all times? No more music while driving? No drinking or eating?

The point has nothing to do with whether or not seat belts can help save your life. It has everything to do with where it all ends. If someone doesn't want to wear a seatbelt, fine.

IIRC, not wearing a seatbelt weighs against the offending party in court and in many insurance contracts. That's why the financial burden argument doesn't really hold any water.

bobman1235

shack wrote:

Anyway it is a moot point. Believe it or not....the majority of people want the safety laws that are on the books to remain. Since there is no "right" use public roads without obeying the laws...there is no recourse.

Hahaha, I'd LOVE to see that vote, I'd almost guarantee that you're wrong.

How many times do we have to shoot down these ridiculous arguments about medical and insurance costs before you actually listen anyways? If that's really your only concern (and it's a valid one, if not farfetched) maybe you should think about reforming insurance and liability laws, rather than telling everyone how they should live their lives.

And this "public roads, driving is not a right" nonsense is equally silly. I love how quick you are to just hand over every decision to the government based solely on that kind of specious drivel. What happened to a government for the people, BY the people? THe only thing some of you seem concerned about is your financial interests, and I hate to break it to you, but that's REALLY not the government's job. Or at least it shouldn't be.

shack

As I said...it IS a moot point. Safety laws are here to stay.

shack

And those of you that think government is not about financial interests....are the ones with your heads in the sand.

Demiurge

That's why PA just repealed it's helmet law in 2003?

Demiurge

shack wrote:

And those of you that think government is not about financial interests....are the ones with your heads in the sand.

He said it shouldn't be, and he's right.