Ben Roethlisburger

shack

Demiurge wrote:

That's why PA just repealed it's helmet law in 2003?

Want to bet on whether it gets revisited because of Roethlisburger?

bobman1235

Don't just say it's a moot point. We all get passionate and yell and scream about this, and I do respect your opinion despite the fact that it's wrong (:)), but (cue patriotic music) debating these kinds of things is what this country's all about. And just throwing up your hands and saying "well, it's the way it is" ISN'T. Question everything that deserves to be questioned. We all have a differnet opinion about hte government's role and what it should be in our lives, and you shouldn't want to just lay back and accept what it CURRENTLY is just to avoid a little conflict

Demiurge

shack wrote:

Want to bet on whether it gets revisited because of Roethlisburger?

There's a sad commentary on society...

shack

I am saying it is a moot point because it is the law, and the majority of the pubic agree with it (me included).

Demiurge

shack wrote:

I am saying it is a moot point because it is the law, and the majority of the pubic agree with it (me included).

How do you substantiate that claim?

These laws aren't by public demand by any stretch. I'm also curious why you won't address the other statements about safety. Why do you stop at seat belts? Why don't you support laws about eating and drinking in the car? I mean I can go on and on, but you place no end on the laws. I just don't understand the old government says it's illegal so I will just go along with it mentality. That's not saying you should break the law, but you don't even question it. It's ridiculous and counterintuitive to what this country stands for. I'm definitely with bobman here all the way. Focus on insurance reform, etc., rather than trying to keep everyone safe with laws that you can't possibly enforce.

shack

Cost Savings
■ Analysis of linked data from the Crash Outcome Data Evaluation System (CODES) in three States with universal helmet laws showed that without the helmet law, the total extra inpatient charges due to brain injury would have almost doubled from $2,325,000 to $4,095,000.
■ A number of studies have compared hospital costs for helmeted and unhelmeted motorcyclists involved in traffic crashes. These studies have revealed that un-helmeted riders involved in crashes are less likely to have insurance and more likely to have higher hospital costs than helmeted riders involved insimilar crashes.
■ The CODES study, mentioned earlier, also found that brain injury cases were more than twice as costly as non-brain injury cases for the one-year period studied. Among the un-helmeted motorcycle in-patients, charges for those suffering brain injuries were 2.25 times higher than for those without brain injuries. Long-term costs were not included.
■ NHTSA estimates that motorcycle helmet use saved $1.3 billion in 2002 alone. An additional $853 million would have been saved if all motorcyclists had worn helmets.
■ NHTSA estimates that motorcycle helmet use saved $19.5 billion in economic costs from 1984 through 2002. An additional $14.8 billion would have been saved if all motorcyclists had worn helmets during the same period.

Who Supports Universal Motorcycle Helmet Laws?
■ AAA
■ Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety
■ Allstate Insurance Company
■ American Academy of Family Physicians
■ American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons
■ American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
■ American Academy of Pediatrics
■ American Coalition for Traffic Safety, Inc.
■ American College of Emergency Physicians
■ American College of Preventive Medicine
■ American College of Surgeons
■ American Driver and Traffic Safety Education Association
■ American Insurance Association
■ American Medical Association
■ American Nurses Association
■ American Public Health Association
■ American Trauma Society
■ Association of Women’s Health, Obstetrics, and Neonatal Nurses
■ Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine
■ Brain Injury Association
■ Center for Rural Emergency Medicine
■ Emergency Nurses Association
■ Emergency Nurses CARE
■ Epilepsy Foundation of America
■ GEICO
■ General Federation of Women’s Clubs
■ Indian Health Service
■ Motorcycle Industry Council
■ National Association of County and City Health Officials
■ National Association of Orthopedic Nurses
■ National Association of Public Hospitals
■ National Association of Emergency Medical Technicians
■ National Association of State EMS Directors
■ National Association of State Head Injury Administrators
■ National Center for Injury Prevention and Control
■ National Conference of Black Mayors
■ National Flight Nurses Association
■ National Safety Council
■ National Sheriffs Association
■ Nationwide Insurance
■ Native American Injury Prevention Coalition
■ Prudential Insurance
■ State and Territorial Injury Prevention Directors Association
■ Students Against Destructive Decisions
■ State Farm Insurance
■ Think First Foundation
■ Wellness Councils of America
■ Me - and many of my friends who own and ride bikes

Demiurge

That's a majority of the public? When in doubt, copy and paste from other websites. Thanks for playing.

madmax

I support laws of no eating or drinking in cars, wearing shoes (which is mandatory btw), no cell phone use while driving, prohibited video operation while moving, operating safety equipment, HELMETS ON MOTORCYCLES, etc... Not supporting, passing and obeying such laws costs us all. Thank heaven for knowledgeable and thoughtful government.
madmax

petrym

Since many of you are citing law, check this out:
A law enforcement source close to the investigation of Monday's crash told Team 4 investigator Jim Parsons that Ben Roethlisberger does have a valid driver's license, but his motorcycle learner's permit is expired.

And there's something else.

Because Roethlisberger never completed testing for his motorcycle license, new questions are surfacing about whether the law required him to wear a helmet.

On the football field, Roethlisberger is a master of the playbook and the rulebook.

But on the road, the rules are different.

A law enforcement source close to the investigation of Monday's crash told Team 4 that Roethlisberger had an expired motorcycle learner's permit when his bike slammed into a turning car.

Here's a timeline of Roethlisberger's driving license:

According to the Ohio Department of Public Safety, his license was transferred to Pennsylvania in October 2004.

In Ohio, his license did not have a motorcycle endorsement; a source inside the Steelers' organization told Team 4 that Roethlisberger got his Pennsylvania motorcycle learner's permit in March 2005. It was valid for one year.

New questions are also being raised about whether Roethlisberger was correct last year when he said his decision to ride a motorcycle without a helmet was not a violation of the law.

When asked why he doesn't wear a helmet, Roethlisberger replied, "Because you don't have to, it's not the law. If it was the law, I'd definitely have one on every time I rode. But it's not the law so (I?) know I don't have to."

But here's what the law says: Motorcycle operators can only ride without a helmet if they have two years of riding experience -- Roethlisberger does not -- or if they have completed an approved motorcycle safety course.

Team 4 doesn't know whether Roethlisberger completed a Pennsylvania Department of Transportation-approved motorcycle safety course because PennDOT won't tell Team 4.

But typically, completing a course would lead to a motorcycle license, and our source said Roethlisberger didn't have one of those -- he was still operating on a permit, an expired one.

http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/9364467/detail.html?rss=pit&psp=news

petrym

Looks like the boy wasn't following the rules...

hmmmmm???

shack

Demiurge wrote:

That's a majority of the public? When in doubt, copy and paste from other websites. Thanks for playing.

You ask for data and then question the source. I guess I could have just spouted data off the top of my head and treated it as fact (as some do).

Bottom line and my last post regarding this topic. I believe and support universal motorcycle helmet laws. I feel the same for seat belts and other passive vehicle restraints. Both the positive economic and social outcomes of these laws far outweigh any minor loss of one's freedom and or choice when it comes to using the public thouroughfares. You asked, so yes I'm also for banning eating, talking on the cell phone, shaving, reading, putting on makeup, having sex, getting a **** (since Clinton differentiated between the two, so will I) and a host of other activities while operating a motor vehicle on the public roads.

Just for Demiurge another cut and paste:

WASHINGTON, April 28 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Following is a statement for attribution to Lt. Colonel Jim Champagne, chair of the Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA):

I am deeply disturbed by the serious increase in motorcycle fatalities. Last week, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) projected that 2004 represented the seventh straight year of increases in this area. NHTSA's preliminary estimate is that 3,927 motorcyclists died in 2004. This is a 7.3 percent rise since 2003 and an 85 percent rise since 1997. Motorcycle fatalities have increased from 5 percent of all motor vehicle fatalities in 1997 to a projected 9 percent in 2004.

Why is this happening? In large part, the lack of motorcycle helmet laws in states is the culprit. Currently, only 20 states and the District of Columbia have a helmet law that applies to all riders. Given the serious trends in motorcycle fatalities, one would think additional states would be mulling enactment of new laws. The reality is that some of the 20 states are actually considering repealing their laws. As chair of GHSA, I have taken action, as the situation is too serious to ignore. Recently, I've testified in Virginia urging that state retain its law. At the request of safety advocates, I have also contacted governors and legislators in Michigan, West Virginia and Maryland urging they reject attempts to repeal their laws. I am also working with advocates in Nebraska to help them defend their law.

I feel so strongly about this issue because I have seen the impact of a motorcycle helmet law in my state of Louisiana. In 1999, Louisiana abolished its universal helmet law. This led to a terrible spike in the death of motorcyclists. In 1998, the year before the law's repeal, we achieved nearly 100 percent helmet usage and experienced 35 motorcycle fatalities. By 2003, the law's repeal had reduced helmet use to 35 percent and fatalities had spiked to 83 -- a 137 percent increase.

Fortunately, in 2004, Louisiana's universal motorcycle helmet law was reinstated. We are the only state in the country to have enacted this law in the last decade -- a shocking statistic given fatality trends.

As I travel the country, I am often told that a helmet law is an infringement on a person's freedom of choice. The problem with this argument is that one's freedom of choice should not negatively affect the rest of society. A recent study from the Medical Center of Louisiana in New Orleans (a Level 1 Trauma Center) showed that 91.8 percent of people admitted after unhelmeted motorcycle collisions did not have any health insurance. We all pay their medical bills.

Whether everyone likes it or not, we legislate highway safety in all states. We pass laws to protect people who are unable or unwilling to protect themselves. Public access highways are built and maintained by the government to provide people with the freedom to travel. It is not a right to operate a vehicle on these roads, but rather, it is a privilege. It is a privilege earned after reaching a certain age, passing a driving test and gaining a license. In order to maintain this privilege, one is required to obey the common sense laws and those should include a universal motorcycle helmet law.

May is Motorcycle Safety Awareness Month. I encourage all states to use this occasion to highlight the need to reverse the sobering fatality trends surrounding motorcycle fatalities.

Seems like I'm not the only one with the public road/privilege point of view.

F1nut

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.

Very simple. It protects me from feeling really bad about killing some idiot that would have lived had he/she been wearing their seltbelt or had their helmet on.

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!

Let's say one of your loved ones refused to wear their seltbelt. They get into an accident and die as a result. Are you going to tell me that you'd be ok with that because they, at least, had their freedom of choice in the matter or would you rather have had a law that made he/she wear that seatbelt even if they complained like hell about it, yet were still alive as the result.




One of the main reasons we have seltbelt laws today is because consumer action groups (the general public) spoke up loud enough for the stupid politicians to do something about it. You don't think that the politicians came up with the idea all by themselves, do you!?!

F1nut

Speaking of blow jobs....I knew of a young inner city girl in Baltimore that was going down on the ice cream truck vendor while he was driving. He crashed and she bit off his ****. OUCH!!!

Demiurge

shack wrote:

You ask for data and then question the source. I guess I could have just spouted data off the top of my head and treated it as fact (as some do).

Bottom line and my last post regarding this topic. I believe and support universal motorcycle helmet laws. I feel the same for seat belts and other passive vehicle restraints. Both the positive economic and social outcomes of these laws far outweigh any minor loss of one's freedom and or choice when it comes to using the public thouroughfares. You asked, so yes I'm also for banning eating, talking on the cell phone, shaving, reading, putting on makeup, having sex, getting a **** (since Clinton differentiated between the two, so will I) and a host of other activities while operating a motor vehicle on the public roads.

Shack, I am not questioning the source. I am sure all of those organizations support the laws. How posting a list of 25 or 30 organizations that support the laws is the same as saying the majority of the public support the laws is beyond me.

I think these organizations you listed all have their hearts and their heads in the right place. I think maybe some may be missing the point of the argument. It's not whether or not we should encourage one another to wear seatbelts and helmets, but rather whether or not our government should pass laws doing so. I don't think so, and the reason is because it sets a precedent that starts to become a slippery slope. This mentality that we are going to wipe out tragedy and the impact of accidents on our society by passing laws is a ridiculous notion at best. Have you thought about all of the wasted tax dollars (see your money) having government control all of these unecessary laws? 'Click it or Ticket' -- are those signs free? No, it's a cost.

You need to have organizations like some that you listed above pushing awareness, not laws.

I can't be any more succinct than that.

HBombToo

F1nut wrote:

Speaking of blow jobs....I knew of a young inner city girl in Baltimore that was going down on the ice cream truck vendor while he was driving. He crashed and she bit off his ****. OUCH!!!

OK then no more ice cream trucks allowed!:D

F1nut

Oh yeah, forgot to add.....I'm against drivers talking on their cell phones while driving. I've never seen so many drivers do so many stupid things while on their cell. It boggles the mind. DC banned hand held cells while driving, the city is a much safer place to drive now.

Demiurge

F1nut wrote:

Very simple. It protects me from feeling really bad about killing some idiot that would have lived had he/she been wearing their seltbelt or had their helmet on.

How will you feel if they die wearing their seatbelt or are a cripple?

F1nut

How will you feel if they die wearing their seatbelt or are a cripple?

At least I could take comfort in the fact that all current safety laws did the best they could to prevent it when the moron slammed into me.

F1nut

The bottom line here is....

Not wearing a seltbelt = MORON
Not wearing a helmet = MORON

Both save lives and that's a proven fact, which supercedes any other viewpoint.

madmax

Demiurge wrote:

This mentality that we are going to wipe out tragedy and the impact of accidents on our society by passing laws is a ridiculous notion at best.

You keep saying this but the law of the land is how we the people sway each other on the proper ways to conduct ourselves. This is for our benifit and is why we make the laws to start with.
madmax

Demiurge

F1nut wrote:

The bottom line here is....

Not wearing a seltbelt = MORON
Not wearing a helmet = MORON

Both save lives and that's a proven fact, which supercedes any other viewpoint.

Unfortunately that's not the discussion!

Demiurge

madmax wrote:

You keep saying this but the law of the land is how we the people sway each other on the proper ways to conduct ourselves. This is for our benifit and is why we make the laws to start with.
madmax

That's my point, what you're saying is NOT we the people. It's We the Government!

I don't know why this is such a hard concept to grasp.

I know for a fact one of the seatbelt gurus here smokes. Can you say hypocrisy? All is fair with these laws until they affect you personally. Hope none of you are overweight. I'd rather stop the nonsense before it's completely out of control.

PhantomOG

I don't believe there necessarily should be a helmet law, but it would take an immensely slippery slope to assume that once a helmet law goes into affect, McDonald's immediately gets shut down for being bad for you. There is a big difference between the two, and as fun as it is to throw the slippery slope argument around, I just don't see it truly applicable to helmet laws. Plenty of states already have helmet laws in effect and the world is still spinning.

petrym

Demiurge wrote:

I know for a fact one of the seatbelt gurus here smokes.

I'm sure whomever you're talking about smokes were it's allowed and does not smoke where's it's not allowed...

I'm with shack and f1nut on this issue. So many many people want all the conveniences without the self-responsibility. You want to drive on these expensive-to-build and expensive-to-maintain roads? Good, follow the rules and don't mouth off about freedoms from seatbelts and helmets.

Also, bringing overweight people into it has nothing to do with helmet and seatbelt laws, if some monstrously huge person hits you when they're running 60 miles an hour, then we'll talk. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Demiurge

PhantomOG wrote:

I don't believe there necessarily should be a helmet law, but it would take an immensely slippery slope to assume that once a helmet law goes into affect, McDonald's immediately gets shut down for being bad for you. There is a big difference between the two, and as fun as it is to throw the slippery slope argument around, I just don't see it truly applicable to helmet laws. Plenty of states already have helmet laws in effect and the world is still spinning.

How ridiculous is it? It used to be laughable that smoking would be banned by government in privately owned businesses, but it's already happend all across the country. So long as you don't smoke (which I don't) that crowd won't be bothered, and the anti-smoking zealots are happy as well. Just because the result of a law is good doesn't make it good for our society. Freedom should mean something, and that means making bad choices along with the good. Government should be as hands off as possible.

If you're forced to wear a seatbelt why is eating in the car okay? Why can't we have a law for that? These questions can and will be asked, and has been demonstrated in this thread -- people will support that too. That is scary. I mean we can get situational if you want, beacause there are plenty of accident scenarios where you wouldn't want to be all tangled up in a seatbelt? Silly argument maybe, but so is suggesting the law solves anything.

TroyD

Demiurge wrote:

I think maybe some may be missing the point of the argument. It's not whether or not we should encourage one another to wear seatbelts and helmets, but rather whether or not our government should pass laws doing so. I don't think so, and the reason is because it sets a precedent that starts to become a slippery slope. This mentality that we are going to wipe out tragedy and the impact of accidents on our society by passing laws is a ridiculous notion at best. Have you thought about all of the wasted tax dollars (see your money) having government control all of these unecessary laws? 'Click it or Ticket' -- are those signs free? No, it's a cost.

You need to have organizations like some that you listed above pushing awareness, not laws.

I can't be any more succinct than that.

Ok, but taken to the other extreme....at what point DO we pass laws?

Should we just legalize everything and let nature and bedlam take it's course all in the name of freedom? Not hardly.

The argument against having a helmet or seatbelt law is what's shaky. It's not even close to being a constitutional grey area. As far as the majority of citizens, that's a moot point as well because we are a republic, not a true democracy.

BDT

Demiurge

petrym wrote:

I'm sure whomever you're talking about smokes were it's allowed and does not smoke where's it's not allowed...

I'm with shack and f1nut on this issue. So many many people want all the conveniences without the self-responsibility. You want to drive on these expensive-to-build and expensive-to-maintain roads? Good, follow the rules and don't mouth off about freedoms from seatbelts and helmets.

Also, bringing overweight people into it has nothing to do with helmet and seatbelt laws, if some monstrously huge person hits you when they're running 60 miles an hour, then we'll talk. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

As stated above, you're missing the point of the comparison. People who don't wear a seatbelt or a helmet assume that responsibilty, so I don't understand why you claim that we want the freedom without the responsibility. I wear my seatbelt most of the time, and I wear a helmet almost everytime we take the Harley out of the garage. I assume the risk when I don't.

You should be focusing on reforming insurance laws and trial lawyers. You're simply using government to circumvent personal responsibilty, which isn't it's function.

PhantomOG

TroyD wrote:

Should we just legalize everything and let nature and bedlam take it's course all in the name of freedom? Not hardly.

my point exactly. you can play the slippery slope game either way and doesn't really stregthen your argument on either side.

Demiurge

TroyD wrote:

Ok, but taken to the other extreme....at what point DO we pass laws?

Should we just legalize everything and let nature and bedlam take it's course all in the name of freedom? Not hardly.

The argument against having a helmet or seatbelt law is what's shaky. It's not even close to being a constitutional grey area. As far as the majority of citizens, that's a moot point as well because we are a republic, not a true democracy.

BDT

I think in general laws protecting people from themselves should be severely debated before they are passed. I don't think these laws have been, and I would be interested to see what would happen if laws like these would be put up for a vote. Of course they won't be, which leads to another problem. Laws just end up on the books because a lot of us aren't involved at even a local level in government. How many call their reps up and say "I want you to vote for or against this measure for (insert reason here)?" It's just not a lot.

I just want to stress again that helmets and seatbelts are absolutely a good thing in the bulk of scenarios that it just can't be argued.

I think laws protecting people from others are more in line with where we should be focusing, and is where most of our laws are.

We can come up with ridiculous examples of where this will go next, and we can all laugh until it happens. I'm citing things far and away from being paranoid. I just don't like feeling like my hand is constantly being held, and it makes life way too sterile.

TroyD

Demiurge wrote:

People who don't wear a seatbelt or a helmet assume that responsibilty.

No, they don't. If you think that they do, you are mistaken.

Let's just say for the sake of argument that Roethlisburger didn't have any sort of insurance and no money. What sort of responsibility does he take? It doesn't relieve the meatwagon of the responsibility to come scrape his **** off the sidewalk. It certainly doesn't relieve the hospital and staff of thier responsibility to put humpty dumpty back together again. So, what are his responsibilities again?? Nope, it's mandated by LAW that you have to be treated so, that being the case, it is MORE than acceptable to try and impose some sort of regulation to limit the abuse on that system.

That argument is a crock of shiite and THAT is why we have/need these laws.

NOW, were it a case of if you don't have a helmet/seatbelt and you were treated up to the point of your ability to pay, hey, ride on with your bad self.

You are assuming ALL the responsibility, right??

BDT