http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/08/09/motorcycle.deaths.ap/index.html
Here is the kicker.
WTF does it matter.
Deaths up since Florida helmet law repealed
- Thread starter DRB
- Start date
Evolution In action or Freeedom of Choice?DRB said:
Be careful with that line of thinking. As much as it seems seductive, it's a matter of time before bicycles are outlawed unless they are stationary. After all, you can get your exercise on a spinning bike, right? No need to risk yourself on the streets or in the forest...Toshi said:
Toshi said:
Interesting point. Not saying I agree or disagree, but what about sports injuries, teen pregnancies, drinking, and smoking? Don't these also have a cost (usually medical) to society?
There is a difference between banning an activity and requiring what has proven to be safe, cheap and effective protection. From my days riding a motorcycles it was my observation that people who chose to ride without helmets would also be more likely to have a few beers befor riding and take other stupid risks on the bike. I say helmetless motorcycling should just require a different license and let the insurance industry sort the rest out.Silver said:
Edit: A helmetless license should just inlude a checkbox type option by the operator and not require any additional tests or fees, like the organ donor box. The helmetless rider will likely be a donor too.
I would happily pay higher insurance premiums because I participate in more dangerous than average activities as long as fat people, smokers and heavy drinkers have to pay for their high risk hobbies.
What is the correlation between auto head injuries and seat belt use. I'd guess the head injuries go along with not wearing a seat belt. If people are truly interested in safer cars they would just toss in 5 point harnesses.stinkyboy said:
going to Strip Clubs is a high risk hobby?Westy said:
oops wrong thread
stinkyboy said:
I know you didn't mention seatbelts. My question was if head injuries are the most common cause of death in autos what is the correlation between head injuries and seat belt use? I would guess that people who do not wear seatbelts have a much much higher rate of head injuries. Seems silly to mandate helmets for cars if the existing equipment inside them solved the problem.
I find it very ironic discussing head injuries with Stinkyboy.
i agree with riders having to either where helmets or be targeted/tracked if they do not. however, i think the insurance companies are a bunch of greedy bastards that are ALWAYS going to cry wolf with high costs so i am hestitant to blanketly accept...costs are up, costs are up.
i hope thos m'frs have their own special place in hell. insurance companies suck plain and simple
edit...you can't forget the lawyers that are part of this equation...they suck too
i hope thos m'frs have their own special place in hell. insurance companies suck plain and simple
edit...you can't forget the lawyers that are part of this equation...they suck too
In this case we have to avoid looking at extremes and look at the large grey area in between. Riding a motorcycle, a vehicle which travels at the same speeds as a car without a helmet is clearly far more dangerous than driving a car without a helmet. No seatbelt, no airbags, no SIPS, no roll cage. It's a totally different proposition, on top of the fact that bikes are smaller and lighter than most cars so inherently more likely to come off worse in a crash.
I agree that if you ride without a helmet you should have to pay some sort of extra insurance to compensate the saner people who recognise that the human skull is not evolved to impact tarmac at 70mph and survive intact.
I also agree that smokers should have to pay higher health insurance rates too, but I think they do already eh? However, it apparantly isn't enough as isn't smoking related diseases the highest single cost to America? I seem to remeber reading that somewhere.
I don't smoke but I have ridden motorbikes in the past as a commuter in and out of London every day for 2 years. Riding without a helmet, or gloves and a decent jacket and pants would be simply retarded.
I agree that if you ride without a helmet you should have to pay some sort of extra insurance to compensate the saner people who recognise that the human skull is not evolved to impact tarmac at 70mph and survive intact.
I also agree that smokers should have to pay higher health insurance rates too, but I think they do already eh? However, it apparantly isn't enough as isn't smoking related diseases the highest single cost to America? I seem to remeber reading that somewhere.
I don't smoke but I have ridden motorbikes in the past as a commuter in and out of London every day for 2 years. Riding without a helmet, or gloves and a decent jacket and pants would be simply retarded.
what i find exceedingly amusing is the 'window dressing' you often see on the back of crotch rockets, eg. girlies, wearing next to nothing and i think to myself they have NO clue what a sever case of road rash is obviously. i guess they don't want to stay pretty for long.
concerning the want for smokers to pay more, if you are going to pursue that route then you'd best consider obesity, and drinking, and i KNOW this one is gonna spin you up chang, but how about homosexuals...i can't think of anymore high risk group...you know that little thing called AIDS...
concerning the want for smokers to pay more, if you are going to pursue that route then you'd best consider obesity, and drinking, and i KNOW this one is gonna spin you up chang, but how about homosexuals...i can't think of anymore high risk group...you know that little thing called AIDS...
automobiles are much safer than motorcycles so the comparison is asinine.
http://www.webbikeworld.com/Motorcycle-Safety/crash.htm
http://www.webbikeworld.com/Motorcycle-Safety/crash.htm
the above page said:
It would be much safer if everyone was locked up in padded little rooms. I am actually surprised they put a computer in yours. :devil:stinkyboy said:Yes, they're safer, that's not in question, but there would be fewer deaths (lower insurance premiums) if drivers wore helmets!
The same argument for cyclist...
Changleen said:
such as?
so you are telling me that alcoholism, obesity, and gay sex aren't high risk behaviors? anything to the contrary is delusional beyond comprehension
Men having sex with Men is actually the highest risk group for AIDS transmission - 57% of current (living) victims are Men who've had sex with Men, (note: Female homosexuality is far lower) but:
So you want to make being a African American a high risk group too?
i was just addresing the pandoras box that you want to open by singling out smokers for higher premiums being the fair minded libby that you are surely you wouldnt want to just SINGLE out one group now would you?
one might construe that as discrimination and we all know that is wrong.
btw how about citing your source, and nice slight of hand trying to bait me into making this racial
one might construe that as discrimination and we all know that is wrong.
btw how about citing your source, and nice slight of hand trying to bait me into making this racial
Uh, I think it was http://www.avert.org/, I've closed the window now.ridetoofast said:i was just addresing the pandoras box that you want to open by singling out smokers for higher premiums being the fair minded libby that you are surely you wouldnt want to just SINGLE out one group now would you?
one might construe that as discrimination and we all know that is wrong.
btw how about citing your source, and nice slight of hand trying to bait me into making this racial
Actually I'm not so liberal that I wouldn't target one group if the situation warranted it, but I'd always try to keep a level playing field whilst practical. Secondly one always needs to look at the causes of a situation rather than just responding to the symptoms, something most republicans these days seem blatently unable to do.
I am very interested in why you have such a problem with Gays, for example.
i'd have no problem at all if their mindset wasn't if you don't accept me you're wrong plain and simple. i thought one of the tennants of the lefties and liberalism was acceptance and tolerance. what it really is, either you like our position or your a biggot. its the militant attitude that bothers me, and don't tell me that i'm millitant because i think that. don't tell me i need to accept them like they're a subset of the population (left handed people i belive you once said)
that being case, do you deny that the other behaviors are risky? should they not also be the recipient of higher premiums? why would you single out JUST smokers?
and why are you so supportive of them (gays)?
btw im not a republican im libertarian/constitutional party (i like aspects of both perspectives)
that being case, do you deny that the other behaviors are risky? should they not also be the recipient of higher premiums? why would you single out JUST smokers?
and why are you so supportive of them (gays)?
btw im not a republican im libertarian/constitutional party (i like aspects of both perspectives)
Because, except for their sexuality, they're completely normal people, and they deserve to be treated exactly like anyone else?ridetoofast said:
Homosexuals only want to be treated like everyone else. People might consider you a biggot because you are so focused on these people's sexuality that you completely fail to to see them as individuals. Your posts so far smack of intollerance which you say is a result of their 'accept me or you're wrong' stance.
Put yourself in the shoes of a Gay person for a second. You are gay, you've always been gay ever since you understood your sexuality, and you're are never going to change. Aside from that you are utterly identical to every other member of society. You need to eat, have a job, sleep, drive a car, you want to be able to go out and have fun at the weekend, ride a bike, whatever.
What does it feel like to know there are people who hate you and want to stop your right to have recognition of your relationships, to get the same financial treatment, to go to the same places, drink the same drinks as the rest of the population, simply because of your sexuality?
Can you see the paralells with the situation faced by Blacks not so long ago and women before that? People are just people, no group is 'better' or more deserving than any other. Everyone deserves the same opportunities in life.
When you look at it like this it's not hard to see why Gay people get very frustrated with the attitudes of people who aren't gay, and who have no intention of interacting with gays, telling them what they can and cannot do.
As for:
Dude, They ARE a subset of the population. What do you think they are?
i will not try to see parallels to blacks.
there are no 'gay' fountains and 'straight' fountains etc,
i dont hate them, i just don't want it forced down my throat (no pun intended)
i do however have a problem with gay marriage because of the precedent it will set. i.e. we should be able to marry because we love each other, well what about the polygamyst that loves ALL of his wives, or the brother and sister in wv that love each other.
financical arrangements eg. benefits...well if it is simply defined as just two people living together 2 men, 2 women, what about when just 2 people live togther like boyfriend and girlfriend ...shouldn't they get benefits too?
you really want to open up a pandoras box with this one.
i never said they shouldn't be able to live together, be gainfully employed, eat, drink be merry etc
and since you think they should be treated like everyone else why should they get SPECIAL treatment with regards to prosecution of violence committed against them
if one person beats the **** of of another person its assualt plain and simple.
the concept of hate crime is just one step away from thought crime.
there are no 'gay' fountains and 'straight' fountains etc,
i dont hate them, i just don't want it forced down my throat (no pun intended)
i do however have a problem with gay marriage because of the precedent it will set. i.e. we should be able to marry because we love each other, well what about the polygamyst that loves ALL of his wives, or the brother and sister in wv that love each other.
financical arrangements eg. benefits...well if it is simply defined as just two people living together 2 men, 2 women, what about when just 2 people live togther like boyfriend and girlfriend ...shouldn't they get benefits too?
you really want to open up a pandoras box with this one.
i never said they shouldn't be able to live together, be gainfully employed, eat, drink be merry etc
and since you think they should be treated like everyone else why should they get SPECIAL treatment with regards to prosecution of violence committed against them
if one person beats the **** of of another person its assualt plain and simple.
the concept of hate crime is just one step away from thought crime.
I don't like hate crime laws myself, but here's something to ponder:ridetoofast said:
If "The faggot made a pass at me so we beat him with a baseball bat!" defence didn't work, there would be no need for it. Unfortunately, in large parts of the country, it isn't hard to find 12 people who believe that the fag or the nigger or the kike or the "insert slur here" deserved it somehow.
Anyways, back to having homosexuality forced on you: You've had a cock forcibly put down your throat?
i knew someone was going to twist those words...
thats like the question, "when did you stop beating your wife"
there just isnt a good answer
i know its a tough situation that people actively choose to be violent against 'x' subset of population but there are already sufficient laws on the books, there aren't a need for anymore. the judges just need to be harsh in general for aggravated assault.
drb...sorry for the thread derailment
thats like the question, "when did you stop beating your wife"
there just isnt a good answer
i know its a tough situation that people actively choose to be violent against 'x' subset of population but there are already sufficient laws on the books, there aren't a need for anymore. the judges just need to be harsh in general for aggravated assault.
drb...sorry for the thread derailment
Yeah, but what about gay motorcyclists who ride without helmets? I think you're all missing the real point here.
You're the one who said you didn't like homosexuality forced on you. I'm hardly twisting your words.
There are bars where Gays would be very unwelcome, and partly as a consequence there are bars which are predominantly for Gays. There are many paralells, especially when it comes to individual rights.ridetoofast said:
Just who is forcing it down your throat? What does that even mean? Have you been made to commit a homosexual act?
Polygamy is marrying multiple people. If the wives are all genuinly consenting, what is the problem with this? As for the Brother and Sister, there are sensible genetic reasons why they should not procreate. If two dudes or two gals want to marry, how is this hurting you? What effect does it have on your life?
It's not defined like that, though. There are several benefits both in terms of social security and tax which are only availible to married couples. Who are you to say the relationship between two grown men is worth less than that of a male and female? Why should one be favoured over the other? If I am an old professional male, and I'm dying, and I want to give my money to my lover, if it's a woman I can, and if it's a guy I can't.
As for a boyfriend and girlfriend, society has come up with this more informal relationship status for a reason. Relationships do have different levels of seriousness. For a man and a woman, the most serious relationships culminate in marriage. It's a social recognition of a very serious bond. Currently, most Gay people are prevented from cementing their relationship in this way. It's like society is saying 'we don't recognise that you can love each other as much as hetrosexuals'. Is that fair?
But you would deny them certain facets of normal life, such as marriage and tax breaks, and family allowance. Which is it?
Because of the motive for the violence. If they are beaten up because they called someone a c**t in a bar, it's still assult, not a hate crime. If they are beaten up because they are gay, how is that any different from beating someone up because of their skin colour or race? If people didn't hate people for being different, these laws would not be necassary. The concept of a hate crime is society's way of saying that violence based on prejudice is especially unacceptable. And so it should be.
Except for the minor detail that if you commit a crime in your thoughts, people don't end up with broken bones or dead. Can you see the subtle difference?
Threads in PD seem to go that way often.
I personally think riding a motorcycle without a helmet is dumb. However I'm not yet at the point where I'm willing to impose my helmet values on the rest of the world. As far as I can see the person it hurts the most is the motorcycle rider, who get's killed, and his/her family. If the states are hurting for money maybe they can create a special "helmet less" motorcycle registration, to recoup the losses. Or require "helmetless" insurance, which would carry a higher premium. Not that I really think it's necessary with the Billions they spend on Highway developement each year. Florida's costs went up about .7 million a month, after the helmet law terminated.
You can tell people not to eat too much, not to smoke, and not to ride without a helmet. At some point they have to make a choice. That's part of freedom.
I personally think riding a motorcycle without a helmet is dumb. However I'm not yet at the point where I'm willing to impose my helmet values on the rest of the world. As far as I can see the person it hurts the most is the motorcycle rider, who get's killed, and his/her family. If the states are hurting for money maybe they can create a special "helmet less" motorcycle registration, to recoup the losses. Or require "helmetless" insurance, which would carry a higher premium. Not that I really think it's necessary with the Billions they spend on Highway developement each year. Florida's costs went up about .7 million a month, after the helmet law terminated.
You can tell people not to eat too much, not to smoke, and not to ride without a helmet. At some point they have to make a choice. That's part of freedom.
damn you and your reasonable logic reactor 
i couldn't agree more
i couldn't agree more
Uh... that's $700,000 a month - not exactly chump change.Reactor said:
How about the laws that say kids under 18 have to wear bike helmets? It's probably the reason I don't see any kids riding anymore, and why most of the LBS' I know around here are out of business.
Different story. Kids didn't stop riding because of helmets. They stopped riding because of video games and parents who are scared of their child leaving the front yard and getting abducted. (Which the stats don't bear out...but parents worry about it anyways.)rooftest said:
When I was 12 years old, I had to ride all over the place. A decade later, when my brother was the same age, mom drove him everywhere he wanted to go. Anecdotal, I know.