Deaths up since Florida helmet law repealed
- Thread starter DRB
- Start date
I would have imagined it going to bicycle helmets and government intrustion BUT homosexuality? I didn't see that one coming.Changleen said:
Silver your extention of helmet laws to banning non-stationary bikes is the dumbest thing I have ever seen from you. I mean that's rock dumb.
And oh this pains me BUTChangleen said:
. Simply the most coherent accurate statement you have ever made on RM.
You have heard of a reduction to the absurd, right?DRB said:
Do you really want to live in a world where you have to give a daily itinerary to your health insurance company of all your activities and your food choices so they can accurately adjust your premiums? It would be easy for me to say that fat people should pay more for insurance, I'm not fat. It would also be easy for a fat person who doesn't ride to say that I should pay more for insurance because I play in traffic on a bicycle. There are social costs to almost any activity. C'est la vie.
23 million dollars in costs over more than 2 years in a state where the budget is going to be 60 billion dollars. You think maybe the cost part of the argument is a bit silly?
Silver said:
I wonder if this has any benefits society in any way. The dumb weeding themselves out of the herd?
Westy said:
Natural selection?
It's Florida. How could you possibly even tell?Toshi said:i realize your comment is tongue in cheek, but having a bunch of brain damaged individuals does not help the species thrive...
As someone who was born and risened in florida this statement touches a nerve.Silver said:It's Florida. How could you possibly even tell?
Mostly because it is completely accurate.
Toshi said:i realize your comment is tongue in cheek, but having a bunch of brain damaged individuals does not help the species thrive...
Yes it's tongue in cheek. I don't want people hurt, and I wish everyone would wear helmets. Maybe every motorcycle license should come with a mandatory trip to a hospital or rehab center so people can understand the possible consequences of their actions better.
I still think at some point it's time for the government to step back and let them make their own choices. Extreme sports, skydiving, stunts and a lot of more dangerous activities aren't prohibited, and we as a society end up paying for some of those medical costs.
Where do you draw the line? You're more likely to get injured playing basketball than any other sport, even mountian biking. There are a lot of people who do things I'd never do, but as long as they aren't hurting other people, know the risks and accept them, I'm don't feel I have the right to ask them to stop.
If someone doesn't feel that they should wear a helmet, more power to them. There are a lot of people waiting for organ transplants, and once there are people ripping around on street bikes without helmets, there will be plenty of organ donors. It will be there way of giving something back...
Glower mate, your arguement has been twisting my melon for a while now. Basically you say " if they don't wanna wear a skid lid, then it's only their melon they're endangering". Hard to fault that logic for sure. Two points though appear to me. One is that taking to the road is not a right but a privilege. As such privilege comes with responsibilities. That kind of leads to my second point. A company has the right to say to their employees that they must wear protective equipment to do their job. Obviously this is because they have an investment in the person. This ties it back to the first point. I think society has the right, when it invests in people, to say that they should not indulge in activities that obviously endanger them.Reactor said:
Of course, 28 Big Macs a day, or 30 ciggies a day is not far away from that. It is however not the law....perhaps it should be. However the impact of that is perhaps as not as immediately obvious as the impact of not wearing a helmet. Helmet laws are an easy way to preserve citizens. I reckon preserving citizens is a very worthwhile act of government.
Anyway Glower, thanks for giving the orb a tweak.
Wow, you are a tremendous dumbass. AIDS hasn't been more prevalent in gay men than the rest of the population since something like 1990. But considering the rest of your views are 60 years out of date, I suppose that's pretty good for you.ridetoofast said:
At the same time regular exercise prevents much more expensive long term treatments for heart disease, diabietes, etc. Snapped tendons, and broken ankles don't cost that much compared to a heart attack... or a head injury. It's really not a matter of drawing a line, it's a matter of gauging total cost. The total cost of playing basketball regularly vs not exercising regularly is likely negative. That is, it's a benefit.Reactor said:
A niche sport such as skydiving is practiced by so few people that the costs of figuring out who does it (thus needing higher insurance premiums), offset by the likelihood of an active lifestyle (thus lowering insurance premiums), makes it not worth it for society or insurance cos to pursue.
The cost of helmets for every auto driver, combined with the cost of trying to enforce that, combined with the cost of instituting the law, probably makes the benefit so small as to not be worth it. With the extremely higher incidence of head injury per motorcyle mile, combined with the costs of care, combined with the ease of enforcement, makes a helmet law a no-brainer. It's just common sense.
Everyone with their damn slippery slope arguments are killing common sense.
It's not that don't I think wearing a helmet is good idea, I do, and I do. But I'm not sure the angst, and perception of lost freedom it would cause is worth it. Yes, in the U.S. driving is not a right, but because of our infrastructure it's almost a requirement.
There are alot of bigger issues that we could tackle that have a better cost/benefit ratio, without making people feel the government is intruding on their life.
There are alot of bigger issues that we could tackle that have a better cost/benefit ratio, without making people feel the government is intruding on their life.
Again mate, your point is fair and I know you feel a crash hat is a good idea. I agree, basically, that people who don't protect themselves should be left to their own devices. But I also agree that a wasted life is a useless life. We should try, as much as possible, to stop stupidity before it happens. If that means putting a skid lid on then I don't think you're rights have been infringed too much. I'm not saying you can't ride but I'm saying "no lid no ride". Just as I think it's good to infringe your right to smoke whenever and wherever you want despite its legality (imperfect example I know) . The idea is that we put limits on personal behaviour for the (supposed) benefit of society.Reactor said:
Name some. I'm a libertarian when it comes to privacy issues and the like, but for things like this, when it's a minor inconvenience that doesn't PREVENT you from being able to do anything, and doesn't reveal anything personal about you to the public or government, I'm for saving taxpayer and insurance dollars.Reactor said:
Wearing a helmet prevents a motorcyclist from having their greasy skullets fly in the wind.ohio said:
ohio said:
War in Iraq (huge cost, No benefit)
Fair Trade with China(currency manipulation costing millions of jobs)
Cybercrime/indenity theft (
Energy alternative/oil/energy costs (energy costs effect the whole economy)
Preventative healthcare ( ten to one ratio, which the government ends up paying for)
Any program to make Americans less fat.
Replacing N8's bike.
uh, i would classify motorcycle helmet laws as preventative healthcare. the other issues you point out are not of the same scope as helmet laws. plus it's not a zero sum game -- i don't start to care less about starving ethiopians when i think about keeping riders' brains within their braincases.
I think wearing a helmet is a good idea, I'm not sure if a law is the best idea, I think there are other less government intrusive ways like educational programs (MSF) to get people to wear helmets. Require an additional medical insurance rider for people who might want to go helmet-less. You reduce the number of helmetless people, people who ride helmetless carry insurance to pay the potential costs of their actions, The state doesn't lose money.
Toshi said:
I'm Simply responding to the question:
"There are alot of bigger issues that we could tackle that have a better cost/benefit ratio"
"name some"
I (and most doctors) would classify Condoms as preventive health care but just see what happens if you try to get them publically funded, or make a law requiring their use. I'm sure HIV/AIDS costs a hell of a lot more than a few motorcyclists without helmets, and you've got a lot higher risk of contracting a STD than then getting killed on a motorbike.
Sorry, I meant name some that are under state government jurisdiction.Reactor said:
Yes, there are big problems in this world, does that mean we should ignore all the smaller ones.
In what way is a helmet law exclusive (or even detrimental) to any of the above efforts?
Unenforceable.Reactor said:
We're talking about a law that is easy to enact and enforce, hurts no one, and saves everyone money. I still don't understand why you're opposed to it. It has nothing to do with any of the other issues you've brought up.
Unenforcable?? Wow, there are a lot of laws we need to get off the books. like mandatory auto insurance, seat belts, noise laws, ex-parte, that are far more unenforcable in practice. You just suspend the license of anyone you catch driving helmetless without helmet insurance, just like you if they didn't have car insurance.ohio said:
Point of fact, I am in favor (barely) of helmet laws, mainly because people currently don't get to make a truly informed decison, I've seen the results of crashing helmetless, and riding a motorcycle helmetless is a safety issue for other motorists. If you get hit in the head by flying debris (or a chunk of black ice from a big rig, different story), you can loose contol and become a danger to other motorists.
As for crashes, back in the 80's, I was an amatuer racer and I've had two crashes, both of which I was saved by a helmet. One of the almost completely destrooyed, I slid across the asphalt on my back and wore a hole in it. In the other I slid face first and could smell the face shield melting.
I've been playing the devil's advocate for practice, just to see what I could come up with to justify the position, and because I really feel confilcted about where the line between personal freedon and society's protection is drawn.
Just about everybody made some good points and I thank you all.
Special thanks to Valve Bouncer, LOL...."glower"
http://www.avert.org/usastatg.htmohio said:
2003 statistics
Male-to-male sexual contact 14,532 - 14,532
Injection drug use 3,189 1,628 4,817
Male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use 1,224 - 1,224
Heterosexual contact 4,041 6,942 10,983
Other/risk not identified 168 163 331
Total 23,153 8,733 31,886
according to this page im not so dumb so bite me
Touche - in that case it would be fair to charge a higher premium to promiscuous gay men, if you can also prove that the transmission RATE (likelihood of contraction per encounter) is higher than for other promiscuous groups. Even then, both groups should have higher rates.ridetoofast said:
Then you will need to find a way for insurance companies to figure out someone's level of promiscuity (regardless of sexual orientation). Good luck with that. Weight, age, and cholesterol levels are all nice and observable.
I guess my next question for you is why do you seek to turn every conversation into one on homosexuality? This was a thread about helmet laws. Your point was way off topic and could have easily (and more relevantly) been made within the context of promiscuity. This perception that a militant homosexual agenda exists really borders on paranoia. Or fixation. I hope you're not losing any sleep over it.
Glad you liked it mate. I don't live far from Hiroshima...everything glows around hereReactor said:
I didn't see this. I guess it would be beating a dead horse with all that has been said after this.Silver said:
A helmet law in essence costs the state nothing. Some warning signs at the borders. Education brochures etc. But 23 million is a lot of money for some pretty important programs that have either alread been cut from the state budget or have been discussed as potential cuts.
$1.7 million from school lunch programs
Funding for prescription medicine for the elderly
Hiring freezes in many school districts
From the state university budget
$9-million from instruction and research.
$2.7-million from library resources
$13-million from the university's health sciences center.
Health care supplements for pregnant women.
If someone could explain how one's personnel liberty would be affected by a helmet law... Especially when you consider Florida has newly implemented seat belt law. (Which figures to save the state $43 million in the first 5 years in medicare expenses).
actually it was just to spin chang up, or to offer an extreme example of the danger of singling out one group for higher premiums based on a percieved risk of the underwriter since he was so quick write off smokers as a group that should be targeted.ohio said:
and come to think of it you only quoted ONE of the THREE groups that i listed, the other two being drunkards, and those that are obese
and the other topic if remember correctly was titled something like Jesus Christ gay and last time i check gay and homosexuals were somewhere in the same demographic
Well, you probably won't be allowed to hire helmetless people...DRB said:
good comic relief...:nuts:
Playing devils advocate again (I don't necessarily believe this):DRB said:
The last point (i hope) is the same logic applies to a lot of other things. If Florida could save money, and marginally affect personally liberty by requiring a helmet on a motorcycle, why not just ban motorcycles? After all, motorcyclists are at a much greater risk of injury in an accident, and the single largest category of motorcycle accidents are "single vehicle" presumed to be caused by operator error. And banning motorcycles wouldn't keep people for going to work, they could take a car or bus. You'ed save even more money.
By the same token, road cyclists are much more likely to be injured in an accident than the driver of a car. Bikes are slower than vehicular traffic, harder to see, and some motorists go out of their way to harrass them.
They can clog up traffic {at least motorists think so}, and cause more harm than good on the traffic grid.
We aren't talking apples and oranges. We are talking about changing traffic laws to reduce personal injuries, preventing people more likely to be injured off the street.
{advocate off}
In reality I like my road bike, DRB and I ride very similar bikes. I would do everything in my power to prevent it from being taken away. Same goes for my mountain bikes.
are we going to have to ban you for your logic and level headedness
surely you must know by now that shyte isn't allowed in the PD forum.
in all seriousness though, i dont understand why being told to where a helmet is considered such an infringement on one's liberties when we have things like that leviathan of a civil liberties violation known as the patriot act sitting on capitol hill just waiting to be truly exploited..
hudder:
surely you must know by now that shyte isn't allowed in the PD forum.
in all seriousness though, i dont understand why being told to where a helmet is considered such an infringement on one's liberties when we have things like that leviathan of a civil liberties violation known as the patriot act sitting on capitol hill just waiting to be truly exploited..
hudder: