ADVrider

Go Back   ADVrider > Riding > The perfect line and other riding myths
User Name
Password
Register Inmates Photos Site Rules Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 12-11-2012, 01:32 PM   #76
catweasel67
Banned
 
Joined: Aug 2009
Location: Vienna, Austria
Oddometer: 8,104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aussijussi View Post
I thought you had a mandatory helmet law in Germany? We have had it here, Finland, as long as i can remember. Being mandatory, makes no difference to me, i would wear it anyway. As for being free to choose, i'll leave that to my american friends to argue over, we have enough on our plate with the EU!

Helmets are mandatory for motorcycle riders in all European Union countries. Belgium, the Czech Republic and the Netherlands allow for some flexibility in helmet laws for drivers of mopeds meeting certain conditions. In Belgium, the mopeds must not exceed 25km/h; in the Czech Republic, they must not exceed 40km/h; in the Netherlands, they must not exceed 20km/h

I believe in ATGATT but I'll hapilly admit that I've ridden without a helmet in various countries and at varying speeds. I've taken part in pro-choice rallies for the MAG (Motorcycle Action Group). I love it. I'll probably, hopefully, do it again.

Realistically though, I'm faily sure I wear the helmet more because of the law, and I'm damn sure I wear seatbelts more because of the law. I drive slower, I get my car/bike serviced (MOT'd) yearly and I take instruction as required.

I have crashed my car, I have crashed my bike. I walked away every time. Some of the walk away was down to luck, some was down to ATGATT.

So yes, speaking selfishly, I'm happy to have a helmet law, a seatbelt law and so on but if you guys wanna ride lidless then maybe wait until you retire? or before you have kids?
catweasel67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2012, 01:56 PM   #77
Splendidtutional
What does that mean?
 
Joined: Jun 2012
Location: the US Capitol
Oddometer: 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Offcamber View Post
Taken from Forbes Magazine


So lets ban fatty foods because its proven to cost us more money....
I understand the argument here, the issue is practicality of regulation. Driving (and riding) on public roads (the key here is public, taxpayer paid for roads) is not a right, but a privilege. I know there is disagreement here, just my opinion. Eating, on the other hand, is a right. And people have the right to choose what they eat. Just like they have the right to choose not to drive or ride or what to drive or ride. How do we decide what is "fatty?" L.A. actually recently banned Fast Food restaurants on these grounds (current are allowed to stay, but no new ones. If they close, they are gone)

If there was a practical way to ban fatty foods (or just prevent people from eating them, maybe tax them?) I would be for it. I would actually be for a tax on fast food and places that serve food that provides little nutritional value and has high fat, sugar, and salt content. This would be a way to offset the costs of healthcare for these people.

Why not just tax motorcyclists who don't wear helmets? Tell me how you enforce that? The alternative is to require helmets because that is something you can enforce.

Not calling anyone crazy or stupid or anything like that. People have opinions and I respect that. I just think helmet laws are a good thing.
Splendidtutional is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2012, 02:00 PM   #78
dwoodward
Beastly Adventurer
 
dwoodward's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2005
Location: Pacific NorthWet, Napa Valley North
Oddometer: 4,888
Helmet law debates are always fascinating. Why are people so worked up about this?

"Right" to ride without a helmet? Dunno. I haven't seen that amendment to the constitution. Ditto seatbelts / driving, or any of the other conditions, requirements, or rules one is expected to meet or follow to operate any vehicle on a public roadway.

Despite seatbelt laws, there are a not inconsiderable number of fatal car crashes where an occupant was "ejected" from the vehicle- read: no seat belt. The parallel is reading "rider's protective helmet came off prior to impact".

I cringe at helmet / no helmet statements and figures, because there isn't a column for "protest helmet".

Of course, a helmet (and other riding gear) only works if you're already crashing. Imagine the world where motorcycle operators took their duties seriously. (Car drivers, too- but I like to start with small goals.) Make riders take riding seriously and it should be possible to reduce all motorcycle deaths by 75% simply by paying the fuck attention to what's going on around you. Now do the same with driving- or more likely, just remove driving as a task, and let cars start driving themselves if people are too busy with other shit to do it. (How did we survive 25 years ago without cell phones?)

Oh- and rock climbing? Apparently safer than table tennis, by a wide margin.
http://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/bandoli...sk/sports.html
dwoodward is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2012, 02:01 PM   #79
ShardPhoenix
Наглый ублюдок
 
ShardPhoenix's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2011
Location: Grants Pass, Oregon
Oddometer: 789
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splendidtutional View Post
http://www.kff.org/uninsured/upload/...l-Spending.pdf

Cost of un-insured, $40.7 Billion/yr in 2004 dollars

http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/p.../overview.html

Look at tables 3 and 5 in section 5

Table 8 shows that the cost of care for the public/government is higher when riders do not have helments on.
Enjoy.
Need to remove the first link from the discussion. It's discussing the overall cost of the uninsured patients treated in our health system. No where in that article does it offer a break down of what percentage of that costs is directly related to helmetless motorcycle riders (that also didn't carry insurance). Does little to support that helmetless riders are causing some huge drain on society.

I'm curious, as well, to ask how much of that NHTSA article you actually took the time to read and understand. Or, on the flip side if you just googled it, saw some cool charts and $$ figures, then posted it thinking "Mission Accomplished"

That article doesn't make anything cut and dry. It also doesn't prove that helmetless riders are guaranteed to become some huge drain on society like some people cry out. Especially not a bigger drain on society than some lifestyle choices of which there is little "regulation".

One cool tidbit from that NHTSA article that can easily be spun out of context/proportion was the bit about how sometimes helmeted riders incur higher medical bills from a crash because of more than just head injury. So, should we require all motorcyclists to carry private health insurance just to be allowed the privilege to ride? Don't want some uninsured sap causing the tax payer to have to pay for his road-rash or broken limbs because he survived the crash by wearing a helmet.


Also:

As in so many areas of safety research, a particularly troublesome gap occurs with data on the long-term consequences of injury, such as disability, rehabilitation, and long-term care. These long-term effects are particularly important for analyzing the impact of helmet non-use, since head injury can result in permanent brain damage. But data on both the frequency and the cost of such injury consequences are scarce.
__________________
I ride 652ccs of slug.

ShardPhoenix screwed with this post 12-11-2012 at 02:14 PM
ShardPhoenix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2012, 02:01 PM   #80
Butters
. . . . . .
 
Butters's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2008
Location: NoVA
Oddometer: 2,346
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splendidtutional View Post
http://www.kff.org/uninsured/upload/...l-Spending.pdf

Cost of un-insured, $40.7 Billion/yr in 2004 dollars

http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/p.../overview.html

Look at tables 3 and 5 in section 5

Table 8 shows that the cost of care for the public/government is higher when riders do not have helments on.
Enjoy.
Although I appreciate the attempt, I don't see anywhere in those docs that say what the societal cost is from a rider not wearing a helmet. Societal costs of uninsured drivers should be used to argue for mandatory insurance not helmet laws. It wouldn't apply to a helmetless, but insured rider. You would basically have to determine what the societal costs would be from a typically insured helmeted rider versus a non-helmeted rider. And DAKEZ may well be right that the cost is actually lower because the helmetless idiot more frequently dies.

I'm sure there are times where a helmetless rider sustains massive injuries well beyond his insurance or ability to pay or ability to be compensated if not his fault and society ends up paying for that. But honestly, how much is THAT spread out over 300 million people?

A small price to pay for choice in my opinion. Others will obviously disagree.

Edit: Shard beat me to it.
__________________
Marc
07 XChallenge
Butters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2012, 02:19 PM   #81
Wraith Rider
Beastly Adventurer
 
Wraith Rider's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2012
Location: Germany
Oddometer: 1,118
@catweasel67
Mainly I use the seat belt because the car beeps disturbingly if I don't... However, I survived two total write-offs without being belted and one crash with my helmet scratched badly in the height of my left temple. Me thinks he used the apropriate safety systems at the apropriate times.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aussijussi View Post
I thought you had a mandatory helmet law in Germany?
We have. As well as a mandatory seat belt law. But being a law and being bullshit isn't mutually exclusive. Of course we have more problems, but this problem is the one that's discussed here and it's the one that concerns me (with 15€) every time I ride without a helmet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Splendidtutional View Post
I used to agree with you about seatbelts and helmets. Knowing (a very little) more about healthcare etc. now than I did a few years back, my opinions have changed.
Why? You just told us the same lame stories about motorcycling is sooooo evil in comparison to ANYTHING else, but NOTHING that could change any sane mind. Why did your opinions change?

Quote:
Originally Posted by dwoodward View Post
"Right" to ride without a helmet? Dunno. I haven't seen that amendment to the constitution.
That's a point I love the German constitution for. It says we have the right to live the way we want to, so it's - for example - our right to feed doves or walk around even it's not explicitly stated. Of course these rights can be restricted by laws... but... every citizen should question every law that restricts this basic right.
__________________
"Why not stay in disguise all the time? You know, look like everyone else."
"Because we shouldn't have to."
Wraith Rider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2012, 02:24 PM   #82
PhilB
Beastly Adventurer
 
PhilB's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2012
Location: New Hampshire
Oddometer: 1,328
Quote:
Originally Posted by Offcamber View Post
And there is the next myth being propagated....the cost to society....increased insurance bla bla bla.....

I bet not in one state did insurance premiums go down for motorcyclist when a helmet law was instituted.

Drain on the health care system?? REALY?? What about smokers, people who drink, eat fatty foods etc....those things are not restricted or require extra insurance to protect society from your bad habits and there are far more people doing those "unsafe things" than motorcyclist that don't wear helmets....
+1. This.

And of course the "cost to society" argument could be made equally well against motorcycling at all. Or skydiving, horseback riding, rock climbing, every other activity that carries any extra risk. By arguing that a person does not have the right to ride without a helmet, a person is at the same time arguing that he has no right to ride a motorcycle, and would have no leg to stand on if all the moms and ER docs in the country banded together to outlaw bikes. You have the right to choose your own risk tolerance, OR you do not.

In a country that respects your rights and liberty, you have that choice. If you don't have that choice, your rights and liberty are not being respected.

PhilB
__________________
1993 Ducati M900 Monster "Patina" (233,000 miles, so far) -- 1995 Ducati M900 (wife's bike) -- 1972 Honda CB450 (daughter's bike) -- 1979 Vespa P200 (daughter's scoot) -- 1967 Alfa Romeo GT Jr. (1300cc) -- 1964 Vespa GS160 (160cc 2-stroke) -- 1962 Maicoletta scooter (275cc 2-stroke) -- 1960 Heinkel Tourist 103A1 scooter "Elroy" (175cc 4-stroke)
PhilB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2012, 02:30 PM   #83
PhilB
Beastly Adventurer
 
PhilB's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2012
Location: New Hampshire
Oddometer: 1,328
Quote:
Originally Posted by aeneas View Post
Sorry if you were offended by my generalisation in that last paragraph - I even tried not to generalize and explain that each persons situation is different.

I understand you don't feel the need for protection if you don't go higher than bicycling speeds. If your intention is to cruise and you're not required to wear gloves/helmet, indeed why do the effort.

But that's not what I want from riding. Then I could as well take a bicycle or a 50cc moped.
If I take my motorcycle I want to feel the acceleration (up to what's legally allowed..) I often drive on highways. I commute every day, even in cold, rainy weather. If I would only drive when it's warm and sunny I could only drive 2 months a year.. That is what I mean I could not imagine doing without protection - cold weather, highway speeds ?
That's fine, and you have that choice. No one, anywhere, is saying you can't or shouldn't wear your gear. But just because YOU can't imagine riding without it does NOT mean you have the right to force others to. Free people get to make their own choices. If you're not allowed to make your own choices, you aren't free.

PhilB
__________________
1993 Ducati M900 Monster "Patina" (233,000 miles, so far) -- 1995 Ducati M900 (wife's bike) -- 1972 Honda CB450 (daughter's bike) -- 1979 Vespa P200 (daughter's scoot) -- 1967 Alfa Romeo GT Jr. (1300cc) -- 1964 Vespa GS160 (160cc 2-stroke) -- 1962 Maicoletta scooter (275cc 2-stroke) -- 1960 Heinkel Tourist 103A1 scooter "Elroy" (175cc 4-stroke)
PhilB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2012, 02:36 PM   #84
PhilB
Beastly Adventurer
 
PhilB's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2012
Location: New Hampshire
Oddometer: 1,328
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splendidtutional View Post
... Just a rant, but jsut to recap. I disagree on principle with helmet and seatbelt laws alike, but due to the current healthcare system in the US, I feel they are necessary to protect ME from paying for YOU in the event of an accident. Sorry this was so long.
So, IOW, the fact that we have already let the government violate our freedoms by making us all pay for other people's bad decisions is a good reason to let them violate our freedoms even more. Wrong direction. (And, BTW, another good argument for not letting the government take over healthcare entirely.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Offcamber View Post
Once again see post # 49....

Cost is a BS argument....you either apply that thinking across the board or you don't do it at all. You really want the government telling you what to eat, what to drink, make you exerciser ? etc....Smoking should be illegal because I don't want to pay for your lung cancer, McDonald's should be illegal because I don't want to pay for your clogged arteries, and alcohol should be illegal because I don't want to pay for your liver cancer....oh wait we tried that....that worked out really well.
+1.

PhilB
__________________
1993 Ducati M900 Monster "Patina" (233,000 miles, so far) -- 1995 Ducati M900 (wife's bike) -- 1972 Honda CB450 (daughter's bike) -- 1979 Vespa P200 (daughter's scoot) -- 1967 Alfa Romeo GT Jr. (1300cc) -- 1964 Vespa GS160 (160cc 2-stroke) -- 1962 Maicoletta scooter (275cc 2-stroke) -- 1960 Heinkel Tourist 103A1 scooter "Elroy" (175cc 4-stroke)
PhilB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2012, 02:39 PM   #85
PhilB
Beastly Adventurer
 
PhilB's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2012
Location: New Hampshire
Oddometer: 1,328
Quote:
Originally Posted by catweasel67 View Post
... Realistically though, I'm faily sure I wear the helmet more because of the law, and I'm damn sure I wear seatbelts more because of the law. I drive slower, I get my car/bike serviced (MOT'd) yearly and I take instruction as required.

I have crashed my car, I have crashed my bike. I walked away every time. Some of the walk away was down to luck, some was down to ATGATT.

So yes, speaking selfishly, I'm happy to have a helmet law, a seatbelt law and so on but if you guys wanna ride lidless then maybe wait until you retire? or before you have kids?
So, force should be applied to everyone because YOU are not responsible enough to behave without coercion?

PhilB
__________________
1993 Ducati M900 Monster "Patina" (233,000 miles, so far) -- 1995 Ducati M900 (wife's bike) -- 1972 Honda CB450 (daughter's bike) -- 1979 Vespa P200 (daughter's scoot) -- 1967 Alfa Romeo GT Jr. (1300cc) -- 1964 Vespa GS160 (160cc 2-stroke) -- 1962 Maicoletta scooter (275cc 2-stroke) -- 1960 Heinkel Tourist 103A1 scooter "Elroy" (175cc 4-stroke)
PhilB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2012, 02:51 PM   #86
PhilB
Beastly Adventurer
 
PhilB's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2012
Location: New Hampshire
Oddometer: 1,328
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splendidtutional View Post
I understand the argument here, the issue is practicality of regulation. Driving (and riding) on public roads (the key here is public, taxpayer paid for roads) is not a right, but a privilege. I know there is disagreement here, just my opinion. Eating, on the other hand, is a right. And people have the right to choose what they eat. Just like they have the right to choose not to drive or ride or what to drive or ride. How do we decide what is "fatty?" L.A. actually recently banned Fast Food restaurants on these grounds (current are allowed to stay, but no new ones. If they close, they are gone)

If there was a practical way to ban fatty foods (or just prevent people from eating them, maybe tax them?) I would be for it. I would actually be for a tax on fast food and places that serve food that provides little nutritional value and has high fat, sugar, and salt content. This would be a way to offset the costs of healthcare for these people.

Why not just tax motorcyclists who don't wear helmets? Tell me how you enforce that? The alternative is to require helmets because that is something you can enforce.

Not calling anyone crazy or stupid or anything like that. People have opinions and I respect that. I just think helmet laws are a good thing.
You aren't my mom. You have no right to make my decisions for me. ANY of my decisions. You can take your control-freak authoritarian bullshit somewhere else.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dwoodward View Post
Helmet law debates are always fascinating. Why are people so worked up about this?

"Right" to ride without a helmet? Dunno. I haven't seen that amendment to the constitution. Ditto seatbelts / driving, or any of the other conditions, requirements, or rules one is expected to meet or follow to operate any vehicle on a public roadway. ...
The Constitution does not list all of our rights, not even close -- they only tried to list the ones that were most relevant to political freedom. And it specifically recognizes this: cf. 9th Amendment "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

We have the right to liberty. And liberty means making your own decisions about your own life, provided only that you don't violate someone else's equal right to do the same.

PhilB
__________________
1993 Ducati M900 Monster "Patina" (233,000 miles, so far) -- 1995 Ducati M900 (wife's bike) -- 1972 Honda CB450 (daughter's bike) -- 1979 Vespa P200 (daughter's scoot) -- 1967 Alfa Romeo GT Jr. (1300cc) -- 1964 Vespa GS160 (160cc 2-stroke) -- 1962 Maicoletta scooter (275cc 2-stroke) -- 1960 Heinkel Tourist 103A1 scooter "Elroy" (175cc 4-stroke)
PhilB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2012, 05:02 PM   #87
jacksgp
Gnarly Adventurer
 
Joined: Dec 2008
Oddometer: 262
helmets

I don't care what you do.
I always wear a helmet....everytime. Why?

1. I like myself alot and it makes "perfect sence" to wear protection.

2. My family feels the same way and why give them any reason to worry about something I can can control. Seems selfish not to consider their concerns...

Stay Safe
jacksgp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2012, 05:48 PM   #88
GlennR
Playin' in the Fire
 
GlennR's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2010
Location: Boone,NC
Oddometer: 1,879
I just love arguments about our rights...

So, in how many states can we ride helmetless , to a gay marriage, while smoking a joint?

How many states have laws protecting us from the soccer moms on cell phones?

We live in such "busy times". I'm having a hard time keeping up with it all.
GlennR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2012, 05:52 PM   #89
DAKEZ
Beastly Adventurer
 
DAKEZ's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2007
Location: OR
Oddometer: 19,539
Quote:
Originally Posted by GlennR View Post
I just love arguments about our rights...

So, in how many states can we ride helmetless , to a gay marriage, while smoking a joint?
.

One. WA.
__________________
“Watch out for everything bigger than you, they have the "right of weight"
Bib
DAKEZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2012, 11:46 PM   #90
dwoodward
Beastly Adventurer
 
dwoodward's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2005
Location: Pacific NorthWet, Napa Valley North
Oddometer: 4,888
Helmetless, in WA? No. without insurance, yes.

I believe the correct answer would be Colorado.
dwoodward is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Share

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

.
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


Times are GMT -7.   It's 05:54 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ADVrider 2011-2014