It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

No Bike Helmet? Lose Your Wheels!

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 02:59 PM
link   
I too have seen a young child hit his head without a helmet...his front weel got cuahgt in a drain where the cover was missing.

He flew straight over, his arms went out but gave way and he smashed his head onto the floor.....I ran over because it looked serious, but you know what, he got up and walked off.


I have hit my head with a bycicle helmet and found it was that which almost killed me, that is why I stoppe wearing them...sometimes the things designed to save you can actually kill you.


Now whilst I do think you should wear a seatbelt the same is still true, they can still be the thing that kills you.




posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 03:02 PM
link   
Gotta agree with DD here. I moved to the Seattle area from Arizona and was shocked to find that cyclists are required, by law, to wear a bike helmet at all times and will be pulled over and ticketed if riding without one. I believe this to be state law, but it could just be that every county I've been in seems to have the same law.

To me this is disgusting nanny state, we know what's best for you, nonsense at it's worst. This is the mentallity that leads to crap like prohibition and the attempts to ban cigarettes, trans fat, and anything else deemed to fall in the "you won't make the wise decision, so we'll make it for you" category of laws. On the same hand, I am a full supporter of eliminating seat belt laws & motorcycle helmet laws. I can understand requiring these things for minors, however, as they have been deemed too young to make wise choices in virtually every other realm of life.

I also agree with the member who said cyclists are a mennace. They, in fact, are a mennace and many of them KNOW they're a mennace and revel in that fact. Seattle is pretty big on biking and I work with a couple of bike nazis who have the hatred of motorists (ironic since we all work in the transportation industry, designing roads for motorized vehicles!) I think for many of them who harbor these feelings simply resent the fact that not everyone cares to ride a banana seated traffic obstruction into work every day. Honestly, I could care less if everyone decided to bike in, but for God's sake when there's an 8 foot paved shoulder, why in the hell do you need to ride on the inside of the white lane stripe, blocking the right lane from vehicle actually capible of traveling the speed limit?

I recall seeing one of them in Douglas, AZ once drive through a fresh pile of horse manure from one of the few folks that live in teh area who use horseback as a means of transportation. The guy hit the pile hard and it flipped from his tire tread all over his legs and then his back from the rear wheel. He stopped near where I was getting into my truck and was yelling at another biker with him "Why the **** do they allow that **** on our streets?" The irony of the situation was obviously lost on him.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 03:05 PM
link   
Haha.

That the same idiots who want free health care don't want to wear helmets or bicycles or motorcycles really says something about America.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Corum
Bike helmets have saved the lives of many a crash victim and I fully agree that people should be made to wear them under law. There's nothing NWO about this, there's nothing oppressive about it either, it's just good common sense for a change. There are certain things that people should NOT get a choice in and this is one of them.


Why should a person not have a choice of whether or not they want to risk their own person?

Furthermore, what gives you the right to override the choice of another individual if the consequences do not affect you?



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 03:07 PM
link   
Slightly off topic, but it answers a post above.

Cyclists can't win, if they go on the road they are too slow and if the go on the path they are too fast.

Heck we have cyclist paths here in England and you still get abuse if you use them because people walk on them too.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by logician magician
Haha.

That the same idiots who want free health care don't want to wear helmets or bicycles or motorcycles really says something about America.



Whoa, whoa, whoa, back the truck up here. I am among the most adamant ATS members against socialized health care. You've just made an incorrect statement. In fact, I see several people in this thread who I recall being proponents of socialized medicine defending the mandatory use of helmets.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ben91069

Originally posted by Corum
Bike helmets have saved the lives of many a crash victim and I fully agree that people should be made to wear them under law. There's nothing NWO about this, there's nothing oppressive about it either, it's just good common sense for a change. There are certain things that people should NOT get a choice in and this is one of them.


Why should a person not have a choice of whether or not they want to risk their own person?

Furthermore, what gives you the right to override the choice of another individual if the consequences do not affect you?


A guy riding a bike, flying off, and cracking his skull on the concrete does not affect anyone who saw it.

Beyond that, when the person dies, it actually costs a lot of money to clean up the mess, have the cops file reports, bring out the ambulance... etc... etc...



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Badge01
reply to post by Alpha Grey
 


Glad to hear your son wasn't seriously injured.

Can you give some additional details?

How old was your son; was he just learning to ride; how fast was he going when he fell? Did he have a two-wheel bike purchased from a bike shop, and adjusted correctly?

Just trying to make sense of your comment, here.



he was 10 and his bike was adjusted fine...he hit a rock and the bike flew out from under him and whack ! he smashed his head on the pavement. I saw the whole thing and if he had no helmet on it would have been a far different ending.




posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by burdman30ott6
I also agree with the member who said cyclists are a mennace. They, in fact, are a mennace and many of them KNOW they're a mennace and revel in that fact. Seattle is pretty big on biking and I work with a couple of bike nazis who have the hatred of motorists

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Just out of curiosity, can you expand on how cyclists are a menace? To me it's drivers who speed, run red lights, talk on cell phones while driving an object that weighs a ton and can kill you that are the menace. I fear cars, I don't fear bikes, and I suspect, neither do you.

It's extremely rare that a bike will harm you. Ever had a car accident? Do you feel cars are a menace? Don't forget, eco-crisis, smog, drunk driving. Maybe you have another reason for labeling a bike rider with an inappropriate label? If cars are the real highway menace, then bikers should fall to at least a minor annoyance for you, wouldn't you say?


Also, again curious, what is a 'bike nazi'?


Honestly, I could care less if everyone decided to bike in, but for God's sake when there's an 8 foot paved shoulder, why in the hell do you need to ride on the inside of the white lane stripe, blocking the right lane from vehicle actually capible of traveling the speed limit?


Well, could it be that -by law- a cyclist has a right to ride on the road?



As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.




[edit on 11/9/2008 by Badge01]



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Alpha Grey
 


The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Sounds like a freak accident to me. How fast was he going? Did you replace the helmet? They're a one-time crash use, you know.


Again, glad to hear he wasn't hurt. How old is he now? Still riding?

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.


[edit on 11/9/2008 by Badge01]



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
the amount of pedestrians killed or injured by a cyclist mounting the pavement and running into small children or babies in prams is horrific and the highest statistic - cyclists are THE menace.


The only reason I ever have to hop my bike onto the pavement during my uni-commute is purely because moronic motorists refuse to accept that cyclists have as much right to use the roads as they do and force me into the gutter...although catching up to the offending motorist in a queue of vehicles at a traffic-stop and taking-out their wing-mirror usually gets the message through



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 03:24 PM
link   
So let's see, if you come off a bike and your head hits the kerb the helmet would do nothing to protect your skull? You must have thick skulls where you people come from.

What Alpha Grey said is absolute proof that wearing helmets can save lifes or serious injury, what more proof do you need?

Should people be given the choice not to put a belt on whilst on a rollercoaster?



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Badge01
 


Is it written somewhere that mennaces are like the immortals in Highlander in that there can be only one? There are many mennaces on the road, some of which you listed (though I cannot agree with the eco & smog "mennaces" you listed.)

I guess it depends on where you live. City streets, bikes are honestly not a big deal as long as they obey the rules of the road. Cyclists do illegally run lights and fail to signal lane changes & turns just as motor vehicle drivers do, however. Aside from that, however, I live (and always have lived) in a mountainous area. Try driving down a narrow two lane highway that's basically nothing but blind switchbacks, doing 25 or 30 MPH (which is either at or under the speed limit), and suddenly coming around one of those blind corners and BAM! a train of cyclists doing 10 MPH in the middle of your lane no more than 100 feet in front of your truck. I once had to go up a runaway truck ramp near Durango, CO because I did not know there was a weekend cycle tour going on and had the scenario I just laid out happen to me. It was either take out a half dozen cyclists or run my old 3500 up the ramp. (Thankfully I stopped before I hit the pea gravel so I didn't get stuck, but it was still a very dangerous situation.)

Cyclist's rights to the road... OK, I get that. As long as the road they are using has been designed to accomodate bicycles, they have every right. However, many older roads & rural roads have NOT been designed with cyclists in mind. Does this make a difference? In my mind it does. A vehicle, motorized or otherwise, doesn't have a right to use a facillity that was not designed to accomodate it. This is why it is against the law for me to take my old Honda 350 cc onto a multi-use bicycle path. This is also why it would be illegal for me to ride a skateboard on a city street or a moped on the interstate. If we do not allow any of those things, then why do we allow bicycles on roads that only had motorized vehicles in mind when designed & constructed?

A "Bike Nazi" is a millitant bike rider who criticizes anyone who drives an automobile instead of riding a bike like they do. Those critical mass jackasses are great examples of bike nazis.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Corum
So let's see, if you come off a bike and your head hits the kerb the helmet would do nothing to protect your skull? You must have thick skulls where you people come from.

What Alpha Grey said is absolute proof that wearing helmets can save lifes or serious injury, what more proof do you need?

Should people be given the choice not to put a belt on whilst on a rollercoaster?


No because you WILL fall out and WILL be injured or killed. I manage to make many bike rides without even falling off once
[/sarcasm]

Yes I have seen a persons head hit the kerb without a helmet, he walked away from it. My head has hit the pavement with a helmet on, and due to its curves it snapped my head to the side grazing my chin and hurting my neck... I have fall off many times without wearing a helmet and only hurt oarts of my body that are not my head or neck.

[edit on 11-9-2008 by umbr45]



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Corum
 


The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

You may be misstating the facts. A bike helmet is rated to offer some protection in low-speed, off-road crashes below about 12mph. It does not protect one from being hit by a car and it can be more dangerous in rotational-type injuries.

Citing one freak accident where a kid falls off the bike and hits his head while wearing a helmet does not show he'd have received serious injury without one. In fact, kids hit their heads all the time while growing up.

In fact the amount of impact force for a kid running down the street, tripping and falling and hitting his head and a kid falling off a bike at 10mph is probably nearly the same. You don't make your kid wear a helmet every time he goes outside do you? We don't have laws making helmets mandatory for joggers do we?

Here's a link should you care for more information.

en.wikipedia.org...

Certainly you have a right to mandate your child wears a helmet, and by law you should. But, to me, it's misguided to make a law designed to confiscate a kid's bike because he was seen not wearing a helmet. It could turn off a kid to riding a bike, and we don't want that do we? Too many kids waste their youth sitting indoors. I'd rather see the cops be given a supply of helmets and the capability to hand one out to any kid seen riding without one.

This promotes community spirit and good cop-youth relations.

The other only turns kids against the law and cops.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.


[edit on 11/9/2008 by Badge01]



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by DancedWithWolves
This "law" is as wrong as the seat belt law. Laws designed to protect us from ourselves are an infringement on our personal liberties.



No, these laws were designed to "protect" the insurance companies profits!

Who do you think lobbied our politicians for this!

[edit on 9/11/2008 by Keyhole]



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 03:45 PM
link   
Righty, errr, heh, ahem, I mis-read and thought we were actually talking about MOTOR bikes. Now that I feel stupid and have re-learned lesson number 1 which is ''read the article properly'' I will now about turn and agree that police making 'bicycle' riders wear a helmet is ridiculous



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by burdman30ott6
A "Bike Nazi" is a millitant bike rider who criticizes anyone who drives an automobile instead of riding a bike like they do.


I'm no 'bike nazi' but I am a militant cyclist, you have to be with the number of motor-numpties on the road...if i'm threatened by a driver by deliberate use of a moving vehicle to intimidate I will fight back!



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin

they have a law which says you have to wear a helmet when riding a push bike , if a motorbiker rides around woith a helmet - he`ll get a ticket and maybe jail time;



Not in Florida!

If you have insurance on you motorcycle it's your choice if you want to wear a helmet or not.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 04:08 PM
link   
Some time ago, I read an article about helmet laws for motorcyclists.

It pointed out that motorcyclist involved in serious crashes when not wearing a helmet were costing the state about $250,000 per crash. (That those who crashed and had a head injury). It also went on to say that people who chose to not wear a helmet tended to not have insurance.

The article compared those similar accidents where people were wearing a helmet and found that the cost was about 1/20 of those who were not wearing a helmet.

The state of California now has a helmet law for motorcyclists. It was simply economics.

As a taxpayer, I support the right of a state to impose laws like helmet, and/or seat belt laws. I would go further and say as part of the law that if you aren't wearing your seat belt /helmet that you forfeit your right to sue. Since you broke the law and took the risk, then you should be able to recover in court damages that may have been prevented if you'd been wearing a seat belt or helmet.



[edit on 11-9-2008 by Wildbob77]



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join