Motorcyclist killed in helmet law protest

Originally posted by Cryptonomicon
reply to post by quadagent

 

Apparently you don't understand what the Slippery Slope fallacy is. Click on that link and learn. It can be used as a (weak) argument for practically any topic.

Just because it sounds logical doesn't mean that it is logical.

For example - I could use it to argue FOR helmet laws - this way:

If we make helmets optional, what next? Seat belts? Baby seats? Then they'll just get rid of all safety regulations!! Fire extinguishers will no longer be required! No more guard rails on highways! No speed limits! No Air Traffic Control!! The whole world will spiral into chaos of danger!!!

You see how it doesn't make sense? I mean, if we got rid of the helmet law, do you really think that at some point down the line we would rid of speed limits? NO.

The same can be said for your argument. Just because we create helmet laws doesn't mean that we are going to make safety laws for every conceivable danger known to man (like the lightning strike law you suggested).

Slippery slope dude, slippery slope. Helmet laws are about helmet laws. Nothing else.

Actually I didn't propose the "lightning strike law" as you noted, it was another poster.

Regarding a mentality that justifies intrusion into individual liberty for the sake of some "collective" protective mentality, that is what I consider bad logic.

Why haven't you advocated the mandatory requirement for all motor vehicle drivers to wear helmets? Statistically it would drastically reduce the number of head injury fatalities, it would apparently not hinder the operation of the vehicles (as that argument has been beaten down by cycle helmet advocates) and it would obviously reduce the trauma experienced by first responders who, by all intents and purposes understood when they went through schooling and training would experience such things? Families would be relieved and not have to experience the loss of loved ones.

Why haven't you proposed that? You know why? Because it would impose on your personal liberty, and it's at that point we suddenly take notice.

I have never climbed onto a bike without a helmet, but the minute I had no choice (regarding the law) was the minute that I became just a little less free.

Click here for more information.

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by isitjustme
reply to post by Becoming

 

hey man, I mostly agree with what you are saying but riders insulting other riders isn't getting us anywhere. If he chooses to wear a helmet that's great....if we choose not to that's great too. It is about the freedom to have the choice.

I have a 95" stage 3 Wide Glide that is about 95hp and 95 lbs of torque. I love to ride but respect the power. The bike can easily get away from me if I don't pay attention to what I'm doing. That is the key...pay attention to what you do and what others on the road do.

You guys can argue more....I'm gonna ride. happy Independence Day to all

I'm not insulting other riders. I agree if a rider does choose to wear one then fine, but dont get on a high horse and tell others they have to wear one too. That really gets me going.

Off topic. wide glides are great bikes. Throw some apes on it and you would have an awesome looking bike.

Originally posted by Cryptonomicon
reply to post by Becoming

 

With all your concern about "size" it's becoming obvious you are compensating for some other area in which you are lacking.

edit on 4-7-2011 by Cryptonomicon because: (no reason given)

I am on the short side.

Thanks doctor phil, I think I will go get me a scooter now that you have pointed out my problem.

Originally posted by Becoming
reply to post by Cryptonomicon

 

Oh no now I'm getting lessons from a scooter driver.

Really? Are you still using juvenile insults? I thought we were past that.

Wreck 1- I'm in a traffic jam with a car halfway in my lane and the one beside me trying to squeeze in front of me, a car behind me 2 inches from my rear tire. A person on both sides of me, the car to my right is talking on the phone and decides he needs to be in my lane. He proceeds to slam into the side of my stationary bike almost hitting my leg and the momentum pushes me and my bike under the car on my left.

Explain to me how *not* wearing a helmet prevented that accident.

Wreck 2- I'm in the right hand lane on the left hand side of the lane (which is proper thank you) on a bridge. A car comes flying up in the left hand lane and decides he wants my lane and takes out my back wheel throwing me into the bridges guardrail. Also talking on the phone.

Explain to me how *not* wearing a helmet prevented that accident.

Wreck 3- A car rear ends me while stopped at a redlight. Claimed he wasn't talking on the phone, but the cop checked and noticed that the call ended immediately after hitting me.

Explain to me how *not* wearing a helmet prevented that accident.

What does wearing a helmet have to do with your stories? Oh sure, 2 of the three were non moving accidents, so the fact you didn't hit your head makes sense. But that second story??

Furthermore, the bridge crash was COMPLETELY avoidable. While the general advice is to ride in the left part of the lane, that's only advisable if there are vehicles immediately ahead of you. If there is no one immediately ahead of you in your lane AND there is on coming traffic (Jesus, especially on a bridge!) it is advisable to be prepared to avoid the oncoming traffic in anticipation of lane drift, or just go ahead and get over the ride side of the lane. Physics doesn't give a crap about what the meat cage driver should/shouldn't have done. It's YOU who has to be ready for the fact that the on coming traffic might swerve into your lane.

It actually makes sense that you got hit by that guy on the bridge. Your stubborn attitude and "I have the right" mentality is what actually KEPT you in the exact place you shouldn't have been - and it is almost unbelievable that you survived a crash into a guard rail at speed without a helmet. I'm not saying I don't believe you, but if that crash didn't wake you up, then you have a death wish.

reply to post by Cryptonomicon


You want to wear a helmet then go for it, I have no problems with riders (still doubt you ride) wanting to wear one. I have a problem with those who say that because they choose to that we all should have to.

Always ride in the left hand part of the far lane junior.

Now you can keep preaching advocacy of the helmet law if you want. I am done with you and really can't stand you anymore. I hate the ignore button but will make an excuse for you. Goodbye.

Ironic indeed.

I think people should have the right to do anything they want as long as it hurts no one else. In this case, the only one who would be hurt is the motorcycle rider after he crashed. If you want to risk your life, thats on you, but dont expect me to pay your medical bills for the rest of your life if you manage to survive and become a permanent vegetable.

There should be no laws to protect the stupid from killing themselves, otherwise they will multiply.

reply to post by Becoming

Well junior, it's perhaps a more important rule to avoid on coming traffic when they drift into your lane.

i have been riding bikes since i can remeber and a few times i did ride without a helmet, untill my friend crashed without one into a wall at about 15mph so not fast atall, his face scragged the wall and took the skin compleatly off that side, he litrally looked like two face off batman, thankfully he is alive and well but since that day i ahve never not worn one

if you ride without a helmet in my eyes you are a fool

this bloke gave his life for a cause that was trying to make him safe.....says it all dont it

R.I.P

Originally posted by Ashes of the wake
Ironic indeed.

I think people should have the right to do anything they want as long as it hurts no one else. In this case, the only one who would be hurt is the motorcycle rider after he crashed. If you want to risk your life, thats on you, but dont expect me to pay your medical bills for the rest of your life if you manage to survive and become a permanent vegetable.

There should be no laws to protect the stupid from killing themselves, otherwise they will multiply.

That's the problem though. This isn't just going to hurt themselves. It's going to hurt their family emotionally and financially. Loss of income, life support hospital bills are the result of a significant amount of crashes of people without helmets. And many of the people who don't wear helmets do so because of economic reasons - the very same people who probably don't have health insurance coverage and so will fall into EXTREME debt. A debt that their family will most likely be burdened with since their loved one most likely can no longer work due to the physical injuries they sustained because they didn't wear a helmet.

If the only result of people not wearing helmets was that 1 person (the rider) was effected, then I'd say sure, let the rider chose.

But that's not the real world. In the real world, children's futures are effected, spouses are devastated, family treasures are dwindled to nothing. And if there is no family, then the costs incurred by the fool who crashed without a helmet will be offset to people who PAY INSURANCE and rising hospital prices.

You do have a right if you want to live like a moron or not. Want to go on a motorcycle without a helmet and risk cracking open your skull losing the brain? Go for it....oh wait, on a road without a helmet or any kind of protection in general? What brain do you got to lose.

No remorse for those who live life without protection.

Originally posted by Cryptonomicon

Originally posted by Ashes of the wake
Ironic indeed.

I think people should have the right to do anything they want as long as it hurts no one else. In this case, the only one who would be hurt is the motorcycle rider after he crashed. If you want to risk your life, thats on you, but dont expect me to pay your medical bills for the rest of your life if you manage to survive and become a permanent vegetable.

There should be no laws to protect the stupid from killing themselves, otherwise they will multiply.

That's the problem though. This isn't just going to hurt themselves. It's going to hurt their family emotionally and financially. Loss of income, life support hospital bills are the result of a significant amount of crashes of people without helmets. And many of the people who don't wear helmets do so because of economic reasons - the very same people who probably don't have health insurance coverage and so will fall into EXTREME debt. A debt that their family will most likely be burdened with since their loved one most likely can no longer work due to the physical injuries they sustained because they didn't wear a helmet.

If the only result of people not wearing helmets was that 1 person (the rider) was effected, then I'd say sure, let the rider chose.

But that's not the real world. In the real world, children's futures are effected, spouses are devastated, family treasures are dwindled to nothing. And if there is no family, then the costs incurred by the fool who crashed without a helmet will be offset to people who PAY INSURANCE and rising hospital prices.

Appeal to Consequences

In law, this might stand, but since there is not a strong enough specific correlation between the action and the consequences (will these particular outcomes occur specifically because of said action, or in fact will the odds of fatality prove them mute, it cannot be proven to be a direct, unavoidable consequence).

What I mean by that is that there is no qualitative way we can presume that one outcome has been avoided and another substituted. We cannot know that because someone was wearing a helmet that the catastrophic injures sustained would not have been fatal and burden of medical bills, insurance rates, family assets lost would have actually been mitigated by the immediate death, as opposed to an extended attempt at salvaging someone broken beyond repair.

Try again.

reply to post by Cryptonomicon


I agree with what you are saying, I just dont think we need to babysit people and tell them what to do. I understand how a crash can affect not only the rider but the family of the victim as well. If the rider makes that decision knowing the risks and consequences involved, it is a selfish and idiotic thing to do. Getting on any bike is always a huge risk no matter where you go.

People are supposed to take care of themselves. Thats how life has been for humans up until about a hundred years ago. Its worse now than ever.

Originally posted by quadagent
Appeal to Consequences

In law, this might stand, but since there is not a strong enough specific correlation between the action and the consequences (will these particular outcomes occur specifically because of said action, or in fact will the odds of fatality prove them mute, it cannot be proven to be a direct, unavoidable consequence).

Try again.

No one has ever argued that wearing a helmet saves ALL lives, or that not wearing helmets results in certain injury (or death). Certainty in safety is almost never guaranteed (except in extreme cases like sky diving with no parachute).

What we are talking about is a common occurrence: Motorcycle accident fatalities.

A simple, non-restrictive law, to require motorcyclists to wear helmets will result in a positive, quantifiable outcome: Significant reduction in Fatalities.

Any argument against that is the argument guilty of "Appeal to Consequences", simply because they can not quantify to any significant degree the negative aspects to the law.

Originally posted by Cryptonomicon

Originally posted by quadagent
Appeal to Consequences

In law, this might stand, but since there is not a strong enough specific correlation between the action and the consequences (will these particular outcomes occur specifically because of said action, or in fact will the odds of fatality prove them mute, it cannot be proven to be a direct, unavoidable consequence).

Try again.

No one has ever argued that wearing a helmet saves ALL lives, or that not wearing helmets results in certain injury (or death). Certainty in safety is almost never guaranteed (except in extreme cases like sky diving with no parachute).

What we are talking about is a common occurrence: Motorcycle accident fatalities.

A simple, non-restrictive law, to require motorcyclists to wear helmets will result in a positive, quantifiable outcome: Significant reduction in Fatalities.

Any argument against that is the argument guilty of "Appeal to Consequences", simply because they can not quantify to any significant degree the negative aspects to the law.

edit on 4-7-2011 by Cryptonomicon because: (no reason given)

But your argument wasn't directed at the basic premise, reduction of fatalities, but the economic and emotional consequences of extended hospitalization, treatment, care, loss of family assets at treating a "non" fatality. Actually the on-scene fatality is a significantly lower financial burden in regards to hospital/medical care, and depending upon the individuals policies may in fact be a financial boon to the family. (I unfortunately, because of kidney issues can't acquire life insurance, so I'm actually worth a little bit more alive than dead!).

A simple, non-restrictive law, to require motorcyclists to wear helmets will result in a positive, quantifiable outcome: Significant reduction in Fatalities.

The exact same result can be said of all motor vehicles. I would ask you this, do you advocate a simple, non-restrictive law that requires all motorists to wear helmets, when (statistically proven) in fact it would result in a quantifiable outcome of the significant reduction of fatalities in motor vehicle accidents?

reply to post by quadagent

The same significant quantifiable outcome can be made for the family consequences as well.

As far as the argument for wearing helmets in cars? It's different because on motorcycles a helmet the ONLY safety requirement. It's practical (both physically and economically). In cars, all kinds of safety systems are being put into place like front and side airbags, safety restraints, anti lock breaks, enhanced frames designed to redirect crash energy away from the occupant, etc. A helmet in cars would be viewed (these days) as restrictive because it would position the head forward in the seat (obstructed by headrest). Also, a car already has a layer of acoustic dampening provided by the sound absorption materials and windows, and wearing a helmet would make hearing anything outside of the car that much more difficult.

The other side is that cars are constantly being improved for safety, something that can't be said for motorcycles. There is simply nothing that can be improved on a motorcycle, except for the gear a rider wears.

Helmet requirements in cars have a foreseeable obsolescence because of this constant improvement in safety, therefore creating a law to require it would have diminishing returns.

reply to post by Becoming


It has 18 inch apes

Originally posted by ExCommando
reply to post by Nutter

 

You've got to be kidding ... he didn't take his own life, he fell off his bike and died. He should have been wearing a helmet.

Plain and simple.

Why should he have been wearing a helmet? Is that not the choice of the driver?

It is real easy for those who do not ride motorcycles to sit back and say people should wear helmets. I do ride a motorcycle, as a matter I have not drove an actual car in over a year now. Helmets are about safety. If you happen to crash the chances are greater that you will walk away and not split your head open like a watermelon when it hits the ground, but there is a downside.. Helmets also obstruct your vision. Much like a car driving in the blind spot of a semi truck, helmets do much the same thing. They create a bit of a blind spot that without the helmet you can see quite easily. So at the end of the day, your helmet though it may save your life if you are forced to your bike down, can also cost you your life if you have a car in your blind spot and you do not see it. I can also tell you, if your motorcycle hits a car while you are changing lanes cause you failed to see it.... your helmet wont matter too much at that point.

Helmet laws for me are much like seat belt laws. It should be the driver's choice.