NY motorcyclist in helmet protest hits head, dies

[Woodruff]

Can't imagine why anyone driving a car would NOT want to use a seat belt.

Its not about wanting to use a seatbelt or not wanting to use a seatbelt.
It's about wanting a limited gov't and not wanting a nanny state.

Unless it's an opportunity to punish welfare recipients, in which case a nanny state is good and a limited government is bad.

[Phatscotty]

Can't imagine why anyone driving a car would NOT want to use a seat belt.

Its not about wanting to use a seatbelt or not wanting to use a seatbelt.

It's about wanting a limited gov't and not wanting a nanny state.

your post is lacking photos causing it to be bereft of content I've decided to help.

Dude. Sweet!

[The Bison King]

and the award for most ironic death goes to...

[BigBallinStalin]

I don't realy get BBS's argument either. I think he's assuming people could sue the government for dieing on government roads? I was more responding to the underlined part

Sorry about that.


I was talking about the extra costs people place on others by not wearing a safety belt or helmet. For example, let's say a Henry bumps into a motorcyclists. Will Henry most likely pay more in monetary damages had the motorcyclist been wearing a helmet or not wearing a helmet? My guess is that people would pay more in monetary damages to those who don't wear helmets as oppose to those who do wear helmets.

My concern is running over people and not paying more money in damages. I admit that I'm being real half-hearted about this debate.


Concerning the grocery store, if it's their store, then they can make the rules. The government runs the roads, so as a "business" they're within their rights to make laws which apply to those that use the service, and since the law makes sense (and doesn't come into contradiction with other laws), then why oppose it?

[natty dread]

dieing

That's not how you write that word.

[keiths31]

Can't imagine why anyone driving a car would NOT want to use a seat belt.

Its not about wanting to use a seatbelt or not wanting to use a seatbelt.

It's about wanting a limited gov't and not wanting a nanny state.

The Government rules the roads for the safety of all who use them. That's why there are speed limits, warning signs, drivers must be of a certain age and have a valid license, it is the law to have insurance, etc. Making motorists wear seat belts and cyclists (motor and manual) wear helmets isn't about being a "nanny state", but it is about ensuring all that use the roads come home safe after using them.

[greenoaks]

hah, that article speaks for itself, nothing more needs to be said.

Death is expensive, much better for government and society at large that you stay alive and productive.

hmm i don't know about this... overpopulation can be a problem. theoretically, horrible as it sounds, if every unemployed person on welfare suddenly died, then it may end up being beneficial for the economy.

the economy would be worse off if all welfare recipients were to die.

[thegreekdog]

I don't realy get BBS's argument either. I think he's assuming people could sue the government for dieing on government roads? I was more responding to the underlined part

Sorry about that.


I was talking about the extra costs people place on others by not wearing a safety belt or helmet. For example, let's say a Henry bumps into a motorcyclists. Will Henry most likely pay more in monetary damages had the motorcyclist been wearing a helmet or not wearing a helmet? My guess is that people would pay more in monetary damages to those who don't wear helmets as oppose to those who do wear helmets.

My concern is running over people and not paying more money in damages. I admit that I'm being real half-hearted about this debate.


Concerning the grocery store, if it's their store, then they can make the rules. The government runs the roads, so as a "business" they're within their rights to make laws which apply to those that use the service, and since the law makes sense (and doesn't come into contradiction with other laws), then why oppose it?

Okay, that's fair. My counterpoint would be that juries and judges, in a civil suit, can take into account contributory negligence of the motorcycle driver. X damages occurred because he didn't wear a helmet. But much less than X damages would have occurred had he worn a helmet. Thus, the motorcycle driver contributed to his own injuries. It happens all the time in civil cases (or so mrs. thegreekdog tells me).

The Government rules the roads for the safety of all who use them. That's why there are speed limits, warning signs, drivers must be of a certain age and have a valid license, it is the law to have insurance, etc. Making motorists wear seat belts and cyclists (motor and manual) wear helmets isn't about being a "nanny state", but it is about ensuring all that use the roads come home safe after using them.

I guess my point is that if I don't wear a helmet and I wipe out on the road, I'm not hurting any other motorists except myself. There is a similar argument for legalizing drug use. If use heroin in my own home, why does the government care?

[Baron Von PWN]

dieing

That's not how you write that word.

I'm pretty sure the government doesn't want people to make Ty-die shirts in the middle of the road.

[keiths31]

I guess my point is that if I don't wear a helmet and I wipe out on the road, I'm not hurting any other motorists except myself. There is a similar argument for legalizing drug use. If use heroin in my own home, why does the government care?

There comes a point where the government needs to protect us from ourselves. I'm okay with all the traffic laws. Got a speeding ticket last year because I was speeding. Going 110km/hr in a 90km/hr zone. Tickets are handed out at 15km/hr over the limit. I don't think it is a bad thing having the government ensuring the safety of it's citizens. Having driven in a place like Jamaica, I am thankful the government "cares" what we do to ourselves. If the government didn't care what we did to ourselves, I don't think I would want to live in that type of set up. Because once you stop caring about what you do to yourself, it isn't too long before you stop caring about others.

[thegreekdog]

I guess my point is that if I don't wear a helmet and I wipe out on the road, I'm not hurting any other motorists except myself. There is a similar argument for legalizing drug use. If use heroin in my own home, why does the government care?

There comes a point where the government needs to protect us from ourselves. I'm okay with all the traffic laws. Got a speeding ticket last year because I was speeding. Going 110km/hr in a 90km/hr zone. Tickets are handed out at 15km/hr over the limit. I don't think it is a bad thing having the government ensuring the safety of it's citizens. Having driven in a place like Jamaica, I am thankful the government "cares" what we do to ourselves. If the government didn't care what we did to ourselves, I don't think I would want to live in that type of set up. Because once you stop caring about what you do to yourself, it isn't too long before you stop caring about others.

Your speeding ticket is, arguably, a result of the damage you could do to others, not necessarily the damage you could do to yourself.

I am not thankful that the government cares about what I do to myself. First, from a merely theoretical point of view, I think I have the ability to care for myself better than the government does. Second, from a practical perspective, the government determining whether or not I wear a helmet on a motorcycle has virtually nothing to do with whether I hurt myself, and virtually everything to do with lawsuits and insurance and medical costs that the government may have to indirectly pay for. The government does all sorts of things to protect one from oneself. They place onerous taxes on cigarettes and soda and fast food because they are bad for the people consuming those products; but does anyone believe that is the reason? Or is it merely that the government wants to pull tax revenue from the sale of those products. The government has placed restrictions on whether I can choose not to buy health insurance. Some have argued this is not only helpful to me, but it is helpful to society which could bear the cost of my healthcare because I didn't have insurance. I would argue that the government has done this to help the insurance industry and the tax rolls.

So, my mistrust of the government... my cynicism... has everything to do with this.

[keiths31]

So, my mistrust of the government... my cynicism... has everything to do with this.

Not going to try and get you to change your view. You feel strongly about your values. I respect that. I feel differently.

Or am I supposed to call you names and stuff? That seems how things go around here

[thegreekdog]

So, my mistrust of the government... my cynicism... has everything to do with this.

Not going to try and get you to change your view. You feel strongly about your values. I respect that. I feel differently.

Or am I supposed to call you names and stuff? That seems how things go around here

If you want to call me names, that's fine. I like to discuss, so I appreciate the discussion. Player has correctly identified numerous times that the reason I believe most of what I believe is because I don't trust the government; and she's right.

[keiths31]

If you want to call me names, that's fine. I like to discuss, so I appreciate the discussion. Player has correctly identified numerous times that the reason I believe most of what I believe is because I don't trust the government; and she's right.

No name calling needed. Discussion is good...when it doesn't turn into childish banter.

[KoolBak]

Interesting thread......

I am a motorcycler, dirt and street, for over 35 years now.......I HATE being told what to do. I also don't like being told to wear a damn seat belt...the difference here is a generation gap - growing up, we didnt HAVE to wear seat belts; responsible parents typically made their kids, but there were no car seats, laws, etc, in those days. I rarely wore one til a few years ago; my kids, on the other hand, have had it forced on them (which is fine by me as their lives are FAR more important to me than mine....can you say Hypocrite? lol). So, they (and probably most of you) have grown up with a seat belt as simply part of the automotive experience. My 14 year old feels funny when he DOESNT wear it (like when were in the boonies camping or out hunting)....there is the difference in opinion between the age groups I believe (simplified of course).

I choose to wear a helmet, ALWAYS, riding dirt; crashing is a part of riding, as is getting knocked off the bike by low branches, large rocks hitting you in the head flying off your buddy's tires, etc - that shit HURTS. Riding on the street, I would choose to wear one 80% of the time.....local cruising at nominal speeds in hot weather....I would want to go combat.......there is no helmet law in Hawaii and we always rent harleys there when we go and never wear helmets; you'll see maybe 1 in 20 riders with a helmet there (my guess is due to tourism $$...lol). Be interesting to compare their motorcycle injury rates with other states.

Now....I got a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt a few years ago (big surprise)....now I wear one simply for the fiscal threat. I could have paid a substantial fine OR taken a class that cost $20. I took the class; it was simply a 3 hour scare tactics fest - watched horrific movies of real accident scenes....two people in the class threw up...it was bad.

The drill sergeant that ran the class basically said the seat belt laws were put into effect NOT because the feds care about our safety, but to save BILLIONS in health care costs of sustaining vegetables from accidents. Period.

[PLAYER57832]

Just after posting, we had this discussion in our car. My son saw someone riding without a helmet, commented and...

Anyway, we have a good friend who does not wear a helmet. My husband has "lectured" him (mostly half-serious kidding the way good guy friends seem to do), but he won't wear one. He has occasionally made comments about restricted vision making helmets less safe, etc.

Anyway, he is a single guy, fully adult, with no dependents. In truth, I think the real reason he doesn't wear a helmet is that he would rather "just die" than have to deal with all kinds of injuries.

Like several above, I take an extremely dim view of anyone who lets kids ride unprotected. I WILL call 911 if I see it, even! However, do I (and yes, greekdog, its you and I, not some esoteric government) have the right to dictate to my friend that he wear a helmet? On that, I am not sure. My husband and he remain friends (myself to some extent, also) because he lets him be. If it were a law, our friend would comply, though.

[PLAYER57832]

Player has correctly identified numerous times that the reason I believe most of what I believe is because I don't trust the government; and she's right.

Its not the distrust that worries me, its that you, and attorney even, see yourself as separate and somehow apart from our government.

[thegreekdog]

Just after posting, we had this discussion in our car. My son saw someone riding without a helmet, commented and...

Anyway, we have a good friend who does not wear a helmet. My husband has "lectured" him (mostly half-serious kidding the way good guy friends seem to do), but he won't wear one. He has occasionally made comments about restricted vision making helmets less safe, etc.

Anyway, he is a single guy, fully adult, with no dependents. In truth, I think the real reason he doesn't wear a helmet is that he would rather "just die" than have to deal with all kinds of injuries.

Like several above, I take an extremely dim view of anyone who lets kids ride unprotected. I WILL call 911 if I see it, even! However, do I (and yes, greekdog, its you and I, not some esoteric government) have the right to dictate to my friend that he wear a helmet? On that, I am not sure. My husband and he remain friends (myself to some extent, also) because he lets him be. If it were a law, our friend would comply, though.

Oh c'mon Player. You rail against corporatism all the time. You at least understand that Congress and the president are in the pockets of business (and unions, I would add). These requirements are merely supportive of business. I'm throwing you a bone here and you're not picking it up.

[keiths31]

Anyway, he is a single guy, fully adult, with no dependents. In truth, I think the real reason he doesn't wear a helmet is that he would rather "just die" than have to deal with all kinds of injuries.

All kinds of injuries? How many is all kinds? You don't wear a helmet and crush your head and you die. You wear a helmet and don't crush your head and you don't die. The rest of your body is crewed whether you wear a helmet or not.

[Timminz]

I think forcing adults to wear helmets is needless. Seat-belts are another story, to me: wearing one gives you significantly better control of your vehicle during emergency manoeuvres, thus reducing the overall cost of accidents to society.

[Army of GOD]

Okay, that's fair. My counterpoint would be that juries and judges, in a civil suit, can take into account contributory negligence of the motorcycle driver. X damages occurred because he didn't wear a helmet. But much less than X damages would have occurred had he worn a helmet. Thus, the motorcycle driver contributed to his own injuries. It happens all the time in civil cases (or so mrs. thegreekdog tells me).

If this is true then I'm much more in favor of no law.

Also, making this law would impede the natural law of social darwinism aka the stupid people die off.

[BigBallinStalin]

I don't realy get BBS's argument either. I think he's assuming people could sue the government for dieing on government roads? I was more responding to the underlined part

Sorry about that.


I was talking about the extra costs people place on others by not wearing a safety belt or helmet. For example, let's say a Henry bumps into a motorcyclists. Will Henry most likely pay more in monetary damages had the motorcyclist been wearing a helmet or not wearing a helmet? My guess is that people would pay more in monetary damages to those who don't wear helmets as oppose to those who do wear helmets.

My concern is running over people and not paying more money in damages. I admit that I'm being real half-hearted about this debate.


Concerning the grocery store, if it's their store, then they can make the rules. The government runs the roads, so as a "business" they're within their rights to make laws which apply to those that use the service, and since the law makes sense (and doesn't come into contradiction with other laws), then why oppose it?

Okay, that's fair. My counterpoint would be that juries and judges, in a civil suit, can take into account contributory negligence of the motorcycle driver. X damages occurred because he didn't wear a helmet. But much less than X damages would have occurred had he worn a helmet. Thus, the motorcycle driver contributed to his own injuries. It happens all the time in civil cases (or so mrs. thegreekdog tells me).

That is correct from what I know about the court system, but without such safety laws, can one really justify the increase of deaths and serious injuries on government-owned and -operated roads?

[Army of GOD]

I don't realy get BBS's argument either. I think he's assuming people could sue the government for dieing on government roads? I was more responding to the underlined part

Sorry about that.


I was talking about the extra costs people place on others by not wearing a safety belt or helmet. For example, let's say a Henry bumps into a motorcyclists. Will Henry most likely pay more in monetary damages had the motorcyclist been wearing a helmet or not wearing a helmet? My guess is that people would pay more in monetary damages to those who don't wear helmets as oppose to those who do wear helmets.

My concern is running over people and not paying more money in damages. I admit that I'm being real half-hearted about this debate.


Concerning the grocery store, if it's their store, then they can make the rules. The government runs the roads, so as a "business" they're within their rights to make laws which apply to those that use the service, and since the law makes sense (and doesn't come into contradiction with other laws), then why oppose it?

Okay, that's fair. My counterpoint would be that juries and judges, in a civil suit, can take into account contributory negligence of the motorcycle driver. X damages occurred because he didn't wear a helmet. But much less than X damages would have occurred had he worn a helmet. Thus, the motorcycle driver contributed to his own injuries. It happens all the time in civil cases (or so mrs. thegreekdog tells me).

That is correct from what I know about the court system, but without such safety laws, can one really justify the increase of deaths and serious injuries on government-owned and -operated roads?

If the biker votes for our government, doesn't he technically own a share of the road? At some point I feel like you have to differentiate between the private ownership of the grocery store and the public ownership of the government.

[BigBallinStalin]

I think forcing adults to wear helmets is needless. Seat-belts are another story, to me: wearing one gives you significantly better control of your vehicle during emergency manoeuvres, thus reducing the overall cost of accidents to society.

That's a good reason, but it's not a reason the government (from what I've observed) harps upon.

Their stance is: "Buckle up, it's the law."

I'd prefer signs saying: "Buckle up, you can drive more recklessly that way." =P (mostly pulling your leg on that one)

[BigBallinStalin]

I've got two questions:


1) Should the government spend more resources on enforcing these safety laws?


2) Or should the government spend more resources on informing people about the advantages of wearing a seat belt?