NY motorcyclist in helmet protest hits head, dies

[Army of GOD]

2. I feel like 1 is too closely related to the War on Drugs.

With number 2, we'll see commercials like: "Eating your own poop isn't normal. When you don't buckle your seatbelt, it is."

[BigBallinStalin]

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.

The point of my question is for others to think about such policies from the point of view of the government. It is not reasonable for them to not enact such safety laws. Otherwise, the death and serious injury count increases, thus making the government seem negligent. Then, people would demand that "There should be law for having safety belts," then a savvy politician markets his campaign to those people by saying, "There should be a law for having safety belts." (that pretty much sums up representational forms of government).


To answer your question, since a person pays taxes, he "technically" owns a share of the road, but he doesn't reserve the right of ownership over government property. For example, he can't place a tree on "his" property government-property without government approval, which would be most likely turned down because it's not his property--it's the government's, and the government reserves that right.

[john9blue]

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.

not to derail this thread, but why is this? do you have any reasons?

[Woodruff]

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.

I think you just explained her exact point.

[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.

not to derail this thread, but why is this? do you have any reasons?

welfare recipients barely get enough to make ends meet.

the majority of their food purchases will be locally grown/produced creating/supporting jobs in the economy. think milk, bread, beef
the majority of their entertainment spending will be done locally - not many overseas holidays taken by this group
if they were to all die your housing oversupply would be worse, creating a larger/longer slump - flowing onto the banking system
the majority of their educational needs are supplied locally - no foreign boarding schools for this bunch

the welfare payments come from taxes paid by wealthier members of society, reducing their ability to purchase imports
leaving the money with the tax payer won't help primary producers - once that family has bought the milk, eggs, bread it needs it won't be buying any more. that extra money goes on discretionary spending which is more likely to involve things like foreign holidays

this is a very basic outline but in summary. poor people have the vast majority of their needs met by the local economy as they can't afford the prices of goods & services that are supplied from afar. large numbers of poor people provide a large support base for an economy

[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.

I think you just explained her exact point.

If that's the case, then ban motorcycles. It is flawed thinking that someone won't wear a helmet because they would rather just die if in an accident...and idiotic.

[AAFitz]

I don't think anyone is disputing that it's safer to wear the helmet.
The question is: Is it the government's role to force you to wear a helmet?

They arent forcing you to wear a helmet. They are only requiring you wear a helmet if you ride a motorcycle on public roads.

If you want to build a track in your back yard you can pretty much do what you want.

[Baron Von PWN]

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.

not to derail this thread, but why is this? do you have any reasons?

welfare recipients barely get enough to make ends meet.

the majority of their food purchases will be locally grown/produced creating/supporting jobs in the economy. think milk, bread, beef
the majority of their entertainment spending will be done locally - not many overseas holidays taken by this group
if they were to all die your housing oversupply would be worse, creating a larger/longer slump - flowing onto the banking system
the majority of their educational needs are supplied locally - no foreign boarding schools for this bunch

the welfare payments come from taxes paid by wealthier members of society, reducing their ability to purchase imports
leaving the money with the tax payer won't help primary producers - once that family has bought the milk, eggs, bread it needs it won't be buying any more. that extra money goes on discretionary spending which is more likely to involve things like foreign holidays

this is a very basic outline but in summary. poor people have the vast majority of their needs met by the local economy as they can't afford the prices of goods & services that are supplied from afar. large numbers of poor people provide a large support base for an economy

Also when the economy improves and people on welfare can work again, there goese your labour force.

[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.

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)

I lol'd.

[Woodruff]

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.

I think you just explained her exact point.

If that's the case, then ban motorcycles. It is flawed thinking that someone won't wear a helmet because they would rather just die if in an accident...and idiotic.

I know motorcyclists who have stated exactly that.

[PLAYER57832]

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.

I think you just explained her exact point.

If that's the case, then ban motorcycles. It is flawed thinking that someone won't wear a helmet because they would rather just die if in an accident...and idiotic.

It's the old argument "I would rather die than be a cripple". I don't agree, but a lot of people still think that way.. in a lot of contexts. Go back a few generations and it would have been the majority view.

[Woodruff]

This is such utter crap. Clearly, both wearing your seatbelts and wearing motorcycle helmets are very bad for you because BOTH of these things greatly increase your chances of dying from cancer.

[radiojake]

. 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.

I'm pretty certain that in Australia if you get hit by a car on either a motorcycle or bicycle without a helmet (we have helmet laws for bicycles too) that you won't get any compensation.

[keiths31]

I know motorcyclists who have stated exactly that.

Then they are idiots...

[greenoaks]

. 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.

I'm pretty certain that in Australia if you get hit by a car on either a motorcycle or bicycle without a helmet (we have helmet laws for bicycles too) that you won't get any compensation.

you get compensated for it in NSW.

one way to work out the compensation is to award damages for everything except what relates to the head injury. another is to reduce the award by a %. the problem with those methods are the injured party still requires medical treatment over & above the amount received and becomes the burdon of the public health system (taxpayers).

it is far cheaper for governments to head that situation off by legislating for helmet use.

[Woodruff]

I know motorcyclists who have stated exactly that.

Then they are idiots...

I don't agree. It has everything to do with perspectives and preferences. Let me give you an analogy:

Most people would tell you that they "eat right" or "exercise" so that they can live longer, and that is accepted as the smart thing to do. I will even tell you that's the smart thing to do IF your goal is to live as long as possible.

However, MY personal perspective on that situation is that "I'll eat whatever the hell I want to" or "Exercise sucks and I won't do it" and if it takes five years off of my life, then that's a good tradeoff. I figure 70 years of eating whatever the hell I want or never having to do something I hate (exercise) is better than 75 years of being overly careful about what I eat and frequently doing without what I really want to eat or having to do something I hate consistently (exercise). Is it selfish? Sure, it absolutely is, when there are family members involved that will be impacted by your death...but that's another issue entirely.

[keiths31]

I know motorcyclists who have stated exactly that.

Then they are idiots...

I don't agree. It has everything to do with perspectives and preferences. Let me give you an analogy:

Most people would tell you that they "eat right" or "exercise" so that they can live longer, and that is accepted as the smart thing to do. I will even tell you that's the smart thing to do IF your goal is to live as long as possible.

However, MY personal perspective on that situation is that "I'll eat whatever the hell I want to" or "Exercise sucks and I won't do it" and if it takes five years off of my life, then that's a good tradeoff. I figure 70 years of eating whatever the hell I want or never having to do something I hate (exercise) is better than 75 years of being overly careful about what I eat and frequently doing without what I really want to eat or having to do something I hate consistently (exercise). Is it selfish? Sure, it absolutely is, when there are family members involved that will be impacted by your death...but that's another issue entirely.

No...they are idiots.

[john9blue]

I know motorcyclists who have stated exactly that.

Then they are idiots...

I don't agree. It has everything to do with perspectives and preferences. Let me give you an analogy:

Most people would tell you that they "eat right" or "exercise" so that they can live longer, and that is accepted as the smart thing to do. I will even tell you that's the smart thing to do IF your goal is to live as long as possible.

However, MY personal perspective on that situation is that "I'll eat whatever the hell I want to" or "Exercise sucks and I won't do it" and if it takes five years off of my life, then that's a good tradeoff. I figure 70 years of eating whatever the hell I want or never having to do something I hate (exercise) is better than 75 years of being overly careful about what I eat and frequently doing without what I really want to eat or having to do something I hate consistently (exercise). Is it selfish? Sure, it absolutely is, when there are family members involved that will be impacted by your death...but that's another issue entirely.

No...they are idiots.

really? you think living poorly for 100 years is better than living how you want for 50 years? why would you let the goal of "living as long as possible" prevent you from living your life to the fullest?

[Army of GOD]

Wait, since when does exercising automatically mean you're living poorly? I exercise and I feel ridiculously good afterwards. Fucking endorphins, man.

[Woodruff]

Wait, since when does exercising automatically mean you're living poorly? I exercise and I feel ridiculously good afterwards. Fucking endorphins, man.

Oh, I absolutely understand that. I'm not saying that exercise equates to "living poorly"...in fact, I would say just the opposite. However, FOR ME PERSONALLY (which was the analogy), it makes my life less enjoyable. Exercise sucks because it's too much work. <laughing>

[keiths31]

really? you think living poorly for 100 years is better than living how you want for 50 years? why would you let the goal of "living as long as possible" prevent you from living your life to the fullest?

When the chance of living "poorly" is preventable, then yes they are idiots. Same mentality as smokers who claim they are doing what they want and aren't hurting anyone but themselves, until they get lung/throat/tongue cancer and suddenly realize they were idiots for smoking.

[Woodruff]

really? you think living poorly for 100 years is better than living how you want for 50 years? why would you let the goal of "living as long as possible" prevent you from living your life to the fullest?

When the chance of living "poorly" is preventable, then yes they are idiots.

By your argument, there is not likely to be a single person on earth that is not an idiot, then. Because we ALL do SOMETHING that would equate to "living poorly" that is preventable. Possibly a Tibetan monk...but not many others.

So which brand of idiot are you?

[keiths31]

really? you think living poorly for 100 years is better than living how you want for 50 years? why would you let the goal of "living as long as possible" prevent you from living your life to the fullest?

When the chance of living "poorly" is preventable, then yes they are idiots.

By your argument, there is not likely to be a single person on earth that is not an idiot, then. Because we ALL do SOMETHING that would equate to "living poorly" that is preventable. Possibly a Tibetan monk...but not many others.

So which brand of idiot are you?

Really? That is your argument? Lame.

[natty dread]

Really? That is your argument? Lame.

What is your counter-argument?

[john9blue]

really? you think living poorly for 100 years is better than living how you want for 50 years? why would you let the goal of "living as long as possible" prevent you from living your life to the fullest?

When the chance of living "poorly" is preventable, then yes they are idiots. Same mentality as smokers who claim they are doing what they want and aren't hurting anyone but themselves, until they get lung/throat/tongue cancer and suddenly realize they were idiots for smoking.

a valid point, but you're assuming that things that shorten your lifespan are inherently bad.