Motorcyclist protesting helmet law dies when he hits his head...

Corrected methings.

-------
worth repeating, see Hurt Report (US) and MAIDS (Europe)

[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurt_Report[/ame]

 

I don't think anyone would argue that government shouldn't protect us against "external" forces over which we have no control, e.g. foreign invasion, muggings, etc.

But is it government's duty to protect us absolutely, or just protect us from a laundry list of some risks but not others? Absolute protection would be impossible (and unliveable), so we're stuck with a laundry list. So what gets put on the laundry list?

Well, all things over which we genuinely have no control, as above. Except that's tempered by pragmatism - there's no point putting up an expensive protective apparatus to shield every person against getting struck by lightning; the rate of incidence and level of harm is too small (except for those struck, but government has to consider the larger commonwealth and what its pocketbook can cover).

Ignorance, even willful ignorance, puts control out of reach of the individual. You can't steer yourself clear of hazard if your windows are opaque.

When the incidence and level of harm reaches significance, such as motor vehicle accidents, government has to put pen to laundry list and erect protections, most easily and most practicably by force of law.

In the matter of motor vehicle safety, the vast majority of us are ignorant. We use vehicles every day for years at a stretch without incident and we think we're in control.

We're not.

- and the lesson usually only gets learned by getting into an accident and suddenly seeing, for the first time, all the unconsidered factors that make accidents happen.

We truly do not know better on our own, especially the young.

So a government faced with significant detrimental costs, both financial and societal, incurred by a particular type of risk must, if it is a responsible government, act. And it acts most expeditiously by legislation.

Those who whine about the "nanny" state are whining out of ignorance, out of an insufficient grasp of factors that are truly beyond their control. No one ever knowingly sticks their head into a hot stove, and no one ever KNOWINGLY rides a powered vehicle without protections against the most likely forms of mishap. If such "knowledge" is only sheer obedience to law, it is a useful substitute, especially if the "real" knowledge can only be imparted by direct experience in a disaster.

 

Alcohol and tobacco are poisons that slowly destroy your body. They should be illegal.

The term "drugs" is too broad. There are drugs with medical uses and drugs that kill you and drugs people use to harm others. "Drugs" have to be taken on a case by case basis.

Trans fats are poisons that the food industry uses to increase profits. They are of no benefit to the consumer. If you favor keeping them legal, you are voting for corporations to have the right to poison you. Not a very bright position to take.

Sunbathing: You're just being silly. There is a very small statistical chance of developing cancer from long exposure, as against the benefit of vitamin D.

"High risk sports" is too general a term to comment on.

"Certain lifestyles" is so vague as to be meaningless.

If you live in society you have certain rights, but also certain responsibilities. Extreme reckless behavior is irresponsible and therefore anti-social, and society has a right to intervene.

Trebuchet probably was happier when cars were unsafe at any speed, gas was 25 cents a gallon, and exhaust was so filthy that you could not see across the street for the smog.

 

In this weekend's case of disobedience (riding helmetless in a mandated state), one truckload of experience has been doled out far and wide.

Ride at your own risk. Ride helmetless at your own grave risk.

 

Two words: Gary Busey.

Enjoy the ride, future special olympians.

 

Ten years ago, I made similar typos on a post and was asked if all Texans were afflicted this way - not just the one in the White House?

 

Good thing you don't hold a grudge against that person, and have forgiven them.

 

If a person truly understands and accepts the risks, and is risking only themselves, then what the heck - live a little. But when reckless behaviour puts others at risk - and it's exceedingly rare for it not to - then innocent members of society should be protected. It's not necessarily the wilful risk-taker that needs protecting; it's everybody else.

 

I remember it because it was funny and don't always take myself seriously.

 

Ok, looked it up. Gary Busey crashed in '88 w/o helmet, suffered brain damage.

 

As a side note, the victim of the crash was a "Bambi," or born again middle aged biker, actuarially the most likely to be hurt or killed in a motorcycle crash.

 

More importantly, he was an outspoken opponent of helmet laws. He was not going very fast but plunked his melon down on a hard curb in the city, I think. Coma, brain damage, no more career, everyone thinks he is weird. Now where is the cool factor?

 

Perhaps those who are anti helmet wearing should visit their local brain injury hospital or hospice?

Maybe meeting people who have had brain injuries due to accidents (often not of their making) then perhaps they'll consider their views?

 

I disagree with the term victim because it implies an innocience that wasn't there. This person made a concious choice not to wear a protective item.

 

Not wanting to be a 'Bambi' statistic has kept me from riding.
I still have a valid license, and it sure looks like fun, but I'd rather live another 50 years. And not drooling in a wheelchair.

Hasn't Gary Busey still worked since his accident? Judging by his personal troubles and legal issues, he's obviously not the same person, but I thought he was still acting.

 

yeap.. it is called rugby
the game real men play

 

hyo,

I logged about 100,000mi on M/C and about 50,000mi on B/C in last 12 years, and IMHO you are alot safer on motorcycle then on bicycle. At least you have the protective gear, higher mobility and lesser traffic speed differential comparing to b/c.

What I find very disturbing seeing people ride bicycles w/o helmet dressed in dark/multi-color stuff which you only see when the rider and the bike are ornamenting your hood.

 

Cycling is safer than it used to be, and I've survived this long....

Whether motorcycling really is safer than bicycling, I'm not sure, but I get your point. You'd think the risky behaviour would have been selected out by now, but apparently not. There are some pretty big steps to be taken to minimise the risks: I always wear a helmet, I tend not to ride at night, and I prefer the quieter, traffic-calmed side streets. Increased awareness of bicycles as transportation and creation of cycling infrastructure have gone a long way in the past few years to make cycling in the city both safer and more enjoyable.

The motorcycles have only gotten faster. My riding buddies used to call my little 400cc 'a sewing machine', and that was decades ago. With more responsibilities and more awareness of the risks, my 'need for speed' isn't as strong as it used to be. I must be getting old or something.

 

Of course, risk to rugby players is mitigated somewhat by the fact that any deliberate blow to the head is more than just a 15 yard penalty.

 

I'd call it being more sensible.

2011 Vetter Streamliner-Chap 41