Haha!! I like this very much!
Anti-motorbike helmet protestor hits head, dies
- Thread starter Vonhelmet
- Start date
Haha!! I like this very much!
Lol. I'm not comparing fatal to non-fatal accidents. If you do something that has an increased risk of death if something goes wrong then should have to wear appropriate protection by law as far as I'm concerned.
If you can show me statistics that prove that fatal sports incidents are as common as fatal road incidents then I'll concede the point...
Put it this way, Skydivers are 7 times more likely to die than car drivers for example.
Where do you draw the line and how far do you. Go for. Both fatality and. Life changing accidents. When does freedom win over improved safety?
Where's the line between paying for health care and it being free?
Or is it all based on people's opinions.
And how can you not compare fatal and non fatal. Surly if you are basing it on cost, which you appear to be. Then it shoukd be compared.
Last edited:
I'm not arguing with that, I'm arguing that lines are already drawn and should be respected. I get angry when I see people driving with no seatbelt or riding with no helmet when there are laws in place to minimise the risk of death in those situations. I have two young children and drill it into them that they need to wear a helmet when on their bikes and must wear a seatbelt in the car.
I have a friend who crashed while driving and both passengers in the rear died because they were not wearing seatbelts. I've seen what it has done to her and her life...
I have a friend who crashed while driving and both passengers in the rear died because they were not wearing seatbelts. I've seen what it has done to her and her life...
Lines aren't drawn in America. Many states, helmets are not compulsory.
And why should it be based on what is legal and what isn't. That's not based on stats or anything else. In other words why are something's illegal that are far less risk than legal stuff. Good example is drug law.
Should you just blindly follow that and not question it.
And why should it be based on what is legal and what isn't. That's not based on stats or anything else. In other words why are something's illegal that are far less risk than legal stuff. Good example is drug law.
Should you just blindly follow that and not question it.
Well I always use the rule I'd use with my children... Which of these is more sensible?
* Disagree with something that is a 'rule' and do something different because you disagree with it
* Disagree with something that is a 'rule' and make it clear that you disagree, but follow the rule because that's what it is, a rule
Not sure breaking a law just because you don't agree with it is necessarily the right way to go, but that's just my opinion. And there's a difference between blindly following something and making your opinions clear.
Of course you can point to many examples where people have rebelled against laws and rules and got sufficient numbers that have caused changes to take place, but even allowing for this, I'm not sure it's the right thing to do. However, I do appreciate that there are some countries and situations where freedom of speech or assembly is not possible and this may be the only option. Don't see that this is the case in the UK or in the USA - as far as I can see we have a democracy that allows us to voice disapproval at laws and attempt to get change achieved in that way.
From the article - "New York is one of 20 states that require all motorcycle riders to wear helmets". The protest was in New York, therefore they were breaking the law by not wearing helmets while riding... Not sure that that was the best way to make a point.
* Disagree with something that is a 'rule' and do something different because you disagree with it
* Disagree with something that is a 'rule' and make it clear that you disagree, but follow the rule because that's what it is, a rule
Not sure breaking a law just because you don't agree with it is necessarily the right way to go, but that's just my opinion. And there's a difference between blindly following something and making your opinions clear.
Of course you can point to many examples where people have rebelled against laws and rules and got sufficient numbers that have caused changes to take place, but even allowing for this, I'm not sure it's the right thing to do. However, I do appreciate that there are some countries and situations where freedom of speech or assembly is not possible and this may be the only option. Don't see that this is the case in the UK or in the USA - as far as I can see we have a democracy that allows us to voice disapproval at laws and attempt to get change achieved in that way.
From the article - "New York is one of 20 states that require all motorcycle riders to wear helmets". The protest was in New York, therefore they were breaking the law by not wearing helmets while riding... Not sure that that was the best way to make a point.
Again, in America. It isn't the law in all states. You brought the law up as some point.
I think the law is irrelevant to the discussion, of where the boundaries of freedom vs individual safety should be.
So you have no problem with people not wearing helmets in the other 32 states as it isn't against the law. But someone doing it against the law suddenly turns into a muppet. How does that make sense.
I think the law is irrelevant to the discussion, of where the boundaries of freedom vs individual safety should be.
So you have no problem with people not wearing helmets in the other 32 states as it isn't against the law. But someone doing it against the law suddenly turns into a muppet. How does that make sense.
Last edited:
... this is not a good argument for giving motorcyclists the choice to wear helmets, and is in fact, one of the most stupid comments I've ever seen!
Read expanded post.
Law makes no difference and something you started.
How is someone suddenly a muppet for not wearing it in a helmet state, yet you must think it's completely right in a non helmet state.
As you said it's not about money, or statistics but purely law. Yet said everyone who doesn't wear a helmet is stupid.
The stance keeps changing once points are realised. Which brings me back to what I said pages ago. It is so ingrained in the uk that people don't think about the actual issue. Freedom vs personal risk and were and how that line should be drawn.
You say that the law is irrelevant to the discussion, but surely that's the point of laws? To allow sufficient freedom for an individual without that freedom allowing others to become disadvantaged, hurt or exploited because of those freedoms? If we had the freedom to hit whoever we like I'm not sure our society would become better, hence there is a law against it. There is also a law against driving without a seatbelt (for example) - is this law in place to curtail our freedoms 'for the hell of it' or because it serves some greater purpose to society as a whole. Ditto helmets...
I didn't say it was, again it was someone else who brought up the cost is reduced and I pointed out that probably wasn't the case.
Did you miss the personal risk. Hitting someone isn't just personal risk. It involves others. Plenty of places do not have helmet laws.
Perhaps I'm not being clear enough. My point is I'm trying to find out where and how the line should be drawn.
Someone said based on cost, so I countered that.
Then statistics, but they didn't seem happy about applying it across the bored and banning stuff they may enjoy. Or things they don't see as bad as it isn't ingrained into us that it's bad.
If you do it on statistics and apply it fairly, would you be ok with ever increasing control to protect you, or how many deaths per thousand people are ok?
Last edited:
Feeling and freedom.
I don't ride a bike (would like to in the future) - I understand the notion of freedom and can guess at the liberating feeling of the wind rushing through my receding hairline but would most cyclists and motorcyclists concede that riding on motorways and through busy towns can be fairly dangerous? I'm not trying to impose an opinion or anything, just seems that it's not worth the risk (to me).
You don't have to ride. At high speed or in busy places. In parts of the country/world there are big empty roads with. Beautiful views and you can just cruise.
I think most people would wear a helmet. It doesn't mean it should be impose onto others.
Most people would find skydiving, tomb stoning, or 1001 other things to risky. But many people still do it.
I actually think this is a very important debate. Not for helmets per say. But because it can be used. For most aspects of live.
Where should the limits lie between personal freedom vs personal risk, should we start banning many many other things as the risks are similar to not wearing a helmet and we've banned that.
I think most people would wear a helmet. It doesn't mean it should be impose onto others.
Most people would find skydiving, tomb stoning, or 1001 other things to risky. But many people still do it.
I actually think this is a very important debate. Not for helmets per say. But because it can be used. For most aspects of live.
Where should the limits lie between personal freedom vs personal risk, should we start banning many many other things as the risks are similar to not wearing a helmet and we've banned that.
Last edited:
