BF2S Forums Talk About Irony.

All the counter arguments I've been reading as to why one should be required to wear a helmet generally revolve around getting hit in the eye with something and losing control. It is readily apparent that those making that argument are unaware that, even if helmets are not required, proper eye protection is. In fact, even when wearing a helmet, if you don't have proper eye protection, you can be ticketed.

All these "safety of others" arguments regarding helmet use are nonsensical, tbf. Helmets protect one thing: the gray matter of the rider. They offer no safety for anyone or anything else, under any circumstances.

Dilbert_X wrote:

lowing wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

How about passengers?

If people are too stupid to realise their kids should wear seatbelts shouldn't the govt step in?
(Kids aren't property, too young to decide for themselves, blah blah blah)

I'm sure there are stats on people flying through windscreens and killing others, there are certainly stats on unbelted rear seat passengers killing front seat passengers.

I want the freedom to drive with slick tyres, its fun and makes me feel alive.
Screw the wet weather braking distances.

Kids are not responsible and are not old enough to make those decisions, and therefore their safety is the responsibility of the driver. so yes, seatbelt laws protecting those under the charge of the driver is reasonable.

How so?
Surely its the driver's decision, what with 'freedurm' and all?

Dibert if you think a 4 year old understands and can decide for himself that although uncomfortable he should wear a seatbelt anyway, then we are done talking.

lowing wrote:

Dibert if you think a 4 year old understands and can decide for himself that although uncomfortable he should wear a seatbelt anyway, then we are done talking.

Surely its the driver's decision? He's in charge of the car and the passengers.

lowing wrote:

It is not anyone's decision or freedom to neglect safety for someone else.

Yes.

I think we are done.

If someone doesn't have the right to put one person at risk why is it you demand they have the right to put another person at risk?

So you can decide to take risks with other people's safety by doing stupid stuff like riding without a helmet, thereby running a higher chance of having an accident and harming someone besides yourself.

But people can't be allowed to take risks with other people's safety and must be forced by law to ensure any passengers under 18 must wear a seatbelt.

Make up your mind - should the govt force people to minimise risk to third parties or not?

Pug wrote:

lowing wrote:

Pug,  I got stats as well, so now what?


http://www.easyrider.com/fact_sheet.htm
http://www.easyrider.com/codes.htm

Stats can be made to lean anyway your agenda dictates. so fuck stats, lets get back to the real issue, govt. intrusion in our private lives.

Lol, nice links.  They look VERY professional.

Here:
http://www.localinsurance.com/autoinsur … -laws.aspx
http://www.realicu.com/content/motorcyc … edom-part1
(part 2 has the meat)
http://www.realicu.com/content/motorcyc … dom-part-2
http://www.chronicle.pitt.edu/media/pcc … irbag.html
http://www.anapolschwartz.com/practices … istics.asp

All say:
Medical costs are higher when compared with "safe" drivers.  Total payouts of medical bills, plus deaths for non-safe drivers are higher than those safe.

as I argued before, based on your concern of "cost", we should ban any activity that COULD result in death or hospitalization.

Also I love how you address how the links "look" and not what they say. Point being stats as discussed countless times before in countless other threads regarding countless other issues, can be stacked to support any agenda you seem fit to argue.

Last edited by lowing (2011-07-08 06:49:31)

Pug wrote:

I'm just pointing out the cost of your preference, so you can fully understand it.

Because "if someone doesn't want to wear a seatbelt/helmet, it doesn't cost me anything" is blatantly false.

Nannopennies are srs bsns.

Pug wrote:

I'm just pointing out the cost of your preference, so you can fully understand it.

Because "if someone doesn't want to wear a seatbelt/helmet, it doesn't cost me anything" is blatantly false.

You have yet to show me how my bank account has gone down, or my insurance premiums have gone up or how MY quality of life has been affected in any way shape or form due to explicit reason that someone else died from not wearing a helmet.


So you are not willing to cut out other activities like sky diving or cave exploring in order to stay consistent with your argument that govt. should interfere in private lives and private decisions because of "cost"?



  http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pubs/811159.pdf

look at this table,  look at the year 2007, there were 5174 deaths on motorcycles for 7,138,476  bikes registered that is 72 out of 100, 000 riders.

Now in the US in 2008, out of 4,955 fatalities 59% were helmet-less and 41% wore helmets. That is an 18% difference, less than 990 fatalities nationwide in that year of ALL the registered riders in the country, in excess of over 7,000,000!!. So please stop telling me the cost is so significant that it warrants govt. intrusion in our lives. The only ones affected by these deaths are their loved ones.

Last edited by lowing (2011-07-08 07:22:06)

Spark wrote:

Uhhhh bad use of stats there. 60% of all fatalities were helmetless, yes, but what proportion of riders in total go helmetless? My suggestion is that they would be staggeringly over-represented in those statistics.

yeah, this is a proportionality thing.

lowing wrote:

Pug wrote:

I'm just pointing out the cost of your preference, so you can fully understand it.

Because "if someone doesn't want to wear a seatbelt/helmet, it doesn't cost me anything" is blatantly false.

You have yet to show me how my bank account has gone down, or my insurance premiums have gone up or how MY quality of life has been affected in any way shape or form due to explicit reason that someone else died from not wearing a helmet.


So you are not willing to cut out other activities like sky diving or cave exploring in order to stay consistent with your argument that govt. should interfere in private lives and private decisions because of "cost"?



  http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pubs/811159.pdf

look at this table,  look at the year 2007, there were 5174 deaths on motorcycles for 7,138,476  bikes registered that is 72 out of 100, 000 riders.

Now in the US in 2008, out of 4,955 fatalities 59% were helmet-less and 41% wore helmets. That is an 18% difference, less than 990 fatalities nationwide in that year of ALL the registered riders in the country, in excess of over 7,000,000!!. So please stop telling me the cost is so significant that it warrants govt. intrusion in our lives. The only ones affected by these deaths are their loved ones.

ok, one more request before responding.

For helmeted/nonhelmeted medical expenses comparison - for injured not dead.

Pug wrote:

lowing wrote:

Pug wrote:

I'm just pointing out the cost of your preference, so you can fully understand it.

Because "if someone doesn't want to wear a seatbelt/helmet, it doesn't cost me anything" is blatantly false.

You have yet to show me how my bank account has gone down, or my insurance premiums have gone up or how MY quality of life has been affected in any way shape or form due to explicit reason that someone else died from not wearing a helmet.


So you are not willing to cut out other activities like sky diving or cave exploring in order to stay consistent with your argument that govt. should interfere in private lives and private decisions because of "cost"?



  http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pubs/811159.pdf

look at this table,  look at the year 2007, there were 5174 deaths on motorcycles for 7,138,476  bikes registered that is 72 out of 100, 000 riders.

Now in the US in 2008, out of 4,955 fatalities 59% were helmet-less and 41% wore helmets. That is an 18% difference, less than 990 fatalities nationwide in that year of ALL the registered riders in the country, in excess of over 7,000,000!!. So please stop telling me the cost is so significant that it warrants govt. intrusion in our lives. The only ones affected by these deaths are their loved ones.

ok, one more request before responding.

For helmeted/nonhelmeted medical expenses comparison - for injured not dead.

well for 2007, there was 103,000 injured out of over 7 million riders. now considering that even IF every one of those injuries were prevented by helmets, which you know they would not have been, the numbers still would not add up to any significant increase in "cost" to warrant the govt. intrusion in private lives. 

Now, 5,000 pedestrians are killed and 64,000 injured every year in our country as well. Maybe the govt. should require us to wear helmets to cross the fuckin' street as well based on your arguments. Or better yet to be uber safe, ban crossing the fuckin street all together. Think of the cost savings and the lives saved.
http://legalcatch.wordpress.com/2008/03 … tatistics/

Last edited by lowing (2011-07-08 07:58:02)

Shocking wrote:

Helmet laws are there to protect people from killing themselves. I don't see an issue with this, 'government intrusion' or not.

That is not the issue. Of course they protect people. But if people choose for themselves not wear them, it is not yours mine or the govt. business.