NY motorcyclist in helmet protest hits head, dies

[keiths31]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2011/07/03/national/a150211D34.DTL

Still can't imagine why anyone riding a motorcycle would NOT want to wear a helmet...

[natty dread]

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

[PLAYER57832]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2011/07/03/national/a150211D34.DTL

Still can't imagine why anyone riding a motorcycle would NOT want to wear a helmet...

The closest things to a "sane" argument on this is that they would rather die than be simply highly injured.

I hear people say they get better visability and so forth, but evidence disputes any advantage there.

[Haggis_McMutton]

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?

[keiths31]

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?

Should be. Just like it is to wear a seat belt, life jacket, etc.

[keiths31]

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

Agreed...

[BigBallinStalin]

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?

Should be. Just like it is to wear a seat belt, life jacket, etc.

This issue would be different if the roads were privately owned, and the government was mandating how people should behave on those roads--instead of enabling the private owners of the roads to mandate their own rules and regulations.

Since the government owns the roads, then the case, which you've mentioned, becomes more difficult to make.


Look at it from a legal perspective. By mandating people to wear helmets and seat belts, then the damage caused in car accidents is reduced. However, if motorcyclists were free to not wear helmets, and if someone hits them, the motorcyclist would suffer more injuries for not wearing a helmet. This extra damage places a heavier burden on the one who caused the accident. The extra damage could have been adverted had the motorcyclist been wearing his helmet, and this point will be made in court; however, sometimes, that lack of responsibility doesn't equate with an equal reduction in attributing blame and seeking compensation from the guy who hit the motorcyclist. This demand for extra compensation is unfair because the motorcyclist should've been wearing a helmet anyway.

tl;dr ---

I guess the government seeks to avoid this unfairness and intends to promote safer roads and less injuries and deaths by madnating that people buckle up or wear a helmet. I see no problem with it because such a law is very practical when considering the potential, additional costs* that non-helmeted motorcyclists place on others.

*monetary cost in courts, traumatic cost for killing someone, etc.

[Baron Von PWN]

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?

Should be. Just like it is to wear a seat belt, life jacket, etc.

This issue would be different if the roads were privately owned, and the government was mandating how people should behave on those roads--instead of enabling the private owners of the roads to mandate their own rules and regulations.

Since the government owns the roads, then the case, which you've mentioned, becomes more difficult to make.


Look at it from a legal perspective. By mandating people to wear helmets and seat belts, then the damage caused in car accidents is reduced. However, if motorcyclists were free to not wear helmets, and if someone hits them, the motorcyclist would suffer more injuries for not wearing a helmet. This extra damage places a heavier burden on the one who caused the accident. The extra damage could have been adverted had the motorcyclist been wearing his helmet, and this point will be made in court; however, sometimes, that lack of responsibility doesn't equate with an equal reduction in attributing blame and seeking compensation from the guy who hit the motorcyclist. This demand for extra compensation is unfair because the motorcyclist should've been wearing a helmet anyway.

tl;dr ---

I guess the government seeks to avoid this unfairness and intends to promote safer roads and less injuries and deaths by madnating that people buckle up or wear a helmet. I see no problem with it because such a law is very practical when considering the potential, additional costs* that non-helmeted motorcyclists place on others.

*monetary cost in courts, traumatic cost for killing someone, etc.

I've decided to fill in for Phats here.

But Liberty!

[BigBallinStalin]

Shiiit. If the founding fathers and the American Eagle were against the requiring of motorcyclists to wear helmets, then ... then.... SUCK MY SOCIALISM.

[PLAYER57832]

I guess the government seeks to avoid this unfairness and intends to promote safer roads and less injuries and deaths by madnating that people buckle up or wear a helmet. I see no problem with it because such a law is very practical when considering the potential, additional costs* that non-helmeted motorcyclists place on others.

*monetary cost in courts, traumatic cost for killing someone, etc.

Ironically, the safer option in this case may cost we taxpayers more. It might not still be true, but I remember the fiscal analysis when California proposed its helmet law. The medical costs of forcing people to wear helmets would go UP, not down. Why? Because more people survived!

Of course, that was over 20 years ago, and medical technology has advanced a great deal. It could be that many of the unhelmeted now would survive, even if just as "vegetables".

Anyway, morbid discussion.

[Baron Von PWN]

I guess the government seeks to avoid this unfairness and intends to promote safer roads and less injuries and deaths by madnating that people buckle up or wear a helmet. I see no problem with it because such a law is very practical when considering the potential, additional costs* that non-helmeted motorcyclists place on others.

*monetary cost in courts, traumatic cost for killing someone, etc.

Ironically, the safer option in this case may cost we taxpayers more. It might not still be true, but I remember the fiscal analysis when California proposed its helmet law. The medical costs of forcing people to wear helmets would go UP, not down. Why? Because more people survived!

Of course, that was over 20 years ago, and medical technology has advanced a great deal. It could be that many of the unhelmeted now would survive, even if just as "vegetables".

Anyway, morbid discussion.

That would be direct medical costs though, the long term cost of losing a productive member of society would probably be greater. Other than the obvious something which saves peoples lives is more often than not better.

[radiojake]

I had a mate who rode home drunk on his bicycle without a helmet on and end up running straight into the back of a parked car at quite a speed - The ambulance was called because it knocked him around quite a bit, but they said had he been wearing a helmet, it probably would have smashed the back car window and done more damage - Without the helmet on the window didn't break and he only coped injuries from the impact, rather than broken glass as well -


I don't really see how people could be against bike helmet laws - As long as the fine for being caught without one isn't a ridiculous amount -

[BigBallinStalin]

I guess the government seeks to avoid this unfairness and intends to promote safer roads and less injuries and deaths by madnating that people buckle up or wear a helmet. I see no problem with it because such a law is very practical when considering the potential, additional costs* that non-helmeted motorcyclists place on others.

*monetary cost in courts, traumatic cost for killing someone, etc.

Ironically, the safer option in this case may cost we taxpayers more. It might not still be true, but I remember the fiscal analysis when California proposed its helmet law. The medical costs of forcing people to wear helmets would go UP, not down. Why? Because more people survived!

Of course, that was over 20 years ago, and medical technology has advanced a great deal. It could be that many of the unhelmeted now would survive, even if just as "vegetables".

Anyway, morbid discussion.

That would be direct medical costs though, the long term cost of losing a productive member of society would probably be greater. Other than the obvious something which saves peoples lives is more often than not better.

**highfives BVP for a providing a broader cost-benefit analysis**

[thegreekdog]

I'm against all safety laws that affect whether I injure myself. I'm less sure about whether I support public safety laws that affect people other than myself.

The only interest the government has in making a law requiring me to wear a motorcycle helmet is to help large corporations avoid having to pay insurance proceeds or from lawsuits regarding safety. Simply put, it's corporate welfare.

[BigBallinStalin]

^^^

A challenger appears!

_____________________________

You raise some good points; however, I tend to view these laws as similar to a grocery store making a law that forbids wearing no shoes in their store. They do this to reduce costs associated with foot diseases (I guess). Financially, it makes sense for the business to do that, and I'll adhere to those rules as I enter the store.


With the government and those safety laws, it's their roads, and the law benefits me potentially by reducing the likelihood of deaths and serious mental injuries on the highway. In court, I can avoid higher compensation for any wrong I commit. I'll take this potentially reduced payments as compensation in exchange for a law requiring that I do something practical like wear a helmet or seat belt.

[thegreekdog]

however, I tend to view these laws as similar to a grocery store making a law that forbids wearing no shoes in their store. They do this to reduce costs associated with foot diseases (I guess). Financially, it makes sense for the business to do that, and I'll adhere to those rules as I enter the store.

I'm not sure I agree that this is the reason one cannot go barefoot in a grocery store. I think this has to do with whether the grocery store thinks customers will think it's gross and thus not come back.

With the government and those safety laws, it's their roads, and the law benefits me potentially by reducing the likelihood of deaths and serious mental injuries on the highway. In court, I can avoid higher compensation for any wrong I commit. I'll take this potentially reduced payments as compensation in exchange for a law requiring that I do something practical like wear a helmet or seat belt.

I admittedly don't understand this argument. I understand that the government owns the roads. I don't understand why the government cares whether I bash my head open on their road.

[Night Strike]

With the government and those safety laws, it's their roads, and the law benefits me potentially by reducing the likelihood of deaths and serious mental injuries on the highway. In court, I can avoid higher compensation for any wrong I commit. I'll take this potentially reduced payments as compensation in exchange for a law requiring that I do something practical like wear a helmet or seat belt.

I admittedly don't understand this argument. I understand that the government owns the roads. I don't understand why the government cares whether I bash my head open on their road.

I've thought about it more that you're protecting the other driver in the accident by decreasing the chances that the motorcyclist (or car-person without a seatbelt) will die. Killing someone, even if in an accident, is even more traumatizing than just injuring them. Plus, it would help avoid a stronger penalty like vehicular manslaughter. If a motorcyclist is riding completely by himself without any worry about any other vehicles, then he could be free to risk his life with not wearing a helmet.

[Baron Von PWN]

however, I tend to view these laws as similar to a grocery store making a law that forbids wearing no shoes in their store. They do this to reduce costs associated with foot diseases (I guess). Financially, it makes sense for the business to do that, and I'll adhere to those rules as I enter the store.

I'm not sure I agree that this is the reason one cannot go barefoot in a grocery store. I think this has to do with whether the grocery store thinks customers will think it's gross and thus not come back.

With the government and those safety laws, it's their roads, and the law benefits me potentially by reducing the likelihood of deaths and serious mental injuries on the highway. In court, I can avoid higher compensation for any wrong I commit. I'll take this potentially reduced payments as compensation in exchange for a law requiring that I do something practical like wear a helmet or seat belt.

I admittedly don't understand this argument. I understand that the government owns the roads. I don't understand why the government cares whether I bash my head open on their road.

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

[PLAYER57832]

That would be direct medical costs though, the long term cost of losing a productive member of society would probably be greater. Other than the obvious something which saves peoples lives is more often than not better.

But all motorcycle riders are hell's angels drug users, aren't they?

On a serious note.. good point!

[thegreekdog]

however, I tend to view these laws as similar to a grocery store making a law that forbids wearing no shoes in their store. They do this to reduce costs associated with foot diseases (I guess). Financially, it makes sense for the business to do that, and I'll adhere to those rules as I enter the store.

I'm not sure I agree that this is the reason one cannot go barefoot in a grocery store. I think this has to do with whether the grocery store thinks customers will think it's gross and thus not come back.

With the government and those safety laws, it's their roads, and the law benefits me potentially by reducing the likelihood of deaths and serious mental injuries on the highway. In court, I can avoid higher compensation for any wrong I commit. I'll take this potentially reduced payments as compensation in exchange for a law requiring that I do something practical like wear a helmet or seat belt.

I admittedly don't understand this argument. I understand that the government owns the roads. I don't understand why the government cares whether I bash my head open on their road.

I can understand that, but I don't think that was BBS's argument.

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

[Baron Von PWN]

however, I tend to view these laws as similar to a grocery store making a law that forbids wearing no shoes in their store. They do this to reduce costs associated with foot diseases (I guess). Financially, it makes sense for the business to do that, and I'll adhere to those rules as I enter the store.

I'm not sure I agree that this is the reason one cannot go barefoot in a grocery store. I think this has to do with whether the grocery store thinks customers will think it's gross and thus not come back.

With the government and those safety laws, it's their roads, and the law benefits me potentially by reducing the likelihood of deaths and serious mental injuries on the highway. In court, I can avoid higher compensation for any wrong I commit. I'll take this potentially reduced payments as compensation in exchange for a law requiring that I do something practical like wear a helmet or seat belt.

. I don't understand why the government cares whether I bash my head open on their road.
I admittedly don't understand this argument. I understand that the government owns the roads

I can understand that, but I don't think that was BBS's argument.

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

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

[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.

[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. you can't say that death = bad in purely economic terms. why do you think corporations can make profits at the expense of the health of people in third world countries or other poor areas?

[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. you can't say that death = bad in purely economic terms. why do you think corporations can make profits at the expense of the health of people in third world countries or other poor areas?

not realy as theregoese the economy's future labour pool. Maybe you could make an argument for it being an economic positive for severely disabled or mentaly ill to die,but not the unemployed. I think more often than not death is bad for the economy. Maybe not at all times but more often than not.

[Baron Von PWN]

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.