SDS Posted June 12, 2006 Posted June 12, 2006 Folks in the transplant community don't call them donor-cycles for nothin. Every American citizen has a Consititional right to be a moron, even if adds to the costs for all of us for hospital care and auto insurance. 707110[/snapback] I always considered those not wearing a helmet to have implicitly signed a DNR document.
ACor58 Posted June 12, 2006 Posted June 12, 2006 Even if he is alright, if I were the driver of the car that hit Big Ben I would start looking for a new address, and pronto. He is not safe.
bills_fan Posted June 12, 2006 Posted June 12, 2006 The job of the government is not to save you from yourself. If you want to go riding without a helmet, your choice and risk.
agilen Posted June 12, 2006 Posted June 12, 2006 The job of the government is not to save you from yourself. If you want to go riding without a helmet, your choice and risk. 707120[/snapback] Not when its someone else's job to scrape your brains off the road when your head gets crushed. Its not just you that you are harming.
The Avenger Posted June 12, 2006 Posted June 12, 2006 The job of the government is not to save you from yourself. If you want to go riding without a helmet, your choice and risk. 707120[/snapback] Not your choice to drive up everyone's insurance rates, take up space in the hospital, increase my wait in the emergency room because the doctors are busy with you, use local/state emergency resources to cover the accident scene, reconstruct the accident, write reports, tell your family you're dead, etc. If you lived in a vacuum where it was just you and nobody else I'd have no problem if you wanted to dump your bike at 90mph, but your actions do have residual effects.
bills_fan Posted June 12, 2006 Posted June 12, 2006 Actually, it is just you that you are harming. According to reports, Ben was not at fault. If he wears a helmet, he may or may not have suffered the same (according to the minimal amount of info available). We don't know yet. According to your logic, then the gov't should outlaw all motorcycles, seeing as how they produce a disproportionate amount of serious accidents and consequences, such as higher insurance rates (tho motorcycle insurance is different) or ER visits. Of course, that won't happen. Again, it is not the gov't's job to protect you from yourself.
Acantha Posted June 12, 2006 Posted June 12, 2006 I don't wish any harm to the guy, but if he's hurt due to not wearing a helmet I have no sympathy either. I used to ride, but have since sold my bike due to seeing too many friends badly hurt or killed in accidents. The risk, given that far too many accidents are caused by "the other guy", is just not in line with the reward...even though I loved riding. But even when I rode, I never understood those idiots who were so adamant about not wearing a helmet. It was if helmet laws were on par with a military draft. "YOU CAN'T TELL ME HOW TO LIVE MY LIFE!!!!". Whatever. I've never had any sympathy for people who die becuase they are too stubborn to use basic safety...especially when it doesn't even impede with the joy of riding. It would be nice to hear that he is okay, but any additional injuries to his head he has brought on himself.
MattyT Posted June 12, 2006 Posted June 12, 2006 Not your choice to drive up everyone's insurance rates, take up space in the hospital, increase my wait in the emergency room because the doctors are busy with you, use local/state emergency resources to cover the accident scene, reconstruct the accident, write reports, tell your family you're dead, etc. If you lived in a vacuum where it was just you and nobody else I'd have no problem if you wanted to dump your bike at 90mph, but your actions do have residual effects. 707133[/snapback] Everything you described can be summed up in one word..... Life. You just gotta deal with it.
Acantha Posted June 12, 2006 Posted June 12, 2006 Actually, it is just you that you are harming. According to reports, Ben was not at fault. If he wears a helmet, he may or may not have suffered the same (according to the minimal amount of info available). We don't know yet. 707139[/snapback] Your right, we dont' know yet. But from the minimal reports available I would say he would have been much better off with a helmet. Flying over his handle bars into a windshield and bleeding heavily from the head are telling statements.
Tom Posted June 12, 2006 Posted June 12, 2006 Not your choice to drive up everyone's insurance rates, take up space in the hospital, increase my wait in the emergency room because the doctors are busy with you, use local/state emergency resources to cover the accident scene, reconstruct the accident, write reports, tell your family you're dead, etc. If you lived in a vacuum where it was just you and nobody else I'd have no problem if you wanted to dump your bike at 90mph, but your actions do have residual effects. 707133[/snapback] Kinda parallels smoking in restaurants & bars, etc........
sfladave Posted June 12, 2006 Posted June 12, 2006 Not your choice to drive up everyone's insurance rates, take up space in the hospital, increase my wait in the emergency room because the doctors are busy with you, use local/state emergency resources to cover the accident scene, reconstruct the accident, write reports, tell your family you're dead, etc. If you lived in a vacuum where it was just you and nobody else I'd have no problem if you wanted to dump your bike at 90mph, but your actions do have residual effects. 707133[/snapback] If you want to look at it that way then we would have to exclude most senior citizens from driving because of failing eyesight and reflexes. Then we can move on to all of the overweight people I see ordering food at fast food joints, because they will only drive up my healthcare costs. I could go on and on with examples...just where do you draw the line on what is acceptable?
MartyBall4Buffalo Posted June 12, 2006 Posted June 12, 2006 I remember watching something on espn about a year or so ago, about Jamie Henderson the former jets db who got seriousily injured in a motorcycle accident, and nearly lost his life. I believe he was in a coma for awhile. They had him Roethlisberger and Drew Bledsoe on, and Henderson was talking about how he could send one message out to other people who ride bikes it's that you should wear a helmet and basically Big Ben came off like a big prick saying something along the lines of "You're not my dad, you can't tell me how to live my life". I really hope from a human perspective he's ok physically, but Karma is a B word...
DC Tom Posted June 12, 2006 Posted June 12, 2006 Not your choice to drive up everyone's insurance rates, take up space in the hospital, increase my wait in the emergency room because the doctors are busy with you, use local/state emergency resources to cover the accident scene, reconstruct the accident, write reports, tell your family you're dead, etc. If you lived in a vacuum where it was just you and nobody else I'd have no problem if you wanted to dump your bike at 90mph, but your actions do have residual effects. 707133[/snapback] Actually, helmetless riders are not a drag on the health care system, as they usually don't need medical attention...as they tend to be dead at the scene. Everyone I've ever known who owned a bike wrecked it and injured themselves badly, to the tune of six-figure medical bills. Had none of them wore helmets, that's probably $750k they would have saved us by getting killed outright.
X. Benedict Posted June 12, 2006 Posted June 12, 2006 Actually, helmetless riders are not a drag on the health care system, as they usually don't need medical attention...as they tend to be dead at the scene. Everyone I've ever known who owned a bike wrecked it and injured themselves badly, to the tune of six-figure medical bills. Had none of them wore helmets, that's probably $750k they would have saved us by getting killed outright. 707147[/snapback] And think of the per diem their family has saved on the cost of food alone. That adds up.
SuperBills12 Posted June 12, 2006 Posted June 12, 2006 Helmet or no helmet, motorcylces are a bad idea. I lost a good friend 3 years ago, and I just see them as pointless to have
RayFinkle Posted June 12, 2006 Posted June 12, 2006 Not your choice to drive up everyone's insurance rates, take up space in the hospital, increase my wait in the emergency room because the doctors are busy with you, use local/state emergency resources to cover the accident scene, reconstruct the accident, write reports, tell your family you're dead, etc. If you lived in a vacuum where it was just you and nobody else I'd have no problem if you wanted to dump your bike at 90mph, but your actions do have residual effects. 707133[/snapback] Bike insurance is actually a lot cheaper than car insurance. The problem with riding is not the "irresponsible rider" but the morons driving driving cars around them who don't pay attention.
bills_fan Posted June 12, 2006 Posted June 12, 2006 Actually, helmetless riders are not a drag on the health care system, as they usually don't need medical attention...as they tend to be dead at the scene. Everyone I've ever known who owned a bike wrecked it and injured themselves badly, to the tune of six-figure medical bills. Had none of them wore helmets, that's probably $750k they would have saved us by getting killed outright. Excellent point, Darwin at work.
RuntheDamnBall Posted June 12, 2006 Posted June 12, 2006 Everything you described can be summed up in one word..... Life. You just gotta deal with it. 707141[/snapback] So, personal responsibility and accountability until death, and then it's someone else's mess to clean up? Part of being responsible is ensuring that when you're long gone, you left things in your territory OK. Which absolves people of more responsibility -- letting them be irresponsible and leave a more serious problem for others to deal with, or dealing with it before it gets to that serious stage?
DC Tom Posted June 12, 2006 Posted June 12, 2006 And think of the per diem their family has saved on the cost of food alone. That adds up. 707150[/snapback] Yeah...but I was being serious. Avenger wants to argue that bike helmets save money? He's wrong...it's a lot more cost-effective to let people kill themselves quickly. The "You're wasting my money by not wearing a helmet" argument is bull sh--... Though not quite as much as the "You're hurting other people when you make them scrape your brains off the pavement." What, helmets should be required because if a rider dies, it shouldn't gross out anyone else?
bills_fan Posted June 12, 2006 Posted June 12, 2006 Bike insurance is actually a lot cheaper than car insurance. The problem with riding is not the "irresponsible rider" but the morons driving driving cars around them who don't pay attention. No way. Try driving on the Belt Parkway here in NYC, during the summer. Massive traffic, crawling along at 20 MPH, here comes some yahoos on bikes weaving in between the three lanes choke full of traffic. And they wonder "why" when they get wasted by a car changing lanes. You want to talk about killing a whole day while some yahoo is scraped off the Belt, after trying to make it between an Expedition and a Land Rover full of kids, and you're sitting there for 3 hours. Fun.
Recommended Posts