Wear a helmet. Seriously.

Sep 5, 2020
136
118
68
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
I always wear a bike helmet. My kids and Grands think I am a helmet Nazi. So what? I commuted with a helmet for 14 years. I had a couple of accidents in that time. And each one would have had the mashed turnip effect on my brain. The wife would argue it already happened! I also believe in lights to be seen and to see. I hate to see reflectors not used. My buddies at work said I made a spectacle of myself. I said so you saw me!?! Crickets........ I am still alive, to some folks' consternation. Be Well, SS.
 

RustyGold

Pro Member
Jul 2, 2015
3,886
4,489
51
Mid-Willamette Valley, Oregon
gogetfunding.com
Rating - 100%
20   0   0
If bicycle helmets were mandatory...I probably wouldn't ride bikes.

Divide and conquer is how the 'nanny-state crowd' is slowly stripping our personal freedoms. A person may support stripping people of the right to choose to wear seatbelts, helmets, smoke cigarettes, have more than five rounds in a 10-22, carry a pocket knife, have non-stock sized tires on your rig, be a woman drinking coffee in public in the city limits, owning more than one dog (or two chickens), etc, etc... because none of those things are something that effects them, and they personally think a person would have to be stupid to care about any of those things. Well, when that person has one of his freedoms abridged (like the right of a property owner to choose who to rent their property to)...it will be the 'personal freedom crowd' supporting you, even if you never supported them.

"The First-Come, First-Served Law
Seattle recently approved an ordinance that forces landlords to do the following:


  1. Document the date and time of every application received.
  2. Rent to tenants on a first-come, first-served basis."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Duchess
Oct 23, 2020
198
273
48
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
If bicycle helmets were mandatory...I probably wouldn't ride bikes.

Divide and conquer is how the 'nanny-state crowd' is slowly stripping our personal freedoms. A person may support stripping people of the right to choose to wear seatbelts, helmets, smoke cigarettes, have more than five rounds in a 10-22, carry a pocket knife, have non-stock sized tires on your rig, be a woman drinking coffee in public in the city limits, owning more than one dog (or two chickens), etc, etc... because none of those things are something that effects them, and they personally think a person would have to be stupid to care about any of those things. Well, when that person has one of his freedoms abridged (like the right of a property owner to choose who to rent their property to)...it will be the 'personal freedom crowd' supporting you, even if you never supported them.

"The First-Come, First-Served Law
Seattle recently approved an ordinance that forces landlords to do the following:


  1. Document the date and time of every application received.
  2. Rent to tenants on a first-come, first-served basis."
I am not for mandatory use; I just think it’s a good idea. I get where you come from.
 
Sep 26, 2012
1,196
1,986
Chicago, IL
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
When it comes to bicycles I'm not really for or against helmet laws. I've lived in countries with them and without. I don't find it to be a big deal either way. I've even been fined for not wearing, it sucked to get a fine, but I broke the law and knew the consequences, so whatever.

The Finnish mandatory bicycle lights law is a new one for me, I would totally support that.

I'm 100% for mandatory motorcycle helmet laws. I'd also add in appropriate footwear.

I think a lot of these type of laws are even more important in countries where the tax payers are picking up some or all of the public's medical tab.

I'm sensitive to your government overreach concerns RG, but I think getting upset about things like helmets and seatbelts is a little bit precious.

I don't really buy into the slippery slope argument. I don't believe giving up some personal freedoms for the good of public health and safety means you will inevitably give up all of them.

I don't know enough about the housing situation in Seattle to comment. I'm sure there's good reasons for the messures good reasons against them. As well good ways and hamfisted ways to deal with the problem they're trying to fix with those laws.
 

RustyGold

Pro Member
Jul 2, 2015
3,886
4,489
51
Mid-Willamette Valley, Oregon
gogetfunding.com
Rating - 100%
20   0   0
When it comes to bicycles I'm not really for or against helmet laws. I've lived in countries with them and without. I don't find it to be a big deal either way. I've even been fined for not wearing, it sucked to get a fine, but I broke the law and knew the consequences, so whatever.
:thumbsup:
The Finnish mandatory bicycle lights law is a new one for me, I would totally support that.
Why? I don't think you'll find an area in this country that is covered by a statute saying that you can't operate a vehicle on public streets without proper lighting.
I'm 100% for mandatory motorcycle helmet laws. I'd also add in appropriate footwear.
So, the legal line between what is legal and what isn't is, 'whatever verrt is comfortable with'?

We all have different levels of risk acceptance...why do you get to impose your risk aversiveness on me?
I think a lot of these type of laws are even more important in countries where the tax payers are picking up some or all of the public's medical tab.
So laws setting approved diets? Rediculous...oh wait, sodas in NY :confused:.
I'm sensitive to your government overreach concerns RG, but I think getting upset about things like helmets and seatbelts is a little bit precious.
Your sensitivity is irrelevant. Your shaming is petty.
I don't really buy into the slippery slope argument. I don't believe giving up some personal freedoms for the good of public health and safety means you will inevitably give up all of them.
I didn't mention a slippery slope. I didn't say that we are losing all of our personal rights, nor was I mentioning stuff that solely relates to Health and Safety. Everything I mentioned are laws currently (current since I last checked, at least) on the books. Arguments about cost are irrelevant...the cost has been paid in blood, not dollars and cents. We are guaranteed life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...the only restriction is when those inalienable rights directly infringe on someone else's inalienable rights.

Speaking of slippery slopes...yes, when it ends up with people marrying thier dogs...it is pretty dumb.

But... slippery slopes are real. Take marijuana...
1) We only want it for industrial uses...you can't even get high.
2) We only want it for medical use, doctor prescribed.
3) Why force people to come up with phony conditions...just make it legal recreationally

4) Hey...let's make psychedelic mushrooms legal... doctor prescribed of course.
Currently passing in Oregon.

It's going to stop here right...cause there is no slippery slope, right?
I don't know enough about the housing situation in Seattle to comment. I'm sure there's good reasons for the messures good reasons against them. As well good ways and hamfisted ways to deal with the problem they're trying to fix with those laws.
"And here is the underlying agenda voiced by Seattle Councilmember Lisa Herbold. Herbold, according to The Seattle Times, is a proponent of the new first-come, first-served law because it will stop landlords from “picking the renters they like best among qualified applicants.”

Is she kidding? Assuming that landlords don’t discriminate on the protected classes, why shouldn’t landlords pick who they like best to put in property they pay for and maintain?"
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kevin B
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
There was a campaign here in Queensland recently where it was argued that revoking the mandatory helmet laws would decrease the cost of health care on the public purse. (We have universal free health care - sort of).
The argument was that more people would ride if they didn't have to wear a helmet. Better cardiac outcomes, less obesity et al.
The College of neurosurgeons weighed in with the costs of ongoing care for brain injuries and the life changing consequences for families - and the whole argument was blown out of the water.
Some of my pals bang-on about nanny state, etc etc. But Verrt is 100%: when it's being funded by everyone (we pay a Medicare levy/tax), then the obligation is to reduce the burden on everyone. That I suspect will remain a core social and cultural difference between different countries. Here we're mostly pretty cool with it now. The greater good.
I've got a selection of helmets to match my different bikes, some are well sticker-ed up, and there's matching pairs of Vans. I be stylin' now.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Verrt

RustyGold

Pro Member
Jul 2, 2015
3,886
4,489
51
Mid-Willamette Valley, Oregon
gogetfunding.com
Rating - 100%
20   0   0
So... I've done the research years ago for a paper. For motorcycles, helmets reduce deaths, but increase odds of paralysis and survivable, but disabling, brain injury. So, if it is just dollars and cents we are worrying about... making helmets illegal is far better for the public as deaths are way cheaper than long term disability. Slam dunk...just let em die and save a buck, cuz that's how policy should be determined :thumbsup:.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Not at all - this thread is a warning about mitigating the risk of brain injury by making the choice to wear a helmet when you ride.
Whether it's mandatory or not, what it costs and anything else is irrelevant. It's because life can bite you on the bum sometimes.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Dr. Tankenstein
Sep 26, 2012
1,196
1,986
Chicago, IL
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Why? I don't think you'll find an area in this country that is covered by a statute saying that you can't operate a vehicle on public streets without proper lighting.
Why, because I continually see people riding without lights in dark areas with heavy traffic and causing dangerous situations because of it.
Giving police the ability to fine people for doing this seems like a possible solution to me. I'd be open to alternate thoughtful solutions.
How urgently something should be done about the issue should depend on accident and crash data rather than my anecdotal experience.

So, the legal line between what is legal and what isn't is, 'whatever verrt is comfortable with'?
No, but I can still have an opinion on it. I can even take actions to attempt to influence policy. But on this issue I probably won't exercise my rights any further than having this discussion with you.

We all have different levels of risk acceptance...why do you get to impose your risk aversiveness on me?
In the case of motorcycle helmets because I believe the action of not wearing a helmet has a strong possibility of negatively affecting those around you in the following ways:
1. If road debris strikes a rider in the unprotected face or feet there is a decent chance the rider could lose control of the vehicle and become a hazard to other road users. Especially at highway speeds.
(I'm not going to pull specific data for the sake of this discussion, but I have looked into it previously and I believe it supports my opinion.) Here's my anecdotal evidence, assign it whatever weight you feel it deserves, no need to tell me what uou pick. In my time as a motorcycle rider I have been struck in the face or feet on multiple occasions by the following flying objects stones, lit cigarette butts, insects large enough to cause severe eye damage, and my favorite a .... hubcap!

2. If a rider is killed rather than injured, there is decent chance they will leave behind dependent family that, at least in the short term, possibly long term, will need to be subsidized by the tax payer.

3. Many countries have tax payer funded healthcare. There is a vested interest in making sure citizens are taking reasonable and fair measures to not have needless health expenses. I believe wearing a helmet is both reasonable and fair. I'd also like to point out that the US has both medicare and ACA insurance plans that are subsidized by the tax payer.

4. Same premise as 3, but for private health insurance. If helmets were mandatory insurance premiums would go down a little.

5. Some poor sap has to scrape your squashed head off the pavement. Some negligent car driver is facing manslaughter charges and a lifetime of nightmares instead of negligent driving and a driving ban.

Again I'm not advocating for legislation for the avoidance of risks. But when study after study show the benefits to the collective outweigh the small discomfort it just seems simple to me. And really, it's just a helmet not a tracking chip.

So laws setting approved diets? Rediculous...oh wait, sodas in NY :confused:.
Lol. Surprising no one, I don't have a problem with the soda tax either. We tax tobacco and alcohol at a higher rate and other things as well, no one's regulating your diet or banning soda, you'll just pay a little more for it. Government gets a few more pennies to pay for stuff without an income tax hike or issuing more parking tickets, and if a few people have to drink slightly less soda, well no bfd, it's not like it's bread or tampons.
Small tax on what is essentially a luxury item isn't what I'd class as a government approved diet.

Your sensitivity is irrelevant. Your shaming is petty.
Definitely didn't want to make it sound like I was trying to shame you, my appologies. Let me rephrase.

I understand that government overreach is a real concern, and it is definitely something that needs to be monitored and guarded against. However, as I see it helmets and seatbelts are extremely small concessions to make for very big benefits.

I didn't mention a slippery slope. I didn't say that we are losing all of our personal rights, nor was I mentioning stuff that solely relates to Health and Safety. Everything I mentioned are laws currently (current since I last checked, at least) on the books.
You didn't, but I made the assumption that you were illustrating a slippery slope with your list of laws starting at the mundane with seatbelts and ending up banning women from drinking coffee in public(?)

I guess you were saying, that no one one cares about laws until they effect them personally. True, and that's not great, but I also think flat rejecting any and all laws that are perceived to limit a personal freedom without taking in context or offering alternative solutions to the situation those laws are trying to solve is bad news too.

I'm not saying you're doing this. Just that it does happen, a lot. And it's generally people with that kind of fixed mindset that get characterized as "personal freedom types". I guess uses of the term pejoratively can give the impression that the speaker doesn't value individual freedom.

Arguments about cost are irrelevant...the cost has been paid in blood, not dollars and cents. We are guaranteed life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...the only restriction is when those inalienable rights directly infringe on someone else's inalienable rights.
I don't disagree.

I just don't think not wearing a seatbelt is an inalienable right. Nor do I think wearing a helmet compromises your life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
If it's impossible to be happy in a helmet then maybe a couple sessions with a therapist are in order?

Speaking of slippery slopes...yes, when it ends up with people marrying thier dogs...it is pretty dumb.
Seems like barring someone from marrying their dog could be perceived as impeding their pursuit of happyness?

But... slippery slopes are real. Take marijuana...
1) We only want it for industrial uses...you can't even get high.
2) We only want it for medical use, doctor prescribed.
3) Why force people to come up with phony conditions...just make it legal recreationally

4) Hey...let's make psychedelic mushrooms legal... doctor prescribed of course.
Currently passing in Oregon.

It's going to stop here right...cause there is no slippery slope, right?
I'm not solidly fixed on a position on legalizing weed. I can see the potential problems with it, but at the same time, the data has consistently shown that it's less damaging than alcohol and tobacco use, so it seems to me that it should at least be judged by the same scale. Whether that should be legalization or prohibition, I'm not sure.

Definitely don't agree with legalizing mushrooms. Again, because the data has shown the dangers. Not from the effects on the mind or body, but because people tend to step out of third story windows or into traffic not knowing what they're doing.
I figure, if they've make it illegal in Amsterdam, that's a good yard stick.

"And here is the underlying agenda voiced by Seattle Councilmember Lisa Herbold. Herbold, according to The Seattle Times, is a proponent of the new first-come, first-served law because it will stop landlords from “picking the renters they like best among qualified applicants.”

Is she kidding? Assuming that landlords don’t discriminate on the protected classes, why shouldn’t landlords pick who they like best to put in property they pay for and maintain?"
I don't know the situation, but with only the data you've given it looks like they're trying to use an overly simple law to fix a single symptom of complex problems. Sadly government is far from immune from this. But I haven't read into this specific situation to comment any more than this.

@RustyGold I'm gathering from all this you're quite the libertarian.

I want to ask a question, and I mean no political angling or anything from it, I'm purely interested to hear the answer from someone with strong libertarian views, I've been wanting to ask for a while.

What are your thoughts on the times when the US gov has implemented a military service draft?
And secondly what are yiur thoughts on the people who have then avoided the draft?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Short Stuff
Sep 26, 2012
1,196
1,986
Chicago, IL
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
So... I've done the research years ago for a paper. For motorcycles, helmets reduce deaths, but increase odds of paralysis and survivable, but disabling, brain injury. So, if it is just dollars and cents we are worrying about... making helmets illegal is far better for the public as deaths are way cheaper than long term disability. Slam dunk...just let em die and save a buck, cuz that's how policy should be determined :thumbsup:.
Intersting. What I've researched has suggested differently. But until I start a campaign to change state policy I'm not going to dive back into the numbers.

I get what you mean about the cheapest option shouldn't dictate public policy.

There is another argument that I've purposely avoided making, even though I believe it. It usually doesn't hold much water with people of a "it's my right to live fast and die young" mindset. Even when they're not fast or young.

I care about people. All people, even the ones that have opinions that seem stupid to me, and I would rather they not die or be harmed needlessly.
I see helmet and seatbelt laws as caring for the people and putting in measures to keep them safe. I don't really see it as any different to legislated safety standards in automobiles.