T1B

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/ ... ing_h.html

Consider the gene pool chlorinated.

Florida doesn't have a helmet law.

Because it doesn't matter.

You come off your bike, you get hurt or die. Period.

Carson wrote:Florida doesn't have a helmet law.

Because it doesn't matter.

You come off your bike, you get hurt or die. Period.

I always wear a good helmet and used to think helmet laws are a good idea, but, am getting a little sick and tired of the nanny state in general. so i have changed my position on this.

didn't see any details in that article of how exactly he died. wonder if it was head trauma? doesn't really sound like that serious of an injury. he high sided it and went down riding in a group, so it is likely that he wasn't going that fast. i am going to guess either head trauma or broken neck. if it was head trauma, a good helmet would likely have saved him. broken neck, maybe, maybe not.

It was head trauma. He face planted after the dismount. I'm guessing it will be a closed casket.

As for the helmet laws, there are so many more egregious examples of the nanny state. I can hardly work up the outrage to protest against a law meant to keep idiots from bringing harm to themselves.

BSmack wrote:I can hardly work up the outrage to protest against a law meant to keep idiots from bringing harm to themselves.

Nevertheless Jimmy Med's health care insurance premiums.

Screw_Michigan wrote:

BSmack wrote:I can hardly work up the outrage to protest against a law meant to keep idiots from bringing harm to themselves.

Nevertheless Jimmy Med's health care insurance premiums.

I suppose if more idiots were allowed to ride without headgear, that the number of lengthy chronic and/or terminal illnesses would diminish. And that would be a net positive for Jimmy's health insurance premiums.

BSmack wrote:

Screw_Michigan wrote:

BSmack wrote:I can hardly work up the outrage to protest against a law meant to keep idiots from bringing harm to themselves.

Nevertheless Jimmy Med's health care insurance premiums.

I suppose if more idiots were allowed to ride without headgear, that the number of lengthy chronic and/or terminal illnesses would diminish. And that would be a net positive for Jimmy's health insurance premiums.

That would be outweighed by the number of lengthy neuro cases we'd be paying for.

Diego in Seattle wrote:That would be outweighed by the number of lengthy neuro cases we'd be paying for.

But they would still be dying younger. So medicare would have a better chance of staying solvent.

BSmack wrote:It was head trauma. He face planted after the dismount. I'm guessing it will be a closed casket.

As for the helmet laws, there are so many more egregious examples of the nanny state. I can hardly work up the outrage to protest against a law meant to keep idiots from bringing harm to themselves.

yes, there are far more egregious examples. so what. i am just sick and tired of the whole thing and think they should be done away with period.

BSmack wrote:

Diego in Seattle wrote:That would be outweighed by the number of lengthy neuro cases we'd be paying for.

But they would still be dying younger. So medicare would have a better chance of staying solvent.

yup.

actuarialy (sp) speaking, it is best to keep the avg MC non helmet user around as they put medicare dollars into the system more often than not.

cigarette smokers, on the other hand are the opposite. they tend to get run by the big C rather quickly right around the time they are ready to retire. medicare and SS win big time when this happens.

smackaholic wrote:

BSmack wrote:It was head trauma. He face planted after the dismount. I'm guessing it will be a closed casket.

As for the helmet laws, there are so many more egregious examples of the nanny state. I can hardly work up the outrage to protest against a law meant to keep idiots from bringing harm to themselves.

yes, there are far more egregious examples. so what. i am just sick and tired of the whole thing and think they should be done away with period.

Then start riding without a helmet. Civil disobedience will show em.

BSmack wrote:

smackaholic wrote:

BSmack wrote:It was head trauma. He face planted after the dismount. I'm guessing it will be a closed casket.

As for the helmet laws, there are so many more egregious examples of the nanny state. I can hardly work up the outrage to protest against a law meant to keep idiots from bringing harm to themselves.

yes, there are far more egregious examples. so what. i am just sick and tired of the whole thing and think they should be done away with period.

Then start riding without a helmet. Civil disobedience will show em.

nope.

my self preservation instincts trump any civil disobedience, fight the power notions i may have. also, i'm just not comfortable on a bike helmetless at anything more than about 30 mph. too much wind noise.

Face plant without a helmet at 25 mph and you won't have to worry about wind noise anymore.

Mikey wrote:Face plant without a helmet at 25 mph and you won't have to worry about wind noise anymore.

yup.

smack your head into an immovable object at 2 mph. it fukking hurts. a lot. your gourd is pretty damn fragile. smacking it into a hard object at 15-20 mph can be fatal.

Last week here, there was a cyclist-pedestrian collision. Cyclist wasn't wearing a helmet. Pedestrian 1, Cyclist 0 - F.

Screw_Michigan wrote:Last week here, there was a cyclist-pedestrian collision. Cyclist wasn't wearing a helmet. Pedestrian 1, Cyclist 0 - F.

did the cyclist join that big peloton in the sky?

smackaholic wrote:

Mikey wrote:Face plant without a helmet at 25 mph and you won't have to worry about wind noise anymore.

yup.

smack your head into an immovable object at 2 mph. it fukking hurts. a lot. your gourd is pretty damn fragile. smacking it into a hard object at 15-20 mph can be fatal.

5 mph is enough to be fatal.

Sincerely,
Ed White's daughter Amy

Screw_Michigan wrote:

BSmack wrote:I can hardly work up the outrage to protest against a law meant to keep idiots from bringing harm to themselves.

Nevertheless Jimmy Med's health care insurance premiums.

I thought you were supposed to be a "journalist"? Is it too much to ask that you communicate in complete sentences? Please don't tell me you actually have some kind of degree in well anything.

"... a former U.S. Army soldier and a hater of nearly all things involving the government."
So he hates the Gov now that he is finished sucking its tit. Sounds like some of the right wing wackos we have around here.

Sudden Sam wrote:Don't want my insurance premiums to skyrocket. Helmets make sense.

Wore my open face helmet recently. Took a rock to the cheek. Hurt like hell. No idea how anyone can ride helmetless.

I wear a half-shell, and I've only had few small pebbles hit me in the face (it helps to have a windshield that comes up to roughly just below eye level).

Diego in Seattle wrote:

Sudden Sam wrote:Don't want my insurance premiums to skyrocket. Helmets make sense.

Wore my open face helmet recently. Took a rock to the cheek. Hurt like hell. No idea how anyone can ride helmetless.

I wear a half-shell, and I've only had few small pebbles hit me in the face (it helps to have a windshield that comes up to roughly just below eye level).

If you wear a half shell, you can pretty much feel free to shut the fukk up when it comes to running darwin smack on non helmet wearers. Your entire grill and a fair bit of your noggin are still exposed with these sad excuses for helmets. If you are not wearing a high quality SNELL rated full face helmet, you don't value your head very much.

The only time I might consider wearing a 3/4 helmet is if I was in phoenix or some othe rhellhole with unbearable temps. the U&L is not one of those places. No excuse to not wear a real helmet.

Carson wrote:Florida doesn't have a helmet law.

Because it doesn't matter.

You come off your bike, you get hurt or die. Period.

Do you differentiate at all between "hurt" and "die"? Idiot.

Ultimate nanny-state infringement on freedom.

Only person it hurts is the rider, and theoretically, if a person flies off a bike at speed, they are more dangerous to others if they're wearing a helmet.

This loserish path were taking that emphasises behavioral control is oppressive, unAmerican, ad unsustainable. It's yet to work in human history, and it won't this time.

But some people (they're called "liberals") are so convinced of their superior intellect, they feel it's their "right" to tell other people how to live, regardless whether it affects them.

Let those who ride decide. When I owned a motorcycle (yes, Spray, right after I invented the wheel) I seldom wore a helmet. Now whenever I ride my bicycle I wear a helmet.

Dinsdale wrote:Only person it hurts is the rider, and theoretically, if a person flies off a bike at speed, they are more dangerous to others if they're wearing a helmet.

That's one of the most stupid things I've read on the interwebs. You must be drinking water directly from the Willamette to get that retarded.

Papa Willie wrote:I don't think there should be ANY helmet laws. That's gay. However, if you're dumb enough on your own not to wear one, then you deserve what's coming.

The problem is that we also get what's coming - higher premiums on insurance & more taxpayer funded medical costs.

Until there's a system to make sure that the person deciding is capable of taking financial responsibility for thier choice the law is reasonable.

Diego in Seattle wrote:Until there's a system to make sure that the person deciding is capable of taking financial responsibility for thier choice the law is reasonable.

So instead of fixing a slew of really bad laws that caused healthcare cost to skyrocket, you instead advocate the expansion of the nannystate and further removal of personal freedoms, rather than fixing the root cause?

Are you insane?

Regardless,you KYOA. Following your own logic, motorcycles should be banned altogether unless you prove you can bear financial responsibility.

You're pretty good at advocating how others should behave...although I notice your claims of increased medical bills were backed up by... nothing. Stats? Anecdotes? Your-nurse-neighbor-once-said?

Anything, or should we take your ability to speculate as the gospel and basis for policy?