Conquer Club

b.k. barunt wrote:Bad enough that our elected officials sell out to the big insurance companies and make helmet laws for motorcycles, but bicycles?? Niggaplease! When i was a kid nobody wore helmets on bicycles. We'd play chicken in the streets and very few would chicken. My brother and i rode on trails in the mountains (no, mountain bikes hadn't been invented yet) and would have spectacular wrecks going off of cliffs and such. Helmets? Never saw one and never knew anyone personally who got a severe head injury on a bicycle.

I can understand participants in a bike race wearing them, but other than that it's just chickenshit. Far more head injuries in cars than on bicycles so what's next? Mandatory helmet laws for cars? This preoccupation with safety by our skeert yuppie culture is really starting to chap my ass. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as it were. If i choose to risk my life to enhance my happiness that should be my perogative.

Consider the custom of counting coup - a tradition shared by all of our Indian tribes. No matter how many warriors you killed in battle, no matter how many horses you stole, you were not considered a true man if you hadn't counted coup. For those of you who aren't familiar with counting coup, it involved riding into a battle, charging an armed opponent, slapping him on the ass with your "coup stick" (approximately 3 ft long and about as big around as your little finger) and escaping with your life. Sounds crazy? Maybe so, but like i say it spanned all of the tribes in our Indian culture. A typical Indian song that a brave would sing before indulging himself in this pastime was "Let us see let us see, what is this life that we are living".

The first 5 years of my marriage i rode a 5 speed bicycle 8 miles one way to work through the busiest part of the streets of New Orleans. I never felt the need for a helmet and when i see an adult male wearing one now i feel a marked contempt for such a pussy.


Honibaz

It's all for the money. If the legislators can make it mandatory to wear a helmet/seat belts, now the cops can give you a ticket for such.

-TG

Australia ans New Zealand have had bike helmet laws for years.

Now it's just a way of life..... you going to go ride a bike you put a helmet on ..... and i know i would rather have a healthy son than a million dollars and a son that dribbles in his dinner plate when you have to feed him

BigBallinStalin wrote:

AAFitz wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Generally, I don't care if other people wear helmets, but I have trouble countering this argument:

1. Wearing a helmet reduces the price of lawsuits for other parties.

So, in the case of accident, had the bicyclist worn a helmet, the settlement/trial would have extracted a lesser amount from the other parties involved.
(Of course, the bicyclist may reap a higher price by not wearing a helmet--assuming he's not at fault and that there's no Helmet Law. It would be like exchanging one's brain damage for more cash money).

This really creates a beautiful array of levels of irony.
____
While they are obvious, I need to type some out just to see them myself.

A smart person (one who correctly weighs the risks vs benefit and chooses to wear a helmet) gets hit by a car, and has a brain that is worth more, but has less injury, so needs less compensation.

A stupid person (one who incorrectly weighs the risk vs benefit and chooses not to wear a helmet and chooses not to wear a helmet) gets hit by a car, in the same scenario and has more brain damage, but to a brain that is worth far less than the other brain, but needs more compensation to repair the damage.

The smart person, receives less money for the same situation.

The stupid person receives more money for the same situation.

The smart person, stays smart, with potentially less economic 'reward'.

The stupid person becomes stupider, albeit, potentially better off financially, which some might argue made him smarter.
(but not the smart ones.)

Nice post! The situation seems exacerbated by the judicial systems (of fed govt and the States) since they aren't taking the right measures to correct for perverse incentives.

You did miss the repetition highlighted...though as i said, I almost died in a bike accident, and I wasn't wearing a helmet. (Another 3' and Id have hit the A pillar or roof of a pickup truck and there is no question the damage would have been serious. As it was, both eyes were bouncing back and forth in my head from a serious and obvious concussion. That however, was just from the trauma, and not actual contact to my head...as far as I know.)

But more likely, it was the wedding party last night that was responsible for this current example of repetition.

You guys don't have laws on wearing bicycle helmets??? That's just retarded! Do you have laws for wearing seat belt in cars or is that optional too?

Gillipig wrote:You guys don't have laws on wearing bicycle helmets??? That's just retarded! Do you have laws for wearing seat belt in cars or is that optional too?

here in america we enjoy a little something called FREEDOM

bald_eagle.jpg

john9blue wrote:

Gillipig wrote:You guys don't have laws on wearing bicycle helmets??? That's just retarded! Do you have laws for wearing seat belt in cars or is that optional too?

here in america we enjoy a little something called FREEDOM

bald_eagle.jpg

Except....when using public property, there are many laws you must obey.

Or are you suggesting, speed limits, crosswalks, stop signs, seat belts, airbags etc...are all infringements of your supposed freedom?

AAFitz wrote:

john9blue wrote:

Gillipig wrote:You guys don't have laws on wearing bicycle helmets??? That's just retarded! Do you have laws for wearing seat belt in cars or is that optional too?

here in america we enjoy a little something called FREEDOM

bald_eagle.jpg

Except....when using public property, there are many laws you must obey.

Or are you suggesting, speed limits, crosswalks, stop signs, seat belts, airbags etc...are all infringements of your supposed freedom?

okay first of all, i was being facetious... i'm fully aware that americans are far from free.

secondly, just because you can make a law doesn't mean you should.

AAFitz wrote:

john9blue wrote:

Gillipig wrote:You guys don't have laws on wearing bicycle helmets??? That's just retarded! Do you have laws for wearing seat belt in cars or is that optional too?

here in america we enjoy a little something called FREEDOM

bald_eagle.jpg

Except....when using public property, there are many laws you must obey.

Because nothing affects the public like an unbuckled person.

-TG

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:

AAFitz wrote:

john9blue wrote:

Gillipig wrote:You guys don't have laws on wearing bicycle helmets??? That's just retarded! Do you have laws for wearing seat belt in cars or is that optional too?

here in america we enjoy a little something called FREEDOM

bald_eagle.jpg

Except....when using public property, there are many laws you must obey.

Because nothing affects the public like an unbuckled person.

-TG

Actually, and I apologize if you did previously suffer a head injury from not wearing a helmet...BBS and I, with the help of the CDC conclusively showed that those not wearing helmets, and similarly those unbuckled, very much affect the public to the tune of multiple billions of dollars.

john9blue wrote:

AAFitz wrote:

john9blue wrote:

Gillipig wrote:You guys don't have laws on wearing bicycle helmets??? That's just retarded! Do you have laws for wearing seat belt in cars or is that optional too?

here in america we enjoy a little something called FREEDOM

bald_eagle.jpg

Except....when using public property, there are many laws you must obey.

Or are you suggesting, speed limits, crosswalks, stop signs, seat belts, airbags etc...are all infringements of your supposed freedom?

okay first of all, i was being facetious... i'm fully aware that americans are far from free.

secondly, just because you can make a law doesn't mean you should.

Ok...Ill accept the facetious part, but as I asked, does that mean you think that those other laws are infringements of your freedom? And if so, which ones?

Having to spend money on airbags, seat belts, proper tires, brakes, bumpers? Which are responsible laws and which tremble greatly on your false sense of freedom to choose?

As a follow up question, does the relativity of your objection not become incredibly obvious?

Sometimes, because you can make a law, it means you absolutely should.

Being against laws, just because they are laws is just an utterly ridiculous stance.

In a very real way, it is laws that give you most of your freedom.

Irony is just a big bad bitch that way.

john9blue wrote:

Gillipig wrote:You guys don't have laws on wearing bicycle helmets??? That's just retarded! Do you have laws for wearing seat belt in cars or is that optional too?

here in america we enjoy a little something called FREEDOM

bald_eagle.jpg

I love how someone who lives in a barely functioning democracy is telling someone living in the worlds most democratic country that he has something called freedom. Haha, you made my day johnny boy.

What I think boggles me the most with you guys is you dont seem to be very pragmatic in your approach to freedom. I think you guys need to pick your battles better.

One of these things is worth fighting for and one maybe not so much...

- Bike helmet regulation
- Transparency and Anti-corruption in Big Business/Government interactions

Gillipig wrote:

john9blue wrote:

Gillipig wrote:You guys don't have laws on wearing bicycle helmets??? That's just retarded! Do you have laws for wearing seat belt in cars or is that optional too?

here in america we enjoy a little something called FREEDOM

bald_eagle.jpg

I love how someone who lives in a barely functioning democracy is telling someone living in the worlds most democratic country that he has something called freedom. Haha, you made my day johnny boy.

Well, in his defense, he did already post that he was being facetious.

AAFitz wrote:
Ok...Ill accept the facetious part, but as I asked, does that mean you think that those other laws are infringements of your freedom? And if so, which ones?

Having to spend money on airbags, seat belts, proper tires, brakes, bumpers? Which are responsible laws and which tremble greatly on your false sense of freedom to choose?

As a follow up question, does the relativity of your objection not become incredibly obvious?

Sometimes, because you can make a law, it means you absolutely should.

Being against laws, just because they are laws is just an utterly ridiculous stance.

In a very real way, it is laws that give you most of your freedom.

Irony is just a big bad bitch that way.

i'm not saying that laws which limit your freedom are inherently bad (although i think the vast majority of them are)

but yeah, restrictions on car manufacturers are freedom-limiting because they only affect the customer

on the other hand, drunk driving laws (for example) ensure public safety and therefore ensure freedom rather than limiting it

so no, i'm not against laws just because they're laws... that would make me an anarchist.

you like misrepresenting my position for some reason. do you read my posts?

Gillipig wrote:I love how someone who lives in a barely functioning democracy is telling someone living in the worlds most democratic country that he has something called freedom. Haha, you made my day johnny boy.

hey

hey gilly

shh

can we vote gillipig off the forum?

AAFitz wrote:

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:

AAFitz wrote:

john9blue wrote:

Gillipig wrote:You guys don't have laws on wearing bicycle helmets??? That's just retarded! Do you have laws for wearing seat belt in cars or is that optional too?

here in america we enjoy a little something called FREEDOM

bald_eagle.jpg

Except....when using public property, there are many laws you must obey.

Because nothing affects the public like an unbuckled person.

-TG

Actually, and I apologize if you did previously suffer a head injury from not wearing a helmet...BBS and I, with the help of the CDC conclusively showed that those not wearing helmets, and similarly those unbuckled, very much affect the public to the tune of multiple billions of dollars.

No, not if the rider crashes. Unhelmeted riders injured in a crash have substantially higher healthcare costs than helmeted riders. When the rider is insured, these costs are passed on to others in the form of higher health insurance premiums. Unhelmeted riders are more likely to be uninsured than other riders. When the riders are uninsured, their medical expenses may be paid for using taxpayers’ funds.

If this is your reasoning for supporting mandatory helmet/seatbelt laws, I expect you to likewise support mandatory diet laws, mandatory eugenics programs, and mandatory prophylactic laws. All of these things contribute to the "higher health insurance premiums" and medical expenses being paid with "taxpayers' funds."

You're confusing a sensible law (drunk driving, e.g.) with an enforced money draw (seat belt laws). I shouldn't have to wear a seat belt or helmet if I don't want to. If I crash my bike and become disabled, I or my family must pay the costs. If I had free healthcare then your argument would be valid, but as it stands the only person that pays is me (legally and morally). The fact that health insurance, a program that has ruined health care in the U.S., decides to increase their premiums has nothing to do with me, because 1) insurance is voluntary, and 2) I've lived almost my entire life without health insurance. Because you wish to buy into the scam of insurance has nothing to do with me, and I shouldn't have to accommodate your lifestyle through enforced programs.

-TG

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:

AAFitz wrote:

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:

AAFitz wrote:

john9blue wrote:

Gillipig wrote:You guys don't have laws on wearing bicycle helmets??? That's just retarded! Do you have laws for wearing seat belt in cars or is that optional too?

here in america we enjoy a little something called FREEDOM

bald_eagle.jpg

Except....when using public property, there are many laws you must obey.

Because nothing affects the public like an unbuckled person.

-TG

Actually, and I apologize if you did previously suffer a head injury from not wearing a helmet...BBS and I, with the help of the CDC conclusively showed that those not wearing helmets, and similarly those unbuckled, very much affect the public to the tune of multiple billions of dollars.

No, not if the rider crashes. Unhelmeted riders injured in a crash have substantially higher healthcare costs than helmeted riders. When the rider is insured, these costs are passed on to others in the form of higher health insurance premiums. Unhelmeted riders are more likely to be uninsured than other riders. When the riders are uninsured, their medical expenses may be paid for using taxpayers’ funds.

If this is your reasoning for supporting mandatory helmet/seatbelt laws, I expect you to likewise support mandatory diet laws, mandatory eugenics programs, and mandatory prophylactic laws. All of these things contribute to the "higher health insurance premiums" and medical expenses being paid with "taxpayers' funds."

You're confusing a sensible law (drunk driving, e.g.) with an enforced money draw (seat belt laws). I shouldn't have to wear a seat belt or helmet if I don't want to. If I crash my bike and become disabled, I or my family must pay the costs. If I had free healthcare then your argument would be valid, but as it stands the only person that pays is me (legally and morally). The fact that health insurance, a program that has ruined health care in the U.S., decides to increase their premiums has nothing to do with me, because 1) insurance is voluntary, and 2) I've lived almost my entire life without health insurance. Because you wish to buy into the scam of insurance has nothing to do with me, and I shouldn't have to accommodate your lifestyle through enforced programs.

-TG

Actually, you are the one confused.

You simply think new safety features are silly because you remember a time without them.

There are safety features you don't argue against, because they are so obvious and you've lived with them for so long, you would consider it stupid not to have them.

As far as insurance being a scam, it does seem that way for some who never had a claim, but I know a few people who are alive right now, that surely would have been dead without it, after millions of dollars of health care.

Statistically, it may even be a scam, much like the lottery, but if you lose the lottery you are out a buck or two. If you lose on health care, you are out....everything.

john9blue wrote:

AAFitz wrote:
Ok...Ill accept the facetious part, but as I asked, does that mean you think that those other laws are infringements of your freedom? And if so, which ones?

Having to spend money on airbags, seat belts, proper tires, brakes, bumpers? Which are responsible laws and which tremble greatly on your false sense of freedom to choose?

As a follow up question, does the relativity of your objection not become incredibly obvious?

Sometimes, because you can make a law, it means you absolutely should.

Being against laws, just because they are laws is just an utterly ridiculous stance.

In a very real way, it is laws that give you most of your freedom.

Irony is just a big bad bitch that way.

i'm not saying that laws which limit your freedom are inherently bad (although i think the vast majority of them are)

but yeah, restrictions on car manufacturers are freedom-limiting because they only affect the customer

on the other hand, drunk driving laws (for example) ensure public safety and therefore ensure freedom rather than limiting it

so no, i'm not against laws just because they're laws... that would make me an anarchist.

you like misrepresenting my position for some reason. do you read my posts?

Im not actually representing your position as anything....Im directly asking you what it is, and you avoided answering quite a few of them.

I do make some statements, but they are not directed at you, unless you are guilty of them.

You, like many others, when asked which laws are wrong, simply answer that many are wrong, but when dealing with the specifics and actual details tend to shy away.

So, should antilock brakes not be standard?
Should seatbelts not be standard?
Should bumpers not be standard?
Should emission standards not be set?
Should directionals be optional?
Should any vehicle in any shape be ok to drive?

There are thousands of safety precautions on vehicles, because car accidents are one of the leading causes of death for Americans.

I have seen many of these safety improvements become standard in the 28 years Ive been driving, and while many were cutting edge and controversial to varying degrees when implemented, now they are so common, and obviously necessary that any reasonable person would be silly to argue they are not necessary.

Now, if you want to go drive some substandard vehicle on your private ranch and take the risk of killing yourself, that is freedom, and in most cases it should not be infringed, but when using public roads that affect society at large, as a group and individually, you absolutely should have to follow those safety rules.

While you consider it your right to drive around like a jackass without a helmet or a seat belt, you in a very real way do affect me, because I bear that risk as well, if we get into an accident, which do happen. If I make one mistake, and you arent wearing your seat belt, or a helmet, you may be geometrically more harmed than if you followed some basic, obvious safety precautions, and therefore, very much infringe on my freedom. I am financially responsible for your stupidity in this case, and relatively speaking, only because, at the current moment, you consider some safety features to be unnecessary, that eventually, will be the norm.

Further, as far as a freedom stripping law goes, wearing a seat belt or a helmet, is so non-constricting as to suggest any complaint about it, is from an irrational narcissist.

Here in my part of Canada we have laws mandating helmet use for those under 18, however adults are free to choose. Seems reasonable to me. Children are the much more likely to be involved in a bicycle accident anyway. I used to ride 6km roundtrip to work every day and wore a helmet just to be safe. Why would I needlessly risk cracking my skull? That said, I wouldn't wear a helmet for short rides around home or off in the countryside.

AAfitz wrote:Actually, you are the one confused.

You simply think new safety features are silly because you remember a time without them.

There are safety features you don't argue against, because they are so obvious and you've lived with them for so long, you would consider it stupid not to have them.

As far as insurance being a scam, it does seem that way for some who never had a claim, but I know a few people who are alive right now, that surely would have been dead without it, after millions of dollars of health care.

Statistically, it may even be a scam, much like the lottery, but if you lose the lottery you are out a buck or two. If you lose on health care, you are out....everything.

lol. I'm 25. Helmet and seat belt laws have been around for about as long as I can remember. Again, you're mistaking sensible safety features that actually provide means of protection with those that are intrusive and an excuse for cops to pull you over and give you citations, thereby also giving them an excuse to search your car. If failure to wear a seat belt or helmet is indeed the terrible public offense that you make it out to be, then one's license should be revoked instead of a $75-90 fine.

What's the single most influential factor in rising health care costs?

-TG

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:

AAfitz wrote:Actually, you are the one confused.

You simply think new safety features are silly because you remember a time without them.

There are safety features you don't argue against, because they are so obvious and you've lived with them for so long, you would consider it stupid not to have them.

As far as insurance being a scam, it does seem that way for some who never had a claim, but I know a few people who are alive right now, that surely would have been dead without it, after millions of dollars of health care.

Statistically, it may even be a scam, much like the lottery, but if you lose the lottery you are out a buck or two. If you lose on health care, you are out....everything.

lol. I'm 25. Helmet and seat belt laws have been around for about as long as I can remember. Again, you're mistaking sensible safety features that actually provide means of protection with those that are intrusive and an excuse for cops to pull you over and give you citations, thereby also giving them an excuse to search your car. If failure to wear a seat belt or helmet is indeed the terrible public offense that you make it out to be, then one's license should be revoked instead of a $75-90 fine.

What's the single most influential factor in rising health care costs?

-TG

Arguing the appropriate punishment of the crime, is completely different than arguing if it is a crime at all. If you are now arguing that it should not be a crime, but that it should be punished more fiercely.

Also, you are only 25, so really, you've just been lucky...and I simply suggest you continue to do so.

And your question is irrelevant to the conversation at hand.

AAFitz wrote:Also, you are only 25, so really, you've just been lucky...and I simply suggest you continue to do so.

OK. Thanks! I've never, ever been out in the real world!

-TG

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:

AAFitz wrote:Also, you are only 25, so really, you've just been lucky...and I simply suggest you continue to do so.

OK. Thanks! I've never, ever been out in the real world!

-TG

I know.

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:

AAFitz wrote:Also, you are only 25, so really, you've just been lucky...and I simply suggest you continue to do so.

OK. Thanks! I've never, ever been out in the real world!

-TG

It's over rated. As long as someone brings me cheeseburgers life's good.

Army of GOD wrote:can we vote gillipig off the forum?

AAFitz can go first I reckon.