Moderator: Community Team
b.k. barunt wrote: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.
b.k. barunt wrote: When i was a kid nobody wore helmets on bicycles.
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.
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
Metsfanmax wrote:The law in most states is very unfriendly toward vehicular cycling. For example, anyone who has rode a bike through an urban area should know how unintuitive it is that bicycles are required to fully obey stop signs. While there's a lot of controversy among the cycling community about whether to push for full cyclist rights on the road, or to push for separate bicycle lanes, I would contend that either one would go a long way towards making cycling more common. In particular, helmet laws are unpopular because I imagine most people are unfamiliar with the real risks associated with vehicular cycling. On the other hand, a good portion of the cycling community itself rails against helmet laws, just as a general principle of freedom. It seems like the only way to placate everyone is to build separate bike lanes and only require helmets to be mandatory on roads shared with vehicles.
AAFitz wrote:b.k. barunt wrote: When i was a kid nobody wore helmets on bicycles.
Who's side do you think this helps, exactly.
I assume they used lead paint and gasoline too?
Stupidity in the past, does not justify it in the future.
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
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).
The single most effective way for states to save lives and save money is a universal helmet law.
Helmets reduce the risk of death by 37%.
Helmets reduce the risk of head injury by 69%.
The United States saved $3 billion due to helmet use in 2010.
The United States could have saved an additional $1.4 billion in 2010 if all motorcyclists had worn helmets.
Helmets do not reduce visibility or impair hearing.
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.)
AAFitz wrote:The single most effective way for states to save lives and save money is a universal helmet law.
Helmets reduce the risk of death by 37%.
Helmets reduce the risk of head injury by 69%.
The United States saved $3 billion due to helmet use in 2010.
The United States could have saved an additional $1.4 billion in 2010 if all motorcyclists had worn helmets.
Helmets do not reduce visibility or impair hearing.
From the CDC.
http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/mc/states/nh.html
If you assume the stats are close enough to accurate, it is difficult to argue helmets are not worth the slight discomfort.
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
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.
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?
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
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
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?
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
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.
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
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.
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,