Why do we continue wasting time and resources trying to protect people who don’t care enough about themselves to put on a helmet? People who assume this risk for the thrill of the wind blowing in their hair should void any medical coverage they have for head injuries. That’s the price they should pay for their non-conformance to safety regulations. I for one wouldn’t want my tas dollars paying to sustain them in a nursing home for life because of their refusal to wear a helmet. The same should go for those who refuse to wear a seatbelt in a vehicle.
Dread: did it ever occur to you that maybe you and our great government leaders should do away with all so-called “risky” behavior? Yeah, that includes even getting on a motorcycle [statitics prove that helmets are not effective at speeds in excess of 30 mph], skydiving, eating raw oysters, over eating, drinking alcohol, indulging in the consumption of chocolate, kissing, and anything else you or the other “safty nazies” deem to “risky”. Get the point here? When society has no more choices, I suppose we’ll all be good citizens just like you. No thanks. I’ll take liberty over submission any day, even if I have to “pay for it”.
Another statistic for you motorhead, I was going 50 when an idiot backed out in front of my bike and my helmet saved my life. Quote all the statistics you can make up, I will always support mandatory helmet laws.
Can’t argue with that. It makes no sense, so I can’t argue with it. I was just refuting your usual statistics. Statistics mean very little to the brain damaged. Like the young man that that was in the other bed in my hospital room who wasn’t wearing a helmet when he had his accident. Tell his parents why it was much more important that he have freedom than to protect his head. He had no mind left so he couldn’t hear you. The insurance paid huge amounts to keep this drooling moron alive and protected for the rest of his useless life. No other part of the body is as sensitive to injury as the head. That would except you since yours appears to be completely filled with bone or you would have understood the meaning of my earlier post. Freedom at any cost, to others.
the problem is that liberal courts won’t let us just let’em die if they aren’t wearing helmets. they insist on letting the tax dollars pay for their injuries.
that’s the whole problem. the non-helmeters want their freedoms, but they don’t mind getting lifesupport at everybody elses expense.
the helmet law shouldn’t say you have to wear a helmet, it’s just that you have to call somebody else beside 911 when you have a problem, because from then on you become “our” problem.
so, we don’t want to offer safety for the m’cycle rider, but yet, we offer mandatory seatbelt! um.. where is the fairness in that? does that mean i don’t have to wear a seatbelt because the govenor did not make it mandatory? does that mean i can sue the govenor for the person’s medical bills because he did not make it mandatory? if i am the driver of a vehicle and have an accident w/a motorcycle rider, how much of that damage can i blame the rider for not wearing a helmet and how much then i can countersue the state! safety – life is too precious!
helmet $40
insurance – could be lower w/safety helmet saving some medical bill.
life – priceless!
IF I HAD A MOTORCYCLE OR SCOOTER, I WOULD WEAR A HELMUT, BUT I DO NOT WANT THE GOVERNMENT MANDATING IT. IT IS THE GOVERNMENT’S JOB TO PROTECT US FROM OTHERS, NOT OURSELVES! AND TAXPAYERS SHOULD NOT FOOT THE BILL FOR THOSE ELECTING NOT TO WEAR A HELMUT. THEY SHOULD HAVE INSURANCE FOR THAT, JUST AS THEY SHOULD WEAR A HELMUT! I ALSO DO NOT BELIEVE IN SEATBELT LAWS, ESPECIALLY IN STATES THAT DO NOT REQUIRE SEAT BELTS FOR PEOPLE RIDING IN THE BACK OF A TRUCK!
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
Why do we continue wasting time and resources trying to protect people who don’t care enough about themselves to put on a helmet? People who assume this risk for the thrill of the wind blowing in their hair should void any medical coverage they have for head injuries. That’s the price they should pay for their non-conformance to safety regulations. I for one wouldn’t want my tas dollars paying to sustain them in a nursing home for life because of their refusal to wear a helmet. The same should go for those who refuse to wear a seatbelt in a vehicle.
Jenny did something I agree with for once? Good for her.
Dread: did it ever occur to you that maybe you and our great government leaders should do away with all so-called “risky” behavior? Yeah, that includes even getting on a motorcycle [statitics prove that helmets are not effective at speeds in excess of 30 mph], skydiving, eating raw oysters, over eating, drinking alcohol, indulging in the consumption of chocolate, kissing, and anything else you or the other “safty nazies” deem to “risky”. Get the point here? When society has no more choices, I suppose we’ll all be good citizens just like you. No thanks. I’ll take liberty over submission any day, even if I have to “pay for it”.
DREAD’S POINT, I BELIEVE, IS NOT TO ELIMINATE FREEDOM OF CHOICE. JUST THAT TAXPAYERS SHOULD NOT HAVE TO PAY FOR RISKY CHOICES!
Another statistic for you motorhead, I was going 50 when an idiot backed out in front of my bike and my helmet saved my life. Quote all the statistics you can make up, I will always support mandatory helmet laws.
IF YOU WANT MANDATORY HELMET LAWS, HOW ABOUT MANDATORY ARMOR TO PROTECT THE REST OF THE BODY?
Can’t argue with that. It makes no sense, so I can’t argue with it. I was just refuting your usual statistics. Statistics mean very little to the brain damaged. Like the young man that that was in the other bed in my hospital room who wasn’t wearing a helmet when he had his accident. Tell his parents why it was much more important that he have freedom than to protect his head. He had no mind left so he couldn’t hear you. The insurance paid huge amounts to keep this drooling moron alive and protected for the rest of his useless life. No other part of the body is as sensitive to injury as the head. That would except you since yours appears to be completely filled with bone or you would have understood the meaning of my earlier post. Freedom at any cost, to others.
the problem is that liberal courts won’t let us just let’em die if they aren’t wearing helmets. they insist on letting the tax dollars pay for their injuries.
that’s the whole problem. the non-helmeters want their freedoms, but they don’t mind getting lifesupport at everybody elses expense.
the helmet law shouldn’t say you have to wear a helmet, it’s just that you have to call somebody else beside 911 when you have a problem, because from then on you become “our” problem.
so, we don’t want to offer safety for the m’cycle rider, but yet, we offer mandatory seatbelt! um.. where is the fairness in that? does that mean i don’t have to wear a seatbelt because the govenor did not make it mandatory? does that mean i can sue the govenor for the person’s medical bills because he did not make it mandatory? if i am the driver of a vehicle and have an accident w/a motorcycle rider, how much of that damage can i blame the rider for not wearing a helmet and how much then i can countersue the state! safety – life is too precious!
helmet $40
insurance – could be lower w/safety helmet saving some medical bill.
life – priceless!
IF I HAD A MOTORCYCLE OR SCOOTER, I WOULD WEAR A HELMUT, BUT I DO NOT WANT THE GOVERNMENT MANDATING IT. IT IS THE GOVERNMENT’S JOB TO PROTECT US FROM OTHERS, NOT OURSELVES! AND TAXPAYERS SHOULD NOT FOOT THE BILL FOR THOSE ELECTING NOT TO WEAR A HELMUT. THEY SHOULD HAVE INSURANCE FOR THAT, JUST AS THEY SHOULD WEAR A HELMUT! I ALSO DO NOT BELIEVE IN SEATBELT LAWS, ESPECIALLY IN STATES THAT DO NOT REQUIRE SEAT BELTS FOR PEOPLE RIDING IN THE BACK OF A TRUCK!