Motorcycle Helmets Save Lives? Who'da thunk?

[Rockstar]

T. E. Lawrence (also known as Lawrence of Arabia) had a crash on a Brough Superior SS100 on a narrow road near his cottage near Wareham. The accident occurred because a dip in the road obstructed his view of two boys on bicycles. Swerving to avoid them, Lawrence lost control and was thrown over the handlebars. He was not wearing a helmet, and suffered serious head injuries which left him in a coma; he died after six days in hospital
One of the doctors attending him was the neurosurgeon Hugh Cairns, who consequently began a long study of what he saw as the unnecessary loss of life by motorcycle despatch riders through head injuries. Cairns research led to the use of crash helmets by both military and civilian motorcyclists.

Imagine that? First those Brits claim the Jack Daniels recipe. Now we find out it was a Brit who started helmet laws. Next they'll try to claim they once ruled over us Americuns.

[gimpy117]

and Michigan just repealed it helmet law

[McBeck]

I agree that adults have the experience to make the choice for themselves.

However, you are also rolemodels.
Imagine that its your own son who has the choice and half the adults do not wear helmets. Wouldn't you wish that all bikers wore helmets?

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by McBeck

I agree that adults have the experience to make the choice for themselves.

However, you are also rolemodels.
Imagine that its your own son who has the choice and half the adults do not wear helmets. Wouldn't you wish that all bikers wore helmets?

I do wish that all bikers wore helmets. I also wish that all drivers wore seatbelts. That doesn't give me the right to force them to.

I also agree about the "role models" part. But parents have always said "Do as I say, not as I do", and always will. The line has to be drawn somewhere. The problem is that there are many lines, and very few people can agree on where any of them should be.

[McBeck]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I also agree about the "role models" part. But parents have always said "Do as I say, not as I do", and always will.

If that will not change, then we will not learn.
Kids are imitating us and we have to set the bar high, so they also do so.
The whole "Do as I say, not as I do" is just another way of not taking responsibility for your job as parrent.

i dont get it, how can a law that protects the safety the general public who drives motorcycles impair the freedom of choice?

you can not interpretate your rights to the extreme, its like saying a speed limit near a school impaires your freedom of choice.

freedom of choice is about being able to plan your life as an individual

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by nonverba

i dont get it, how can a law that protects the safety the general public who drives motorcycles impair the freedom of choice?

you can not interpretate your rights to the extreme, its like saying a speed limit near a school impaires your freedom of choice.

freedom of choice is about being able to plan your life as an individual

Totally wrong. We make laws to protect ourselves from each other. The school speed limits protects our children from other drivers. The helmet law attempts to protect us from ourselves. You're right: Where freedom is concerned, you don't get it.

You also don't understand rights. I have the right to do anything I want, as long is it doesn't infringe anyone else's right to do the same.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Totally wrong. We make laws to protect ourselves from each other. The school speed limits protects our children from other drivers. The helmet law attempts to protect us from ourselves. You're right: Where freedom is concerned, you don't get it.

You also don't understand rights. I have the right to do anything I want, as long is it doesn't infringe anyone else's right to do the same.

when you read my post again , and compare to yours i say exact the same thing. My language is not english , so the sentence may not be as fluid but it implies the same thing. try to read and understand the meaning of a sentence before attacking people

ow yeah , you talk about how you are "forced" in an earlier post. Lawmaking bodys in states have that authority in a democrasy. As long as certain basic principles are folowed. these principles protect us ,but we have to give up some freedom. that is called the "social contract" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract


also i live in western europe, not the uk. We have continental law, where us and commonwealth have the common law system. There are some differences, but the basis is the same.

[Sailor Steve]

I guess I'm still not understanding. Do you think helmet laws are good; that people should be forced to wear helmets?

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I guess I'm still not understanding. Do you think helmet laws are good; that people should be forced to wear helmets?

jes i think that law is good.

You are a grandpa, someone with life experience and wisdom. So you must understand that the lawmakers do not intend to attack your freedom of choice, but to protect the general public. you included. and that goal (general publics healt)"outdoes" your individual choice, as described in the social contract.

so why do you feel forced?Maybe you are thinking " yeah but first helmets and what else is next!"

and you are right , a lawmaking body can abuse his authority. But then the other powers come in play to control that power who abuses his authority. This is the idea behind "the trias politica" or separation of power. For example in the US you have the impeachement procedure.

so in the end we do give up a tiny bit of freedom in general, but we get a liveable society in return. That is the idea of the social contract.

i must add that my knowledge of common law is more restricted then continental law, but i do know the basics are in every western country the same,common or continental law.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by nonverba

jes i think that law is good.

Okay, then my comments still stand.

You are a grandpa, someone with life experience and wisdom. So you must understand that the lawmakers do not intend to attack your freedom of choice, but to protect the general public. you included. and that goal (general publics healt)"outdoes" your individual choice, as described in the social contract.

So, as I've said before, we would all be safer if we had little plastic mats in our bathtubs. Should we pass a law that says we have to have those, and send inspectors around to give us tickets if we don't?

so why do you feel forced?Maybe you are thinking " yeah but first helmets and what else is next!"

I'm thinking that if you really want us to be safe on the road then we should also make all cars have roll-cages like race cars do, and then five-point racing seat belts, and everyone in every car should also have to wear helmets.

and you are right , a lawmaking body can abuse his authority. But then the other powers come in play to control that power who abuses his authority. This is the idea behind "the trias politica" or separation of power. For example in the US you have the impeachement procedure.

True, but mostly we just enforce our will by electing somebody different next time.

so in the end we do give up a tiny bit of freedom in general, but we get a liveable society in return. That is the idea of the social contract.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin

This is what freedom is about. We make laws to protect ourselves from each other. We do not make laws to protect us from ourselves.

i must add that my knowledge of common law is more restricted then continental law, but i do know the basics are in every western country the same,common or continental law.

How individual laws differ is not the problem. The problem is people who think they can make people give up freedom for their own good. That is where tyrrany starts.

"Laws provide against injury from others, but not from ourselves."
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Religion

nevermind

I used to ride my bikes without a helmet in the sixties, that was before they changed the law in the UK, dam I was reckless. I even rode around Europe without wearing a helmet one year. But looking back, I was mad, crazy even. I cringe when I think back at those moments of youthfull lunacy and holding the throttle wide open alone the country lanes

Anyone riding without a lid today is mad. The bikes are PDQ nowadays, so quick I'm not sure a lid will help at the high end speeds that a modern machine can achieve. Lets face it, if you got a 961 duke your going to want to wind that throttle back at some point, right.



Dam I used to love riding my Norton on a nice day, especialy with a helmet on.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by sidslotm

IThe bikes are PDQ nowadays, so quick I'm not sure a lid will help at the high end speeds that a modern machine can achieve.

You're absolutely right, except bikes have always been that fast. Aviation pioneer Glenn Hammond Curtiss first achieved fame as a motorcycle builder. He set a world record that stood for 23 years - 136.36 mph (219.45 km/h)...in 1907!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Curtiss

[Penguin]

I think we had thid discussion a few weeks ago and a key question is still how much the individual choice not to wear a helmet infringes on others rights. For example the rights of a patient who wants to undergo surgery but gets postponed because an emergency surgery has to be done on a helmless biker. The ambulance team who prefers to treat some broken bones over scrapping brains from the road. In the case of an accident you use public resources.
The question is also how much it differs from sports accidents. People who go skiing, mountain climbing, etc: no protection is required there. We pay for accidents of those individuals too. And hands on the heart: who of us never hurt himself by doing something stupid and was happy that we were taken care of?

Originally Posted by nonverba

and you are right , a lawmaking body can abuse his authority. But then the other powers come in play to control that power who abuses his authority. This is the idea behind "the trias politica" or separation of power. For example in the US you have the impeachement procedure.

so in the end we do give up a tiny bit of freedom in general, but we get a liveable society in return. That is the idea of the social contract.

The idea of the social contract is a theory, not a law set in stone. To me personally the concept of individual freedom trumps other laws.
Coming from Germany might have something to do with the fact that I have "Alaaaarm" ringing through my inner submarine when a entity wants to step on my freedom for the greater good.

Coming to separation of power: some years ago the number of laws which Germany passed and which originate from the EU was about 40%, today's numbers are probably even higher. So for unpopular laws it's always: "sorry, we can't do much about it, it was passed in Brussels...."
Please tell me how the power is separated when the legislative body in the EU is not democratically elected but derives from the members governments. I do not recognize the authority of the "European Council", as I have no possibility to participate, nor a right to vote for it - the EU parliament is also a sad joke, but at least we are granted to make our cross for them every 5 years...
What last instance do we have: the judicative, here in Germany the supreme court is often the last refugium of liberty, revoking idiotic laws. Oh yeah, in the EU we have the European court of justice, which is more occupied in controlling that EU laws are followed than defending the Europeans from an erosion of the individual rights.

Maybe I am too dumb to understand that it is all the best for me, maybe I am uncapable to decide on my own what's good for me, like a child. However if it is all for the better: why the hell aren't we asked? If something is hard to understand: explain it to us peasants. If we are asked to give up liberty, explain what the greater good is.

All this erosion of liberties and civil rights in the past years was always explained to us that it protects us for our own good. I don't buy it.