We, society, needs to stay the fark out of my business. Helmets, seat belts, smoking, etc. Just because someone opts to use or not use something, doesn't make them stupid.

/misspelling something of Fark does that.

misspelling something of on Fark does that.


..or even putting in the wrong word. Dumbass

I don't need society to protect me from anything. I have guns for that.

If someone isn't smart enough to figure out that devices to save your life in the event of an accident are a good thing then the state should positively stay away, after all, what good are those people? Let's have more natural selection.

Helmet laws deprive us of desperately needed organ donors.

Can we please stop passing laws to protect stupid people from themselves and just pass the laws that protect the rest of us from stupid people? Or is that just too reasonable?

Let 'em die.

Except that many of them don't die, and instead wind up costing millions of dollars in medical care. Costs that come from the public treasury (and also in the form of increased health care costs for you and me). Costs that could have been greatly reduced had they worn a helmet/seatbelt/whatever in the first place.

I am in favor of an opt-out system for those free-ballin' libertarians that prefer death over inconvenience. But I suspect that a lot of them might have a sickbed conversion and suddenly decide that they'd rather be kept alive at any cost, after all.

How soon before people seeking votes realize that (a) helmets will reduce regular car accident head injuries and (b) the media can whip up a frenzy to the right demographics and make it happen?

/buying stock in car helmet companies

Empanda: Can we please stop passing laws to protect stupid people from themselves and just pass the laws that protect the rest of us from stupid people? Or is that just too reasonable?

Let me know how that manditory condoms for the poor works out for you.

Marcus Aurelius: I don't need society to protect me from anything. I have guns for that.

Society must protect you from your guns, even if they have to shoot you to do it.

whatever happened to the concept of assumption of risk?

im going to start bubble wrapping myself before i walk outside.

co-conspirator: Let 'em die.

Except that many of them don't die, and instead wind up costing millions of dollars in medical care.


The simple solution is to mandate that anyone who dies while not wearing a helmet can be harvested for organs, thus countering the cost of the ones that don't die. The violence required to kill a helmeted rider is said to render their organs unusable.

Or you could just make em carry extra insurance.

But really, if you wanna mandate something, you should mandate education, and let the people decide from there.

biffb816: co-conspirator: Let 'em die.

Except that many of them don't die, and instead wind up costing millions of dollars in medical care.


The simple solution is to mandate that anyone who dies while not wearing a helmet can be harvested for organs, thus countering the cost of the ones that don't die. The violence required to kill a helmeted rider is said to render their organs unusable.

Or you could just make em carry extra insurance.

But really, if you wanna mandate something, you should mandate education, and let the people decide from there.

We went the more insurance route in Texas. It hasn't worked very well.

The violence required to kill a helmeted rider is said to render their organs unusable.

The proper medical term is "tenderized."

Wisconsin excels at taxing people and trying to be their parents

I'd rather see a law passed that states that the rights for a lawsuit and compensation for a person who opts not to wear a helmet is diminished by 50%. If I hit a motorcycle with my car and the rider is hurt or killed and the damages could have been mitigated by wearing a helmet, then the rider's compensation should be adjusted to reflect that.

Personal responsibility coupled with financial incentive is the way to go.

stpauler: Personal responsibility coupled with financial incentive is the way to go.

Not in this election cycle.

As long as people who ride motorcycles have enough insurance to cover their medical care until their viable organs can be harvested then I don't see the need for a helmet law. It all comes down to personal responsibility and making sure that your choices don't cost me money.

biffb816: The simple solution is to mandate that anyone who dies while not wearing a helmet can be harvested for organs, thus countering the cost of the ones that don't die.

No it wouldn't. There is still a great disparity in the number of people who die versus the number who are just seriously injured, with much more being in the latter category. Those kinds of accidents, where the rider/driver doesn't die, result in more damage than can be treated with an organ transplant. Broken legs, arms, spines and skulls, not to mention muscle damage and nerve/brain damage. It's a nice thought and certainly the number of available organs for transplant would go up, but by no means would it counter the cost of treatment for the injuries sustained by those who didn't die.

biffb816: co-conspirator: Let 'em die.

Except that many of them don't die, and instead wind up costing millions of dollars in medical care.


The simple solution is to mandate that anyone who dies while not wearing a helmet can be harvested for organs, thus countering the cost of the ones that don't die. The violence required to kill a helmeted rider is said to render their organs unusable.

I like that idea, except that most accident victims don't have harvestable organs. They either die at the scene before such harvesting can occur, or have been mangled too badly.

co-conspirator: Let 'em die.

Except that many of them don't die, and instead wind up costing millions of dollars in medical care. Costs that come from the public treasury (and also in the form of increased health care costs for you and me). Costs that could have been greatly reduced had they worn a helmet/seatbelt/whatever in the first place.

Well then its a jobs program isn't it? Lets not pretend the government wouldn't waste the savings on some other ridiculous pile of pap and be thankful that stupid people are willing to keep people gainfully employed and experienced so that when the rest of have an accident they ill have more than enough experience to treat our injuries with a deft hand.

It's an unwinnable argument imho.

/wears a helmet fwiw

I wear a helmet every time I'm on my bike. I've hit pavement and I've got the uneven hairline to prove it. I have had my life saved several times by an inch or two of styrofoam.

That being said, I don't support helmet laws for people over 18. The more people that die from their own stupidity instead of ending up as a vegetable for the next twenty years the better.

And don't forget to sign your organ donor cards!

The law should state that if your in a motorcycle accident, while not wearing a helmet, and end up in the hospital your organs should be harvested. Unless you have enough insurance to cover all of the costs associated with the accident.

Acceptable compromise.

Snowflake Tubbybottom: Well then its a jobs program isn't it? Lets not pretend the government wouldn't waste the savings on some other ridiculous pile of pap and be thankful that stupid people are willing to keep people gainfully employed and experienced so that when the rest of have an accident they ill have more than enough experience to treat our injuries with a deft hand.

We're not talking about government expenditure, we're talking about hospital expenditure. It's not legal to leave someone to die, and when it takes a few hundred thousand to treat (which most people don't have on hand to pay), the hospital raises their rates on everyone else.

The government has nothing to do with it.

co-conspirator: The violence required to kill a helmeted rider is said to render their organs unusable.

The proper medical term is "tenderized."

They could be used to feed the zombies. Not that zombies are real or anything.

/just sayin'

Fine, don't wear a helmet - but don't be asking for any sort of public assistance when you suffer a massive head injury.

curmudge: The law should state that if your in a motorcycle accident, while not wearing a helmet, and end up in the hospital your organs should be harvested. Unless you have enough insurance to cover all of the costs associated with the accident.


How about if "your" in a car accident and get sent to the hospital? Can I have your liver then?

"If people aren't smart enough to figure out on their own that a helmet hitting the asphalt is better than a head, then we, society, need to step in and protect them"

No we don't. It's called natural selection.

Ah helmet laws, the quintessential libertarian issue. The underlaying argument: Should we force those from committing an act that will hurt nobody but themselves.

The problem is, that the actions of not wearing a helmet end up hurting society when we have to pay for their medical costs or just put up with the extra traffic created when these dumbasses hit the pavement during rush hour.

Personal responsibility == fark poor people.

Seabon: Ah helmet laws, the quintessential libertarian issue. The underlaying argument: Should we force those from committing an act that will hurt nobody but themselves.

The problem is, that the actions of not wearing a helmet end up hurting society when we have to pay for their medical costs or just put up with the extra traffic created when these dumbasses hit the pavement during rush hour.

You also have to realize that these actions do not just hurt the rider. These people probably have family and friends that don't want to see these people crippled, much less dead.

LaChanz: ..or even putting in the wrong word. Dumbass

Guess you haven't recognized that fark filter yet.

/and then the monkey flung the poo
//i wrecked myself drunk on a motorcycle helmetless, so i'm getting a kick out of these posts
///was employed and covered by insurance
//hospital collected $1.7m putting me back together
/gotta keep those hospital employees at work, we're in a recession you know
~alcohol does strange things to one's thinking

I think they should raise registration fees on motorcycles to offset the state's cost (my cost) of reassembling riders after an accident.

The majority of injuries people incur in car crashes are head injuries. When they start mandating car drivers and passengers wearing helmuts, I'll listen. Otherwise it's just more nanny statism

I ride, also wear a helmut. Too many deer around here.

LocalCynic: Personal responsibility == fark poor people.

Now, I agree most of the "personal responsibility" shiat is asinine, but this has absolutely nothing to do with poor people. If you can afford a motorcycle, you can afford a helmet. They probably throw one in with most motorcycles nowadays. If you don't want to wear a helmet (because it removes some of the risk that makes motorcycle riding fun in the first place) then you should be able to legally do that. It doesn't harm anyone else (unlike 2nd hand smoke). Sure, the hospital bills could add up, but at one point we have to say personal freedom outstrips public interest, otherwise we'll all be on government mandated diets and exercise programs (because obesity contributes to a lot of health problems and medical bills).

Really, in the age of relatively cheap used cars, the only reason to drive a motorcycle is the thrill. The thrill comes from the risk you take driving one. If the government was really concerned with safety, they'd be trying to ban motorcycles, not mandate helmets.

LaChanz: We, society, needs to stay the fark out of my business. Helmets, seat belts, smoking, etc. Just because someone opts to use or not use something, doesn't make them stupid.

The worst nanny state out there is in Kennesaw, GA, which REQUIRES its citizens to have guns. This is an infringement of the second amendment, which clearly is meant to be a choice.

Nabb1: Helmet laws deprive us of desperately needed organ donors.

Completely. But, we gotta make it illegal to save people who are helmetless and dying from head trauma in bike wrecks. Or else, they need to have mandatory "no helmet" insurance, without which, it's illegal to render them aid without complete pre-payment of all expenses.

Oops looks like others beat me to it already. Sorry.

don't wear helmets...keeps my brothers and mother employed.

/brothers firemen/paramedics
//mom paramedic for life flight

RemyDuron: Sure, the hospital bills could add up, but at one point we have to say personal freedom outstrips public interest, otherwise we'll all be on government mandated diets and exercise programs (because obesity contributes to a lot of health problems and medical bills).

In that case, pass a national sales tax and abolish occupancy limits. Then there are no legitimate arguments against illegal immigration.

I'm such a manly libertarian, I bathe in the effluent streams from my chemical manufacturing plant, work out with depleted uranium and have sex with the HIV positive migrant workers in my third world factories.

I ride and I wear a helmet. I think that people who ride without helmets are morons. I support mandatory helmet laws, seatbelt laws and non-smoking laws not because I care a great deal about those idiots who engage that kind of stupid bevhaviour, but rather because I don't want to be saddled with their rehab and other medical and end of life expenses.

In an ideal world you could ride your bike with no helmet. If you got in a wreck and ended up with a TBI and had to sit in your own piss and shiat until you got decubitus ulcers and died without me having to pay for your sorry ass, that would be fine with me.

do your insurance costs go up if the person you knock off their bike dies? or does it go down because there's no ongoing cost of medical bills?

eatin' fetus I have insurance, I use the safety equipment installed in my vehicles and I've signed my organ donors card so maybe.

You want to ride a motor bike without safety equipment, fine I don't care, just so long as treating your injuries when/if you have an accident doesn't cost society anything. I don't care what extreme sport you chose to engage in, be it jumping out of airplanes or screwing Paris Hilton without a rubber, if you can't cover the cost to society of your stupidity then you should have to pay in some other way.

If someone isn't smart enough to figure out that devices to save your life in the event of an accident are a good thing then the state should positively stay away, after all, what good are those people? Let's have more natural selection.

It would work if we could charge the family of the idiots with the cleanup of such events, but alas it is our tax money wasted sorting out the mess.

LocalCynic - Interesting if that bit about Kennesaw,GA is true. Since I was just scrolling through thread I'm not entirely sure what your initial point was, but as a FOID carrying firearm owner, I do believe it should be a choice. Not everyone is comfortable with guns, thats fine. They shouldn't have anything forced upon them. Much like helmet laws, seatbelt laws etc (Parents not buckling up young children properly not withstanding.) If you cannot conceive of what might happen when you fly through a windshield or over you handle bars then perhaps you're purpose was just to serve as a warning to others.

crap. I meant: your*

hillbillypharmacist: We're not talking about government expenditure, we're talking about hospital expenditure. It's not legal to leave someone to die, and when it takes a few hundred thousand to treat (which most people don't have on hand to pay), the hospital raises their rates on everyone else.

The government has nothing to do with it.

The argument was made that public monies go to treat much of this as they may not be able to cover all the costs through personal insurance and Medicare and Medicaid would then kick in. When they can't pay guess who picks up the tab? And surprisingly its not Hitler this time.