Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(TreeHugger)   More people suffer serious head injuries in car accidents than in bike accidents. So why do all the mandatory helmet laws only target bicyclists?   (treehugger.com) divider line 169
    More: Stupid, bicycle accident, mountain biker, moving violation  
•       •       •

3081 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 May 2014 at 9:06 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



169 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-05-18 10:05:27 AM  
Incorporate football helmets into your lovemaking.

Trust me on this, it's intensely gratifying.
 
2014-05-18 10:06:19 AM  

mark12A: Helmet/seatbelt laws are the thin edge of the wedge. The TOP of the Slippery Slope. Establishing the right of the government to control your personal behavior for the indirect benefit of society.


I'm pretty sure that all laws are designed to restrict personal behavior for the (direct or indirect) benefit of society.  That's kind of the definition of a law.

/oh, and you know the Slippery Slope is a fallacy, right?
 
2014-05-18 10:07:34 AM  
In 2012 I skidded and rolled my pickup on black ice. It ended up rolling onto the passenger's side in the ditch, and the driver's side window hit me in the head so motherfarking hard I suffered a serious concussion and to this day I don't remember the accident's aftermath because I was in a blackout...stone cold sober. All the glass in my 2000 Toyota Tacoma pickup was intact after the rollover, with the exception of the window that bashed me in the head.

If I'd had a helmet on, the whole episode would have been less traumatic. Unfortunately, I never wear a helmet in the car because that'd be silly. Fortunately, I always wear my seatbelt, and my seatbelt saved my life. My ten year old daughter was with me at the time, and her seatbelt saved her life too. Her only "injury" was a bruise on her neck where the seatbelt restrained her.

/CSB
 
2014-05-18 10:08:19 AM  

brap: Incorporate football helmets into your lovemaking.

Trust me on this, it's intensely gratifying.


But which face guard- place kicker or lineman?
 
2014-05-18 10:12:01 AM  

CruJones: We already have seatbelt laws, which are the car equivalent to helmet laws.  I'd be interested to see if seatbelts and helmets save money, I've always heard the anecdotal evidence that they can cause more money spent, as people without helmets (specifically motorcycles) and seatbelts are more likely to die and not need critical care.  No idea if true, but I'm ok with it being a personal choice/risk.


Life > Money

The first person to reply with a smartass "Life = Money" should know that I'm picturing myself smacking you upside the head.
 
2014-05-18 10:16:05 AM  
Study says that per-hour travel by bike, foot and cycle have similar levels of head injuries, but doesn't say whether those cyclists were helmeted. Head injuries might be higher if the cyclists weren't wearing helmets, but we can't tell from the data TFA cites, so kinda pointless to speculate.

/Doesn't wear a helmet when riding bikeshare bikes, otherwise does.
//Feel safe enough on those bikes because they're so slow.
 
2014-05-18 10:16:40 AM  
From TFA: It turns out that so many people are turned off cycling by helmets that the the lives saved through the exercise and health benefits of cycling among people is greater than the number of lives saved through helmet use.

Do you know of ANYONE who has said to himself "well, I would ride my bike, if it weren't for that darn helmet taking all the fun out of it?"

Bicycling helmets are so unobtrusive.  The five seconds it takes to make sure I'm not wearing the pointy end out front like an idiot, then snapping the snap under my chin isn't even a blip in the "ride/no-ride" decision.  I'd say weather is the bigger dissuading factor, followed closely by the fact that I'm an old fat guy who avoids exercise at any cost.
 
2014-05-18 10:17:35 AM  

nekom: Clearly neither extreme seems proper


I dunno. Laws are meaningless little scribbles of ink on paper written by people like Rick Santorum and John Boehnerto suck up to people like Maud Flanders. I don't trust lawmakers not to fark things up for short term political gain, thus I don't trust a government that allows lawmakers to actually make laws governing certain spheres.

My objection to helmet laws is that personal safety is first and foremost personal. I have no objections to helmets, especially on kids, but I have huge reservations in letting people like Santorum and Boehner have that kind of control over my life. It's simply none of the government's business what an individual citizen does to themselves alone.
 
2014-05-18 10:17:54 AM  

Mad Scientist: brap: Incorporate football helmets into your lovemaking.

Trust me on this, it's intensely gratifying.

But which face guard- place kicker or lineman?


Go with the Lineman's dense bar configuration - for HER pleasure.
 
2014-05-18 10:18:00 AM  
Because bicyclists are idiot menaces and need to be regulated since they're apparently too stupid to follow traffic laws.
 
2014-05-18 10:18:16 AM  

bagumpity: From TFA: It turns out that so many people are turned off cycling by helmets that the the lives saved through the exercise and health benefits of cycling among people is greater than the number of lives saved through helmet use.

Do you know of ANYONE who has said to himself "well, I would ride my bike, if it weren't for that darn helmet taking all the fun out of it?"

Bicycling helmets are so unobtrusive.  The five seconds it takes to make sure I'm not wearing the pointy end out front like an idiot, then snapping the snap under my chin isn't even a blip in the "ride/no-ride" decision.  I'd say weather is the bigger dissuading factor, followed closely by the fact that I'm an old fat guy who avoids exercise at any cost.


Helmets are a pain in the ass when you're OFF the bike. If you're riding from home to work and back, they're fine, but if you're going out to eat or shop or be a tourist, not so much, because you have to carry the stupid thing around.
 
2014-05-18 10:18:23 AM  
About a month ago I got into a bicycle accident where I fractured my left radial bone. I still have about two more weeks of healing. I was very happy that I was wearing my helmet because I very well could have fell on my head. If other people don't want to wear helmets I couldn't care less though I think it's a dumb decision. As far as I'm concerned I'll happily wear a seatbelt in the car and use a helmet while biking.

I just think the people making a big deal about those laws requiring either because the Gubmint is encroaching on my freedoms are going overboard. Those laws are asking you to do something simple that may save your life someday. The Goverment does worse things than that.
 
2014-05-18 10:18:30 AM  
I'm a proponent of not forcing people to wear helmets or seat belts. If you aren't wearing one, however, your insurance (life or property) company should be to deny any claims if you die or are injured in a wreck. You should be a mandatory organ donor in those instances, too.
 
2014-05-18 10:20:08 AM  
What I want is real bike helmets back.  The soft shell pieces of crap they make today are just shiat compared to what they were a few years back.  Bring back the Bell Tour Lite or Bell II.
 
2014-05-18 10:30:34 AM  
A person should be completely able to ride/drive whatever thy want without a helmet, provided it is well documented that if you do not follow the minimal suggested safety procedures that you waive all right to public assistance if you happen to fark yourself over.

Independent action, independent consequences. I'm all for libertarianism provided those libertarians don't expect other people to pay for their dumb choices.
 
2014-05-18 10:30:51 AM  

Day_Old_Dutchie: CruJones: We already have seatbelt laws, which are the car equivalent to helmet laws.  I'd be interested to see if seatbelts and helmets save money, I've always heard the anecdotal evidence that they can cause more money spent, as people without helmets (specifically motorcycles) and seatbelts are more likely to die and not need critical care.  No idea if true, but I'm ok with it being a personal choice/risk.

It's complicated..depending how you look at the problem,

http://www.cycle-helmets.com/results.html

Of course the is the land down under. Where just about everything is out to kill you.


Helmets aren't going to help them if they crash into a pool of wallaby venom or get hit with a barrage of poisonous kola quills.
 
2014-05-18 10:31:29 AM  

nekom: doglover: I don't understand why helmets are required for adults. Yes, you could be seriously hurt and brain damaged from a fall off of a bike. Then again, you could just as easily choose to stay home and drink Draino. So much in this world COULD happen, why should we mandate that certain events be safeguarded against while others which are equal or greater risks are not?

My inner libertarian tends to agree, but on the other hand you know we're all paying for these idiots who crack their skulls open and have to undergo tens of thousands of dollars worth of medical treatment.


We shouldn't be paying for people's injuries like that.  This is the problem with getting the government involved.... It goes from, "Ehh...You want to fark yourself up?  Go right ahead... whatever, it's a free country" to "Wrap yourself in bubble wrap because your body now belongs to the state, instead of yourself."
 
2014-05-18 10:40:06 AM  

LazyMedia: Study says that per-hour travel by bike, foot and cycle have similar levels of head injuries, but doesn't say whether those cyclists were helmeted. Head injuries might be higher if the cyclists weren't wearing helmets, but we can't tell from the data TFA cites, so kinda pointless to speculate.

/Doesn't wear a helmet when riding bikeshare bikes, otherwise does.
//Feel safe enough on those bikes because they're so slow.


Yes. All the stats in TFA could possibly be evidence that bike helmets WORK! Just think of how high the percentage would be fire bikes if people weren't wearing helmets.
 
2014-05-18 10:42:05 AM  

HeartBurnKid: /oh, and you know the Slippery Slope is a fallacy, right?


Hahahahaha.

Oh, you're serious?  Let me laugh even harder.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
 
2014-05-18 10:45:23 AM  

06Wahoo: HeartBurnKid: /oh, and you know the Slippery Slope is a fallacy, right?

Hahahahaha.

Oh, you're serious?  Let me laugh even harder.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


I've never seen somebody so amused by their own ignorance.
 
2014-05-18 10:47:57 AM  

K3rmy: GDubDub: baka-san: You sir are dumb, and your will never stop being dumb.

Shese.

1/10 or 10/10.

I just can't tell any more.

Quickly typed and submitted apparently with the need to check what little was written.  Probably done in hopes of instigating a response (i.e. troll) rather than vitriol.

In short, the type of person who needs to wear a helmet while type.  You can never be too safe.


While type? huh.

-Motorcycles are just dangerous and the risk ratio is too high for any kind of benefit. Motorcycles should just be banned or slowly squeezed out I production.
-cars also carry a risk, but not as large. However considering the number of fatalities, we should issue a law that within the next 10 years to block and kind if job that doesn't require personal appearance and have the people work from home.


/sorry about the haphazard thoughts, too many motorcycle crashes
//second idea is actually amusing in a "what if" scenario
///sudden slashies
 
2014-05-18 10:48:00 AM  
Because bycyclists are more valuable to society and actually have brains to protect. Unlike motorists.
 
2014-05-18 10:51:11 AM  
Author heading for a high noon showdown with Darwin. Darwin's shot may be slow but it is straight and never misses a target.
 
2014-05-18 10:55:19 AM  
I've already mentioned that the average IQ I see on Fark appears to drop on a yearly basis, This thread is a very good example of that.
 
2014-05-18 11:04:18 AM  

Dirty J1: Any law that has to do with personal safety only and won't affect anyone else should just be dropped, then we can let survival of the fittest take over. Helmets and seatbelts mostly. I mean if they don't wear them they are only hurting themselves. The idiots that die because they dont wear them? Oh well, so sad.... Those smart enough to wear them will live on. Same with all sorts of stuff like safety glasses, hard hats, respirators..... They don't wanna wear them fine. Ain't gonna effect me none. That's why the world is going to hell is because of all these laws protecting stupid people and now said stupid people get to live on to make more stupid people. These laws are messing with the natural order of things and have to stop.


In addition, I'm not saying we shouldn't push safety items on people. We still need to at least suggest them so we can say we told ya so and avoid legal confrontation because they weren't aware of said safety items. And also need to give incentive. Not sure if it already works like this, but let insurance companies deny coverage at their discretion for those injured/dead from not wearing recommended safety devices. So for a smart person like me, I would heed the safety warnings and use the devices, and i sure as hell would knowing my insurance can deny me if I don't. Now those left that do die because they don't wear their seatbelt kind of help society.
Less stupid people and lower insurance rates!
 
2014-05-18 11:09:09 AM  

KidneyStone: I think mandatory helmet laws (for motorcycles) suck.

Having said that, I've had three low speed dumps - I wouldn't go so far as to say crashes - and hit my head each time.  I don't even remember hitting my head but the scratches on my helmet told me I did.  So i almost always wear my helmet.  The only exception is very short rides where it's legal.


I'm okay with letting motorcycle riders go helmetless, but they  should be forced to post a bond to covers all medical bills related to head injuries.

/we used to have a helmet law in PA
//Motorcycling morons got it repealed
///Surprise! Head injuries shot up after the repeal
 
2014-05-18 11:09:29 AM  

RainDawg: Because bycyclists are more valuable to society and actually have brains to protect. Unlike motorists.


Lmfao really? Bicyclists are more valuable? Most of the cyclists i see commuting to work dont appear to be the "save the environment and excercise" type, but more the "I've had way too many DUIs and lost my license again" types.
 
2014-05-18 11:10:31 AM  

Resident Muslim: K3rmy: GDubDub: baka-san: You sir are dumb, and your will never stop being dumb.

Shese.

1/10 or 10/10.

I just can't tell any more.

Quickly typed and submitted apparently without the need to check what little was written.  Probably done in hopes of instigating a response (i.e. troll) rather than vitriol.

In short, the type of person who needs to wear a helmet while type typing.  You can never be too safe.

While type? huh.

-Motorcycles are just dangerous and the risk ratio is too high for any kind of benefit. Motorcycles should just be banned or slowly squeezed out I production.
-cars also carry a risk, but not as large. However considering the number of fatalities, we should issue a law that within the next 10 years to block and kind if job that doesn't require personal appearance and have the people work from home.


/sorry about the haphazard thoughts, too many motorcycle crashes
//second idea is actually amusing in a "what if" scenario
///sudden slashies


FTFM

My grammar is bad due to the fact that I am a product of US public schooling.  I do not wear a helmet as a courtesy to the rest of humanity in the hopes that when, not if, I do something stupid, I won't survive it thus taking myself out of the gene pool.

Now hold my beer and watch this. . .
 
2014-05-18 11:19:29 AM  

HeartBurnKid: mark12A: Helmet/seatbelt laws are the thin edge of the wedge. The TOP of the Slippery Slope. Establishing the right of the government to control your personal behavior for the indirect benefit of society.

I'm pretty sure that all laws are designed to restrict personal behavior for the (direct or indirect) benefit of society.  That's kind of the definition of a law.

/oh, and you know the Slippery Slope is a fallacy, right?


You'll notice the OP only noted an objection to laws restricting personal behavior for the indirect benefit of society.

Almost everyone who tries to cite the slippery slope as a fallacy (including yourself) is doing it wrong. It is only a fallacy if it is clearly claimed that "A must necessarily lead to B". There is nothing fallacious at all about "A may lead to B", or even "A will probably lead to B", and of course there are many instances in politics and in life where such concerns are valid.
 
2014-05-18 11:21:21 AM  

Shadowknight: oh, and there are a lot more people in cars than there are riding bikes, thus a larger number of injured
//but that's too obvious to say, right Subby?


This is one of those times where someone is trying to be clever and hope nobody notices the huge flaw in what they are trying to slip past people who have other thing on their minds and simply scan instead of read. Subby may be a troll but the author of the piece (if he actually believes what he wrote) needs a "Special" helmet all his own and should be on a short bus instead of riding a bike.
 
2014-05-18 11:22:39 AM  
i.chzbgr.com
 
2014-05-18 11:24:48 AM  

Dwight_Yeast: KidneyStone: I think mandatory helmet laws (for motorcycles) suck.

Having said that, I've had three low speed dumps - I wouldn't go so far as to say crashes - and hit my head each time.  I don't even remember hitting my head but the scratches on my helmet told me I did.  So i almost always wear my helmet.  The only exception is very short rides where it's legal.

I'm okay with letting motorcycle riders go helmetless, but they  should be forced to post a bond to covers all medical bills related to head injuries.

/we used to have a helmet law in PA
//Motorcycling morons got it repealed
///Surprise! Head injuries shot up after the repeal


Ha! That reminds me of all the hoopla when, 3yrs after that law was repealed and 2yrs after he signed with the Steelers, Roethlisberger crashed his motorcycle without a helmet on.

I've always wondered if wearing a helmet was put into Big Sports contracts after that happened, it sure was a topic of conversation around here.

I cringe everytime I see a helmetless motorcycle rider. I've known too many who have been in accidents WITH a helmet.
 
2014-05-18 11:25:01 AM  

Fark like a Barsoomian: [i.chzbgr.com image 492x528]


I bet that seemed like a good idea after a case of beer.
 
2014-05-18 11:27:35 AM  

oa330_man: Maybe I'm clueless, but where in the world is it required that an adult wear a helmet to ride a bicycle?  I ride a lot and sometimes go without a lid.  My reasoning is I want to feel the wind blow through my hair once more, before it's gone.


Your state of Mexico for starters.

http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws/helmet_laws.html

or more specifically

http://www.cdc.gov/injury/pdfs/ss/NewMexico_helmet-a.pdf

Yes you are clueless.
 
2014-05-18 11:29:31 AM  

CaptSS: oa330_man: Maybe I'm clueless, but where in the world is it required that an adult wear a helmet to ride a bicycle?  I ride a lot and sometimes go without a lid.  My reasoning is I want to feel the wind blow through my hair once more, before it's gone.

Your state of Mexico for starters.

http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws/helmet_laws.html

or more specifically

http://www.cdc.gov/injury/pdfs/ss/NewMexico_helmet-a.pdf

Yes you are clueless.


That should read "Your state of New Mexico." I hate nor being able to edit a post.
 
2014-05-18 11:32:14 AM  
For those who didn't bother to actually read the article,

Stromberg shows that even looking at the number of injuries per hour of travel, which compensates for the fact that there are a lot more drivers than cyclists, the rate of head injuries is not significantly different between walking, cycling or driving.

I know of a brain surgeon who refuses to wear a cycle helmet as the injuries that he sees from such incidents tend to be from a twisting nature caused by the streamlined design which snags in fixed objects. Twisting injuries are much worse than sudden stops - at normal cycle speeds.

He, not I, reckons that only round basin type helmets should be allowed.
 
2014-05-18 11:33:34 AM  

Dirty J1: Any law that has to do with personal safety only and won't affect anyone else should just be dropped, then we can let survival of the fittest take over. Helmets and seatbelts mostly. I mean if they don't wear them they are only hurting themselves. The idiots that die because they dont wear them? Oh well, so sad.... Those smart enough to wear them will live on. Same with all sorts of stuff like safety glasses, hard hats, respirators..... They don't wanna wear them fine. Ain't gonna effect me none. That's why the world is going to hell is because of all these laws protecting stupid people and now said stupid people get to live on to make more stupid people. These laws are messing with the natural order of things and have to stop.


I am guessing this is sarcasm, but either way, do you think that helmet/seatbelt laws are about additional revenue and more reasons for legal searches or about safety?
 
2014-05-18 11:35:36 AM  
1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-05-18 11:48:31 AM  

roc6783: Dirty J1: Any law that has to do with personal safety only and won't affect anyone else should just be dropped, then we can let survival of the fittest take over. Helmets and seatbelts mostly. I mean if they don't wear them they are only hurting themselves. The idiots that die because they dont wear them? Oh well, so sad.... Those smart enough to wear them will live on. Same with all sorts of stuff like safety glasses, hard hats, respirators..... They don't wanna wear them fine. Ain't gonna effect me none. That's why the world is going to hell is because of all these laws protecting stupid people and now said stupid people get to live on to make more stupid people. These laws are messing with the natural order of things and have to stop.

I am guessing this is sarcasm, but either way, do you think that helmet/seatbelt laws are about additional revenue and more reasons for legal searches or about safety?


I'm not really being sarcastic, but you make a good point. I'm sure it's just as much about revenue and searches as it is safety, and that's unfortunate. In a perfect world it would be all about the safety but thats really not the case is it? Still I think society should forego the revenue and make it a personal safety option. Making everything about money is making things worse than they need to be.
 
2014-05-18 11:50:09 AM  

HeartBurnKid: mark12A: Helmet/seatbelt laws are the thin edge of the wedge. The TOP of the Slippery Slope. Establishing the right of the government to control your personal behavior for the indirect benefit of society.

I'm pretty sure that all laws are designed to restrict personal behavior for the (direct or indirect) benefit of society.  That's kind of the definition of a law.

/oh, and you know the Slippery Slope is a fallacy, right?


Yeah. just ask the smokers.
 
2014-05-18 11:50:18 AM  
lunkhed:
I know of a brain surgeon who refuses to wear a cycle helmet as the injuries that he sees from such incidents tend to be from a twisting nature caused by the streamlined design which snags in fixed objects. Twisting injuries are much worse than sudden stops - at normal cycle speeds.

Most bicycle helmets - or Little Foam Hats - are pretty good at stopping injuries at low speeds. Like falling off your bike while stopped or doing a couple of miles per hour.

They're pretty much useless at higher speed impacts (hit by a car, for example), and can cause other issues, such as overheating in hot climates.
 
2014-05-18 11:53:01 AM  

Skyrmion: HeartBurnKid: mark12A: Helmet/seatbelt laws are the thin edge of the wedge. The TOP of the Slippery Slope. Establishing the right of the government to control your personal behavior for the indirect benefit of society.

I'm pretty sure that all laws are designed to restrict personal behavior for the (direct or indirect) benefit of society.  That's kind of the definition of a law.

/oh, and you know the Slippery Slope is a fallacy, right?

You'll notice the OP only noted an objection to laws restricting personal behavior for the indirect benefit of society.


So he only has an issue with 99% of the laws on the books, rather than all of them, then?

Almost everyone who tries to cite the slippery slope as a fallacy (including yourself) is doing it wrong. It is only a fallacy if it is clearly claimed that "A must necessarily lead to B". There is nothing fallacious at all about "A may lead to B", or even "A will probably lead to B", and of course there are many instances in politics and in life where such concerns are valid.

Except that he uses it as "A must necessarily lead to B".  He says the government shouldn't make people wear helmets because it'll lead inevitably to all kinds of other restrictions.  What if... and I know, I'm just talking crazy here... we let them regulate helmets, and then stop them from doing the really crazy stuff?
 
2014-05-18 11:53:27 AM  

Carousel Beast: HeartBurnKid: mark12A: Helmet/seatbelt laws are the thin edge of the wedge. The TOP of the Slippery Slope. Establishing the right of the government to control your personal behavior for the indirect benefit of society.

I'm pretty sure that all laws are designed to restrict personal behavior for the (direct or indirect) benefit of society.  That's kind of the definition of a law.

/oh, and you know the Slippery Slope is a fallacy, right?

Yeah. just ask the smokers.


cf067b.medialib.glogster.com
They keep saying "WHOOOSH," with the occasional "GLUB."
 
2014-05-18 11:53:44 AM  

Carousel Beast: HeartBurnKid: mark12A: Helmet/seatbelt laws are the thin edge of the wedge. The TOP of the Slippery Slope. Establishing the right of the government to control your personal behavior for the indirect benefit of society.

I'm pretty sure that all laws are designed to restrict personal behavior for the (direct or indirect) benefit of society.  That's kind of the definition of a law.

/oh, and you know the Slippery Slope is a fallacy, right?

Yeah. just ask the smokers.


Yes, yes, I know, banning smoking in restaurants is going to lead to a wholesale ban on smoking any day now.  I get it.
 
2014-05-18 11:55:26 AM  

Linux_Yes: yea?  you shouldn't have to wear a helmet.

 and when you crack your skull, the taxpayer shouldn't have to treat you.


Aren't you the socialist?
 
2014-05-18 11:58:53 AM  

LazyMedia: bagumpity: From TFA: It turns out that so many people are turned off cycling by helmets that the the lives saved through the exercise and health benefits of cycling among people is greater than the number of lives saved through helmet use.

Do you know of ANYONE who has said to himself "well, I would ride my bike, if it weren't for that darn helmet taking all the fun out of it?"

Bicycling helmets are so unobtrusive.  The five seconds it takes to make sure I'm not wearing the pointy end out front like an idiot, then snapping the snap under my chin isn't even a blip in the "ride/no-ride" decision.  I'd say weather is the bigger dissuading factor, followed closely by the fact that I'm an old fat guy who avoids exercise at any cost.

Helmets are a pain in the ass when you're OFF the bike. If you're riding from home to work and back, they're fine, but if you're going out to eat or shop or be a tourist, not so much, because you have to carry the stupid thing around.


Can't you lock it to the bike?
 
2014-05-18 11:59:12 AM  
HeartBurnKid:
/oh, and you know the Slippery Slope is a fallacy, right?

It can be - but it's actually a form of useful logic which CAN become a fallacy if taken to silly extremes.

In this case, "if you allow the government to assume some control, they'll take more" is a use of this logic - and is backed up by, basically, the entire history of the human race.

It's mostly seen as the Law of Unintended Consequences.

In this case, "if we allow the government to require seat belts, they'll end up requiring more regulations."

"Don't be silly, this is just about seat belts. Oh, by the way, car makers have to start designing cars to be safer, so you need air bags. And crumple zones."

"See?"

"Don't be silly. Oh, by the way, cars will be required to have backup cameras in a couple of years."
 
2014-05-18 12:03:36 PM  

Pattuq: CruJones: We already have seatbelt laws, which are the car equivalent to helmet laws.  I'd be interested to see if seatbelts and helmets save money, I've always heard the anecdotal evidence that they can cause more money spent, as people without helmets (specifically motorcycles) and seatbelts are more likely to die and not need critical care.  No idea if true, but I'm ok with it being a personal choice/risk.

Life > Money

The first person to reply with a smartass "Life = Money" should know that I'm picturing myself smacking you upside the head.


Actually, money > life. Why else would so many people risk their lives to make money?

Or, why are those with money be able to wage war, putting those without money in harm's way?

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that life is cheap, and money is very important.
 
2014-05-18 12:04:37 PM  

Triumph: If Michael Schumacher hadn't been wearing a helmet while skiing, he'd probably be dead now instead of in a coma.


Not necessarily.

I'm a big believer in helmets, since a bicycle helmet saved my life in the 90's, but this logic is just flat out wrong. Risk homeostasis theory is well established, and states that an organism will stay at a certain level of risk, so if Schumacher weren't wearing the helmet, he might have been more careful and never been in the crash in the first place.

When I'm rock climbing and take a fall 300ft off the ground, it's tempting to say "if I weren't using a rope, I'd be dead right now". But the fact remains that if I were free soloing, I would be much more focussed and much more cognizant of each individual move.
 
2014-05-18 12:05:06 PM  
Having passenger seats facing backwards in all vehicles (cars, busses, planes, etc.) would  avoid many serious injuries and save many lives, especially in the case of a plane crash. Will it ever happen? No.
 
Displayed 50 of 169 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report