Skip to content
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.

(KY3 Springfield)   After 39 years, Missouri GOP finally succeeds in repealing the state's motorcycle helmet law. State-level stupidity trifecta now in play   (ky3.com) divider line
    More: Asinine, Automobile, Traumatic brain injury, Motorcycle, Veto, Senate, year's legislative session, United States Congress, state's helmet requirement  
•       •       •

2309 clicks; posted to Main » and Politics » on 19 May 2020 at 12:41 AM (6 days ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2020-05-18 6:51:54 PM  
The quote from the MO Insurance Commissioner is spot on, and is exactly what will happen. Everyone in the state will have to "pay" for these idiots' freedom to more easily get killed in an accident.

This may sound callous, but: Perhaps what insurers need to do is charge motorcyclists 4-5x higher rates, since their specific risk is so much higher now. Or better yet: Get in an accident and you weren't wearing a helmet? Claim denied. Period.
 
2020-05-18 7:03:13 PM  
That loud sound you heard were motorcycle insurance rates going through the roof in that state..
They have to do that to cover the cost for Billy-Jo angry white guy and his and his goatee to ride around
without a helmet because FREEEDUMBS...
 
2020-05-18 7:03:53 PM  

Mr. Shabooboo: That loud sound you heard were motorcycle insurance rates going through the roof in that state..
They have to do that to cover the cost for Billy-Jo angry white guy and his and his goatee to ride around
without a helmet because FREEEDUMBS...


Yep. So glad I moved out of that hellish place.
 
2020-05-18 7:21:10 PM  
Eh, I'm okay with letting idiots prove their wasteful presence in life. It's when they have passengers who may not know better or be of an age to decide.

I ride with a helmet and always will. I've taken my share of spills and most of them involved a helmet slap onto the asphalt that would have otherwise been my head and enough force to knock me unconscious. And luckily so because crawling out of traffic is usually important.
 
2020-05-18 7:42:29 PM  

Mr. Shabooboo: That loud sound you heard were motorcycle insurance rates going through the roof in that state..
They have to do that to cover the cost for Billy-Jo angry white guy and his and his goatee to ride around
without a helmet because FREEEDUMBS...


Let the market sort it out!

Idiots. Dead or vegetative idiots.

Repeal seatbelt laws next, morons.
Don't forget to mandate smoking at the gas station, too.
 
2020-05-18 7:47:01 PM  
We always wore a helmet as kids. It was just common sense.
Full face helmets were hard to come by in the '60s  but we did the best we could.
I was 8 years old.
We would also cobble together some riding gear. we were low dig so we kinda had to make do.
At least we were smart enough to try.
 
2020-05-18 7:51:04 PM  
Back when I was young and immortal, I crashed my motorcycle into a bus.  I went flying through the air and hit the pavement.  I remember very vividly the view from from the full-face helmet.  Without it, I wouldn't remember.
 
2020-05-18 8:08:08 PM  
New Hampshire has no helmet law and I'm perfectly monkey dishwasher.
 
2020-05-18 8:42:32 PM  
I'm always been supportive of a different helmet law, for motorcycles and bicycles. It's the defacto organ donor law..

You get munched/maimed/killed in an accident while not wearing a helmet, you have volunteered to be an organ donor, presumed. This can be over-ridden by an explicit request that you not be an organ donor, especially if you've got some special reason to suspect that you harbor some latent infectious disease. Otherwise, your organs are destined to help someone who didn't volunteer them with so much gusto.
 
7 days ago  
I don't think the government has the right to tell me to wear a helmet and the insurance argument worries me because everything I do might cost someone else some money. But I also think, as government overreach goes, this is very small potatoes. It's almost like the point is to distract people from the serious overreach.
 
7 days ago  

wademh: I'm always been supportive of a different helmet law, for motorcycles and bicycles. It's the defacto organ donor law..

You get munched/maimed/killed in an accident while not wearing a helmet, you have volunteered to be an organ donor, presumed. This can be over-ridden by an explicit request that you not be an organ donor, especially if you've got some special reason to suspect that you harbor some latent infectious disease. Otherwise, your organs are destined to help someone who didn't volunteer them with so much gusto.


The people pushing for this are in their 50's and above, not many healthy organs left.
I know, I've been riding for 40 years and the only ones who bring this up are people my age.
 
7 days ago  
It's really just giving you permission to laugh when they die in accidents without feeling guilty. No issue with that.
 
7 days ago  
Their choice.

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
7 days ago  
Go ahead, ya f*cking morons. I worked at Harley-Davidson in college, in Arizona, which doesn't have a helmet law. Lots of stories of idiots thinking they're invulnerable or some kind of exception, getting scraped, medium rare, off of 150-160 degree pavement. I guess they're lucky their heads get crushed before they get cooked.

The laws of physics don't care about your belief in God or your self-attributed expertise in riding. Something close to what... 90% of drivers think they're better-than-average drivers? Same with motorcycles. Personally, I don't think an adult (kids are a different story altogether) should be told to wear a helmet or not, but if somebody has people who depend on them, and they go and do jackass things, leaving orphans or spouses behind... they're an ass.
 
7 days ago  

AliceBToklasLives: I don't think the government has the right to tell me to wear a helmet and the insurance argument worries me because everything I do might cost someone else some money. But I also think, as government overreach goes, this is very small potatoes. It's almost like the point is to distract people from the serious overreach.


That's sarcasm, right?
 
7 days ago  

ecmoRandomNumbers: Go ahead, ya f*cking morons. I worked at Harley-Davidson in college, in Arizona, which doesn't have a helmet law. Lots of stories of idiots thinking they're invulnerable or some kind of exception, getting scraped, medium rare, off of 150-160 degree pavement. I guess they're lucky their heads get crushed before they get cooked.

The laws of physics don't care about your belief in God or your self-attributed expertise in riding. Something close to what... 90% of drivers think they're better-than-average drivers? Same with motorcycles. Personally, I don't think an adult (kids are a different story altogether) should be told to wear a helmet or not, but if somebody has people who depend on them, and they go and do jackass things, leaving orphans or spouses behind... they're an ass.


All due respect, the last part of that really negates the idea that adults should be exempted from being told to wear a helmet.
 
7 days ago  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: ecmoRandomNumbers: Go ahead, ya f*cking morons. I worked at Harley-Davidson in college, in Arizona, which doesn't have a helmet law. Lots of stories of idiots thinking they're invulnerable or some kind of exception, getting scraped, medium rare, off of 150-160 degree pavement. I guess they're lucky their heads get crushed before they get cooked.

The laws of physics don't care about your belief in God or your self-attributed expertise in riding. Something close to what... 90% of drivers think they're better-than-average drivers? Same with motorcycles. Personally, I don't think an adult (kids are a different story altogether) should be told to wear a helmet or not, but if somebody has people who depend on them, and they go and do jackass things, leaving orphans or spouses behind... they're an ass.

All due respect, the last part of that really negates the idea that adults should be exempted from being told to wear a helmet.


It's their decision. But I empathize with the survivors. Dead guy is dead.
 
7 days ago  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: AliceBToklasLives: I don't think the government has the right to tell me to wear a helmet and the insurance argument worries me because everything I do might cost someone else some money. But I also think, as government overreach goes, this is very small potatoes. It's almost like the point is to distract people from the serious overreach.

That's sarcasm, right?


Make smoking illegal since smokers clearly cost others money. And trans fats. Maybe a fine for going to McDonalds twice in one week. Oh, and promiscuous people should pay an extra tax.
 
7 days ago  

AliceBToklasLives: Grand_Moff_Joseph: AliceBToklasLives: I don't think the government has the right to tell me to wear a helmet and the insurance argument worries me because everything I do might cost someone else some money. But I also think, as government overreach goes, this is very small potatoes. It's almost like the point is to distract people from the serious overreach.

That's sarcasm, right?

Make smoking illegal since smokers clearly cost others money. And trans fats. Maybe a fine for going to McDonalds twice in one week. Oh, and promiscuous people should pay an extra tax.


Not all slopes are slippery you know.
 
6 days ago  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: AliceBToklasLives: Grand_Moff_Joseph: AliceBToklasLives: I don't think the government has the right to tell me to wear a helmet and the insurance argument worries me because everything I do might cost someone else some money. But I also think, as government overreach goes, this is very small potatoes. It's almost like the point is to distract people from the serious overreach.

That's sarcasm, right?

Make smoking illegal since smokers clearly cost others money. And trans fats. Maybe a fine for going to McDonalds twice in one week. Oh, and promiscuous people should pay an extra tax.

Not all slopes are slippery you know.


It's not a slippery slope to test where principles might apply.

Usefully, classical liberalism offers such a principle: the Mill's Harm Principle. Government (and the public) cannot interfere with an individual's actions unless those actions cause or are likely to cause harm to others. And that's precisely where the helmet debate lies. The question becomes "in what way does not wearing a helmet cause harm to others while smoking does not?" I don't think it's an easy question to answer, especially in a world so interconnected.
 
6 days ago  

AliceBToklasLives: Grand_Moff_Joseph: AliceBToklasLives: Grand_Moff_Joseph: AliceBToklasLives: I don't think the government has the right to tell me to wear a helmet and the insurance argument worries me because everything I do might cost someone else some money. But I also think, as government overreach goes, this is very small potatoes. It's almost like the point is to distract people from the serious overreach.

That's sarcasm, right?

Make smoking illegal since smokers clearly cost others money. And trans fats. Maybe a fine for going to McDonalds twice in one week. Oh, and promiscuous people should pay an extra tax.

Not all slopes are slippery you know.

It's not a slippery slope to test where principles might apply.

Usefully, classical liberalism offers such a principle: the Mill's Harm Principle. Government (and the public) cannot interfere with an individual's actions unless those actions cause or are likely to cause harm to others. And that's precisely where the helmet debate lies. The question becomes "in what way does not wearing a helmet cause harm to others while smoking does not?" I don't think it's an easy question to answer, especially in a world so interconnected.


The price of a pack of cigarettes is mostly tax. Which is supposed to go mainly to cancer research and smoking prevention.

Where's the tax for those who don't wear a helmet?

I'm a disability attorney and have been for 20+ years. In those 20+ years, I've had roughly the same amount of clients disabled due to a motorcycle crash as those disabled by a car crash. Yet there are what, 100 times more cars on the road than bikes?

I know it's anecdotal, being just my experience. And that doesn't always correlate to helmet use. You can get pretty farked up in a bike crash while wearing a helmet. But bikers do cost the public at a much higher rate than car drivers. There is no doubt. And they don't pay the ridiculous amount in taxes that smokers do for their dangerous addiction.
 
6 days ago  
THIS is why you should always wear a helmet
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
6 days ago  
Free Riding and Educational Ensurement act for Distributing Unintended Meat Bags?
 
6 days ago  
Charge higher premiums to bikers. If they aren't wearing a helmet when they crash, deny the claim. Insurance companies can write the rules.
 
6 days ago  

edmo: Charge higher premiums to bikers. If they aren't wearing a helmet when they crash, deny the claim. Insurance companies can write the rules.


Exactly. And also add: if not wearing a helmet, you and your family forfeit all right to take legal action against anyone in case of an accident.
 
6 days ago  
For a few years, I wore a 3/4 helmet. When I replaced it, I went with a full face helmet. I kid you not, 1 week after getting that full face helmet, a tourist pulled out blind in front of me, in the canyon. I hit the driver's front wheel, face-planted into the hood of the car, flipped over and ended up on my back in the middle of the highway, looking up at the sky.

Had I been wearing the 3/4 helmet, my face would have taken that hit. The worst injury from that (aside from the bike *sniff*) was a broken arm.

I will always wear a helmet on a bike, even though we don't "have" to in this state.
 
6 days ago  

AliceBToklasLives: Government (and the public) cannot interfere with an individual's actions unless those actions cause or are likely to cause harm to others.


If that's a classic "liberalism" principle, than I must be subscribing to the wrong type of liberalism, lol.  ;)

Seriously though, I'd submit that the act of not wearing a helmet is indeed likely to cause harm to others. How? Here's an example:

Scenario:
--Bob is riding his motorcycle through the neighborhood. He's not wearing a helmet, but is observing speed limit and watching his surroundings.
--Steve is backing out of his driveway. Steve drives a big truck, and despite the backup camera, he doesn't see Bob coming right away from his elevated position, plus the trees in his front yard.
--Steve's not expecting Bob's bike, and Bob doesn't see Steve in time either, due to the tree.
--Steve's truck clips the back of Bob's bike, causing him to lose balance and fall over
--Bob falls to his right, toward the curb. However, since he's not wearing a helmet, he cracks his head open on the curb
--EMTs rush to the scene. Bob makes it to the hospital but falls into a coma. Days later, he's dead.


Harmed in this scenario:
-Bob, since he's dead
-Bob's family, who is now without a spouse/father/etc., and a primary source of income
-Bob's friends, who are now Bob-less
-Steve, who could (in theory) be on the hook for vehicular manslaughter instead of some minor medical bills and bike repairs
-Steve's family, who will likely suffer financially from Steve getting rung up on serious charges that could cost them their savings, job prospects, etc.
-Other insured motorists in that state, as collective risk goes up now that Bob died from a injury that could have likely been prevented if he had a helmet on. That will in turn raise premiums for everyone in the long run.


Now, can I guarantee that the helmet would have saved Bob? No. But it dang sure would have increased his survival chance here by A LOT. And in doing so, reduced short/long term risk to Bob's family, Steve and his family, and everyone else in the long run.

To me, avoiding all of that, and likely saving a life in the process, is absolutely the proper use of a mandate to do (or not to do) X.

That has a limit of course, and we found it in a way with Bloomberg's failed soda ban. But mandating the use of the #1 protective device for this given mode of transport? That's well justified, imo.
 
6 days ago  

zobear: For a few years, I wore a 3/4 helmet. When I replaced it, I went with a full face helmet. I kid you not, 1 week after getting that full face helmet, a tourist pulled out blind in front of me, in the canyon. I hit the driver's front wheel, face-planted into the hood of the car, flipped over and ended up on my back in the middle of the highway, looking up at the sky.

Had I been wearing the 3/4 helmet, my face would have taken that hit. The worst injury from that (aside from the bike *sniff*) was a broken arm.

I will always wear a helmet on a bike, even though we don't "have" to in this state.


Thank you.

Years ago my uncle ran into the side of a car that pulled out in front of him. He flipped over it and landed flat on his back. He broke both of his legs and needed spinal realignment, but the helmet hit the roof line of the car instead of his bare head; saved his life right there.
 
6 days ago  
This was one of the things we were superior to Illinois on so of course we had to get rid of that.
 
6 days ago  
Hope they all checked the organ-donor box on their license.
 
6 days ago  

zobear: For a few years, I wore a 3/4 helmet. When I replaced it, I went with a full face helmet. I kid you not, 1 week after getting that full face helmet, a tourist pulled out blind in front of me, in the canyon. I hit the driver's front wheel, face-planted into the hood of the car, flipped over and ended up on my back in the middle of the highway, looking up at the sky.

Had I been wearing the 3/4 helmet, my face would have taken that hit. The worst injury from that (aside from the bike *sniff*) was a broken arm.

I will always wear a helmet on a bike, even though we don't "have" to in this state.


If you have a ten dollar head, wear a ten dollar helmet.
 
6 days ago  
Hey, you can still wear a helmet if you want. What's the problem?
 
6 days ago  
Ohio doesn't have a helmet law and our insurance rates are pretty cheap ... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 
6 days ago  
I'm starting to think the Missouri State Government is detrimental to the entire state.. and it's not just urban populations they seek to harm.
 
6 days ago  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: The quote from the MO Insurance Commissioner is spot on, and is exactly what will happen. Everyone in the state will have to "pay" for these idiots' freedom to more easily get killed in an accident.

This may sound callous, but: Perhaps what insurers need to do is charge motorcyclists 4-5x higher rates, since their specific risk is so much higher now. Or better yet: Get in an accident and you weren't wearing a helmet? Claim denied. Period.


It's not the ones who die in accidents that are the problem

It's the ones that live with major injuries requiring years of physical therapy or assisted living for the rest of their lives that create a burden upon society
 
6 days ago  

AliceBToklasLives: Oh, and promiscuous people should pay an extra tax.


We do already. In many ways.
 
6 days ago  
Why?

What is the purpose of this? Free dumb?
 
6 days ago  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: AliceBToklasLives: Government (and the public) cannot interfere with an individual's actions unless those actions cause or are likely to cause harm to others.

If that's a classic "liberalism" principle, than I must be subscribing to the wrong type of liberalism, lol.  ;)

Seriously though, I'd submit that the act of not wearing a helmet is indeed likely to cause harm to others. How? Here's an example:

Scenario:
--Bob is riding his motorcycle through the neighborhood. He's not wearing a helmet, but is observing speed limit and watching his surroundings.
--Steve is backing out of his driveway. Steve drives a big truck, and despite the backup camera, he doesn't see Bob coming right away from his elevated position, plus the trees in his front yard.
--Steve's not expecting Bob's bike, and Bob doesn't see Steve in time either, due to the tree.
--Steve's truck clips the back of Bob's bike, causing him to lose balance and fall over
--Bob falls to his right, toward the curb. However, since he's not wearing a helmet, he cracks his head open on the curb
--EMTs rush to the scene. Bob makes it to the hospital but falls into a coma. Days later, he's dead.


Harmed in this scenario:
-Bob, since he's dead
-Bob's family, who is now without a spouse/father/etc., and a primary source of income
-Bob's friends, who are now Bob-less
-Steve, who could (in theory) be on the hook for vehicular manslaughter instead of some minor medical bills and bike repairs
-Steve's family, who will likely suffer financially from Steve getting rung up on serious charges that could cost them their savings, job prospects, etc.
-Other insured motorists in that state, as collective risk goes up now that Bob died from a injury that could have likely been prevented if he had a helmet on. That will in turn raise premiums for everyone in the long run.


Now, can I guarantee that the helmet would have saved Bob? No. But it dang sure would have increased his survival chance here by A LOT. And in doing so, reduced short/long term risk to Bob's family, Steve and his family, and everyone else in the long run.

To me, avoiding all of that, and likely saving a life in the process, is absolutely the proper use of a mandate to do (or not to do) X.

That has a limit of course, and we found it in a way with Bloomberg's failed soda ban. But mandating the use of the #1 protective device for this given mode of transport? That's well justified, imo.


I mean, if safety is the argument you're making, why not ban all motorcycles? While we're at it, let's ban jet skis too as they are monstrously dangerous. How about mandating that you must wear a life jacket at all times in a boat?

While we're at it, let's just ban cars entirely and save 30,000 more people a year.

Risk is assumed in every part of our lives. We don't need helmet laws for the same reason we don't require adults to wear water wings at the pool or the beach.
 
6 days ago  

AsparagusFTW: Their choice.

[Fark user image 717x485]


There's a reason a lot of E R's call them Donorcycles ..
 
6 days ago  

Alphax: I'm starting to think the Missouri State Government is detrimental to the entire state.. and it's not just urban populations they seek to harm.


I liked that the people advocating for the repeal of this law have no logical reason besides it giving them more "freedom".

These guys wouldn't know "freedom" if it smacked them in the head with a 2x4.
 
6 days ago  

puffy999: Why?

What is the purpose of this? Free dumb?


Would you be in favor of a new law to require everyone wear water wings when they take a bath?

If not, why do you hate the hundreds of people every year that drown in the bathtub.

I guess *those* lives don't matter ...
 
6 days ago  

FarkBucket18: Grand_Moff_Joseph: AliceBToklasLives: Government (and the public) cannot interfere with an individual's actions unless those actions cause or are likely to cause harm to others.

If that's a classic "liberalism" principle, than I must be subscribing to the wrong type of liberalism, lol.  ;)

Seriously though, I'd submit that the act of not wearing a helmet is indeed likely to cause harm to others. How? Here's an example:

Scenario:
--Bob is riding his motorcycle through the neighborhood. He's not wearing a helmet, but is observing speed limit and watching his surroundings.
--Steve is backing out of his driveway. Steve drives a big truck, and despite the backup camera, he doesn't see Bob coming right away from his elevated position, plus the trees in his front yard.
--Steve's not expecting Bob's bike, and Bob doesn't see Steve in time either, due to the tree.
--Steve's truck clips the back of Bob's bike, causing him to lose balance and fall over
--Bob falls to his right, toward the curb. However, since he's not wearing a helmet, he cracks his head open on the curb
--EMTs rush to the scene. Bob makes it to the hospital but falls into a coma. Days later, he's dead.


Harmed in this scenario:
-Bob, since he's dead
-Bob's family, who is now without a spouse/father/etc., and a primary source of income
-Bob's friends, who are now Bob-less
-Steve, who could (in theory) be on the hook for vehicular manslaughter instead of some minor medical bills and bike repairs
-Steve's family, who will likely suffer financially from Steve getting rung up on serious charges that could cost them their savings, job prospects, etc.
-Other insured motorists in that state, as collective risk goes up now that Bob died from a injury that could have likely been prevented if he had a helmet on. That will in turn raise premiums for everyone in the long run.


Now, can I guarantee that the helmet would have saved Bob? No. But it dang sure would have increased his survival chance here by A LOT. And in doing so, reduced short/long term risk to Bob's family, Steve and his family, and everyone else in the long run.

To me, avoiding all of that, and likely saving a life in the process, is absolutely the proper use of a mandate to do (or not to do) X.

That has a limit of course, and we found it in a way with Bloomberg's failed soda ban. But mandating the use of the #1 protective device for this given mode of transport? That's well justified, imo.

I mean, if safety is the argument you're making, why not ban all motorcycles? While we're at it, let's ban jet skis too as they are monstrously dangerous. How about mandating that you must wear a life jacket at all times in a boat?

While we're at it, let's just ban cars entirely and save 30,000 more people a year.

Risk is assumed in every part of our lives. We don't need helmet laws for the same reason we don't require adults to wear water wings at the pool or the beach.


Well you convinced me, we don't need seat belt laws and they should be repealed.

Wait, what were we talking about again?
 
6 days ago  

Mrtraveler01: FarkBucket18: Grand_Moff_Joseph: AliceBToklasLives: Government (and the public) cannot interfere with an individual's actions unless those actions cause or are likely to cause harm to others.

If that's a classic "liberalism" principle, than I must be subscribing to the wrong type of liberalism, lol.  ;)

Seriously though, I'd submit that the act of not wearing a helmet is indeed likely to cause harm to others. How? Here's an example:

Scenario:
--Bob is riding his motorcycle through the neighborhood. He's not wearing a helmet, but is observing speed limit and watching his surroundings.
--Steve is backing out of his driveway. Steve drives a big truck, and despite the backup camera, he doesn't see Bob coming right away from his elevated position, plus the trees in his front yard.
--Steve's not expecting Bob's bike, and Bob doesn't see Steve in time either, due to the tree.
--Steve's truck clips the back of Bob's bike, causing him to lose balance and fall over
--Bob falls to his right, toward the curb. However, since he's not wearing a helmet, he cracks his head open on the curb
--EMTs rush to the scene. Bob makes it to the hospital but falls into a coma. Days later, he's dead.


Harmed in this scenario:
-Bob, since he's dead
-Bob's family, who is now without a spouse/father/etc., and a primary source of income
-Bob's friends, who are now Bob-less
-Steve, who could (in theory) be on the hook for vehicular manslaughter instead of some minor medical bills and bike repairs
-Steve's family, who will likely suffer financially from Steve getting rung up on serious charges that could cost them their savings, job prospects, etc.
-Other insured motorists in that state, as collective risk goes up now that Bob died from a injury that could have likely been prevented if he had a helmet on. That will in turn raise premiums for everyone in the long run.


Now, can I guarantee that the helmet would have saved Bob? No. But it dang sure would have increased his survival chance here by A LOT. And in doing so, reduced short/long term risk to Bob's family, Steve and his family, and everyone else in the long run.

To me, avoiding all of that, and likely saving a life in the process, is absolutely the proper use of a mandate to do (or not to do) X.

That has a limit of course, and we found it in a way with Bloomberg's failed soda ban. But mandating the use of the #1 protective device for this given mode of transport? That's well justified, imo.

I mean, if safety is the argument you're making, why not ban all motorcycles? While we're at it, let's ban jet skis too as they are monstrously dangerous. How about mandating that you must wear a life jacket at all times in a boat?

While we're at it, let's just ban cars entirely and save 30,000 more people a year.

Risk is assumed in every part of our lives. We don't need helmet laws for the same reason we don't require adults to wear water wings at the pool or the beach.

Well you convinced me, we don't need seat belt laws and they should be repealed.

Wait, what were we talking about again?


There are seat belts on motorcycles?

Holy shiat ... news to me ...
 
6 days ago  

Pocket Ninja: It's really just giving you permission to laugh when they die in accidents without feeling guilty. No issue with that.


Username checks out

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
6 days ago  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: AliceBToklasLives: Grand_Moff_Joseph: AliceBToklasLives: I don't think the government has the right to tell me to wear a helmet and the insurance argument worries me because everything I do might cost someone else some money. But I also think, as government overreach goes, this is very small potatoes. It's almost like the point is to distract people from the serious overreach.

That's sarcasm, right?

Make smoking illegal since smokers clearly cost others money. And trans fats. Maybe a fine for going to McDonalds twice in one week. Oh, and promiscuous people should pay an extra tax.

Not all slopes are slippery you know.


idiot shoes have crappy traction.
 
6 days ago  

FarkBucket18: Mrtraveler01: FarkBucket18: Grand_Moff_Joseph: AliceBToklasLives: Government (and the public) cannot interfere with an individual's actions unless those actions cause or are likely to cause harm to others.

If that's a classic "liberalism" principle, than I must be subscribing to the wrong type of liberalism, lol.  ;)

Seriously though, I'd submit that the act of not wearing a helmet is indeed likely to cause harm to others. How? Here's an example:

Scenario:
--Bob is riding his motorcycle through the neighborhood. He's not wearing a helmet, but is observing speed limit and watching his surroundings.
--Steve is backing out of his driveway. Steve drives a big truck, and despite the backup camera, he doesn't see Bob coming right away from his elevated position, plus the trees in his front yard.
--Steve's not expecting Bob's bike, and Bob doesn't see Steve in time either, due to the tree.
--Steve's truck clips the back of Bob's bike, causing him to lose balance and fall over
--Bob falls to his right, toward the curb. However, since he's not wearing a helmet, he cracks his head open on the curb
--EMTs rush to the scene. Bob makes it to the hospital but falls into a coma. Days later, he's dead.


Harmed in this scenario:
-Bob, since he's dead
-Bob's family, who is now without a spouse/father/etc., and a primary source of income
-Bob's friends, who are now Bob-less
-Steve, who could (in theory) be on the hook for vehicular manslaughter instead of some minor medical bills and bike repairs
-Steve's family, who will likely suffer financially from Steve getting rung up on serious charges that could cost them their savings, job prospects, etc.
-Other insured motorists in that state, as collective risk goes up now that Bob died from a injury that could have likely been prevented if he had a helmet on. That will in turn raise premiums for everyone in the long run.


Now, can I guarantee that the helmet would have saved Bob? No. But it dang sure would have increased his survival chance here by A LOT. And in doing so, reduced short/long term risk to Bob's family, Steve and his family, and everyone else in the long run.

To me, avoiding all of that, and likely saving a life in the process, is absolutely the proper use of a mandate to do (or not to do) X.

That has a limit of course, and we found it in a way with Bloomberg's failed soda ban. But mandating the use of the #1 protective device for this given mode of transport? That's well justified, imo.

I mean, if safety is the argument you're making, why not ban all motorcycles? While we're at it, let's ban jet skis too as they are monstrously dangerous. How about mandating that you must wear a life jacket at all times in a boat?

While we're at it, let's just ban cars entirely and save 30,000 more people a year.

Risk is assumed in every part of our lives. We don't need helmet laws for the same reason we don't require adults to wear water wings at the pool or the beach.

Well you convinced me, we don't need seat belt laws and they should be repealed.

Wait, what were we talking about again?

There are seat belts on motorcycles?

Holy shiat ... news to me ...


I'm just using the same logic you just applied to helmet laws.

Unless you tell me that seat belt laws are different for some reason.
 
6 days ago  
ATGATT: All The Gear, All The Time

Saved my life by keeping my cranium intact and minimizing road rash after a cager took a left right in front of me.

I can't give farks about people riding without gear, helmet included. If you wreck and die, at least you died riding as you wished. For me, I'll minimize my risk of dying by abiding by ATGATT.
 
6 days ago  

Mrtraveler01: FarkBucket18: Mrtraveler01: FarkBucket18: Grand_Moff_Joseph: AliceBToklasLives: Government (and the public) cannot interfere with an individual's actions unless those actions cause or are likely to cause harm to others.

If that's a classic "liberalism" principle, than I must be subscribing to the wrong type of liberalism, lol.  ;)

Seriously though, I'd submit that the act of not wearing a helmet is indeed likely to cause harm to others. How? Here's an example:

Scenario:
--Bob is riding his motorcycle through the neighborhood. He's not wearing a helmet, but is observing speed limit and watching his surroundings.
--Steve is backing out of his driveway. Steve drives a big truck, and despite the backup camera, he doesn't see Bob coming right away from his elevated position, plus the trees in his front yard.
--Steve's not expecting Bob's bike, and Bob doesn't see Steve in time either, due to the tree.
--Steve's truck clips the back of Bob's bike, causing him to lose balance and fall over
--Bob falls to his right, toward the curb. However, since he's not wearing a helmet, he cracks his head open on the curb
--EMTs rush to the scene. Bob makes it to the hospital but falls into a coma. Days later, he's dead.


Harmed in this scenario:
-Bob, since he's dead
-Bob's family, who is now without a spouse/father/etc., and a primary source of income
-Bob's friends, who are now Bob-less
-Steve, who could (in theory) be on the hook for vehicular manslaughter instead of some minor medical bills and bike repairs
-Steve's family, who will likely suffer financially from Steve getting rung up on serious charges that could cost them their savings, job prospects, etc.
-Other insured motorists in that state, as collective risk goes up now that Bob died from a injury that could have likely been prevented if he had a helmet on. That will in turn raise premiums for everyone in the long run.


Now, can I guarantee that the helmet would have saved Bob? No. But it dang sure would have increased his survival chance here by A LOT. And in doing so, reduced short/long term risk to Bob's family, Steve and his family, and everyone else in the long run.

To me, avoiding all of that, and likely saving a life in the process, is absolutely the proper use of a mandate to do (or not to do) X.

That has a limit of course, and we found it in a way with Bloomberg's failed soda ban. But mandating the use of the #1 protective device for this given mode of transport? That's well justified, imo.

I mean, if safety is the argument you're making, why not ban all motorcycles? While we're at it, let's ban jet skis too as they are monstrously dangerous. How about mandating that you must wear a life jacket at all times in a boat?

While we're at it, let's just ban cars entirely and save 30,000 more people a year.

Risk is assumed in every part of our lives. We don't need helmet laws for the same reason we don't require adults to wear water wings at the pool or the beach.

Well you convinced me, we don't need seat belt laws and they should be repealed.

Wait, what were we talking about again?

There are seat belts on motorcycles?

Holy shiat ... news to me ...

I'm just using the same logic you just applied to helmet laws.

Unless you tell me that seat belt laws are different for some reason.


I don't think there's a need for them. I think most people - given the option - will make the choice that's right for them.

Making certain actions have arbitrary fines and penalties doesn't increase compliance, it just increases the need for police to spend their valuable time enforcing silliness instead of doing something more productive.
 
6 days ago  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
6 days ago  

Autoerotic Defenestration: [Fark user image image 500x500]


Would you feel the same for any illegal motor vehicle infraction that results in an accident?

Speeding? No pay out.
Run a red light? No pay out.
Drive too fast in foul weather and slide into a tree? No pay out.
Roll a stop sign? No pay out.

Actually. I like this. Our rates would likely go down since nearly all claims would be denied.
 
Displayed 50 of 205 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter




In Other Media
X
  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.