helmet laws

Quoted message said:

From: "Joel Lowrie" [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

I think this whole manditory helmet thing is silly. the only person harmed by not wearing a helmet
is the person who decided not to wear one.<<

Not exactly. For non-competetive cyclists this is true, just as for noncompetitive athletes who
choose to use steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs...However, If cyclist A chooses not to
wear a helmet, he gains an advantage (weight and heat dispersion) over those who do, essentially
forcing others to choose between safety and performance...

Of course, in both cases, nobody forces the athletes to compete, but many would rather a sanctioning
body level the field...

Quoted message said:

bicycling, like many other things in life, comes with some fixed dangers. it should be up to the
person taking part in the activity to protect him or herself.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

If someone gets seriously injured, he or she will need help from all kinds of healthcare
professionals. Chances are most of the money needed to take care of him/her will come from public
means. Those means are paid for by all of us, so I can see an argument for the people that support
mandatory helmet use for public use. Same goes for professional cyclists (apart from the
weight/comfort advantage discussion.)

h

"Joel Lowrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I think this whole manditory helmet thing is silly. the only person

harmed

Quoted message said:

by not wearing a helmet is the person who decided not to wear one. bicycling, like many other
things in life, comes with some fixed dangers. it should be up to the person taking part in the
activity to protect him

or

Quoted message said:

herself.

"har" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

If someone gets seriously injured, he or she will need help from all kinds of healthcare
professionals. Chances are most of the money needed to take care of him/her will come from public
means. Those means are paid for by all of us, so I can see an argument for the people that support
mandatory helmet use for public use. Same goes for professional cyclists (apart from the
weight/comfort advantage discussion.)

h

Dude,

Dude

smiles said:

Quoted message said:

(/liberterianview & rant)... now I am more and more thinking the government should step in and
take over health care. I know it will not be better ... since I HAVE visited more than one
military hospital in my life ... but the insurance industry has screwed up the health care
industry to the point of no return. Either we need to stop insurance or just let big brother take
over. (/rant)

Explain how effectively eliminating the health insurance industry (or any industry) is a libertarian
viewpoint.

"har" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

If someone gets seriously injured, he or she will need help from all kinds of healthcare
professionals. Chances are most of the money needed to take care of him/her will come from public
means. Those means are paid for by

all

Quoted message said:

of us, so I can see an argument for the people that support mandatory

helmet

Quoted message said:

use for public use. Same goes for professional cyclists (apart from the weight/comfort advantage
discussion.)

I come from a libertarian view and a motorcyclist view ... i think all helmet laws stink ... even
though I almost always wear one ... i don't think it's the governments place to dictate what people
do as far as protecting themselves ... with that I also do not think the government is responsible
for caring for whomever crashes and hurts themselves.

For racing I support them ... mainly to level the playing field so racers who will not race without
them are not at a disadvantage over ones who decide they do not need them.

Now in the REAL world ... the loss of freedom is due to the financial burden the government has
decided to allow. Hence if the government does not make a law reducing our freedom, our
financial freedom will be reduced from not passing the law ... people care MORE about money than
personal freedom.

(/liberterianview & rant)... now I am more and more thinking the government should step in and take
over health care. I know it will not be better ... since I HAVE visited more than one military
hospital in my life ... but the insurance industry has screwed up the health care industry to the
point of no return. Either we need to stop insurance or just let big brother take over. (/rant)

s boardnbike.comboardnbike.comOpen ↗

"har" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

If someone gets seriously injured, he or she will need help from all kinds of healthcare
professionals. Chances are most of the money needed to take care of him/her will come from public
means. Those means are paid for by all of us, so I can see an argument for the people that support
mandatory helmet use for public use. Same goes for professional cyclists (apart from the
weight/comfort advantage discussion.)

h

"Joel Lowrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I think this whole manditory helmet thing is silly. the only person

harmed

Quoted message said:

by not wearing a helmet is the person who decided not to wear one. bicycling, like many other
things in life, comes with some fixed dangers. it should be up to the person taking part in the
activity to protect him

or

Quoted message said:

herself.

Another thing the mandatory helmet law does is to protect the reputation of the sport, a reputation
already tattered by doping scandals. The last thing the sport needs are stories of dead cyclists in
the general media. Even if a non-helmet wearer only has himself to blame if he gets hurt, the sport
itself have the right to blame the cyclist for the bad press. That's why they help the rider and
themselves in advance by passing the law.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Joel Lowrie
I think this whole manditory helmet thing is silly. the only person harmed by not wearing a
helmet is the person who decided not to wear one. bicycling, like many other things in life,
comes with some fixed dangers. it should be up to the person taking part in the activity to
protect him or herself.

I've had a relative who had a major head injury (19 years ago now). It's not nice for the victim and it can be even worse for partners and children. If bicycle helmets reduce the risk of bad injury then I'm all for it. Using logic of some, cars would not have mandatory crash protection (because it adds weight) and milk should not be pastuerized (some people want the right to drink it as it comes from the cow). While these examples are a little over the top, I can't see what is wrong with insisting on people wearing bike helmets. They are now pretty well designed these days - and who knows they may save your life or stop you spending the rest of your life as a vegetable which your relatives will have to tend 24/7!

"WB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

From: "Joel Lowrie" [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

I think this whole manditory helmet thing is silly. the only

person harmed

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

by not wearing a helmet is the person who decided not to wear

one.<<

Quoted message said:

Not exactly. For non-competetive cyclists this is true, just as for noncompetitive athletes who
choose to use steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs.

Yeah, if lance hadn't been wearing his helmet when he detoured through that field absolutely nothing
would have changed.

"har" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

If someone gets seriously injured, he or she will need help from all

kinds

Quoted message said:

of healthcare professionals. Chances are most of the money needed to

take

Quoted message said:

care of him/her will come from public means.

Now explain why it would come from public means.

"Ingemar Svensson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"har" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If someone gets seriously injured, he or she will need help from

all kinds

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

of healthcare professionals. Chances are most of the money needed

to take

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

care of him/her will come from public means. Those means are paid

for by all

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

of us, so I can see an argument for the people that support

mandatory helmet

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

use for public use. Same goes for professional cyclists (apart

from the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

weight/comfort advantage discussion.)

How many stories have there been about dead cyclists? In Europe they sure don't seem to slow down
their driving in the face of a much higher percentage of fatalities than on American highways with
American safety regulations.

"Precious Pup" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

smiles said:

(/liberterianview & rant)... now I am more and more thinking the

government

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

<snip rant> over. (/rant)

Explain how effectively eliminating the health insurance industry (or any

industry) is a libertarian

Quoted message said:

viewpoint.

Ummm the "/" before liberterianview means it's off or "libertarian view NOT" ie no longer a
libertarian view ... I just don't have a good solution other than making everyone pay for the most
part ... natural cost controls will kick in. Or letting the government take it over ... like in
Canada. People I know are going to Canada for operations ... granted they are not "approved" here in
the states and yes they HAVE to pay .... each solution KILLS the insurance industry.

s

smiles said:

"Precious Pup" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

smiles said:

(/liberterianview & rant)... now I am more and more thinking the

government

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

<snip rant> over. (/rant)

Explain how effectively eliminating the health insurance industry (or any

industry) is a libertarian

Quoted message said:

viewpoint.

Ummm the "/" before liberterianview means it's off or "libertarian view NOT" ie no longer a
libertarian view ...

Why.............NOT.............just...............say..........what...........you...........mean..-
.........without.................inverting.........................?

Quoted message said:

I just don't have a good solution other than making everyone pay for the most part ... natural
cost controls will kick in. Or letting the government take it over ... like in Canada. People I
know are going to Canada for operations ... granted they are not "approved" here in the states and
yes they HAVE to pay .... each solution KILLS the insurance industry.

So....I....take.....it......you....don't......like............insurance..................

Joel Lowrie said:

I think this whole manditory helmet thing is silly. the only person harmed by not wearing a
helmet is the person who decided not to wear one. bicycling, like many other things in life,
comes with some fixed dangers. it should be up to the person taking part in the activity to
protect him or herself.

"You don't have to wear a helmet, but for the sake of safety maybe you should have your IQ
tested" - DR1

G

Tom Kunich said:

"har" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

If someone gets seriously injured, he or she will need help from all

kinds

Quoted message said:

of healthcare professionals. Chances are most of the money needed to

take

Quoted message said:

care of him/her will come from public means.

Now explain why it would come from public means.

Either via insurance (which is public in the sense that it's a pool funded by people other than the
beneficiary) or via increased hospital costs (to fund care for the uninsured). Either way, people
other than the injured will pay for their care.

Could we all please read the FAQ.

Bicyclists ON THE WHOLE have much better than average health. So helmet or no a bicyclist is less of
a risk for medical insurance. Does a head injury suffered by a bicyclist once for every 2000 or so
head injuries suffered by a car occupant or person taking a fall constitute an additional threat to
insurance companies?

"Craig Powers" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Tom Kunich said:

"har" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If someone gets seriously injured, he or she will need help from

all

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

kinds

Quoted message said:

of healthcare professionals. Chances are most of the money

needed to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

take

Quoted message said:

care of him/her will come from public means.

Now explain why it would come from public means.

Either via insurance (which is public in the sense that it's a pool funded by people other than
the beneficiary) or via increased

hospital

Quoted message said:

costs (to fund care for the uninsured). Either way, people other

than

Quoted message said:

the injured will pay for their care.

Tom Kunich said:

Bicyclists ON THE WHOLE have much better than average health. So helmet or no a bicyclist is less
of a risk for medical insurance. Does a head injury suffered by a bicyclist once for every 2000 or
so head injuries suffered by a car occupant or person taking a fall constitute an additional threat
to insurance companies?

I swore off helmet threads years ago but I'll throw in one thing here. I used to use the "we're all
going to have to pay for it" answer in supporting helmet use. But then I had someone point out that
if we really believed in that argument, we should be campaigning big time to outlaw cigarettes and
alcohol. The burden put on the insurance companies by unhelmeted cyclists compared to the effects of
maladies caused by smokers and drinkers is comparable to pissing in the ocean (by a fattie with an
enlarged prostate).

Dave Clary/Corpus Christi, Tx Home: home.stx.rr.comdclaryOpen ↗ Never Forget:
politicsandprotest.orgpoliticsandprotest.orgOpen ↗

Dave Clary said:

Tom Kunich said:

Bicyclists ON THE WHOLE have much better than average health. So helmet or no a bicyclist is less
of a risk for medical insurance. Does a head injury suffered by a bicyclist once for every 2000
or so head injuries suffered by a car occupant or person taking a fall constitute an additional
threat to insurance companies?

I swore off helmet threads years ago but I'll throw in one thing here. I used to use the "we're
all going to have to pay for it" answer in supporting helmet use. But then I had someone point out
that if we really believed in that argument, we should be campaigning big time to outlaw
cigarettes and alcohol. The burden put on the insurance companies by unhelmeted cyclists compared
to the effects of maladies caused by smokers and drinkers is comparable to pissing in the ocean
(by a fattie with an enlarged prostate).

Dave Clary/Corpus Christi, Tx

I don't know about your insurance policies, but my life and health ins. ask about smoking, so
smokers are in a different risk pool and presumably pay higher premiums. I've never been asked
on and ins. policy application if I bicycle, much less if I wear a helmet.

Steve

Quoted message said:

Home: home.stx.rr.comdclaryOpen ↗ Never Forget: politicsandprotest.orgpoliticsandprotest.orgOpen ↗

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS Brooklyn, NY 718-258-5001 dentaltwins.comdentaltwins.comOpen ↗

Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS said:

ti, Tx

I don't know about your insurance policies, but my life and health ins. ask about smoking, so
smokers are in a different risk pool and presumably pay higher premiums. I've never been asked
on and ins. policy application if I bicycle, much less if I wear a helmet.

True but still insignificant when comparing the total shared cost paid by all to pay for alcohol and
tobacco related illnesses.

Getting more on an RBR theme, how did the UCI manage to get the pros to agree to the helmet rules
when they previously were able to thwart the implementation?

Dave Clary/Corpus Christi, Tx Home: home.stx.rr.comdclaryOpen ↗ Never Forget:
politicsandprotest.orgpoliticsandprotest.orgOpen ↗