Michigan State helmet law repealed

[Madness]

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/04/13/4411697/aaa-michigan-disappointed-in-helmet.html

I like this bit, makes perfect sense:


The repeal of the motorcycle helmet law will result in at least 30 additional motorcycle fatalities each year, along with 127 more incapacitating injuries and $129 million in added economic costs to Michigan residents.

$20,000 US cover for a head injury? They've either got amazing doctors and hospitals or below average heads.

[tigertim20]

Off topic posting removed


http://www.sacbee.com/2012/04/13/4411697/aaa-michigan-disappointed-in-helmet.html

I like this bit, makes perfect sense:


$20,000 US cover for a head injury? They've either got amazing doctors and hospitals or below average heads.

thats a bit fucked up.
why repeal a law like that? - people like to bitch about nanny states etc, but those people sometimes forget how stupid they can be themselves - some people NEED a nanny state to not kill themselves through their own stupidity.
yes, Im talking about americans.

[Winston001]

FYI whatever:

The Ducati ran out of road two years ago. Flip-up helmet absorbed head-first landing. Ripped the bottom partly open but stayed intact. Mouthful of gravel, deadish for a bit. C4 fracture, concussion, 16 days in hospital, can't remember that or much of the first year afterwards.

Alive and kicking thanks to that helmet.

[p.dath]

There was another state in the US that did the same thing - you don't have to have a helmet if you have a no-fault accident insurance policy.

I don't recall which state is was, but they found that 90% of those who chose not to wear helmets and had an accident had not taken out the mandatory insurance.

I think the other state required $30k of cover - and it was intended to only cover either the first 10 or 30 minutes of emergency care to try and stabilise the patient.

[p.dath]

Thinking back, I think it was the state of Tennessee. That had a law requiring helmets. Then they repealed it. Fatalities went up, and the motorcyclists having the accidents didn't take out the mandatory insurance so they put the law back in place again.

It looks like they are trying to repeal it again at the moment.

[YellowDog]

Removing the mandatory requirement to wear a helmet is a strange thing to advocate. Perhaps they have an unusually low number of motorcycle accidents :no:

Didn't someone post a news snippet last year of a protestor against the mandatory wearing of helmets dying after having coming off his bike on the way to the protest rally?

[Gremlin]

Didn't someone post a news snippet last year of a protestor against the mandatory wearing of helmets dying after having coming off his bike on the way to the protest rally?
This one I think: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/03/motorcyclist-dies-helmet-protest_n_889427.html

It's interesting. I think everyone can agree that they save lives, reduce injuries etc, but for some, they all yell about protecting the individuals right to choose for themselves. Some complain that it reduces their vision, but I guess we're heavily biased having worn helmets all the time. When I was in the USA I did do 20-30 miles or something without the helmet on, as it was a state where you could, and I was interested to see what it was like (but my thoughts are still biased as I wore my helmet all the time otherwise).

Free, yes, vision wasn't impaired (obviously, but I didn't think it made all that much difference compared to a helmet). The day had been very hot (mid 30s I think), walking around the Sturgis rally, so not shoving yourself into the helmet was a relief, not to mention the cooling effect was that much greater when moving at suburban speeds. On the open road it felt downright scary, but still kinda free, found it a bit of a giggle. That was until a bug of some sort smacked into my forehead... my god that fucken hurt at 60mph. I was still wearing sunglasses (some states still require eye protection, I wasn't sure on the exact law but logic dictated my eyes needed protection from debris anyway) and the GSA has a big screen, so it made it easier, but yeah, I'd rather wear my helmet thanks...

[YellowDog]

On the very rare occasion that I have ridden without a helmet (35+ years ago) I always had a problem with bugs and debris getting past my sun shades and into my eyes.

Open face helmets are an option and cause minimal restriction, and go a long way towards avoiding the 'egg dropping on the tiled kitchen floor effect.'

The yanks had the same thing with seatbelts in cars and that's why they have 'child killing' strength airbags.

Civil Liberties my arse. In the USA, regardless of your age, you can't walk down the street into a bar without having ID in your pocket.

[YellowDog]

This one I think: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/03/motorcyclist-dies-helmet-protest_n_889427.html


It wasn't that one. There was another last year http://news.yahoo.com/ny-motorcyclist-dies-ride-protesting-helmet-law-143217859.html

EDIT: It's the same one :lol:

What a senseless waste of life though.

Surely the protesters should be getting the message by now :wacko:

[scumdog]

The yanks had the same thing with seatbelts in cars and that's why they have 'child killing' strength airbags.

Civil Liberties my arse. In the USA, regardless of your age, you can't walk down the street into a bar without having ID in your pocket.

Yep, in 1956 Ford had fitted 'dished' steering wheels and gave the options of a padded dashboard and seatbelts.

People walked away from them because "Well, if it has to have those features it must be a dangerous type of car":wacko::weird:

BTW: I cannot ever being asked for I.D. in any US bar...but you're right, I did have it in my pocket...;)

[Grubber]

Sounds typical Yank exercise. One step forward and 3 backwards into the dark ages. Dickheads!:brick:

[Zedder]

I read that one of the biggest supporters for repealing mandatory helmet wearing was the tourism industry in Michigan.

They maintained the law was keeping anti helmet tourists away and causing the state to lose millions of dollars in revenue!

[swbarnett]

OK. I have a question for you lot that are firmly behind the legal requirement to wear a helmet:

Why are you not also advocating the mandatory wearing of a full leather suit? Or maybe banning bikes all together? Most will agree that both of these would save heaps in medical costs.

[Madness]

It's the step backward that I don't get, in a world full of ever increasing regulation. It's like saying to car manufacturers & importers that they no longer need to supply seatbelts fitted to vehicles IMHO.

[swbarnett]

It's the step backward that I don't get, in a world full of ever increasing regulation.
In a world full of ever increasing regulation I welcome anything that gets the government out of our lives and returns to us some of what makes us human.


It's like saying to car manufacturers & importers that they no longer need to supply seatbelts fitted to vehicles IMHO.
Supplying seatbelts is not the same. Mandating the use of them is.

[Tigadee]

why repeal a law like that? - people like to bitch about nanny states etc, but those people sometimes forget how stupid they can be themselves - some people NEED a nanny state to not kill themselves through their own stupidity.

BUT, if the stupid kill themselves off, that only leaves the smart good-looking group like us...

[tigertim20]

OK. I have a question for you lot that are firmly behind the legal requirement to wear a helmet:

Why are you not also advocating the mandatory wearing of a full leather suit? Or maybe banning bikes all together? Most will agree that both of these would save heaps in medical costs.

two hands, two legs, two arms two feet two lungs ONE brain.
I dont agree with total regulation, Im against the hi vis thing too - but a helmet? come on!!! thats a no brainer!
pun intended!:eek:

[Scuba_Steve]

Me I'm against legal requirement for helmet. Laws should only ever be there to protect others, they should never protect people from themselves!!! I say it's a good thing they're doing!
However would I ride round without 1 given the choice??? :no:

[scumdog]

Me I'm against legal requirement for helmet. Laws should only ever be there to protect others, they should never protect people from themselves!!! I say it's a good thing they're doing!
However would I ride round without 1 given the choice??? :no:

See, that is the biggest danger of freedom of choice for things like this - people like you KNOW why they should wear a helmet.

The broken arsed brain dead bozos with no money wouldn't even consider it. "Don't need it" "Ruins my hair" "Can't afford one" etc...

And they would be in the 'most likely to need the protection of a helmet' catagory.

Even if they haven't actualy got a brain.:devil2:

[Coldrider]

Meh, bikers are referred to as organ donors over there, and organs are worth more than helmets.

[p.dath]

OK. I have a question for you lot that are firmly behind the legal requirement to wear a helmet:

Why are you not also advocating the mandatory wearing of a full leather suit? Or maybe banning bikes all together? Most will agree that both of these would save heaps in medical costs.

Hitting the road with your head while stationary from 1m can cause brain damage. Add even a small amount of speed and it quickly becomes fatal. Fatal means non-recoverable.

At 50km/h you can come off on a road with jeans and a tee-shirt, go for a slide, suffer terrible gravel rash that might take 6 months to recover from - but you are likely to live. Take the famous example of the girl in the bikini who ended up having one of her breasts scraped off by the road.


See the difference? We don't accept suicide as a legal choice. As a result, we tend to regulate and control things that cause death (weather it be helmets, drugs, guns, whatever).

However you still have the freedom of choice to choose options that will only result in you suffering excruitating pain for an extended period of time.

[swbarnett]

two hands, two legs, two arms two feet two lungs ONE brain.
I dont agree with total regulation, Im against the hi vis thing too - but a helmet? come on!!! thats a no brainer!
pun intended!:eek:
No matter what the merits of any given safety device I still maintain that there is no place for mandating their use. To steal a motto: "Education, not legislation".

[swbarnett]

Hitting the road with your head while stationary from 1m can cause brain damage. Add even a small amount of speed and it quickly becomes fatal. Fatal means non-recoverable.

At 50km/h you can come off on a road with jeans and a tee-shirt, go for a slide, suffer terrible gravel rash that might take 6 months to recover from - but you are likely to live. Take the famous example of the girl in the bikini who ended up having one of her breasts scraped off by the road.


See the difference?
No need to educate me on the benifits of helmets. You're preaching to the converted.


We don't accept suicide as a legal choice. As a result, we tend to regulate and control things that cause death (weather it be helmets, drugs, guns, whatever).
Which is exactly my point. My body, my choice. Suicide is yet another place that the law has no right being. If I want to end my life then that's my choice.

[tigertim20]

No matter what the merits of any given safety device I still maintain that there is no place for mandating their use. To steal a motto: "Education, not legislation".

Cant educate the dead or severely brain damaged.

[scumdog]

Cant educate the dead or severely brain damaged.

You're talking about some of those we already share the roads with eh!:msn-wink:

[Coldrider]

Cant educate the dead or severely brain damaged.no, but a brain with just a couple of synapses still holding hands is worth more than an (was) intelligent dead one.

[swbarnett]

Cant educate the dead or severely brain damaged.
The purpose of a helmet is to protect the brain in the event of a crash. It is, however, only a distant cousin to not crashing in the first place. And what's the ONLY way to guarentee you won't crash? Don't ride. So tell me, if the aim is solely to reduce brain injuries, why is it legal to ride at all, with or without a helmet? This is wny the helmet law makes no sense to me.

[p.dath]

No need to educate me on the benifits of helmets. You're preaching to the converted.


Which is exactly my point. My body, my choice. Suicide is yet another place that the law has no right being. If I want to end my life then that's my choice.

There can be a selfish touch to death.

When a person is in horrible pain through illness, its terminal, and they have the support of their family for suicide then I feel there is some grounds.

However when a person dies through their own actions (drugs, smoking, motorcycle fatility might have been preventable with a helmet) then they leave terrible pain in the hearts of their loved ones they leave behind.

It's incredibly selfish to exercise a choice to kill one's self, because of all the other people you hurt.

[Zedder]

It's Goverments duty to protect the public, often from themselves. Unfortunately the laws made sometimes go too far in terms of personal choice and it's knowing when to draw the line that is critical.

However, even if there was no laws regarding helmets, I would still wear one plus other usual protective gear. In short, I do not want to die or be maimed and possibly become a burden on the system.

[Ocean1]

It's Goverments duty to protect the public, often from themselves.

It's true, when you don't have a constitution the Govt gets to decide what it's duties are.

In reality very few people get to make suggestions about how I live my life. None at all get to dictate terms, not even large groups that tell themselves they have a duty to do so.

[Zedder]

It's true, when you don't have a constitution the Govt gets to decide what it's duties are.

In reality very few people get to make suggestions about how I live my life. None at all get to dictate terms, not even large groups that tell themselves they have a duty to do so.

New Zealand does have a constitution though. However, it's not contained in a "supreme document" like some other countries.

[Milts]

Why are you not also advocating the mandatory wearing of a full leather suit? Or maybe banning bikes all together? Most will agree that both of these would save heaps in medical costs.

Because the tradeoff (inconvenience) is fairly small vs the benefit (protecting your fragile + vital skull). A full leather suit is a larger inconvenience for a smaller benefit.

As for the 'my life my choice' argument, there is some truth in that. However you dying as a result of not wearing a helmet doesn't just effect you. Your friends and family are affected; your workplace is affected; the economy is affected; the poor bastard who has to scrape up bits of your skull off the road is affected (there is a very good post somewhere on here by a KBer who had to look after someone who came off near Napier with no gear until the ambulance arrived, they weren't happy about it).

The other large aspect is that rather than just reduce mortality, helmets reduce the number of serious head injuries. These have a huge impact of people other than you; the cost of medical care, the cost of society feeding + caring for you, and so on. The only way to avoid that would be to sign something asking to be left on the side of the road to die rather than have an ambulance and any medical care.

I think there is a strong case for freedom of choice when it comes to wearing helmets. I don't think it's quite strong enough. I could potentially support it given certain conditions (insurance, family, etc) but given the choice of mandatory helmets or no restrictions at all, I would pick mandatory every time.

[swbarnett]

It's incredibly selfish to exercise a choice to kill one's self, because of all the other people you hurt.
I agree. It is selfish. The opinions and feelings of others can and should be taken into account but the ultimate decision about one's own fate at one's own hand (whether it be suicide or simply risks taken) lies solely with the individual.

[swbarnett]

It's Goverments duty to protect the public, often from themselves.
IMO the second part is completely wrong. The govenment has no business protecting us from ourselves. Only someone that owns me has the right to decide for me what is too risky and noone owns me but me.

My body, my risks, my decision. Noone else's.

[swbarnett]

Because the tradeoff (inconvenience) is fairly small vs the benefit (protecting your fragile + vital skull). A full leather suit is a larger inconvenience for a smaller benefit.
What gives you (or anyone else) the right to make this decision for me?


As for the 'my life my choice' argument, there is some truth in that. However you dying as a result of not wearing a helmet doesn't just effect you. Your friends and family are affected; your workplace is affected; the economy is affected;
Ah, but I am the only person that is directly affected.


the poor bastard who has to scrape up bits of your skull off the road is affected (there is a very good post somewhere on here by a KBer who had to look after someone who came off near Napier with no gear until the ambulance arrived, they weren't happy about it).
Yes, but that was their chioce. Don't blame the person being scraped up for the psycological trauma of those doing the scraping.


The other large aspect is that rather than just reduce mortality, helmets reduce the number of serious head injuries. These have a huge impact of people other than you; the cost of medical care, the cost of society feeding + caring for you, and so on. The only way to avoid that would be to sign something asking to be left on the side of the road to die rather than have an ambulance and any medical care.
Again, the only person directly affected is the rider.


I think there is a strong case for freedom of choice when it comes to wearing helmets. I don't think it's quite strong enough. I could potentially support it given certain conditions (insurance, family, etc) but given the choice of mandatory helmets or no restrictions at all, I would pick mandatory every time.
Again, why do you even have a say in what I do (or not do) to protect myself?

[Milts]

What gives you (or anyone else) the right to make this decision for me?
What gives you the right to decide that the laws will let more people lose their partners, parents or employees to avoidable accidents?


Ah, but I am the only person that is directly affected.
If Australia invades and massacres half the polulation of the city, I am not directly affected. That doesn't mean the only serious impact is to the people who were killed.


Yes, but that was their chioce. Don't blame the person being scraped up for the psycological trauma of those doing the scraping.
What gives you the right to traumatise people on their way to the shop by splattering your skull accross their windscreen? Also, who the fuck else could be at fault?

Again, the only person directly affected is the rider.
The distinction between 'affected' and 'directly affected' seems extremely arbitrary to me.

Again, why do you even have a say in what I do (or not do) to protect myself? I pay the taxes which will pay for your health care?

Further points: If you legalise crack cocaine, the only people directly affected are those who take it (by choice) - lets leave aside any injuries they cause to others. I can still guarantee that crime rates will skyrocket as people try to fund their habit. Do you think it's much consolation to the victims of the roberies that they are only indirectly affected? Do you think it's much consolation to the family of someone who died as a result of not wearing a helmet that they were only indirectly affected? What about those who now have to spend the rest of their life caring for a brain damaged parent or partner? Does it help them to know they are only indirectly affected?

Another argument is that we live in a democratic society. If the population as a whole decides that they would rather protect against the indirect impacts (loss of loved ones, healthcare or societal costs, lives lost caring for the injured), then it is undemocratic to not regulate helmet use. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just undemocratic - as a fan of democracy I'm against that. You may not be, but for me that is a strong argument.

[Zedder]

IMO the second part is completely wrong. The govenment has no business protecting us from ourselves. Only someone that owns me has the right to decide for me what is too risky and noone owns me but me.

My body, my risks, my decision. Noone else's.

This reply ties into what Milts is stating to some extent.

All organisations have "a duty of care" to their members. It is a universal legal concept that is part and parcel of Government, Churches, companies, clubs etc.

In a democracy, it is even more expanded in its influence when people can effect others by their choices/actions made (or not made). We cannot easily be isolated from it.

The New Zealand situation is further compounded by the no fault principle of ACC.

[Ocean1]

New Zealand does have a constitution though. However, it's not contained in a "supreme document" like some other countries.

NZ's "constitution" ammounts to the collected historic parlimentary legal rulings. It is nowhere near what reasonable people should expect by way of a statement of personal rights. It's written by fucking politicians for fucks sake.

[Ocean1]

If you legalise crack cocaine, the only people directly affected are those who take it (by choice) - lets leave aside any injuries they cause to others.

In the case of heavilly addictive substances I'd say your right to choose was effectively damaged by the initial decision. So cocaine should be controlled. I'd say tabacco should fall into the same category.


Another argument is that we live in a democratic society. If the population as a whole decides that they would rather protect against the indirect impacts (loss of loved ones, healthcare or societal costs, lives lost caring for the injured), then it is undemocratic to not regulate helmet use.

Again, just because a lot of people agree that I should or shouldn't do something doesn't make it ethically correct. That's not the function of a democracy.

[Zedder]

NZ's "constitution" ammounts to the collected historic parlimentary legal rulings. It is nowhere near what reasonable people should expect by way of a statement of personal rights. It's written by fucking politicians for fucks sake.

I was just replying to your statement about NZ not having a constitution by saying we do. The parliamentary rulings are only 1 out of the 6 ways it was constructed and it wasn't all by politicians.

At least we now have a Bill of Rights as part of it which is something we didn't have for a long time.

[Ocean1]

I was just replying to your statement about NZ not having a constitution by saying we do. The parliamentary rulings are only 1 out of the 6 ways it was constructed and it wasn't all by politicians.

At least we now have a Bill of Rights as part of it which is something we didn't have for a long time.

Both are supposed to protect the civil and political rights of the public from encroachment by Parliament, and by association any government agency. Neither are ennacted as supreme law, they can both be altered and interpreted by parliament to suit any end thay want. They both have been.

NZ's "bill of rights" is a Claytons document, it might make you feel special but don't count on it to protect you. As I said, I've got my own version, I'll stick with that thanks.

[Zedder]

Both are supposed to protect the civil and political rights of the public from encroachment by Parliament, and by association any government agency. Neither are ennacted as supreme law, they can both be altered and interpreted by parliament to suit any end thay want. They both have been.

NZ's "bill of rights" is a Claytons document, it might make you feel special but don't count on it to protect you. As I said, I've got my own version, I'll stick with that thanks.

Would that involve a shotgun by any chance?

[swbarnett]

What gives you the right to decide that the laws will let more people lose their partners, parents or employees to avoidable accidents?
Personal responsibility. NOONE is responsible for me but me!


If Australia invades and massacres half the polulation of the city, I am not directly affected. That doesn't mean the only serious impact is to the people who were killed.
This analogy bears no resemblence whatsoever to what I'm talking about. This is through the actions of a third party. Besides, I never said there was no serious impact. What I said was that only those directly affected by their own actions have the right to determine what those actions will be.


What gives you the right to traumatise people on their way to the shop by splattering your skull accross their windscreen? Also, who the fuck else could be at fault?
Because I don't got out to deliberatly traumatise anyone. Who are they to say what are reasonable precaustions for me?

Life is not safe - get used to it!


The distinction between 'affected' and 'directly affected' seems extremely arbitrary to me.
It is impossible to please everyone. Believe me, I've spent the better part of my life trying. If you allow anyone that is even remotely affected to have a say in how you run your life you end up with so many contradictions that you can't do anything.


I pay the taxes which will pay for your health care?
Are you not willing to pay a little to create a society that's worth living in? I certainly am. We could abolish ACC, bring in personal insurance with risk-based premiums. The first thing that will happen is that premiums for motorcycle riders will be vastly higher that anyone else, if we can get insurance at all.

As I've stated previously, I believe in the benifits of helmets. However, I will gladly pay for another's right to their own choice.


Further points: If you legalise crack cocaine, the only people directly affected are those who take it (by choice) - lets leave aside any injuries they cause to others. I can still guarantee that crime rates will skyrocket as people try to fund their habit.
This has been proven to be false. Legalise drugs and the cost of funding a habit goes through the floor. Therefore less crime. Also, with less financial incentive the number of drug pushers diminishes greatly.


Do you think it's much consolation to the victims of the roberies that they are only indirectly affected?
They may be indirectly affected my one's decision to take drugs but they are directly affect by their decision to commit a robbery.


Do you think it's much consolation to the family of someone who died as a result of not wearing a helmet that they were only indirectly affected?
There was a saying that seems to have fallen in to disuse - "At least they died doing something they loved." I would rather have my wife die from a poor choice than have her life ruined by overbearing, arbitrary restictions on her personal choices. I'll take one day of freedom over a lifetime of slavery.


What about those who now have to spend the rest of their life caring for a brain damaged parent or partner? Does it help them to know they are only indirectly affected?
This is an argument for repealing the helmet wear. Fewer helmets mean fewer people that survive but have massive brain injuries.


Another argument is that we live in a democratic society. If the population as a whole decides that they would rather protect against the indirect impacts (loss of loved ones, healthcare or societal costs, lives lost caring for the injured), then it is undemocratic to not regulate helmet use. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just undemocratic - as a fan of democracy I'm against that. You may not be, but for me that is a strong argument.
You are completely correct in this. While democracy may be better than some other political systems it does have this fatal flaw. As people in the western world become more individuals and less part of a community people on the fringe are increasingly having to tow the line of the majority. Unless we respect the rights of the individual to self-determination we are doomed to the eventual brakdown of the political system. More government in our lives means more pissed off citezins.

[swbarnett]

This reply ties into what Milts is stating to some extent.

All organisations have "a duty of care" to their members.
Yes, I understand this. What this means (or should mean as I belive the definition of "duty of care" is getting seriously twisted) is that an organisation should not, by their actions or policies, put any of it's members at risk. It says nothing about the organisation being responsible for self harm caused by the decisions of one of its members.

Lets say I decided to blindfold myself and fell down the stairs as a result. It would be utterly ludicrous to say that if I did this at work my employer would have failed their duty of care.

[Zedder]

Yes, I understand this. What this means (or should mean as I belive the definition of "duty of care" is getting seriously twisted) is that an organisation should not, by their actions or policies, put any of it's members at risk. It says nothing about the organisation being responsible for self harm caused by the decisions of one of its members.

Lets say I decided to blindfold myself and fell down the stairs as a result. It would be utterly ludicrous to say that if I did this at work my employer would have failed their duty of care.

What I was getting at with the duty of care concept was the Governments role in making laws to protect the public. Remember, I did also write words to the effect that they sometimes go too far over the freedom of choice aspect.

The laws relating to harm though are meant to cover a huge range of mentalities and possible actions. However in NZ, unlike any other country, we also have the ACC situation to contend with as I wrote later on.

[Ocean1]

What I was getting at with the duty of care concept was the Governments role in making laws to protect the public.

They do have a duty to protect the public. From the actions of a third party, not from themselves.


The laws relating to harm though are meant to cover a huge range of mentalities and possible actions. However in NZ, unlike any other country, we also have the ACC situation to contend with as I wrote later on.

There's nothing inherently exclusive about the provision of ACC cover to a population accorded comprehensive personal rights. As long as you charge everyone the same ammount, otherwise you'll always get politicians fiddling with the fees to their own advantage.


Arseholes.

[Zedder]

They do have a duty to protect the public. From the actions of a third party, not from themselves.



There's nothing inherently exclusive about the provision of ACC cover to a population accorded comprehensive personal rights. As long as you charge everyone the same ammount, otherwise you'll always get politicians fiddling with the fees to their own advantage.


Arseholes.

Yep, they're arseholes alright and the situation with ACC and targeting bikers is only a start IMHO.

Unfortunately, the Government's duty to protect isn't confined to a third party. Check out Paternalism if you're interested.

[GrayWolf]

no, but a brain with just a couple of synapses still holding hands is worth more than an (was) intelligent dead one.


Cant educate the dead or severely brain damaged.

I'm sure that people here have had dealings with a person with brain injuries.... Frequently I do not agree with TT, but in this instance he is 100% correct. And just a few unaffected synapses are worse than death IMO.
I worked for a nursing agency that specialised in traumatic brain injury rehabilitation.....
Lets see.... you come off your bike at 80k, or get hit by a car at 60k and get somersaulted. Time in Hospital in a coma then re learning to talk, walk, wash, dress, cook,... just the 'basics'.... some can take 3 years to achieve a point where they can be 'returned' into living in society, often with 24 hr care/supervision....
The after effects? personality change, loss of self discipline, no sense of self preservation, unable to comprehend a lot of the changes that have occoured,,,, cant remember the accident.. why cant I drive, ride a bike etc. I dont think I heard of a relationship lasting more than a few years after severe injury. Comment is frequently, they died in the accident (personality) but the corpse is walking around. Frequently unable to understand self danger (frontal lobe damage due to impact and the contra coup effect).
Sometimes left with seizures permanently, easily distracted, cooking chips, phone rings.... go out and leave the cooker going, or go and sit down and talk forgetting what they were doing. Yes we can all do that, but these people will do it every day, 'short term memory damage'. Often not able to follow instructions correctly, severely compromised short term memory. Often not able to accept changes easily, very fixated on a topic or an item and will not change from it. You spend time and resources showing them 'why/what'... then a few months later have to repeat the whole process again.
What is the most tragic IMO is the person can and does frequently remember everything from before... I can drive, I remember how etc... and they can perform the 'skills'... BUT example... I need to emergency brake for a pedestrian... think, decide, look down at the pedals, move foot, apply brakes. 2-3 seconds have elapsed.... but I 'braked'.... I stopped the car!! Or traffic lights, and they want to turn right.... their need to turn 'overrules' the requirements of the road rules.. and yep.. they'll simply carry on and turn.
I am talking about SEVERE brain injury here, many can and do make an almost 100% to 100% complete recovery... others are sadly left with a shadow life.... Personaly if I am in 'that condition' in an accident... I sincerly hope that no one will revive me.

So my point? If an item like a crash helmet or seat belt will prevent or mitigate personal injury? I am all for it, and yes I would love to see the popo be able to 'have a chat' with the numbnuts who ride in shorts, jandals etc
Things that are done to improve others behaviour like a his vis? No, it doesnt aid preventing direct personal injury, I dont agree with legislation.

[Ocean1]

So my point? If an item like a crash helmet or seat belt will prevent or mitigate personal injury? I am all for it

Are you sure that wearing a helmet reduces the chances of serious brain damage?

[tigertim20]

I'm sure that people here have had dealings with a person with brain injuries.... Frequently I do not agree with TT, but in this instance he is 100% correct. And just a few unaffected synapses are worse than death IMO.
I worked for a nursing agency that specialised in traumatic brain injury rehabilitation.....
Lets see.... you come off your bike at 80k, or get hit by a car at 60k and get somersaulted. Time in Hospital in a coma then re learning to talk, walk, wash, dress, cook,... just the 'basics'.... some can take 3 years to achieve a point where they can be 'returned' into living in society, often with 24 hr care/supervision....
The after effects? personality change, loss of self discipline, no sense of self preservation, unable to comprehend a lot of the changes that have occoured,,,, cant remember the accident.. why cant I drive, ride a bike etc. I dont think I heard of a relationship lasting more than a few years after severe injury. Comment is frequently, they died in the accident (personality) but the corpse is walking around. Frequently unable to understand self danger (frontal lobe damage due to impact and the contra coup effect).
Sometimes left with seizures permanently, easily distracted, cooking chips, phone rings.... go out and leave the cooker going, or go and sit down and talk forgetting what they were doing. Yes we can all do that, but these people will do it every day, 'short term memory damage'. Often not able to follow instructions correctly, severely compromised short term memory. Often not able to accept changes easily, very fixated on a topic or an item and will not change from it. You spend time and resources showing them 'why/what'... then a few months later have to repeat the whole process again.
What is the most tragic IMO is the person can and does frequently remember everything from before... I can drive, I remember how etc... and they can perform the 'skills'... BUT example... I need to emergency brake for a pedestrian... think, decide, look down at the pedals, move foot, apply brakes. 2-3 seconds have elapsed.... but I 'braked'.... I stopped the car!! Or traffic lights, and they want to turn right.... their need to turn 'overrules' the requirements of the road rules.. and yep.. they'll simply carry on and turn.
I am talking about SEVERE brain injury here, many can and do make an almost 100% to 100% complete recovery... others are sadly left with a shadow life.... Personaly if I am in 'that condition' in an accident... I sincerly hope that no one will revive me.

So my point? If an item like a crash helmet or seat belt will prevent or mitigate personal injury? I am all for it, and yes I would love to see the popo be able to 'have a chat' with the numbnuts who ride in shorts, jandals etc
Things that are done to improve others behaviour like a his vis? No, it doesnt aid preventing direct personal injury, I dont agree with legislation.
Ive done a bit of work in mental health - one bloke had suffered a head injury in a car accident.
He wasnt allowed to do much, and couldnt understand why he wasnt allowed to drive etc.
He was assessed as being incapable of even driving a mobility scooter safely.

his family bought him one anyway against our advice.

they sold it after he had four accidents, two involving running people over cos he was looking in a shop window etc, another because he had a petit mal seizure while cruising along the footpath, over the kerb, onto the road, nearly killed, save for the reactions of two attentive drivers.

off topic slightly, but that can be a real reality

[GrayWolf]

Are you sure that wearing a helmet reduces the chances of serious brain damage?

well you could go and see for yourself?
..... your skull is at best 2mm thick; direct impact on concrete at 50kph, should do nicely....

[davereid]

Depending on whos data you read hoping on a motorcycle makes you 18-30 times more likely to suffer a serious injury or die than someone in a car.

A helmet improves your odds by 30-50% according to some data.

So if you accept that its acceptable for governments to ban helmet-less riding for a doubling of the survival rate, how will you argue against banning riding full stop for a 30 x improvement ?

We fail the Darwin test every time we hop on a motorcycle by a factor of 18 to 30. The helmet is merely in the lash of the gears... insignificant compared to the carnage the motorcycle is responsible for.

[GrayWolf]

So if you accept that its acceptable for governments to ban helmet-less riding for a doubling of the survival rate, how will you argue against banning riding full stop for a 30 x improvement ?

We fail the Darwin test every time we hop on a motorcycle by a factor of 18 to 30. The helmet is merely in the lash of the gears... insignificant compared to the carnage the motorcycle is responsible for.

For sale 1200 Sportster, TGB 50cc moped. One 'Darwin deficient' owner wishing to improve odds by X30.....:bye:

[Ocean1]

well you could go and see for yourself?
..... your skull is at best 2mm thick; direct impact on concrete at 50kph, should do nicely....

Oh I think it's a wee bit thicker than that. <_< Direct impact on concrete, however will see you comfortably dead no matter what you've got wrapped around your skull.

So, see, if you bracket the impact velocities that are likely to leave you OK, FITH, and DEAD without a helmet and do the same for impact velocities with a helmet you'll get two ranges of speed that we'd like to avoid. Godit?

So if the dreaded vegie velocity range is 10 - 20k without a helmet and 20 - 30k with then your odds of vegihood are about even.

Except you might be more likely to ride at speeds that make vegihood more likely with a helmet.