Biker dies in no helmet protest

[swbarnett]

I find it difficult for a supporting argument to be that other people not wearing helmets endangers you.

Indeed, so do I.

A legal compulsion is appropriate only where it can be shown that an individual's choice results in an immediate danger to someone else.

[Katman]

A legal compulsion is appropriate only where it can be shown that an individual's choice results in an immediate danger to someone else.

And a moral compulsion is appropriate when an individual's choice results in an impingement on the rights of others.

[FJRider]

And a moral compulsion is appropriate when an individual's choice results in an impingement on the rights of others.

But what if my rights .... are more important than yours ... ???

[DMNTD:Me]

But what if my rights .... are more important than yours ... ???

Surely that would simply make them wrongs

[FJRider]

Surely that would simply make them wrongs

ME ... wrong ... surely not ...

[gwigs]

Back in the days before helmet laws.

[swbarnett]

And a moral compulsion is appropriate when an individual's choice results in an impingement on the rights of others.

Indeed.

And not wearing a helmet (or wearing one for that matter) does not impinge on anyone elses rights.

[Katman]

Indeed.

And not wearing a helmet (or wearing one for that matter) does not impinge on anyone elses rights.

The results of it do though.

[FJRider]

The results of it do though.

My visor has three scratches in it from stone impacts ... if it wasn't being worn ...

[swbarnett]

The results of it do though.

I'm afraid not. A squashed head as the result of an impact without a helmet does not take away anyone's rights. Any would-be rescuers still have the right to leave the rider's battered body to the buzzards.

And as for the ACC cost argument: As a society we have chosen to embrace a no-fault system. As a result, it is within the principles of ACC to ride without a helmet (or anything else).

[Katman]

I'm afraid not. A squashed head as the result of an impact without a helmet does not take away anyone's rights.

Certainly does if the government says it does.

[swbarnett]

Certainly does if the government says it does.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Please elaborate.

[FJRider]

I'm afraid not. A squashed head as the result of an impact without a helmet does not take away anyone's rights. Any would-be rescuers still have the right to leave the rider's battered body to the buzzards.

Leaving the scene of an accident without acertaining injury / assisting those injured is ...
Well at least drag it off the road ... so all the blood doesnt splattered over passing cars ... (it's a barstard to get off when it dries)

And as for the ACC cost argument: As a society we have chosen to embrace a no-fault system. As a result, it is within the principles of ACC to ride without a helmet (or anything else).

Well ... the deceased rider would claim no fault ... if they were alive ... and you cant sue a deceased person for damages though ...

[davereid]

As a result, it is within the principles of ACC to ride without a helmet (or anything else).

Herein lies the problem.

Caring people noticed that in some parts of the world, the injured, sick or disabled sat outside the railway station on a blanket, hoping for scraps from passer-bys.

So we created a system, that looks after the injured, sick or disabled. Funded by tax, everyone was "in" even if they did not want to be.

For the good of society.

Trouble is, the same caring people, (and some who were taxed but not so caring), then noticed an awful lot of their taxes being spent caring for people, who had deliberately chosen to do dangerous things.

So, they decided to ban just the most dangerous thing.

Trouble is, once banned, it wasn't the most dangerous thing any more. Something else was.

So, they banned that too.

In the public good of course !

[FJRider]

Herein lies the problem.

In the beginning ... the NZ goverment created ACC.

On the 2nd day ... they saw that it was good, and provided more money.

On the 3rd day, they saw themselves helping ALL that needed help, and that it was good.

On the 4th day, they thought it was so good, they could help those who couldn't be helped ... but hey ... they had plenty of money ... and it was good.

On the 5th day, they ran out of money and created bigger levys to cover the shortfall... and it was good (for them)

On the 6th day, with so much money in the coffers, they sold ACC as a going concern... and it was good (for them)

On the 7th day God (I mean the NZ goverment) rested.

In the public good of course !