|
This Liberal govt can't get enough of controlling your behaviour (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Skipper |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
But car insurance protects others from your actions therefore should be mandatory. Bike helmets only protect yourself. |
Financially, yes - but not physically.
I completely agree with MarkT - Jay you are missing a big point. Helmets mitigate risk overall, not just to the person wearing it. As a driver, it's in YOUR favor to support this law. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
I agree this is overly paternalistic...but you're wrong there that it doesn't hurt anyone other than themself.
eg. you're riding a bike, someone in a car clips you (even gently) and you fall. you have a helmet vs. not can DRAMATICALLY affect that other person in the way they are charged. Yes, the driving is in the "wrong", but that wrong could have been mitigate by the other person being safe. Sorry, but "it's not stylish" doesn't cut it. While not illegal not to wear one, the rider ought to bear SOME personal responsibility for what amounts to their own negligence.
same thing for people who don't wear seatbelts...you hit someone, they have a seatbelt and they're ok, so you're charged with whatever (turn not in safety, for eg.)...they fly through their windshielt and die...vehicular manslaughter.
I'm absolutely fine with people NOT being forced to wear helmets...but then I think they ought to bear the full consequences themselves. |
If the car clips you then they should be prepared to face whatever consequences arise from the outcome. I see your reasoning but the fact that the car shouldnt be hitting a bike rider in the first place trumps this arguement. When im putting on a helmet i shouldnt be thinking "boy i want to protect the driver of the car that hits me from being charged". No, it should be the driver saying "i hope i dont hit a bicyclist and if i do i hope he has a helmet on"
Thats like saying "i better wear a bullet proof vest or else if someone tries to shoot me they will get charged with murder instead of assault" |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Skipper
Financially, yes - but not physically.
I completely agree with MarkT - Jay you are missing a big point. Helmets mitigate risk overall, not just to the person wearing it. As a driver, it's in YOUR favor to support this law. |
read what i said above. Again you are transferring responsibilty to others. If you hit a bicyclist then you should face whatever consequences arise from your actions, helmet or not. |
|
|
| MarkT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
If the car clips you then they should be prepared to face whatever consequences arise from the outcome. I see your reasoning but the fact that the car shouldnt be hitting a bike rider in the first place trumps this arguement. When im putting on a helmet i shouldnt be thinking "boy i want to protect the driver of the car that hits me from being charged". No, it should be the driver saying "i hope i dont hit a bicyclist and if i do i hope he has a helmet on"
Thats like saying "i better wear a bullet proof vest or else if someone tries to shoot me they will get charged with murder instead of assault" |
I don't think it 100% trumps the argument..."accidents" (poor word, I know) happen...it's why we have a myriad of safety regulations in place for cars (like bumpers specs). It's part of why you can't just build whatever you want and put it on the road.
I'm not suggesting the driver by not liable at all for the "additional" damage/injury...but a cyclist wearing no helmet shouldn't be able to claim NO contribution to those additional injuries.
I'm just saying that when a readily available alternative to ZERO protection is available, and you shun it, then you ought to accept at least SOME of the risk of consequences yourself.
I guess that's my compromise to not making helmets MANDATORY, but encouraging their use...no ticket for not wearing one, but no penatly/benefit if you sustain additional injury. Hell, do that for seatbelt laws too...no ticket for not wearing one, but you go through your windshield, you lose insurance coverage for additional injuries. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
I don't think it 100% trumps the argument..."accidents" (poor word, I know) happen...it's why we have a myriad of safety regulations in place for cars (like bumpers specs). It's part of why you can't just build whatever you want and put it on the road.
I'm not suggesting the driver by not liable at all for the "additional" damage/injury...but a cyclist wearing no helmet shouldn't be able to claim NO contribution to those additional injuries.
I'm just saying that when a readily available alternative to ZERO protection is available, and you shun it, then you ought to accept at least SOME of the risk of consequences yourself.
I guess that's my compromise to not making helmets MANDATORY, but encouraging their use...no ticket for not wearing one, but no penatly/benefit if you sustain additional injury. Hell, do that for seatbelt laws too...no ticket for not wearing one, but you go through your windshield, you lose insurance coverage for additional injuries. |
I could agree with your comprimise. After all im not against seatbelt use or helmet use. Im against forcing grown men and women to use them. Give them the choice and let them deal with consequence rather force it on them. We shouldnt make a lack of common sense a criminal offence. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
Starting January 1st the following actions will also be taken:
1. Bungee jumping, skydiving, parasailing, surfing, and road hockey will be illegal due to their high rate of reported accidents.
2. The national speed limit will be lowered to 10 km/h and all cars will be required to have 10" rubber bumpers on all sides to prevent injuries due to accidents.
3. Viewers will be required to sit at least 50 feet away from their televisions and at least 10 feet away from their computers due to the high radiation.
4. Cell phones must be boxed in lead casing and used with headsets to prevent cancer. Also, the volume will be limited to 0.1 dBA to prevent hearing loss.
5. During the fall and winter months (Nov-Mar), everyone will be required to stay inside to prevent the possibility of catching pneumonia, or weakening their immune systems and catching other diseases.
6. Chocolate, coffee, tea, red bull, and any other substances containing stimulants will be banned due to their addictive qualities and increased risk of stroke.
7. Alcohol will be banned.
8. Trans fats, saturated fats, and sugars will be banned.
9. Nobody allowed outside during thunderstorms, heavy rain, fog, light rain, mist, or between the hours of 8:00 PM and 6:00 AM.
10. Players of "contact" sports such as football, rugby, lacrosse, basketball, baseball, and curling will be required to wear full padding to prevent potential injury.
11. Golfers and croquet and cricket players must wear back supports or collars at all time. Weight lifters will be limited to 50 lbs. in any exercise. Any merchants attempting to sell heavier weights or dumbbells will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
12. Surgical masks and gloves will be required to be worn at all times to prevent the spread of disease.
13. Toys with small parts, such as Risk, jigsaw puzzles, checkers, chess, and action figures will no longer be allowed to be sold in stores due to the potential choking hazards for small children.
14. Sleep is important, so everyone will be required by law to be in bed by 9 PM and stay there until 6 AM.
15. To prevent the spread of fatal diseases, sexual relations will be prohibited.
Thank you for your cooperation in creating this new utopia. |
|
|
| RobbyG. |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
We shouldnt make a lack of common sense a criminal offence. |
Well sometimes I think it SHOULD be ....
;)
kidding |
|
|
| RobbyG. |
| I know that I've said that there would be enormous financial costs to health care but think of the personnal costs.I mean if you lose a close relative like a brother/sister because they didn't wear a bike helmet.Something as innocent as riding a bike on a bike lane & they run over a rock & wipe out on the road.I don't know about you but I would be devistated if that happened to me... |
|
|
| drewfactor |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
having the government babysit you is bad enough, but to back it up with the arguement of public healthcare is even worse. I cant wait for the day they say "you OD'd? well thats your fault so OHIP wont cover it. Why should taxpayers pay for what you do to yourself?"
|
I work with this reeeeeeaaaalllly old school doctor, and judging by your posts you'd love him. (I know I do).
He told this one diabetic patient who almost died from not checking his blood sugar enough that he was "an irresponsible little ." He told this one fat patient that he's "too ing fat" and he's not getting any food in hospital, only the "flintstones diet" ...meaning, no food as long as he's in hospital, only vitimins. He told this one patient who had lung disease from smoking that "if I ever catch you smoking, I'm gonna beat you over the head with a baseball bat." He also told this guy who OD'd on methadone that he "owes the taxpayers 10000 dollars for his stupidity.
It's sometimes innappropriate, extreme and mean, but yet refreshing at the same time. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by RobbyG.
I know that I've said that there would be enormous financial costs to health care but think of the personnal costs.I mean if you lose a close relative like a brother/sister because they didn't wear a bike helmet.Something as innocent as riding a bike on a bike lane & they run over a rock & wipe out on the road.I don't know about you but I would be devistated if that happened to me... |
That's all well and good but it doesn't address even ONE SINGLE POINT that's been said in this thread.
Better luck next time, and thanks for comin' out... |
|
|
| RobbyG. |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
That's all well and good but it doesn't address even ONE SINGLE POINT that's been said in this thread.
Better luck next time, and thanks for comin' out... |
All I am saying is that there are OTHER "costs"...WHOLY haven't you read the other posts:conf: :conf: ...Am I not allowed to make other points? or if I make other points then I am automatically wrong...MAN open your mind:rolleyes: :rolleyes: & stop being so ignorant. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
Like i said dude, you better not be having sex without condoms because if you get Aids i dont want to pay for it. YOU should pay for it. You see how flawed this line of reasoning is?
Try again. |
Anyone else not get this?
I don't see the connection at all... :confused:
One is going to the hospital because they had to scrape their dumb-ass off the road and the other....well I don't understand (other than they can't keep it in their pants) how I'm paying for someone who has AIDS? I mean....we do? How? |
|
|
|
|
