The definition of irony. And stupidity.

[HoreTore]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_MOTORCYCLIST_DIES_HELMET_PROTEST?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Hm, html code doesn't seem to agree with my pad anymore... Anyway:

A biker died after flipping over the handlebars, hitting the pavement with his head. As he was protesting against the EVIL GUVMENT which has the nerve to tell him he should put on a helmet, he did not wear one, because he's super-awesome and anti-establishment and all that other stuff spoiled 14-year olds with an identity crisis are.

The doctor who pronounced him dead said he would've been alive if he had used one. Yes, the government is truly an evil entity, hell-bent on turning us all into slaves. Durk-a-dur!



The good news is: one less idiot in the world. At least that's something.

[Centurion1]

your a ****

[Rhyfelwyr]

REMOVED

[Populus Romanus]

Isn't impersonating a mod a violation...?

[Gregoshi]

That's one way to tell the government to go to helmet.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Isn't impersonating a mod a violation...?

I'm protesting against the mods. Do they think they are the only ones that can have green text? I can do whatever I was because I an so super-awesome and anti-establishment.

[ajaxfetish]

I'm not sure I see the point. The guy surely knew the dangers associated with riding helmetless. The freedom crowd aren't asserting that helmets are not safer, but that people should have the freedom to take risks with their own lives. He did, and the risk came due. If his family, or other helmet protesters, were complaining about the government's failure to protect him, there might be a story here.

Ajax

[a completely inoffensive name]

You're a ****

Fixed that for you.

/grammarnazi

[Centurion1]

Fixed that for you.

/grammarnazi


/grammar Nazi

[Fragony]

So we should all be wearing helmets because sometimes accidents happen, you can also make a nasty fall when walking. Maybe it's best if we just all stay home

[Ronin]

another Darwin award winner!

[rajpoot]

Why do people protest against such things?
Granted that a man has the right to his own life, but there's nothing wrong in wearing a helmet.

Next they'll be protesting against seat-belts...then maybe against wearing seat-belts in aeroplanes...



That's one way to tell the government to go to helmet.

:laugh4:

[HoreTore]

Personally, I find the most amusing part of this story to be that his fellow protesters put their helmets on after the accident... Oh well, better late than never.

[Fragony]

Why do people protest against such things?
Granted that a man has the right to his own life, but there's nothing wrong in wearing a helmet.

It just isn't necessary to wear a helmet. Make bycicle lanes instead.

[Husar]

Personally, I find the most amusing part of this story to be that his fellow protesters put their helmets on after the accident... Oh well, better late than never.

He probably didn't look so cool anymore after the accident.

Concerning people protesting seat belts in airplanes, that's different because by not doing so you endanger the other 2xx passengers in the plane in case you become a human bullet or so.

And Fragony, a lot more people die in motorcycle accidents than by falling while they walk, the speed involved is usually different or do you walk at 50km/h?

[InsaneApache]

I'm not sure I see the point. The guy surely knew the dangers associated with riding helmetless. The freedom crowd aren't asserting that helmets are not safer, but that people should have the freedom to take risks with their own lives. He did, and the risk came due. If his family, or other helmet protesters, were complaining about the government's failure to protect him, there might be a story here.

Ajax

This.

[Fragony]

And Fragony, a lot more people die in motorcycle accidents than by falling while they walk, the speed involved is usually different or do you walk at 50km/h?

Ah we talking motorcycles, thought this was about the bycicles. Every so often another idiot surfaces who wants to make helmets mandatory. Believe the EUSSR is also considering it, fat chance we will do so, not

[CountArach]

I was going to close this thread as it went off the intended topic very quickly, but it seems conversation has continued in a constructive direction. Please maintain this level.

CountArach

[Crazed Rabbit]

Ironic and sad, yes.

But an individual ought to be able to make decisions that aren't in their best interest. Like doing drugs. Was anybody else hurt by his not wearing a helmet?

CR

[rajpoot]

But an individual ought to be able to make decisions that aren't in their best interest. Like doing drugs. Was anybody else hurt by his not wearing a helmet?

CR

And like committing suicide perhaps.

[Fragony]

But an individual ought to be able to make decisions that aren't in their best interest. Like doing drugs. Was anybody else hurt by his not wearing a helmet?

CR

Agreed. If I decide to take a swim with tigersharks wearing Lady Gaga's meat-costume, silly me

[Hosakawa Tito]

Personally, I find the most amusing part of this story to be that his fellow protesters put their helmets on after the accident... Oh well, better late than never.

So he didn't die in vain. The freedom to take a foolish risk when you are only endangering yourself...not everyone is endeared with the nanny state system of micromanaging everyone elses lives. I don't see the story here. :shrug:

[Sarmatian]

Ironic and sad, yes.

But an individual ought to be able to make decisions that aren't in their best interest. Like doing drugs. Was anybody else hurt by his not wearing a helmet?

CR

It's not that simple. What if he made a turn to avoid a car, if he wore helmet he would have survived, if he didn't, he's dead. Guy who drove the car is facing a lawsuit of inflicting light injuries or manslaughter. Not quite the same. Insurance companies face similar issues - do they pay for permanent disabilities of a person or light injuries if he wore a helmet? A guy on motorcycle hits a pedestrian and is knocked unconscious because he doesn't wear helmet and the pedestrian who got hit dies because there was no one to call an ambulance. If he did wear a helmet he would have stayed conscious and could have called an ambulance and prevent the person who got hit from dieing.

Basically, you're in control of a potentially dangerous vehicle, you owe to yourself and society to protect yourself and others the best you can so that you can be in the best possible condition to help yourself or others if need be, not to mention not to add more troubles to courts and/or insurance companies and therefore waste more tax payer's or private enterpreneur's money. Deal with it and wear a freakin' helmet.

[gaelic cowboy]

It just isn't necessary to wear a helmet. Make bycicle lanes instead.

It's the law to wear a helmet on a bicycle too, at least it is here anyway.

[HoreTore]

Ironic and sad, yes.

But an individual ought to be able to make decisions that aren't in their best interest. Like doing drugs. Was anybody else hurt by his not wearing a helmet?

CR

The story is that he died fighting the cause of disgruntled 14-year olds. If you're 55, you wear a helmet, end of story. Protesting against helmet laws is so retarded I'm lost for words.

And the irony in this story is highly amusing. Darwin is chuckling in his grave.

[Strike For The South]

Ironic and sad, yes.

But an individual ought to be able to make decisions that aren't in their best interest. Like doing drugs. Was anybody else hurt by his not wearing a helmet?

CR

The clean up probably cost me 1/100 of a penny

Damn welfare state

You don't want you money going to a healthcare system that the obese/smokers will take part in

Yet it's ok to spend money to clean up some grey matter that is on the road due to an equally dumb decison

Do

Not

Understand

[Beskar]

Ironic and sad, yes.

But an individual ought to be able to make decisions that aren't in their best interest. Like doing drugs. Was anybody else hurt by his not wearing a helmet?

People mopping up the mess afterwards?

[Samurai Waki]

Probably a good thing he died, had he not he might've sued the Gubmin't for not enforcing helmet laws.

[Adrian II]

Protesting against helmet laws is so retarded I'm lost for words.

The retards have already taken over. They demand safety for all. And above all. They value safety above beauty, daring, yes even above freedom itself. And of course the state should provide. Always the state. We need more laws, they say. Human nature must be conquered, incarcerated, enslaved, so we need laws upon laws upon laws. We made traffic safety laws, but they aren't water-tight. So let's force people to wear helmets and yellow jackets as emblems of their slavery. Oh dear, but those helmets and yellow jackets give them a false sense of safety and make them behave more recklessly in traffic. Quick, we need new laws! In the end we'll all be forced to stay home 'in our own best interest' and to wear a helmet anyway, just to be on the safe side.

In 2001 the Norwich (UK) city council struck down a row of chestnut trees because falling conkers were deemed a 'danger to public safety'. People might get hurt!

This sort of thing is emblematic for the fools' paradise we live in.

To claim Darwin for the helmet policy is the most retarded thing I have heard in, oh, a couple of weeks. And I'm a journalist, pickings are rich in my line of work. Yes chil'lun, Darwin's principle of evolution is: better safe than sorry!

AII

[HoreTore]

If it was any other law, I would probably agree with your argument, Adrian.


Unfortunately, this is about helmet laws, and I simply cannot comprehend why anyone is capable of working up the rage to protest it. Just wear the damn thing and stop acting like a brat.

[Adrian II]

Friend of mine has a 10-year-old. The kid used to ride his bike all over the neighborhood for years without any incident. One day his Mom got the health & safety folder from the local school and fell for it. Kid was given a biker helmet, a yellow jacket and an orange flag suspended from a 4' pole mounted on his bike.

Two days later the kid was hit by a car and broke his collarbone. He thought he was safe because of all that junk.

We are gradually losing many reflexes that helped mankind survive through the ages. For example: we don't observe simple hygiene measures like our parents and grand parents did. That's why E. coli is spreading all the time, because people don't wash their food anymore before preparing and consuming it. Because hey, food safety is the supermarket's responsibility.

AII

[rajpoot]

The people who drive recklessly just because they think they're wearing a helmet need to have their head checked up.
The worst that happens to a normal person when he/she wears a helmet is that it messes up their hair.
I cannot imagine that the kid drove his cycle with his eyes closed just because he had an orange flag streaming from its handle.

Yeah, humans are getting soft because of the relatively cushier life we're living now, but that's not because of the laws of a country. People won't be any safer on the roads if they didn't have to stop at traffic lights, and only had their own instincts to warn them about vehicles coming from their sides.....or more careful for that matter.

[Adrian II]

People won't be any safer on the roads if they didn't have to stop at traffic lights, and only had their own instincts to warn them [...]

They would. There is a wealth of material that shows that traffic safety improvements going from traffic lights to safety belts have resulted in a huge increase in accidents and victims. Start with Dr Robert Davis, Death on the Streets: Cars and the Mythology of Road Safety (1993), and take it from there. Or read up on the concept of 'risk compensation'.

In short: idiot-proofing only produces more idiots.

AII

[InsaneApache]

The retards have already taken over. They demand safety for all. And above all. They value safety above beauty, daring, yes even above freedom itself. And of course the state should provide. Always the state. We need more laws, they say. Human nature must be conquered, incarcerated, enslaved, so we need laws upon laws upon laws. We made traffic safety laws, but they aren't water-tight. So let's force people to wear helmets and yellow jackets as emblems of their slavery. Oh dear, but those helmets and yellow jackets give them a false sense of safety and make them behave more recklessly in traffic. Quick, we need new laws! In the end we'll all be forced to stay home 'in our own best interest' and to wear a helmet anyway, just to be on the safe side.

In 2001 the Norwich (UK) city council struck down a row of chestnut trees because falling conkers were deemed a 'danger to public safety'. People might get hurt!

This sort of thing is emblematic for the fools' paradise we live in.

To claim Darwin for the helmet policy is the most retarded thing I have heard in, oh, a couple of weeks. And I'm a journalist, pickings are rich in my line of work. Yes chil'lun, Darwin's principle of evolution is: better safe than sorry!

AII

It's called the precautionary principle. Much loved by bansturbators. It's depressing really how adults have become infantalized over the last twenty years or so. I'm lucky, I grew up in the sixties when common sense used to rule the roost. Halcyon days.

[HoreTore]

They would. There is a wealth of material that shows that traffic safety improvements going from traffic lights to safety belts have resulted in a huge increase in accidents and victims. Start with Dr Robert Davis, Death on the Streets: Cars and the Mythology of Road Safety (1993), and take it from there. Or read up on the concept of 'risk compensation'.

In short: idiot-proofing only produces more idiots.

AII

.....and like a true partisan, Adrian is of course ignoring the fact that there's a bigger wealth of material saying the opposite of what he claims.

And the bottom line in the particular story of this thread: had he used a helmet, he would be alive. He did not, and he died.

[InsaneApache]

You don't know that he would have lived had he been wearing his helmet. You just pre-supposing. He might have broken his neck. I say this because a good friend of mine was killed in the late 70s when he came off his bike and wrapped himself around a lamp post. He had all the gear on. Boots, leathers, helmet etc. Going back further to the 60s my cousin was killed when he lost control of his bike and ended up being a cruise missile through the windscreen of a van. He too had all the gear on but it didn't do him much good. One of the reasons why I drive a car. You can't fall off it!

[Adrian II]

.....and like a true partisan, Adrian is of course ignoring [...]

Like a true gentleman, Adrian has been providing sources. Where are yours?

AII

[HoreTore]

You don't know that he would have lived had he been wearing his helmet.

I don't, but the doctor who pronounced him dead said so, and I don't see how I'm qualified to question someone with years of training and practice who also treated the man. I take his word for it.

@Adrian: I'm quite sure you're capable of looking through the webpage and/or publications of any of the myriad of motor safety groups yourself. And the manufacturers and state departments.

[Husar]

For example: we don't observe simple hygiene measures like our parents and grand parents did. That's why E. coli is spreading all the time, because people don't wash their food anymore before preparing and consuming it. Because hey, food safety is the supermarket's responsibility.

AII

Supermarkets are dirty, I wash my hands every time I filled a cup with milk because the milk from the supermarket is dirty, who knows who touched it before?
Also, using all these disinfectants may kill a lot of e.coli but it also leaves the ones with resistances to spread all over the place, and a lack of work for the immune system causes allergies.
Washing your salad makes all the precious vitamins go away as well, never mind that chocolate has more vitamins anyway.
Oh, now I really don't know what to do anymore.

And more on topic, even if I wore a ballistic vest, I'd still be afraid of RPGs!!!

[HoreTore]

Husar's last point is important in this debate.

Evry western army has all the body armour they can afford. The US army goes without saying, but the Israeli one is worthy of additional consideration here. The main concern of the Israeli officers is that of manpower. They have very little of it, and thus every loss of a soldier is significant. Now, how do they adress this problem? By ensuring that every protection measure available is taken. Their tanks in particular are geared towards survival, even if it means losing some offensive capability. And contrary to Adrians analysis of the safety-hysteria, it works. Brilliantly. The Israelis have, because of their emphasis on protection, very few tank crew losses.

[Adrian II]

@Adrian: I'm quite sure you're capable of looking through the webpage and/or publications of any of the myriad of motor safety groups yourself. And the manufacturers and state departments.

Oh, I'm sure that all car manufacturers will call their cars safe, that all producers of helmets will sing the praises of the helmet, and that all purveyers of safety belts will expound eloquently on the benefits of same. There is a slight problem: in quite a few cases the evidence is lacking.

The motorist in the OP provides no evidence whatsoever. Read again. No doctor said anything about him not wearing a helmet, only the police troopers did. Motoring accidents happen all the time, statistically one had to happen during a demonstration sooner or later. Heck, some motorists die peacefully in their beds without a motor in sight. Which doesn't lead us to pronounce on the safety hazards of lying in one's bed, does it?

Statistics tell us that people behave more recklessly once they perceive a higher degree of personal safety, whether it's because of condom use, wearing ski helmets or installing antilock brakes.

Deal with it.

AII

[Lemur]

Statistics tell us that people behave more recklessly once they perceive a higher degree of personal safety, whether it's because of condom use, wearing ski helmets or installing antilock brakes.
I'm unclear on what conclusion to draw from this hypothesis. For example, I believe that per-mile vehicle deaths in 'Merica have generally trended down (http://ghsp.vermont.gov/sites/ghsp/files/pdfs/2006%20vt%20crash%20resource%20book/table1_2.pdf) in the last decade. So ... hmmm. People are using more safetey gear ('cause they are), but they're being more reckless which makes the safety gear useless, but accident and death rates are down per vehicle mile so ...

What am I to make of this?

[HoreTore]

http://www.9wsyr.com/news/local/story/Man-dies-after-motorcycle-crashes-during-helmet/3hjcjSPXsUCsrtyM9cBn0g.cspx

"The medical expert we discussed the case with who pronounced him deceased stated that he would've no doubt survived the accident had he been wearing a helmet," said Trooper Jack Keller.

I'm sure they're lying. Probably jewish as well.

[Hosakawa Tito]

Yes, because if they stated that a helmet might not have made a difference in this case it would not have supported the dogma. Motorcycles are inherently dangerous no matter the body armor. Helmets may increase ones chance of survival, but so many other factors are involved that it is no guarantee. Most fatal accidents are due to operator error and high speed. A helmet is poor protection from foolish. I wouldn't ride a motorcycle without one, and don't care to ride with one. All one can control is ones own actions. The other drivers on the road are the real danger for me.

[Husar]

Statistics tell us that people behave more recklessly once they perceive a higher degree of personal safety, whether it's because of condom use, wearing ski helmets or installing antilock brakes.

So it's very darwinistic indeed, because by introducing more safety gear we weed out the irresponsible ones and the ones who have a completely wrong perception of danger while we save the ones who are very responsible but have some bad luck. We're just strengthening the genetic disposition of both groups. ~;)

[HoreTore]

I agree with that.

Edit: hosa's post, that is.... Husar was too quick, that kraut bugger.

[Adrian II]

I'm unclear on what conclusion to draw from this hypothesis. For example, I believe that per-mile vehicle deaths in 'Merica have generally trended down (http://ghsp.vermont.gov/sites/ghsp/files/pdfs/2006%20vt%20crash%20resource%20book/table1_2.pdf) in the last decade. So ... hmmm. People are using more safetey gear ('cause they are), but they're being more reckless which makes the safety gear useless, but accident and death rates are down per vehicle mile so ...

What am I to make of this?

Google 'Smeed's Law'.

AII

[rajpoot]

It would seem after browsing through the Internet that there are quite a few people who are against road safety laws. The article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_traffic_safety#Criticisms) on Wikipedia actually has a section devoted to it, and what the beliefs of these people are.

Also since I couldn't find the whole book I read through a small review of it, quite insightful, here (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1067688/pdf/injprev00006-0087d.pdf) (I suggest everyone interested in the topic read it).

@Adrian II

A few things I have to point out.
First these people who criticise the laws seem to be talking about the safety of the pedestrians and not the people in/on the vehicles themselves. The book you referred to atleast seems to specifically be against, first cars and then the road rules.
Second, the reviewer on the linked page points out something important, people who make the laws need to make them after considering every aspect of the err...thing. They need to make laws based on fact and logic. Maybe the law might turn out to be wrong and the idea that making the road dangerous so that the people who get injured don't use it at all, might work, but I don't think it's something that's ever going to be tried.

[InsaneApache]

Laws based on facts and logic eh? A novel concept.

[Lemur]

Google 'Smeed's Law'.
Messr. Smeed's law appears to be questionable at best, which supports my question about fatalities per vehicle-km traveled. From the Wiki summary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smeed%27s_law):



"researchers now dispute this, pointing out that fatalities per person have decreased, when the "Law" requires that they should increase as long as the number of vehicles per person continues to rise."

"The validity of Smeed's Law has been disputed by several other authors (Andreassen[4], Broughton[5], Oppe[6], and Ameen & Naji[7]).

They generally suggest that fatality rates per vehicle are now decreasing faster than the formula would suggest, and that, in many cases, fatality rates per person are also falling, directly contrary to the Smeed's Law prediction. They attribute this improvement to effective safety interventions.

Powles (Oxford Textbook of Public Health) notes that the Australian state of Victoria which experienced deaths in excess of the Smeed formula until about 1970, subsequently adopted a range of interventions which took it from being a poor performer in terms of road safety to one of the best. Deaths fell in absolute terms from a peak of 1000 in 1970 to below 300 in 2009, despite strong growth in population and the number of vehicles."


Total vehicle deaths in a population seems like a poor measure: if fewer people are driving fewer miles, naturally there will be fewer accidents. The reverse holds true. So the best measure, to my prosimian way of thinking, is deaths/accidents per vehicle-mile. And that measure has been falling pretty much across the board.

So ... your hypothesis is on gelatinous ground. If safety devices and measures are universally obviated by an increase in risky behavior, then deaths/accidents per vehicle mile should at least be stable, if not increasing. The reverse is true.

[Adrian II]

Messr. Smeed's law appears to be questionable at best, which supports my question about fatalities per vehicle-km traveled. From the Wiki summary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smeed%27s_law):

Oh Jezus, Wikipedia..

Well, to be fair, that Wiki at least mentions the work of Prof John Adams. Better take a look then, eh?

Gentlemen, I give you the full John Adams (http://john-adams.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Management-of-the-risks-of-transport2.pdf).

AII

[Lemur]

Oh Jezus, Wikipedia..
Oh Jesus, another person dismissing Wikipedia ...


Gentlemen, I give you the full John Adams (http://john-adams.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Management-of-the-risks-of-transport2.pdf).
Off to client, no time to read the entire thing in-depth, but I note that on pages 4 & 5 he shows the overall decrease in fatalities per mile. He then throws a bunch of postulates for why this is occurring, appears to shoot them all down ... does he offer a hypothesis at all? Just wondering. And once again, the real-world statistics appear to contradict Smeed's Law and your argument. If you can be bothered to clarify your position, I'd be appreciative.

[Adrian II]

[...] does he offer a hypothesis at all? Just wondering.

His answer is: we develop higher risk aversion as we get richer. Traffic law and law enforcement follow our perception of risk, instead of leading out perception and forcing changes in our behaviour. This Adams illustrates with his concept of the risk thermometer (to find out exactly what that is, you would have to read the paper). Hence the introduction of safety measures has had no discernible influence on the incidence of traffic accidents ever since the model T Ford was first built, as he amply demonstrates in the paper.

It comes down to this:


As the number of cars in a country increases, the death rate per car decreases. In countries in the early stages of motorization each vehicle is incredibly lethal. Poor countries with a small number of modern cars, with a hundred years of safety technology built into them, are achieving kill-rates per vehicle as high or higher than those at the time of Model-Ts.

AII

[rajpoot]

Laws based on facts and logic eh? A novel concept.

I can't tell whether or not you're being sarcastic....or if you are, then, well, what exactly is your point? That law makers are stupid?

[jirisys]

We are gradually losing many reflexes that helped mankind survive through the ages. For example: we don't observe simple hygiene measures like our parents and grand parents did. That's why E. coli is spreading all the time, because people don't wash their food anymore before preparing and consuming it. Because hey, food safety is the supermarket's responsibility.

AII

I never wash my hands (except on those rare and painful occasions), I never was fruits I eat (primarily because even if you wash it, you're not going to do much, only if you boil it. And why would viruses only be in the outside?). I eat stuff that has just fallen to the ground (well, not always, but sometimes when I'm quick enough).

However, when I make a sandwich (primarily the lettuce, nasty ****) or cook something (any tuberculae), I make sure to wash everything, because I know that I have germs on my hands that some people might not have grown a resistance to... Like me.

I thought neolithic berries were eaten without washing.

Never got amebas since 08 (when I stopped washing my hands), never got a parasite or any stomach virus. My tummy only gets angry when I eat too much. My *** gets angry too.

So... Grow a resistance, eat e.coli and you will grow not to get e.coli anymore. Unless it's a virus. And it mutates. But it's a bacteria.

So yeah.

~Jirisys (If I can eat college food, I can eat anything)

[Adrian II]

So... Grow a resistance, eat e.coli and you will grow not to get e.coli anymore.

Oh boy, where to begin?

1. You will have E. coli in your gut all your life, we all do.
2. You may acquire some resistance, but so does E. coli - and a lot faster than you do.
3. E. coli doesn't care about your resistance to it, all it cares about is its resistance to you
4. There are thousands of E. coli outbreaks each year in every country, very few of them lethal, nearly all of them caused by lack of simple hygiene.
5. If you want to know more, consult the CDC website which is the best info site on health and disease in the whole wide world.

AII

[InsaneApache]

I can't tell whether or not you're being sarcastic....or if you are, then, well, what exactly is your point? That law makers are stupid?

Put much more eloquently than I ever could.

[rajpoot]

Put much more eloquently than I ever could.

Well perhaps you are correct....But then again, that can be said for most people in places of power.....we who sit watching those on the stage can pass judgement easily.....That does not always make us correct though.

[InsaneApache]

Well unlike politicians I don't think that I'm always right. Also I don't feel the need to prod my nose into other peoples business. They love doing that, it's almost a fetish. Last, they have power over people that I do not, nor do I want that power. Remember kiddies, don't vote for the bastards, it only encourages them.

[Strike For The South]

But Fellas

The roads are public good

The food you buy at the market is not

Surley that alone meets the requriement for "meddiling"

There are also plenty of reputbale scientific studies that prove helmet wearing saves lives. Granted I can't pull a book out of my ass but I had to make room for the hamster


I never wash my hands (except on those rare and painful occasions), I never was fruits I eat (primarily because even if you wash it, you're not going to do much, only if you boil it. And why would viruses only be in the outside?). I eat stuff that has just fallen to the ground (well, not always, but sometimes when I'm quick enough).

This is wrong

Please start washing

[Samurai Waki]

eh, I've seen enough motorcycle deaths to know that at least a helmet keeps your head in recognizable condition-- Crashing 100mph into a guard rail without a helmet will pop your skull like a balloon, and it's nasty mess to for road crews to clean up.

[Strike For The South]

eh, I've seen enough anecdotes to know not all motorcycle accidents occur at 100 mph into guard rails

[Samurai Waki]

Nope, and in fact if you get caught in a rainstorm, wearing a helmet can severely reduce your visibility; the point I was getting at is if you're worried about safety, you probably shouldn't ride motorcycles.

[HoreTore]

Moot point, since almost nobody drives motorcycles in the rain. And vision is only one of a number of problems which will occur then.

[jirisys]

This is wrong

Please start washing

How so? I bite my hands every so often to prove that I am great!

Never got a gastrointestinal infection since '08.

~Jirisys ()

[Strike For The South]

How so? I bite my hands every so often to prove that I am great!

Never got a gastrointestinal infection since '08.

~Jirisys ()

Dodging bullets does not make one right

It is also not just about stomach infections

[Samurai Waki]

Moot point, since almost nobody drives motorcycles in the rain. And vision is only one of a number of problems which will occur then.

Can't always predict when you're going to get caught in bad weather.. And almost everyone should learn to ride in poor weather conditions, because it will happen.

[jirisys]

Dodging bullets does not make one right

It is also not just about stomach infections

I'm being disingenious.

~Jirisys ()

[Crazed Rabbit]

Moot point, since almost nobody drives motorcycles in the rain. And vision is only one of a number of problems which will occur then.

Maybe in wimpy places that don't have a gray-and-rainy season 9 months of the year. I learned to ride in the rain. I've ridden over mountain passes on freeways in the pounding rain. Most people don't, but more than almost nobody, at least around here.

I'm not convinced that helmets really reduce your risk at all; I've talked to a doctor who says they just transfer the deadly injury from your skull to your neck. As for the troopers lying - consider a visit to the police abuses thread Horetore.


Basically, you're in control of a potentially dangerous vehicle, you owe to yourself and society to protect yourself and others the best you can

I owe nothing of my life or myself to society. I am not some serf that society can order about for its own whims.

Adrian said it all much more elegantly.

CR

[Greyblades]

I eat stuff that has just fallen to the ground (well, not always, but sometimes when I'm quick enough).
You do know the 5 second rule is Horse-S*** right? Then again I cant say I'm much better, though I usualy restrict myself to things like biscuits that when brushed off most of the surface crumbs go with the dirt.

[Beskar]

Maybe in wimpy places that don't have a gray-and-rainy season 9 months of the year.

He is from Norway. The roads are constantly covered in ice and roaming with polar bears.

[Beskar]

- delete me -

[jirisys]

You do know the 5 second rule is Horse-S*** right? Then again I cant say I'm much better, though I usualy restrict myself to things like biscuits that when brushed off most of the surface crumbs go with the dirt.

Never use the five second rule. I use the pickitupandeatitifyoureallywantto rule.

~Jirisys ()

[Lemur]

[John Adams (http://john-adams.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Management-of-the-risks-of-transport2.pdf)'] answer is: we develop higher risk aversion as we get richer. Traffic law and law enforcement follow our perception of risk, instead of leading out perception and forcing changes in our behaviour. This Adams illustrates with his concept of the risk thermometer (to find out exactly what that is, you would have to read the paper). Hence the introduction of safety measures has had no discernible influence on the incidence of traffic accidents ever since the model T Ford was first built, as he amply demonstrates in the paper.
Hmm. Interesting hypothesis. I'd be curious, though, about controlling for familiarity with motor vehicles. In other words, if I take a Cadillac CTS with every safety gizmo known to man and drive it through a medieval village, of course I'm going to cause accidents, due to the peasants' lack of familiarity with vehicles, not to mention the roads not being designed for traffic in excess of 15 mph. So sure, in the early stages of mechanization, naturally you're going to have more accidents.

As familiarity increases, so does wealth. And road construction, speed limits, and all of the other frooh-frah follows. So how do you control for a single element -- wealth?

[InsaneApache]

So how do you control for a single element -- wealth?

Vote socialist. You'll soon be skint.