Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Chalk one up for Irony

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787

    Chalk one up for Irony

    Motorcyclist dies on ride protesting helmet law.

    "Troopers say Contos would have likely survived if he had been wearing a helmet."
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  2. #2
    Regular Member M-Taliesin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Aurora, Colorado
    Posts
    1,504
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    Motorcyclist dies on ride protesting helmet law.

    "Troopers say Contos would have likely survived if he had been wearing a helmet."
    Howdy Pardner!
    Just as I always suspected. You can't get ahead without a helmet.
    (sorry, couldn't resist!)

    A few years ago, my wife and I officiated a wedding near Boulder. In the afternoon, at the reception, a fairly strong thunderstorm passed through. On the way back via the Boulder/Denver turnpike, we were reduced to a rolling parking lot. Traffic was backed up for miles. When we finally got to the scene, we discovered a motorcyclist had an accident and was killed. There was a crater in the pavement not far from where his bike came to rest.

    Later we learned that the guy on the motorcycle was recipient of a direct hit of lightening. The lightening passed from his head, through his body and blasted the crater into the pavement below him. He was dead before his bike finally crashed.

    Reports we received indicated his helmet was melted to his skull and couldnt be removed without also removing all of the skin, scalp and ears from the victim.

    Needless to say, it was a closed casket funeral.

    Makes ya sorta stop and think... don't it?
    Darned if you do, darned if you don't.

    Blessings,
    M-Taliesin

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Stepehens City, VA
    Posts
    152
    I ride...I wear a helmet...I don't think the government should have any say if I do or don't. IF my insurance company wants to make policy requiring helmet wearing then that's on them. The government should stay out of it. It's not their place to dictate how we live our lives.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    I've long advocated that insurance companies, based upon data to which they have ready access, set two rates: One for clients who choose to take ordinary safety measures (seat belts, helmets, etc.) and one for those who choose not to take those measures. Set different rates for those two groups based on expected payments. Folks who buy at the with-safety-devices rate are only covered for personal injuries sustained in an accident if they were using the defined safety devices.

    Also, I am in favor of State laws that shift civil liability for personal injury or death (in whole or in part) to the person not using reasonable safety devices when involved in an accident. Mandating the use of safety devices is an intrusion on personal choice in a matter in which the government has no compelling interest.

  5. #5
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    Quote Originally Posted by cyras21
    I ride... I wear a helmet... I don't think the government should have any say if I do or don't.
    Ditto, ditto, & ditto.

    Quote Originally Posted by eye95
    I've long advocated that insurance companies, based upon data to which they have ready access, set two rates: One for clients who choose to take ordinary safety measures (seat belts, helmets, etc.) and one for those who choose not to take those measures. Set different rates for those two groups based on expected payments.
    For once, we agree on something.
    This could be expanded to home insurance - people w/ smoke detectors, fire extinguishers, updated electric panel (breakers instead of fuses), & maybe some sort of alarm or defense device (guns count) pay less than people without.
    Quote Originally Posted by MLK, Jr
    The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort & convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge & controversy.
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie
    Citizenship is a verb.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 27:12
    A prudent person foresees the danger ahead and takes precautions.
    The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 31:17
    She dresses herself with strength and makes her arms strong.

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member Jim675's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Bellevue, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,037
    For those who say you should wear one to be "reasonable", can you name any human activity where wearing a helmet might not potentially make you safer? Feel free to include sleeping in your own bed, walking the dog, and taking a shower. Yeah, I couldn't think of one either.

    We all define our own levels of acceptable risk, unless of course we're a political minority and someone can get elected by recommended "reasonable restrictions" for our own safety.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    Quote Originally Posted by MKEgal View Post
    Ditto, ditto, & ditto.


    For once, we agree on something.
    This could be expanded to home insurance - people w/ smoke detectors, fire extinguishers, updated electric panel (breakers instead of fuses), & maybe some sort of alarm or defense device (guns count) pay less than people without.
    USAA offers discounts in Homeowners Insurance for a lot of things, including what you mention: alarms--burglar and smoke, newer houses--better electrical wiring, etc. It's a good idea. There have always been discounts in auto insurance for the stupid driving lights, teen drivers ed, good driver, etc. I like the idea of guns, though. Let's start with an M-61 A1 Vulcan...
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

  8. #8
    Regular Member Shovelhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    NO VA, ,
    Posts
    355
    While you're at it,,,,,,Raise the rates for those who choose to eat while driving, talk on a cell phone while driving, program their GPS, seach on their IPOD for that 'special' song, text their BFF or read a text from their BFF, and all those other things that car drivers choose to do to distract themselves with electronic toys while they're supposed to be driving that make riding a motorcycle extremely hazardous....and don't forget to reject insurance injury claims from folks who refuse to wear seat belts. .

    Or just throw in folks that own or shoot firearms. for rate hikes too........... those things are also dangerous ...........

    Why not just let the Government control every thing we do?
    Last edited by Shovelhead; 07-04-2011 at 03:49 PM.
    Assault Weapon (N) “Any firearm whose design disturbs the sleep of progressive politicians.”.

  9. #9
    Regular Member OldCurlyWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    912
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    Motorcyclist dies on ride protesting helmet law.

    "Troopers say Contos would have likely survived if he had been wearing a helmet."
    Maybe, as a Quadriplegic. Or the helmet may have broken his neck enough to make him DRT.

    Helmets have their downside also.

    I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do those things to other people and I require the same of them.

    Politicians should serve two terms, one in office and one in prison.(borrowed from RioKid)

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    I dunno. I've busted two helmets. Had I not busted the helmets, I'd have busted my noggin.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  11. #11
    Regular Member OldCurlyWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    912
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    I dunno. I've busted two helmets. Had I not busted the helmets, I'd have busted my noggin.
    They also have their upside. It depends on the wreck whether they are good or bad to have.
    I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do those things to other people and I require the same of them.

    Politicians should serve two terms, one in office and one in prison.(borrowed from RioKid)

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim675 View Post
    For those who say you should wear one to be "reasonable", can you name any human activity where wearing a helmet might not potentially make you safer? Feel free to include sleeping in your own bed, walking the dog, and taking a shower. Yeah, I couldn't think of one either.

    We all define our own levels of acceptable risk, unless of course we're a political minority and someone can get elected by recommended "reasonable restrictions" for our own safety.
    If this is in reference to my suggestion, "reasonable" would be defined by the numbers crunched by the insurance companies. Insurees would be free to choose the "with reasonable measures" rate, the rate without, or another insurance company. The free market will ultimately define "reasonable."

    In the event of a dispute as to whether or not an insuree's actions met the definition of "reasonable" in his contract with the insurance company, a court will make that call.

    The point of my suggestion is that it places acceptance of risk and the attendant financial consequences (or rewards) with the individual whose actions will accept or avoid risk--where they belong.

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    At least he wont be blinding anyone else with his bright lights.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Shovelhead View Post
    While you're at it,,,,,,Raise the rates for those who choose to eat while driving, talk on a cell phone while driving, program their GPS, seach on their IPOD for that 'special' song, text their BFF or read a text from their BFF, and all those other things that car drivers choose to do to distract themselves with electronic toys while they're supposed to be driving that make riding a motorcycle extremely hazardous....and don't forget to reject insurance injury claims from folks who refuse to wear seat belts. .

    Or just throw in folks that own or shoot firearms. for rate hikes too........... those things are also dangerous ...........

    Why not just let the Government control every thing we do?
    This would not be governmental control. This would be the free market setting premiums based upon expected payouts.

    If the insurance companies could set rates based upon folks who do or do not participate in the activities you describe, and if it could usually be shown whether or not folks were participating in those activities at the time of the accident, then it would make sense for insurance companies to add not doing these things to its list of reasonable safety measures.

    Personally, I'd agree to those measures if they'd save me money on my premiums. But that is the point, isn't it? Individuals (and businesses) making their own decisions about risks, rewards, and use of our resources in the face of both possibilities?

  15. #15
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    In the medical field they have a scientific term for people who ride motorcycles without helmets:

    Organ donors...

    Personally, I see it as a Darwinism issue. There shouldn't be laws requiring helmets--it should be up to the individual rider. But I DO think that if you want to ride without a helmet, you SHOULD be required to have an organ donor designation on your DL, so at least SOMEONE can benefit from your stupidity someday...
    Last edited by Dreamer; 07-06-2011 at 12:32 PM.
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member PrayingForWar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    The Real World.
    Posts
    1,705
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreamer View Post
    In the medical field they have a scientific term for people who ride motorcycles without helmets:

    Organ donors...

    Personally, I see it as a Darwinism issue. There shouldn't be laws requiring helmets--it should be up to the individual rider. But I DO think that if you want to ride without a helmet, you SHOULD be required to have an organ donor designation on your DL, so at least SOMEONE can benefit from your stupidity someday...
    I don't think gov't should be able to mandate what happens to a corpse, regardless of how someone becomes one. Not all that sure I'd want kidneys or a liver from someone smart enough to ride a mortor cycle w/o a helmet.
    If you ladies leave my island, if you survive recruit training. You will become a minister of death, PRAYING FOR WAR...

  17. #17
    Regular Member jbone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    2,241
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    I've long advocated that insurance companies, based upon data to which they have ready access, set two rates: One for clients who choose to take ordinary safety measures (seat belts, helmets, etc.) and one for those who choose not to take those measures. Set different rates for those two groups based on expected payments. Folks who buy at the with-safety-devices rate are only covered for personal injuries sustained in an accident if they were using the defined safety devices.

    Also, I am in favor of State laws that shift civil liability for personal injury or death (in whole or in part) to the person not using reasonable safety devices when involved in an accident. Mandating the use of safety devices is an intrusion on personal choice in a matter in which the government has no compelling interest.
    Under that though process the nanny regulation would never end. You could charge different life insurance or medical coverage rates for people owning firearms without factory installed locks and those with, or different rates for those owning a firearm, or not owning; endless. Who lives under greater liability the owner or non-owner? I of course say the non-owner. But from your reasoning I would venture to say you would advocate the owner, or non-factory lock person with the higher rates.

    More intrusive regulation, just what the doctor ordered.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    Quote Originally Posted by PrayingForWar View Post
    I don't think gov't should be able to mandate what happens to a corpse, regardless of how someone becomes one. Not all that sure I'd want kidneys or a liver from someone smart enough to ride a mortor cycle w/o a helmet.
    Good point...
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •