# No helmet. Police will take your bike



## Panthalassa (Jan 9, 2007)

I guess don't violate helmet law if your a kid in Holliston MA. 
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/09/11/no_bike_helmet_lose_your_wheels/


----------



## Soya (Jun 22, 2007)

I thought that this was completely ridiculous until I saw they were offering free helmets. Now it's only moderately ridiculous.


----------



## f3rg (Aug 29, 2007)

The government knows what's best for you. Conform or die.


----------



## SteveUK (Apr 16, 2006)

Welcome to the Police State, where your thoughts are all made for you.


----------



## Jerk_Chicken (Oct 13, 2005)

Just plain retarded. They have so much else to worry about, now they are going to do stuff like this?


----------



## crashedandburned (Jan 9, 2004)

On question:

*"According to the National Transportation Safety Board, head injury is the leading cause of death in bicycle crashes"*

Does anyone know ANYONE who's died as a result of not wearing a helmet? I don't.


----------



## Jlar (May 29, 2006)

crashedandburned said:


> *"According to the National Transportation Safety Board, head injury is the leading cause of death in bicycle crashes"*


This is likely due to traffic accidents, where a helmet can mitigate the damage only so much.

http://www.torontosun.com/news/toro...news/torontoandgta/2008/09/11/pf-6730761.html

And yes I've known someone who have passed on that should have been wearing a helmet. Try not to make light of the situation. I will not ride with anyone who isn't wearing a helmet.


----------



## Blatant (Apr 13, 2005)

Did any of you actually read the story or are you simply commenting on the OP skewed perspective of its contents? Perhaps you should take 30 seconds to read the link before spouting off a bunch of gibberish.

If you did, you'd note it only applies to juveniles, only after repeated warnings and not a single bike has been taken. Wow ... what a police state.
d


----------



## Squash (Jul 20, 2003)

"Does anyone know ANYONE who's died as a result of not wearing a helmet?" 

No, but I know if three people who wouldn't be here right now had they not been wearing one, myself included. 

I won't comment on the law. It isn't any different than a mandatory motorcycle helmet law, or a seat belt law. It's still your choice, you just have to decide if going without is worth the penalty.

It's their community, it's their choice. they think it's worth legislating bicycle helmet use. Welcome to America. 

Besides, read the whole artical. The bikes are returned after 15 days or the parents can claim the bike early if they show that the child has a helmet. 

Bottom line, while this is interesting, it's a non-issue.

Good Dirt


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

*When I was in elementary school*

we were required to lock our bikes. If we didn't our school custodian would lock them in his storage room. It saved our bikes from theft, though at the time we felt put-upon.

The first level of safe riding happens before you get on the bike with pro-active steps such as a bike in good condition, good skills, and a helmet. It is a curiosity that people will resist implementing these sorts of things as requirements because they feel that they are infringements on their freedom of choice. Skilled cyclists generally take care of such things because they know better and don't want to be organ donors. There is some sentiment that adults make choices and, if sh*t happens, well they are adults and they knew what they were doing.

Once the accident happens it is too late. Around here we have laws for helmets on kids. They are the most fragile citizens and when I see them riding without a helmet I shudder and, as with most flagrantly destructive behaviors demonstrated by children, I always wonder where the parents are. I think impounding the bike is a great idea.


----------



## Pedalphile (Aug 6, 2008)

I've got mixed feelings on the state law, but given the law they are expected to enforce, I feel this town has a fair approach that does the right thing for the kids: get the parents involved in looking out for the children's safety.

I wish police would crack down on people who cycle on sidewalks. It's a hazard for pedestrians, and a great way to get run over, since a car leaving a driveway is not looking for 12+ mph traffic on the sidewalk, especially when the car is taking a right and the cyclist is approaching on the sidewalk from the right. I've witnessed many close calls because of this.

-Pete


----------



## itsdoable (Jan 6, 2004)

crashedandburned said:


> On question:
> 
> *"According to the National Transportation Safety Board, head injury is the leading cause of death in bicycle crashes"*
> 
> Does anyone know ANYONE who's died as a result of not wearing a helmet? I don't.


I personally know 2 people who died of head injuries when their helmetless head made contact with the ground, in both cases no cars were involved. Weither a helmet would have changed the outcome is questionable, but the second incident was what made me buy and start using a helmet.

I also personally know many people who have been hit by a car, but no deaths yet, just broken bones. So what does that mean?


----------



## KeepTheRubberSideDown (Dec 1, 2006)

Blatant said:


> Did any of you actually read the story or are you simply commenting on the OP skewed perspective of its contents? Perhaps you should take 30 seconds to read the link before spouting off a bunch of gibberish.
> 
> If you did, you'd note it only applies to juveniles, only after repeated warnings and not a single bike has been taken. Wow ... what a police state.
> d


I read it. It took about 55 seconds... but its not that harsh. It is under 17 and they aren't looking to seize bikes so everyone should just take it easy...


----------



## Razorfish (May 9, 2008)

crashedandburned said:


> On question:
> 
> *"According to the National Transportation Safety Board, head injury is the leading cause of death in bicycle crashes"*
> 
> Does anyone know ANYONE who's died as a result of not wearing a helmet? I don't.


I know 2 that lived on my street when I was a kid: 1) Hit by a car and died from head injury. No helmet. 2) Hit a parked truck and the top of his head was crushed in when it hit the back of the truck. Technically this kid isn't dead but he's a veggie.

But your question is silly. You don't need to personally know somebody that died from head injury for the statistics to be true.

I think helmets are good and wear mine and so do my kids even though I don't think they're necessary 100% of the time. I DO NOT think everybody on mtbr needs to be the helmet police.


----------



## Razorfish (May 9, 2008)

Did anybody read the article. It's for reapet offenders that have been warned numerous times.


----------



## Razorfish (May 9, 2008)

Edit: Double post. Sorry.


----------



## Garlock (Jul 9, 2008)

I'll always wear at least an old broken helmet, even if I'm only outside my house checking my gears. After going through at least 3 helmets in the last 6 years, I know the importance of them. People should be allowed to ride how ever they want though.


----------



## skiierx (Mar 19, 2007)

I love how people started out this thread! You people need to learn how to read!

As the first person who posted that they read this and it only applied to children under the age of 17. This is actually the state law and has been for years and it does not only apply to bicycles, it also applies to scooters, skateboards and rollerblades. The town of Holliston is taking this a step further since they have had quite a few repeat offenders and the plan is to take the bike for 15 days then return it to the kid, eventually they will sell the item if the kid continues to disobey the law.

It teaches a good practice and I personally like it!


----------



## Gatorback (Oct 9, 2007)

I guess I'm in the minority because I am in favor of such a rule. 

If you ever see the devastating effects of a closed head injury, I would venture to say most people would agree with me that a relatively cheap piece of styrofoam and plastic is a minor inconvenience that is well worth it. I shook hands with a teenage girl this week who couldn't use her right arm at all, so she used her left. And she could only put out her index finger with her elbow close to her body. And I saw a picture of her mom and grandmother trying to help her learn to read again--she was looking at big block letters and numbers that are used for the education of kids in kindergarten. 

Helmets are worth it. I'm in favor of the government staying out of our lives in most situations. But not in this one. 

So who pays the $25 million life care costs for a poor kid with a devastating injury because his/her parents didn't teach them to wear a helmet? The answer is you and me.


----------



## jtrain (Jun 11, 2008)

I don't personally know anybody that has died from not wearing a helmet.

But there's an entire facility full of closed head injury patients in the town where I grew up. Most of them were folks that were riding motorcycles without helmets, and are now veggies down the street with their families hoping that one day, they'll be back to normal.

Who cares what you personally think about wearing helmets, do your family a favor and wear one.


----------



## SteveUK (Apr 16, 2006)

"_You people need to learn how to read!_"

I must point out that it's actually your own comprehension which is lacking; the comprehension of a contradictory point of view.

And just so you know, I wear a helmet when I feel like it. I wear a lid for trail riding and a full-face for downhill. If I don't have my full-face, I hold back and take it easy. The riding I do is determined by the equipment I have. Sometimes, horror of horrors, I ride my bike without a helmet!! In fact, I went for at least 23 years from the first time I stepped on a bike to the very first time I put a helmet on my head. I believe that sensible people take sensible measures to take care of themselves.

I also refuse to ride with somebody who doesn't have a suitable helmet and will gladly suggest that somebody doesn't try a particular drop or jump of they aren't kitted out.

But I still disagree fundamentally with being required by law to wear a helmet. Go figure...

Some of "you people" might find this article interesting. Some more related food for thought.


----------



## john93rangerstx (Sep 11, 2008)

after 18 it should be your cohoice to where a helmet of not there is no different between smoking and whereing a helmet if you get lung cancer and you get one of your lungs taking out you cant work know more so u get permanent disabilaty if you hit your head sma thing you cant work so wtf


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

*If you don't wear a helmet*

I won't ride with you. But that's just me.


----------



## dropadrop (Sep 20, 2005)

crashedandburned said:


> On question:
> 
> *"According to the National Transportation Safety Board, head injury is the leading cause of death in bicycle crashes"*
> 
> Does anyone know ANYONE who's died as a result of not wearing a helmet? I don't.


Yes, of course it's hard to say for sure if he would have survived wearing a helmet (though cause of death was a direct hit to the head). A friend of a friend, not a riding buddy.

I also know two people who hit their helmet on a stone so hard it cracked in two, but nothing happened to them.


----------



## Freerydejunky (Sep 21, 2006)

I ride my Urban/ DJ'er all the time without a helmet. 
But then again thats when Im just cruising to work. When it comes time to ride, slap on that skid lid and hold on!


----------



## jtrain (Jun 11, 2008)

If you guys don't need more proof of why to wear a helmet, I destroyed mine on a pretty tame trail here in SLC the other day, ripped the heck out of my back and my hand is sprained really bad (I should have broken my wrist, to be honest). Now my helmet is going back to Giro, my wrist is in a brace for 10 more days and I'm lucky I wasn't going that fast when I ate it.

Without the helmet I probably wouldn't have killed myself, but I'm willing to bet that I would have done some serious damage to myself.


----------



## ash240 (Jun 2, 2007)

Communities need to look after people who are not capable of making rational choices.
If a person is stupid enough to ride without a helmet then taking the bike away and giving them some time to think is the very least that should be done. 
Don't want to wear one? don't ride 
You want a free choice? To live how you want?
Why should the rest of us fork out to pay for your expenses for XX years (of 24 hour care) because you want to be silly? It's not just your risk, WE have to pay for it . You cannot have it both ways, to want to be free to live how you want yet to expect us to pay for that.
Your right to be "free" is not worth more than our right not to have idiots costing us more money than they should be. 
Anyone suggesting not wearing a helmet is not reasonable or rational. There is no justification for not wearing one. I don't have a real issue with stupid people, I DO have an issue with wasting money caring for them when THEY did something idiotic. 
That money is better off being used properly.

If you want to take a risk, do it in a way that ONLY affects you. Once it starts affecting me (/the community) I (/we) have the right to do something about it.


----------



## DrNickels (Jan 7, 2008)

> So who pays the $25 million life care costs for a poor kid with a devastating injury because his/her parents didn't teach them to wear a helmet? The answer is you and me.


Exactly, I work in a speech and hearing clinic and I've seen way too many kids and adults who are in horrible shape and can't even string a sentence together because of a closed head injury on an ATV, bike, motorcycle, etc. accident and they are pretty much disabled. Who do you think is paying for them to see my girlfriend the speech language pathologist? That's right the tax payers.



> after 18 it should be your choice to where a helmet of not there is no different between smoking and whereing a helmet if you get lung cancer and you get one of your lungs taking out you cant work know more so u get permanent disabilaty if you hit your head sma thing you cant work so wtf


First of all don't post if you can't at least make your post readable! It took me a long time to figure out what you meant, and might still be wrong, but it sounds to me like not wearing a helmet is the same to you as smoking and getting lung cancer. Well yes you can smoke and get lung cancer, but odds are you will just end up dying of lung cancer because most insurance companies and federal programs don't pay for chemotherapy, but almost all programs from the government and private insurance pays for people who are veggies and cannot work or breathe on their own and they are part of the reason we have such a huge deficit in healthcare. The taxpayers are paying for people who make poor choices. I personally think if you want to smoke and you get cancer from it, well you made the choice and the treatments should be coming out of your pocket, not mine. Same with head injury patients.



> Don't want to wear one? don't ride
> You want a free choice? To live how you want?
> Why should the rest of us fork out to pay for your expenses for XX years (of 24 hour care) because you want to be silly? It's not just your risk, WE have to pay for it . You cannot have it both ways, to want to be free to live how you want yet to expect us to pay for that.


Right on! You hit the nail totally on the head. This is a problem in this country people make piss poor decisions and then expect their fellow man to bail them out. People buying houses they can't afford and getting a balloon mortgage then they lose their house and then the government bails them out because owning a house is an American right? Really? I think if you can own a castle in suburbia then I am entitled to a BMW and shouldn't have to repay my student loans because I am entitled to my medical degree for free. I mean after all I will spend over ½ my week doing paper work and treatment of people with closed head injuries who my taxes are paying to support and provide therapy to so maybe my medical loans should be wiped out since in a way I am paying for the care I am providing the idiot who wanted to get on his motorcycle after 13 beers and didn't wear a helmet (true story by the way). He is on disability now and could work at Burger King flipping burgers, but has said he doesn't want to because he can live on the money for disability each month and likes having his whole day free. Wow!


----------



## brianthebiker (Nov 1, 2005)

Welcome to the Nanny State.

Wasn't America the Land of the Free at one time?


----------



## jtrain (Jun 11, 2008)

brianthebiker said:


> Welcome to the Nanny State.
> 
> Wasn't America the Land of the Free at one time?


If you mean Mill's version of utilitarianism, then MAYBE. There still comes a question of how not wearing a helmet is going to effect others by making them pay for you to be a veggie, as has been brought up.


----------



## DrNickels (Jan 7, 2008)

> Welcome to the Nanny State.
> 
> Wasn't America the Land of the Free at one time?


Wish they could make people that don't want to or refuse to wear a helmet or seatbelt, etc. sign a legal contract saying if they are in an accident and have brain damage due to their lack of proper safety precautions that we can legally pull the plug on them. Might change the tune of a few folks.

Let the vegetables who brought it upon themselves rot in the ground, not in a hospital bed sucking up government money for people who legitimately need it.


----------



## daleksic (Aug 26, 2007)

Here in Florida it's a law for anyone under 16 to wear a helmet. Now I don't usually ride a helmet out on the street, however, when I do some urban assault or trying to work on some tricks I wear one.

We all survived our younger years without anyone watching over us, and trust me I had some bad crashes. I think though that it should be up to the parents to police the kids and not someone else.

I was stopped once on the way to pick up my son from school and the cop swore that everybody has to have a helmet, which shows that not even the cops know all their own laws. I told him I usually don't carry an ID when I ride bike so he let me go with a warning... what an idiot.


----------



## man w/ one hand (Dec 29, 2003)

daleksic said:


> Here in Florida it's a law for anyone under 16 to wear a helmet. Now I don't usually ride a helmet out on the street, however, when I do some urban assault or trying to work on some tricks I wear one.
> 
> We all survived our younger years without anyone watching over us, and trust me I had some bad crashes. I think though that it should be up to the parents to police the kids and not someone else.
> 
> I was stopped once on the way to pick up my son from school and the cop swore that everybody has to have a helmet, which shows that not even the cops know all their own laws. I told him I usually don't carry an ID when I ride bike so he let me go with a warning... what an idiot.


I say wear a helmet ANYTIME your on a bike or wheeled vehicle. If you hit the ground or a tree in the woods = your fault. If your riding the road there is a good chance that no matter how good and perfect you ride a car can still cause you great bodily injury = not your fault, but then you figure out what to do with all of that insurance money while you sitting in your new state of the art electric wheelchair while you wait on the assisted living facility nurse to sober up enough to change you diaper that has been full of sh!t for the last hr and a half.....think about it.....you want to sit a watch some able-bodied person to grab yer jello off of yer tray while you can only sit and watch him do it ?? :nono:

The reason I feel this way; I have one arm because a guy didn't want to wait 3 sec. longer for me to go by him on my 76 Sportster, so he cut in ft of me....he had minimum coverage and nothing to sue for, so if yer not wearig a helmet, ya better have some really good insurance so you can get into a decent assisted living facility while yer relatives are "helping you spend your money".


----------



## Blatant (Apr 13, 2005)

daleksic said:


> I was stopped once on the way to pick up my son from school and the cop swore that everybody has to have a helmet, which shows that not even the cops know all their own laws. I told him I usually don't carry an ID when I ride bike so he let me go with a warning... what an idiot.


You are correct on your state law. However, how does that make the cop an idiot? Because he didn't know one minor subsection of state civil law that you happened to know? I challenge you to start using FL's revised codes and statutes book as toilet reading and let us know when you know it all.

Hope you're on the john a lot as that book is about 3 inches thick in 8-point type.

Laws aren't written by cops (i.e., statutes are not "their own laws" as you put it). Are you an idiot for not knowing that?

Why not just chalk it up as a learning experience for both of you and not be a prick about it? Good day.
d


----------



## daleksic (Aug 26, 2007)

Because he still today bugs me about a helmet. And I refuse to wear one riding on the sidewalk. That's why he's an idiot, he should have read up on the laws in the meanwhile. Besides he's every day at the school, so that should trigger some interest in his field. Also, he is a prick to other parents and students, so he is in fact an IDIOT! or maybe I mis-phrased it and I should rather call him a PRICK! But what am I talking about, i forgot we are in a police state.

That is the same cop that pulled me over going 22mph in a 20mph limit on my bike. Yet the car that was in the left lane was at least 3-4mph faster than i was. Maybe he got a beef with biciclists...

I can't expect him to know anything about my line of work, but he should know about his.

Edit: BTW, Florida will fine you $50 for riding without a helmet under 16 and not impound your bike.


----------



## skottt160 (Apr 25, 2008)

ash240 said:


> Communities need to look after people who are not capable of making rational choices.


welcome to the theory behind dictatorships.

while i agree that we should not have to pay for peoples injuries because they didnt wear a helmet and became a veggie, i dont think that justifies a law mandating helmet wearing. just because our system is flawed in one respect doesnt justify unnecessary regulation. i think not wearing a helmet is a horrible idea, but the government/ the police are NOT the ones that should be regulating our judgment.


----------



## Blatant (Apr 13, 2005)

Actually, that's not dictatorial theory at all.

Remember, these are juveniles we're talking about here, not adults. Adults do, in fact, have the right to ride w/out a helmet.

Our society has always been one that protects those it feels are not able to adequately protect themselves. We've put those under age 18 into that category. Now, you may disagree with that, but that's how it is.


----------



## DrNickels (Jan 7, 2008)

> Laws aren't written by cops (i.e., statutes are not "their own laws" as you put it). Are you an idiot for not knowing that?


I usually try to take this stance. When I know I am abiding by the law and the officer seems to disagree I usually ask politely if he is sure and could he radio in and ask a superior. Usually most police officers will be fine doing this, but I had one officer once threaten to tase me and arrest me for disobeying a police officer when I was riding my bike on the road and he pulled me over because I was riding in the road. He got a nice phone call from my attorney who quoted the law I was stopped for following. He never did apologize. Jerkoff. It wasn't like I was being an ass, I just explained that the laws I read for my state said I am supposed to ride in the road and not on the sidewalk and asked him kindly to call in and ask a superior.

He must have took that as "F#$% you pig and you aren't the boss of me!", you know some people in uniform just can't stand an informed citizen who knows their rights.


----------



## Freerydejunky (Sep 21, 2006)

DrNickels said:


> He must have took that as "F#$% you pig and you aren't the boss of me!", you know some people in uniform just can't stand an informed citizen who knows their rights.


Cops dont like being told what the laws are or "Officer Its really a law I swear" Just think about how many excuses he/she hears all day everyday. 
Just comply with them, it will make your day and their that much better.

Take for example last week: 
I was maintaining the local BMX jump park (operated by the city) the 5-0 rolled up on his dirt bike and told me to stop. I tried to explain what I was doing and from whom I had permission from. Being a cop and dealing with guys on bikes is just a hassle. I decided to give up. Rolled up the hose, put the tools back in my truck and left. Went home, contacted the operator of the park so he could clear the work on the park with the local police department.

I have many friends that are cops (I hope to be one myself in a year or two) Dealing with people riding without helmets or riding on the sidewalk is just a pain in the a$$ for some one who deals with accidents and our protection all day.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 3, 2005)

Didn't see anything in the article that said you had to wear it on your head. I'd love to argue that before a Judge.


----------



## El Caballo (Nov 22, 2004)

Repost:

Growing up, we "bucked" our friends on the handlebars (UNSAFE!!!), riding two-up to the go-kart track (IRRESPONSIBLE!!!) with no seatbelts on the karts (DANGEROUS!!!), where we'd ram each other into the tire walls (DESTRUCTIVE!!!). We built ramps out of bricks and 2x10s (UNSTABLE!!!) and jumped our Schwinn Stingrays off of them (YOU SHOULD KNOW BETTER!!!). We shot bottle rockets and roman candles at each other (HIGHLY ILLEGAL!!!), and taped model rocket engines to Matchbox cars (YOU'LL PUT AN EYE OUT!!!) We crashed our bicycles into gravel driveways, ditches, and each other, and no one even knew what a helmet was (ILLEGAL!!!! IRRESPONSIBLE!!!).

And guess what? Somehow h0mo sapiens managed to survive, reproduce, build civilizations, and put men on the moon, without first inventing the bicycle helmet.

Now, however, we're MUCH MORE RESPONSIBLE, and we don't let our kids do anything dangerous like ride bicycles without a helmet or leave our direct field of vision, and none of them come home with bumps or bruises or a cut that needs stitches, and they never have to explain that scar on their arm to anyone.

And they're all nearsighted, gigantically obese, and hopelessly physically uncoordinated at everything but pushing the D-pad on a Playstation, but they're SAFE. And that's the most important thing, right?

The problem with requiring kids to wear a helmet everywhere, no exceptions, is three-fold:

First, it discourages them from riding their bikes at all. Want to go five doors down? Can't just go, you've got to find that helmet first! Kids lose things all the time, and it's hard enough to keep them in jackets and winter gloves, let alone bicycle helmets.

Second, kids occasionally die from getting their helmets caught in playground equipment and choking to death, because since it's such a horrible crime to be found without one that they simply never take them off. 
http://www.helmets.org/playgrou.htm

Third, how many children are being killed in accidents where a helmet would have actually made a difference? Especially little kids who don't go very fast. A good friend of mine was killed on his bicycle by an inattentive driver: the helmet didn't save his life.

Life isn't guaranteed, people. Not all of us will live to the statistical average age of 75 and die painlessly in our beds. We can make more and more rules until the only legal activity is watching TV while suspended in a vat of pudding, and people will still die unexpectedly.

Let's accept that and actually live some before we die.


----------



## RoyDean (Jul 2, 2007)

motormonkeyr6 said:


> Cops dont like being told what the laws are or "Officer Its really a law I swear"


So WHAT?! This is an asinine argument... Its the cops job to UPHOLD THE LAW.

Not "Uphold what I THINK is the law". If a cop doesn't know what a law is, then he has no business trying to uphold it.

By your argument, if a cop comes up to me and says "It's illegal for you to breath here", then I should stop breathing?

I'm all for law enforcement, amen and thank you to the boys in blue that protect my lazy butt from the scum of the earth. But if a cop is trying to force his WRONG interpretation of something as trivial as a helmet law, then you better believe I'm using every ounce of my legal liberties to fight it.


----------



## mcrumble69 (Jul 31, 2005)

As long as the police are giving away helmets I don't see a problem with them enforcing the law. 
Actually I think it's a great program because children who otherwise couldn't afford a helmet will now be able to wear one..
Other communities should follow their lead.

I have seen first hand the damage not wearing a helmet can do and never ride without one.


----------



## DrNickels (Jan 7, 2008)

El Caballo,

Kids also used to be subjected to slave labor and unsafe working conditions before the child reformation act. I am sure kids were uber tough back then! Why don't we just start opening up some unsafe coal mines like China has all over their country, dig tiny tunnels, and have children dig the coal out to run our power plants! Hell we can cut down child hood obesity and cut our dependence on foreign energy all in one quick smack! We also won't give them healthcare because hell it's survival of the fittest for children right?

Forget polio, measles, mumps, rubella, meningitis, those are all diseases that only kill ***** children right? We were tougher in our day and survived without protective gear so why shouldn't the next generation?

Sorry I don't buy it. You equate that wearing a helmet and protecting a child = obese children doing nothing and playing ps2 and xbox all day. That's just ******** and I think deep down you know it is.

The reason we have such an obesity problem in our society is:
1. We have people popping out kids who are borderline retarded when it comes to responsibility. They can't even take care of themselves let alone children. 

2. Parents work way too many hours (at least most of the families I know have blue collar jobs and both parents have barely any time with their kids because they work constantly to support them), so kids get fed McShit and Wendy's instead of home cooked meals

3. We have hardly any physical education programs in schools anymore because the government doesn't want to fund physical education. Sorry that's complete crap. Cough up the money the taxpayers are giving you and make little Jimmy play some basketball for even 30 minutes a damn day! Instead you constantly bail out fiscally irresponsible companies that know you will give them a handout every time they need it. AIG has played the government harder than a hooker!

4. Parents don't spend time doing physical activities with their children. I remember as a kid every weekend my family either played baseball, went running, biking, hiking, or some form of physical outdoor activity. Now most families sit around and watch football on Saturday and Sunday

Those are pretty good reasons why children are busting out of their levi's at the age of 10 and we need to turn this around and start doing something about shitty parenting!


----------



## man w/ one hand (Dec 29, 2003)

DrNickels said:


> El Caballo,
> 
> Kids also used to be subjected to slave labor and unsafe working conditions before the child reformation act. I am sure kids were uber tough back then! Why don't we just start opening up some unsafe coal mines like China has all over their country, dig tiny tunnels, and have children dig the coal out to run our power plants! Hell we can cut down child hood obesity and cut our dependence on foreign energy all in one quick smack! We also won't give them healthcare because hell it's survival of the fittest for children right?
> 
> ...


El Caballo, I'll take my chances w/a helmet.

1000% Agreed Doc. Americans, (who still have jobs), are more productive than ever, more efficent than ever, making corporations more money than ever, more tired than ever, spend less time with their kids than ever, have less money than ever, owe more money than ever, but we have corporations raking in huge profits and we are STILL giving them subsidies, (i.e. oil, corn)......don't you love a capatilistic society where corporations are left to know what is best for us/them.....awesome  They don't give a crap what they're doin' to us. Any of you work for one of them, they pay you and give you a job.....doesn't change a thing, each of us are still being screwed as we speak.

A lil off topic but in the capitalistic society vein, I wonder if Dow chemical is responsible for the FDA saying that BPA is safe for our babies, etc. ????

http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idINN1637460420080916

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/health/bal-te.plastic17sep17,0,4771607.story

Excerpt; "At yesterday's hearing on BPA in products that make contact with food, the FDA defended a draft assessment it issued last month declaring that FDA-regulated products on the market that contain BPA are safe.

"Right now, our tentative conclusion is that it's safe, so we're not recommending any change in habits," said Laura Tarantino, head of the FDA's office of food additive safety. The agency said more research was needed".


----------



## architectx (Jul 24, 2007)

crashedandburned said:


> On question:
> 
> *"According to the National Transportation Safety Board, head injury is the leading cause of death in bicycle crashes"*
> 
> Does anyone know ANYONE who's died as a result of not wearing a helmet? I don't.


Yes, one of the junior riders on a team I used to ride with (small time local team) hit a telephone pole and died on the spot. His helmet was at home. I won't ever forget that. The shop owner where I worked (team sponsor) was with us; he had to tell the fellow's parents.

My own son (my oldest) wouldn't be with us today were it not for his helmet. It was still a frightening ambulance ride and a long recovery.

I stop kids in the neighborhood all the time & tell them to get helmets on. Offer to buy them one if they can't afford one too.

Flame away...


----------



## SteveUK (Apr 16, 2006)

"_Flame away..._"

For crying out loud, this isn't about whether or not anyone thinks it makes sense to wear a helmet. What is with the helmet zealots and their awful comprehension?






​


----------



## daleksic (Aug 26, 2007)

WOW;

Survival of the fittest people, Survival of the fittest!

Just because a retard (with all due respect) fell of a bike some years ago and hurt himself, possibly suing the city or bicycle manufacturer, now everybody has to wear a helmet.

I say Fcuk It. Give the parents the responsibility of parenting back. If you fall and hurt yourself you should protect yourself better next time and not force new, ridiculous laws upon others.

P.S.: Next year we have to bubble wrap anyone riding a bicycle under the age of 65. Unlucky bystanders who happen to be within 100 yards of a bicycle have to wear a helmet to protect themselves from oncoming bicyclists. Fines include slap across the face, the occasional yelling police officer, or suspension of the newly instated bicycle riders license.


----------



## dana109 (Jul 15, 2008)

I agree it should be a personal choice. I didn't wear a helmet when i was younger. I fell hard once on the trail and went into a tree. I was lucky and just had a mild concussion. There is no way you can get me out on the trail without a helmet now. 

On the other hand i get annoyed with the riders that think they are the "park ranger." I've seen guys that yell at others riding the trail without a helmet. It's their choice. I think they are dumb, but it isn't my business to tell them. 

I too will not ride with someone who isn't wearing a helmet. It isn't a liability or moral issue. I just don't want to scoop my friend's brains up off the ground.


----------



## Blatant (Apr 13, 2005)

daleksic said:


> Just because a retard (with all due respect) ...


How exactly is it that you call a human being a "retard" and do it with all due respect? Can you clarify?

Based on what I've seen in this thread, you're an arsehole. And I say that without all due respect.

Good day, sir. Here's hoping you act more respectfully in real life. If not, it's only a matter of time until someone pulls your card.
d


----------



## YoungerNow (Nov 10, 2006)

ash240 said:


> Why should the rest of us fork out to pay for your expenses for XX years (of 24 hour care) because you want to be silly? It's not just your risk, WE have to pay for it. You cannot have it both ways, to want to be free to live how you want yet to expect us to pay for that.


The problem with this argument is that it can be trivially extended to push for bans or restrictions on any sort of activity that carries a risk beyond the lowest common denominator accepted by most people.

So it isn't just an argument against riding helmetless. It's also an argument against mountain biking in general, since even with a great helmet it's still quite possible to suffer injuries that result in permanent disability. Maybe the risk of mountain biking with a helmet seems reasonable to you, but there are a lot more non-mountain-bikers than mountain bikers. It wouldn't take too much demagoguery to convince the non-bikers that our hobby is unreasonably dangerous and should be either banned or excluded from standard health insurance coverage.


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

motormonkeyr6 said:


> Just comply with them, it will make your day and their that much better.


"just comply"?!?!? wtf?!?!

that attitude, sir, is bovine excrement. a heaping mound of steaming, putrid dejecta. and that attitude is PRECISELY why our country is in the (police) state that it is today wherein the servant (government) has become the master.

the frightening thing is that you will carry that attitude with you when you become a cop and will expect the same out of the people you see as your job to "control" (as opposed to SERVE); but when they don't immediately display it... out comes the pepper spray, tazer, billy club, and gun. 

perhaps you and others are quite content to be an apathetic lemming, a constitutionally castrated servile societal eunuch; but there are plenty of us out there who still retain our sack and do not subscribe to such police-state-marital-law-fascist rhetoric.

impose on my liberties and you get a fight, not a reach around. :madmax:


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

ash240 said:


> Why should the rest of us fork out to pay for your expenses for XX years (of 24 hour care) because you want to be silly? It's not just your risk, WE have to pay for it. You cannot have it both ways, to want to be free to live how you want yet to expect us to pay for that.


EXACTLY! :thumbsup:

"freedom" means having the ability to make personal choices that may have a negative outcome.

it is not the job of society to pick up the tab for ANYONE'S injuries, whether or not they wore a helmet or took precautions, etc. FORCING one group (the "haves") to subsidize another group (the "have-nots") is also known as "redistribution of wealth" and is more commonly referred to as "socialism".

can't afford insurance? tough cookies. insurance is a PRIVATE INDUSTRY offering a product for consumption in a free-market capitalist society/economy. not everyone can afford every product offered on the free market. if one can't afford the product, REGARDLESS of what it is, then why should the rest of us be forced to pick up the tab? :nono:


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

YoungerNow said:


> The problem with this argument is that it can be trivially extended to push for bans or restrictions on any sort of activity that carries a risk beyond the lowest common denominator accepted by most people.


no, the problem with this argument is that it requires one to be PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE for, and consequently own their choices/actions/outcomes/repercussions.

however, most people would rather let someone else do their thinking for them and restrict their liberty/freedoms/actions/choices (i.e. stupid laws like this and others) in exchange for a handout. this includes all the misguided people clamoring for helmet laws, insurance for one and all, and so forth.

it's called SOCIAL APATHY. :madman:


----------



## Jerk_Chicken (Oct 13, 2005)

SteveUK said:


> "_Flame away..._"
> 
> For crying out loud, this isn't about whether or not anyone thinks it makes sense to wear a helmet. What is with the helmet zealots and their awful comprehension?
> 
> View attachment 393078​


Here's something I noted moving from the US to Germany:

Everyone is on bikes. That's why one can buy a ten year old car with 30k _miles_ on the clock. That's good, but drifting from the point.

In the US, I was used to most cars, if they weren't swerving into me, blowing their horns, and throwing bottles, driving a safe distance around, even when I'm nowhere near them in the shoulder.

In Germany, the cars keep coming and ride close enough to take out an arm or handlebar with the sideviews.

I found this bizarre at first, but then it dawned on me: Taking personal responsibility. I have to be responsible for myself and by no means are these cars aggressive, they just coexist with bicyclists in this manner.

point of the story is...well, I don't know. It's something about personal responsibility and litigiousness and all this other crap.


----------



## daleksic (Aug 26, 2007)

Blatant, if you can't recognize a retard....

ok, then without any respect... dumbass!

Sounds like you're one of "those" cops as well! Or just another retard who wants to shove their believes down other people throats. Or just both. That's all we need, another Cop with a personal agenda.

--------------------

But getting back to the point, shouldn't it be all about personal responsibility? Here in Florida you used to be able to drive your car without a seatbelt, even though Buckling up is the law. So a cop could not stop you for not being buckled up. Now, they changed the law that they can stop you just for not being buckled up.


----------



## mondaycurse (Nov 24, 2005)

crashedandburned said:


> On question:
> 
> *"According to the National Transportation Safety Board, head injury is the leading cause of death in bicycle crashes"*
> 
> Does anyone know ANYONE who's died as a result of not wearing a helmet? I don't.


I was talking to my old neighbor last night. Apparently he was riding without a helmet in a bad crash. The pedal smashed his skull open with multiple fractures and he had to get a plate in the head (don't worry weight weenies, it's titanium) along with brain surgery. The doctors said that impact a few centimeters away could have instantly killed him.


----------



## Blatant (Apr 13, 2005)

daleksic said:


> Blatant, if you can't recognize a retard....
> 
> ok, then without any respect... dumbass!
> 
> Sounds like you're one of "those" cops as well! Or just another retard who wants to shove their believes down other people throats. Or just both. That's all we need, another Cop with a personal agenda.


Nope, big believer in personal freedom and the constitution. In fact -- probably unlike you -- I put my money where my mouth is and fought for those beliefs and for this great country.

Between assaults, gang shootings, drunken brawls and dope deals gone bad, I have very little time or inclination to worry about bicycle or seatbelt laws. But that's just me.

And after reading your commentary in this thread, I urge YOU to stop wearing both your helmet AND your seatbelt. Have a great day.


----------



## man w/ one hand (Dec 29, 2003)

I really don't like the gov requiring me or anyone to wear a helmet, but you gotta be a moron not to wear one. If you're not wearing one now, just wait for it, the law of averages WILL catch up w/you and you will pay the price and then you'll have so much time to reflect on your choice, YOUR CHOICE, not to protect yourself and then you can mentally take out your frustration on the assisted living nurse who's ignoring you "for being a MORON".


----------



## Stevirey (Jul 16, 2005)

*no helmet*



crashedandburned said:


> On question:
> 
> *"According to the National Transportation Safety Board, head injury is the leading cause of death in bicycle crashes"*
> 
> Does anyone know ANYONE who's died as a result of not wearing a helmet? I don't.


No,but I got a friend with brain damage from not wearing a helmet.He can't read or write or keep a job.He's 45 and lives with his uncle.


----------



## daleksic (Aug 26, 2007)

Does anyone read these threads anymore or just answer bluntly to the last word in the last post.

I do wear a helmet, I make my kids wear helmets. That's a personal choice and for my kids, well they don't have a choice. When I ride/walk at 3mph with my 2 year old and my 7 year old to school, on the sidewalk 1.1 mile round trip, I do not wear a helmet.

All I'm saying is why is there a cop in my face trying to stuff his law down my throat that isn't even existant. Further the argument went on to why should I wear a helmet just because someone else who didn't killed him self as a consequence. Same thing with seat belts. Or for that matter anything else. I shake my head at people riding their motorcycle with the helmet attached to the rear seat. Why not just wear it? But should I ***** at them and say they have to wear a helmet or else? NO. It's a personal choice. If he kills himself as a consequence, I'd say "Tough luck buddy".

So why is this moron riding my ass about gang shootings and assaults. If he thinks he should wear a helmet, wear one, hey wear 2 if it makes you feel cozy and warm. But don't shove your believes down my or anyone else's throats. It's my personal choice!

Florida law is: $50 fine for anyone under the age of 16 not wearing a helmet. My cop buddy told me he will look into it but he thinks that this doesn't even apply if the rider doesn't use the street and stays on the sidewalk.

They only started fussing around with that this year, last year my son was only one of a handful of kids biking to that school with a helmet and no one gave a darn.


----------



## DrNickels (Jan 7, 2008)

> impose on my liberties and you get a fight, not a reach around.


EXACTLY! I don't think there is anything that the overzealous law enforcement fears more than a citizen who is not ignorant of their rights and knows the law. It kind of reminds of a post in the huts thread where I simply pointed out to the op that if he feels truly ripped off that he should contact the better business bureau and an attorney and should be cognizant of his rights under consumer law. Then someone basically *****ed me out and called me a litigious *******.

I love when people whether it be other citizens, law enforcement, etc. try to force their idea of the law on me without actually knowing it themselves.

No, not everyone will know every law, but if you are a police officer and you have doubt why not call it in to the station on the radio (takes 2 minutes) and confirm what the law is rather than just flexing your nuts on a citizen who questions your understanding of the law.

Service not slave master is the idea most law enforcement really need to learn. A badge and a gun does not equal always right.



> Survival of the fittest people, Survival of the fittest!
> 
> Just because a retard (with all due respect) fell of a bike some years ago and hurt himself, possibly suing the city or bicycle manufacturer, now everybody has to wear a helmet.
> 
> I say Fcuk It. Give the parents the responsibility of parenting back. If you fall and hurt yourself you should protect yourself better next time and not force new, ridiculous laws upon others.


I am glad you wear your helmet and you have your kids wear their helmet, but seriously why would you say anyone should be doing any activity that could result in horrible injury without the proper safety gear?

You say it comes down to personal responsibility and parental responsibility, but that extends beyond your own body. People in this country far too often think of only the consequences of their actions on themselves and not on the rest of society. We truly have turned in the the ME generation.

"Well who cares if I don't want to wear a helmet, I am the one who has to pay the price." - WRONG! What do you think happens when you go on disability and can't work and your parents aren't their to wheel your ass around and wipe it for you? You don't have insurance and now the government tax dollars (money we as tax payers pay!) now goes to take care of you because you cannot work due to your ignorant "personal right" to ride without a helmet. I am fine with personal choice, but I shouldn't have to be punished for your personal choice.

You want to drive your car without a seat belt? Fine by me, but I personally think you should be picking up the tab with your personal insurance(which by the way raises my premiums and everyone's premiums!) for your injuries and when that runs out no disability for you, no government assistance. You personally decided to give up that option when you personally decided to not wear the belt.

Want to bone girls without a rubber with reckless abandon? Fine by me have a ball, but when you get an STD, HIV, etc. don't expect me to pay for your meds or medical bills. You deal with the consequences.

Personal choice not mean you can make idiotic choices and then expect someone to take care of you after wards.

You say survival of the fittest? Great then every person who doesn't take the proper precautions of a seat belt while driving should be given minimal medical treatment. Hell if you're a real bad ass you can survive a ride through your windshield at 60 mph right?


----------



## El Caballo (Nov 22, 2004)

DrNickels:

Equating helmet laws with child labor and diphtheria is so breathtakingly bizarre and irrelevant that it proves my point better than anything I could say.



DrNickels said:


> Sorry I don't buy it. You equate that wearing a helmet and protecting a child = obese children doing nothing and playing ps2 and xbox all day.


"Protecting children" is absolutely the root of the obesity epidemic.

Parents won't let their kids just walk or ride their bike to a friend's house anymore...that's unsafe! They might get kidnapped or run over! Now they have to make a "play date" and be driven over by their tired, distracted parents -- who are more likely to kill their child by crashing the car. WTF is a "play date" anyway?

Worse, most kids today aren't allowed to even *go outside* without being directly supervised. Do you have kids? Do you know any parents with kids? Do you talk to them? It's like stepping into Bizarro Land. I know a couple who are seriously worried about a child molester kidnapping one of their babies -- yet they haven't fenced off the swimming pool in their backyard, which is *tens of thousands of times* more likely to kill their kids by drowning.

By demanding that our children always be 100% safe from all harm at all times, we've prohibited them from going outdoors and getting exercise in the normal course of play. They want to go outside and skateboard...but that's illegal, because skating is for hooligans and delinquents. They want to go outside and ride their bike...but we're too paranoid to let them just do that...wait, strap on your helmet, now I'll follow you down the road...look, all the fun just got sucked out and they don't want to do it anymore. They want to go outside at all just to get out of the house...wait, it's not safe out there, take this cell phone, never talk to strangers, everyone is out to get you, FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR!

You can make all the "mandatory fun" activities you want to try and make up for this, but kids don't care -- they want to do things *on their own*. If that means sit around and play PS3 all day, that's fine with them, so long as you aren't doing it.

www.freerangekids.com


----------



## DrNickels (Jan 7, 2008)

> By demanding that our children always be 100% safe from all harm at all times, we've prohibited them from going outdoors and getting exercise in the normal course of play. They want to go outside and skateboard...but that's illegal, because skating is for hooligans and delinquents. They want to go outside and ride their bike...but we're too paranoid to let them just do that...


Wow I hate to know what area you are living in, but where I am from this is just not the case. The problem is parents don't worry about motivating the kids to get outside and do anything. Most parents use common sense and know their kids will be safe in the neighborhood riding their bike. You seem to keep providing the point that it's not the kids it's the parents. Well I agree with you there, but it's not because most parents are afraid for their children or the children are afraid, it's basic apathy. Most parents are not fit parents and kids used to at least get a physical outlet to burn off some calories at school during recess time and phys ed courses. Now kids usually don't go outside and play and phys ed is gone from most school programs. The kids don't really have that outlet at school and when they are home they aren't getting home cooked meals, instead they get McDonalds every night.

I can remember when I was growing up there wasn't a pop machine in the whole school. The cafeteria only served home style type food, not pizza for every meal. My parents worked like mad, but there was always good healthy food for dinner each night. My parents made the effort to provide me healthy meals and made sure I went outside and played to burn off calories.

It's not fear, it's apathy for the most part.

It's perfectly fine to be protective of your children because they do need protection, but just because someone is doing "play dates" does not mean kids are becoming obese because of it.

The kids lack of physical exercise outlets and shitty diet due to lack of good parenting is at the heart of the problem.

Fat parents lead to fat kids because they don't want to eat healthy or exercise and what role models do kids look to? Their parents.

It's one endless cycle of lardos in this country.


----------



## MrEconomics (Aug 23, 2004)

It would be a cold day in hell before I would turn over my $4,000 road bike to the police. I ALWAYS ride with a helmet so not an issue. Just saying I'd make a break for it before they took my bike. I don't even like my wife touching it.


----------



## man w/ one hand (Dec 29, 2003)

Easy equation. No helmet = a moron and an accident waiting to happen that tax payers could be held financially responsible for the rest of your ignorant worthless life, BECAUSE YOU ARE A MOR-ON. What does it matter if someone says you gotta do it, you gotta have a license to drive a car right ?? "Waaa, waaaa, waaa, some body told me I _have_ to do something, I don't want to, waaaaaaaaaaaa"...cry babies. Idiotic conversation.


----------



## SteveUK (Apr 16, 2006)

"_Blah, blah, blah..etc...idiotic conversation._"

You didn't exactly improve it any, did you.

You know, everything is an accident waiting to happen, so should we, say, ban the use of toasters unless the operator stands on a rubber mat? Introduce a licensing system for lawn mowers? Then we could make it illegal to smoke in one's own home? Or just ban it outright? Why not make it illegal to leave the house during a thunder storm? What about restriciting the levels of pure carbohydrate that an individual can consume? We could chop down all of the trees to stop kids climbing them, or just prosecute parents who don't prevent their kids from climbing?

Where do you stop when it comes to sticking your big, fat nose into other people's business?


----------



## f3rg (Aug 29, 2007)

After reading through this thread, I wish I could hit my head on the pavement and die. 



...unfortunately, a know-it-all busy-body just taped a helmet to my head against my will and I'm unable to hurt myself.


----------



## OutThere (Dec 25, 2007)

Jerk_Chicken said:


> Just plain retarded. They have so much else to worry about, now they are going to do stuff like this?


+1 Here in South Africa it is now law to wear a helmet when riding a bike. With all the rapes, murder and other crimes takin place I cant see the hordes of helmetless cyclists being in too much [email protected] with regard to fines. It is with good intentions the law was passed but imo it will be near impossible to enforce.


----------



## shimano4 (May 11, 2008)

Jlar said:


> This is likely due to traffic accidents, where a helmet can mitigate the damage only so much.
> 
> http://www.torontosun.com/news/toro...news/torontoandgta/2008/09/11/pf-6730761.html
> 
> And yes I've known someone who have passed on that should have been wearing a helmet. Try not to make light of the situation. I will not ride with anyone who isn't wearing a helmet.


I will not ride with someone who is an idiot cyclist on road. Road hog, flaw traffic light rules and have no complete senses when to pick up speed and slow down.

So are u telling me wearing a helmet will make u a road smart?

I would rather pillion on a motorcycle of the rider who knows what he is doing than becoming a passenger on a car of an idiot driver who drives dangerously.....


----------



## man w/ one hand (Dec 29, 2003)

SteveUK said:


> "_Blah, blah, blah..etc...idiotic conversation._"
> 
> You didn't exactly improve it any, did you.
> 
> ...


Or we can let trails get shut down cause people get hurt on them because of "their own choices".
Some just don't get how the results of their actions affects the rest of us. Am I telling you, "you have to wear a helmet" ? No, I'm telling you "you are a moron and an idiot if you don't and that is my opinion". Sue me. (insert smiley w/middle finger)


----------



## SteveUK (Apr 16, 2006)

"_Blah, blah, blah...blah...insert smiley w/middle finger_"

Aww, the finger smiley, how elementary. You could at least attempt to demonstrate that you yourself posses an adequate level of intelligence before you bring into question the intelligence of others. In my opinion, of course...


----------



## daleksic (Aug 26, 2007)

I found a couple of (maybe useful) links, for the people that didn't bump their head or aren't complete morons 

http://www.iihs.org/laws/HelmetUseCurrent.aspx

In Florida there is a $17 dollar fine (another reason that guy was a moron he told me $50), and fine may be waived if proof of purchase of a helmet is provided within 30 days. There is NO LAW in florida that says you have to wear a helmet even on a trail. It is only a recommendation (at the age of 16+) and cannot be enforced.

If a child is in a trailer the child MUST wear a helmet as well.

- (e) Law enforcement officers and school crossing guards may issue a bicycle safety brochure and a verbal warning to a bicycle rider or passenger who violates this subsection. A bicycle rider or passenger who violates this subsection may be issued a citation by a law enforcement officer and assessed a fine for a pedestrian violation, as provided in § 318.18. The court shall dismiss the charge against a bicycle rider or passenger for a first violation of paragraph (d) upon proof of purchase of a bicycle helmet that complies with this subsection.

- (7) Any person operating a bicycle shall keep at least one hand upon the handlebars.

- (10) A person propelling a vehicle by human power upon and along a sidewalk, or across a roadway upon and along a crosswalk, has all the rights and duties applicable to a pedestrian under the same circumstances.

- (14) Every bicycle shall be equipped with a brake or brakes which will enable its rider to stop the bicycle within 25 feet from a speed of 10 miles per hour on dry, level, clean pavement.

- (19) The failure of a person to wear a bicycle helmet or the failure of a parent or guardian to prevent a child from riding a bicycle without a bicycle helmet may not be considered evidence of negligence or contributory negligence.

- (20) Except as otherwise provided in this section, a violation of this section is a noncriminal traffic infraction, punishable as a pedestrian violation as provided in chapter 318. A law enforcement officer may issue traffic citations for a violation of subsection (3) or subsection (16) only if the violation occurs on a bicycle path or road, as defined in § 334.03. However, they may not issue citations to persons on private property, except any part thereof which is open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular traffic.

It's only 20 paragraphs and not the size of a phonebook!


----------



## Razorfish (May 9, 2008)

daleksic said:


> - (7) Any person operating a bicycle shall keep at least one hand upon the handlebars.


Say what? Sometimes I try to ride with no hands AND no feet. I'm not sure if it's possible to balance just on my butt but I keep trying.


----------



## daleksic (Aug 26, 2007)

Hey, here in Florida, riding without hands, will cost you $17 

Unless you can proof that you bought some within 30 days


----------



## PhillyO (Dec 6, 2007)

I see that alot of posters on this thread are not in favor of this law. well as a father of 3 kids im in total favor of this law and a bet if you had kid yourselves youd probable be in favor of it to. just my .02.


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

PhillyO said:


> I see that alot of posters on this thread are not in favor of this law. well as a father of 3 kids im in total favor of this law and a bet if you had kid yourselves youd probable be in favor of it to. just my .02.


you would lose that bet with me.

sure, my kids would be wearing one, but i don't need big brother forcing me to put one on their heads under penalty of law.

imho, the only people who are in favor of intrusive laws like this are those who either doubt their ability to make intelligent choices or simply lack that ability and as such prefer to let the gubment lead them around by their testicles.


----------



## tduro (Jan 2, 2007)

If you go back to the beginning of this thread, you'll see that the rule applies only to kids. If parents are unwilling or unable to control their kids, it's reasonable that society protect itself from the liability associated with those deviants. Bike seizures occur only after repeated violations, and the bikes are returned without cost. THERE'S NO COST TO THE VIOLATOR OR THEIR PARENTS - only a minor inconvenience. 

I don't see the problem. Sounds like a common sense law to me. In fact, I'd like to see stiffer penalties against these absentee parents. Why should they risk my tax dollars? 

If, on the other hand, you're into jungle law, then you're saying that a lot of dead kids is preferable to a little inconvenience for the violators. And that's just sick.


----------



## SteveUK (Apr 16, 2006)

"_If, on the other hand, you're into jungle law..._"






​


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

tduro said:


> If parents are unwilling or unable to control their kids, it's reasonable that society protect itself from the liability associated with those deviants.


society does NOT have any liability to pay for the medical costs of ANYONE. if a parent is an idiot and doesn't put helmets on their kids then they incur the liability for all medical costs. but then again, even if they DO put helmets on their kids it is ONLY the parents who are liable for any medical bills; NOT society.

the gubment acts outside of the rights granted to it by the Constitution when it takes money from one person to give it to another, REGARDLESS of reason.



tduro said:


> Bike seizures occur only after repeated violations, and the bikes are returned without cost. THERE'S NO COST TO THE VIOLATOR OR THEIR PARENTS - only a minor inconvenience.


a "a minor inconvenience" justifies completely violating one's Constitutional rights and wholly side-stepping procedure of law? um.... NO. :nono:

per the Constitution and legal system construct one can ONLY be deprived of their property after due process of law. however, this law and others like it lie outside and act independently of both and use color of law for enforcement/application; which is illegal, unethical, and un-Constitutional.



tduro said:


> I don't see the problem.


become familiar with the Constitution and Bill of Rights and you will. :thumbsup:



tduro said:


> you're saying that a lot of dead kids is preferable to a little inconvenience for the violators. And that's just sick.


combination of "red herring" and "appeal to emotion" logical fallacies.

protecting someone from what "MAY" happen is not a valid excuse/justification for side-stepping the Constitutional and violating the civil/Constitutional rights of society at large.

what is sick is that american Citizens allow these egregious offenses and abrogations to the Constitution to remain on the books, to be enforced, and for the legislators that author them to remain in office.


----------



## tduro (Jan 2, 2007)

monogod said:


> society does NOT have any liability to pay for the medical costs of ANYONE. if a parent is an idiot and doesn't put helmets on their kids then they incur the liability for all medical costs. but then again, even if they DO put helmets on their kids it is ONLY the parents who are liable for any medical bills; NOT society.
> 
> the gubment acts outside of the rights granted to it by the Constitution when it takes money from one person to give it to another, REGARDLESS of reason.
> 
> ...


1. No one has suggested that anyone be deprived of their property. 2. A law was created in accordance with legal constructs. Then it was enforced. What's illegal about that? 3. protecting someone AFTER something bad happens is too late. 4. If you beat your kids, negligently fail to protect your kids from statistically significant hazards, or abort your unborn, does society or your gubment have a right to step in? 5. What color is law?

I'm all for accountability. The question is, who is accountable? The child, the parent, or the society that looks the other way? At this point, I'd settle for anything other than looking the other way.

Freedom is great, but it must be accompanied by at least a shred of responsibility.


----------



## wardfoto (Aug 12, 2007)

At this point, I'd settle for anything other than looking the other way. 


which is the attitude of people in general, which has allowed us to get to the point where a law can be made that takes your property from you, but to teach you a lesson, and make you responsible. it's the same attitude that has brought so much political correctness, that if you have an opinion, you are callous, unthinking, racist, sexist, or a hundred other little things somebody will label you because they took offense, and since everybody is a victim, you are gonna learn a lesson.
sure, i understand the intent, and thats fine. but really, did you need a law to know your kid should wear a helmet? really? because if so... wow.
it's that attitude whch guarantees that we will have every aspect of our lives dictated to us by government through some law. don't think so? read up on homeland security. if that isn't enough to scare the daylights out of you, well you'll be one of the good sheep. and just so we are clear- this is not a political party thing that will go away if a dem is elected. understand this, when you give the power to the government, they do not give it back. you have to take it. don't believe that? read your history books, and learn a little about one of the many reasons people flee their homelands. hell, go ask a cuban.
be a responsible parent, and this wouldn't have happened. sad thing is, plenty of people think a law like this makes them responsible parents. 
and that bet about any parent would be glad of a law like this? that's now two you would have lost.
lead by example. i always wear a helmet now, but it took until i was 34 years old to really learn that lesson. on top of that, i'm now a dad. my son is required to wear a helmet at all times when on his skateboard, and bike. it also means that i must always wear my helmet, even if i'm just riding from the garage to the truck to load up. why? because if i don't, then he asks me where my helmet is, and it makes it that much harder to enforce as a rule for him.
too much government intrusion. i have family that fought in the armed forces, family that is law enforcement, and any of the good ones will tell you the same thing. but, they will also enforce it, even if it goes against personal belief, because that is the job. but they will also be the first ones to tell you they have property the government can come take, but it'll be one shot at a time that they give those bullets up. and that's what we are headed for, with this kind of attitude.
truer words than these are hard to come by...
the people should not fear their government, rather, the government should fear it's people.
aren't these mtbr discussions the best?


----------



## SteveUK (Apr 16, 2006)

"_aren't these mtbr discussions the best?_"

Nice post, wardfoto.


----------



## wardfoto (Aug 12, 2007)

thanks, steve!


----------



## tduro (Jan 2, 2007)

wardfoto said:


> At this point, I'd settle for anything other than looking the other way.
> 
> which is the attitude of people in general, which has allowed us to get to the point where a law can be made that takes your property from you, but to teach you a lesson, and make you responsible. it's the same attitude that has brought so much political correctness, that if you have an opinion, you are callous, unthinking, racist, sexist, or a hundred other little things somebody will label you because they took offense, and since everybody is a victim, you are gonna learn a lesson.
> sure, i understand the intent, and thats fine. but really, did you need a law to know your kid should wear a helmet? really? because if so... wow.
> ...


I honestly can't tell if you're agreeing or disagreeing with the statement you quoted. My statement promoted accountability of parents, and suggested that looking the other way is the worst option. Although your words seem to be in agreement, they have a tone of rebuttal and lecturing. I'm confused.


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

tduro said:


> 1. No one has suggested that anyone be deprived of their property.


bike is confiscated. please explain to us how confiscation is not depriving someone of their property.

in accordance to the Constitution a citizen cannot be deprived of their property for any reason or length of time without due process of law.



tduro said:


> 2. A law was created in accordance with legal constructs.


actually, no. it was not. the law was created under admiralty jurisdiction and color of law, not in accordance with constitutional construct.

any law which is passed which abrogates or infringes upon the Constitution is null and void from it's inception and is thus not enforceable. additionally, any legislators involved with passing such law are, by definition of law, traitors.

as an American Citizen, you should already be familiar with the Constitution and know this. hence my remark that the real tragedy is that the American sheeple allow these marital-law/nanny-state shenanegans to occur by allowing their enforcement and allowing the traitorous legislators who author and pass such dejecta to remain not only free but in office. :madmax:



tduro said:


> Then it was enforced. What's illegal about that?


for one thing, the very enforcement of the law is illegal because the gubment is acting outside of the very strict and limited boundaries/constraints of the Constitution.

for another, it is NOT the job of gubment to protect us from ourselves. read the Constitution, my friend, you will find that the gubment has very, VERY limited powers GRANTED TO IT by the Constitution. the Constitution is NOT a limiting document or a document which lists our freedoms. it is a document that grants the gubment a very FEW privileges with all else being in the hands of the Citizens. this law and it's enforcement lie outside those bounds.

in fact, ALL of your questions would be answered if you simply knew the Constitution. or should i say, they wouldn't have been asked if you knew the Constitution.



tduro said:


> 3. protecting someone AFTER something bad happens is too late.


it is NOT the job of gubment to protect us from ourselves.

it is NOT the job of gubment to penalize someone for what MIGHT happen. KNOW YOUR CONSTITUTION AND BILL OF RIGHTS.



tduro said:


> 4. If you beat your kids, negligently fail to protect your kids from statistically significant hazards, or abort your unborn, does society or your gubment have a right to step in?


first of all, your argument fails from a legal standpoint. specifically, if one beats their children they have committed a crime against them and caused damage rather than simply being an act of negligence. legally, there is a HUGE difference.

if one beats their children HARM AS BEEN DONE, and that is precisely what the legal system is for. it is to provide relief in the event that a citizen's rights have been violated, not to protect us from ourselves or to penalize people for what MIGHT happen.

and no, the gubment (under the confines of the limited power granted by the constitution) NEVER has the right to "step in" to prevent potential harm. it is there to provide relief/reparation for the injured party.



tduro said:


> 5. What color is law?


"color of law" is a legal term, and has nothing to do with tints or hues.

most laws on the books currently, as well as most gubment agencies/representatives operate under color of law. this occurs because 99% (or more) of american Citizens are wholly, utterly, incomprehensibly ignorant of the Constitution and bill of rights. thus, the servant has become the master.



tduro said:


> I'm all for accountability. The question is, who is accountable? The child, the parent, or the society that looks the other way? At this point, I'd settle for anything other than looking the other way.


the parent is accountable for their actions. if their actions cause injury to someone, including their own child, because of negligence or direct action then they should be held accountable. however, accidents happen, so if one is using all due prudence then there has been no negligence. and it is the right of parents to choose whether or not to have their children wear helmets. yes, there is danger in not doing so but freedom means the right to make stupid choices.

if you're in favor of passing intrusive, un-Constitutional laws to protect someone from what MIGHT happen where does it stop? just how much do you think the gubment has the right to meddle in your affairs? you're in agreement with this law because you think it is stupid to not wear a helmet, but where does it stop? when does "enough" become enough? how much intrusion is warranted? more people are injured in the shower than from cycling so should the gubment intrude into our bathrooms? how much control over your daily affairs are you willing to sacrifice for the promise of safety? are you one of those who feel they are too stupid to make good choice and need to be told what to do? or are you one of the smart ones who feel that others are stupid and need to be told what to do?

bottom line is that it is NOT the job of society to force others to do something when there is no injured party. nor is it the job of society/congress/gubment to pick up the tab for head injuries or any other medical costs because someone doesn't have the money to pay. nor does the gubment have the right to force other members of society to pick up the tab by forcing them to cough up money via legislation.



tduro said:


> Freedom is great, but it must be accompanied by at least a shred of responsibility.


responsibility is what freedom is based on. however, freedom carries with it the right to make stupid choices that result in a negative personal outcome.

it is impossible to have, as you just suggested, freedom combined with a nanny state. they are intrinsically mutually exclusive.


----------



## JUNGLEKID5 (May 1, 2006)

crashedandburned said:


> On question:
> 
> *"According to the National Transportation Safety Board, head injury is the leading cause of death in bicycle crashes"*
> 
> Does anyone know ANYONE who's died as a result of not wearing a helmet? I don't.


 yes ....


----------



## tduro (Jan 2, 2007)

monogod said:


> bike is confiscated. please explain to us how confiscation is not depriving someone of their property.
> 
> in accordance to the Constitution a citizen cannot be deprived of their property for any reason or length of time without due process of law.
> 
> ...


You are incorrect about why I agree with this law. Whether or not I believe it's stupid to ride without a helmet is wholly irrelevant. Every adult should make that decision on their own, for some of the reasons you've mentioned. However, my understanding is that the law in question applies only to children.

If a parent cannot or will not protect their children from harm, their children can be taken from them. I know, I know, you'd rather wait until the child is dead or injured, and then seek a remedy (as if there is one at that point). I'm not suggesting that letting your kids ride without a helmet rises to that level of offense, just that there is plenty of legal precedent for gubment action when parents are negligent. But temporarily impounding a bike isn't that big a deal. Heck, they can take my car for parking where they don't want me to park. They can permanently confiscate my car/boat/plane for transporting contraband. They can steal the bag of pot the kid on the corner is smoking. They can arrest and imprison parents for making drugs/alcohol available to children. They can take your car and your freedom for driving drunk. They can take my bike if I ride on state game lands. Are you equally outraged about all of those laws?

We have helmet laws for children in my community - not just when on a bikes, but anything with wheels. Unfortunately, there is no enforcement. However, you've inspired me to be a good citizen, get involved and insist that police start doing their jobs and enforcing our laws.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

*When working with kids*

we have come to an understanding:

It's all cool until it's not.

See, AFTER the bad happens it is too late.

When working with minors or people in your charge or people who cannot take care of themselves it is always best to err on the conservative side. On our high school mtb club, and throughout the NorCal League no one is allowed to ride without a helmet. Ever. 
Coaches and volunteers included. At races teams can lose team points for such infractions. It has never happened. Sure people oops at times but a reminder is all that is needed.

No helmet, no ride, no discussion.

Bring on the nazi comments. Even they had a cool helmet.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

monogod said:


> society does NOT have any liability to pay for the medical costs of ANYONE.


Uhh, yeah it does, that's why it's called a "society" and not a "F-ing free-for-all". Whether or not I agree with it on a case by case basis and whether or not I feel it goes too far in some cases, that is the cost of living in a society. We don't just leave people on the sidewalk with their brains leaking out, or take someone to the hospital only to have them say "sorry, he wasn't wearing a helmet, so we're going to let him die". Only the most selfish or ignorant a-holes usually go riding without helmets, leaving society to deal with the problem, but is just what society has to do, and yes, society will protect itself against the costs that are associated with people suing for these types of issues, so eventually laws are enacted. You have a problem with that? It's not the "man" that you have a problem with, it's all your neightbors to the left and right of you. It's the family members that care enough to sue someone else, and so on. If you could stop those things, you could maybe say that there's no reason for the law, but then society starts to crumble as the checks-and-balances of lawsuits no longer work, and while there are many evils associated with frivilous lawsuits, they serve to keep a lot of society in check.


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

Berkeley Mike said:


> we have come to an understanding:
> 
> It's all cool until it's not.
> 
> ...


red herring.

there is nothing nazi about a club/event/sports-team/race requiring someone to wear a helmet or other safety equipment to participate in their organized activity.

in fact, there is absolutely zero correlation between what you cited above and intrusive, nanny-state laws. nothing. zilch. bupkis.


----------



## wardfoto (Aug 12, 2007)

let me make this simple, for those that are.

laws to make parents responsible do not make responsible parents.
and sometimes, nothing is better than anything.


----------



## tduro (Jan 2, 2007)

wardfoto said:


> let me make this simple...
> ...nothing is better than anything.


Thanks for clearing that up!


----------



## wardfoto (Aug 12, 2007)

tduro-
excellent (well, not really, i'm just trying to be nice) attempt at taking my words and trying to twist them, which will work only for those that haven't read the posts previous.
but, i will allow that, when it comes to government intrusion, and attempts at dictating every little thing to us through laws which have no place being written, then by all means, let your twisting of my words stand.


----------



## biketavioumaximus (Jun 28, 2007)

Law or no law, anyone thinks NOT wearing a helmet is safer or 'there democatic right', wouldn't have the sense to understand the advantage!.....Cops HATE these petty laws, they too would rather catch 'real' criminals......But The true cost of avoidable head injury cannot be argued against!

Just wear a helmet, use a seat belt and don't use drugs!   

I know a guy who was really cool, but now he dribbles non stop and $h!ts him self unknowingly.... But hey, before the accident he was stciking it righ up'em and expressing his freedom!!!:madman: :madman: :madman: 

Never argue with an Idiot, they'll bring you down to there level and then beat you with experience.....Doh!!


----------



## SteveUK (Apr 16, 2006)

"_Never argue with an Idiot, they'll bring you down to there level and then beat you with experience..._"

_Their_ level, they drag you down to _their_ level. _There_ refers to a place, figurative or otherwise: _go over there_, as opposed to _here_.

"_But hey, before the accident he was stciking it righ up'em and expressing his freedom!!_"

Perhaps if he'd just been paying attention instead?


----------



## wardfoto (Aug 12, 2007)

don't recall arguing for no helmet, just against the governments wanton intrusion into every aspect of our daily lives. i wear a helmet even just riding from the front door to the truck to load up. it's a requirement for my son, and i do my best to lead by example.
wear your helmet, you just shouldn't need the government to tell you.


----------



## D.F.L. (Jan 3, 2004)

There is no right to ride a bike or drive a car on roadways. We all must do so within the laws regulating out travel.First I must have a license and insurance to operate a car, and then I have to observe traffic rules. Unjust? Of course, but I AGREE to do so, in exchange for the privilege. I weighed the pros and cons and I agree to it.

Same thing for bikes. If I agree that it's reasonable to wear a helmet and follow the laws, then I cannot complain. If I feel it's too great a burden, then I walk. But I walk only after agreeing to follow the laws placed upon pedestrians. If I feel too oppressed by walking laws, then I guess I stay home.

Helmet laws seem to protect people and harm nobody. I like that sort of law.


----------



## The Continental (Feb 9, 2005)

will they take your skateboard too?


----------



## daleksic (Aug 26, 2007)

There is a big difference between rights and privileges.

You have the right to breathe and consume other peoples air, it is a privilege however to drive a car or ride a motorcycle. If you are privileged to do something you MUST obied by certain rules and usually a license comes into play.

It is not a question if wearing a helmet is a good idea, you have the right not to do so. At some point you should be responsible enough to decide yourself. Many countries in the world have created laws to protect the children from irresponsible parents.

I can't tell you how often I see people on trails without helmets on, and then its usually the guys on walmart bikes. People should be smart enough to make their own decision in that regards, even if you or I do not always agree.

If you have a child or ride with a person you are responsible for, please make them wear a helmet, if you decide you want to wear one, or not, do so as well.

Good luck!


----------



## S.T.I.N.C. (Aug 1, 2008)

"it is NOT the job of gubment to penalize someone for what MIGHT happen. KNOW YOUR CONSTITUTION AND BILL OF RIGHTS."



I agree with this statement. Thinking out loud for a second; why does the State get to dictate the fact that I must have auto insurance and if I don't, my car will be impounded and I'll get a ticket? I'm being penalized if that happens. Granted, I'm being careless, but I'm being penalized for not having insurance for an event (an accident) that "MIGHT" happen.

Auto insurance is a tool to help reduce "risk." "Risk" is the uncertainty of outcomes. I "MIGHT" get into an accident tomorrow, but I "MIGHT" not ever get into an accident in the next 45 years. Either way, if I don't have insurnace today, I'm going to be penalized.


----------



## tduro (Jan 2, 2007)

wardfoto said:


> tduro-
> excellent (well, not really, i'm just trying to be nice) attempt at taking my words and trying to twist them, which will work only for those that haven't read the posts previous.
> but, i will allow that, when it comes to government intrusion, and attempts at dictating every little thing to us through laws which have no place being written, then by all means, let your twisting of my words stand.


You make no sense. Your rambling essays about things unrelated add nothing to this discussion. And your jaba-speak comes off as a lame, failed attempt to be cute. What the hell are you talking about, anyway?


----------



## tduro (Jan 2, 2007)

S.T.I.N.C. said:


> "it is NOT the job of gubment to penalize someone for what MIGHT happen. KNOW YOUR CONSTITUTION AND BILL OF RIGHTS."
> 
> I agree with this statement. Thinking out loud for a second; why does the State get to dictate the fact that I must have auto insurance and if I don't, my car will be impounded and I'll get a ticket? I'm being penalized if that happens. Granted, I'm being careless, but I'm being penalized for not having insurance for an event (an accident) that "MIGHT" happen.
> 
> Auto insurance is a tool to help reduce "risk." "Risk" is the uncertainty of outcomes. I "MIGHT" get into an accident tomorrow, but I "MIGHT" not ever get into an accident in the next 45 years. Either way, if I don't have insurnace today, I'm going to be penalized.


Insurance exists to protect normal people from people who couldn't or wouldn't otherwise be accountable for their actions. And for that I am thankful.


----------



## D.F.L. (Jan 3, 2004)

STINC,

Go back a few posts and read about Rights vs Privileges. It'll answer your question.


----------



## tduro (Jan 2, 2007)

daleksic said:


> At some point you should be responsible enough to decide yourself. Many countries in the world have created laws to protect the children from irresponsible parents.


I agree. And that point comes at adulthood. We can bicker about specific ages, but most children have not yet learned to be fully responsible for their actions, and so should not be held fully accountable when it comes to life and death matters. (certain exceptions are reasonable for particular egregious crimes). Since the law being discussed here pertains only to children, we should discuss it as such. Otherwise, it becomes an entirely different discussion.

Consider this: http://www.floridachildinjurylawyer.com/2008/07/bicycle_helmet_laws_florida_an.html "If a child is injured while not wearing a helmet, it is not a bar to recovery. In other words, the at fault driver is still responsible for the injuries caused by negligence. " So the child's failure to wear a helmet would be the driver's fault.

And this: http://www.kdhnews.com/news/story.aspx?s=27940 "Nearly 300,000 children 14 and younger were treated for bicycle-related head injuries in 2002, and the previous year, 134 children died in the United States from not wearing a helmet..."

I'd rather see my tax dollars spent on an ounce of prevention than a pound of cure.


----------



## S.T.I.N.C. (Aug 1, 2008)

tduro said:


> Insurance exists to protect normal people from people who couldn't or wouldn't otherwise be accountable for their actions. And for that I am thankful.


So does this "child helmet law" exist for parents or children who couldn't or wouldn't otherwise be accountable for their actions? Think about it. If so, does that make it right? Essentially, enforcing a helmet law is similar to enforcing mandatory insurance; government is attempting to protect society from something that "might" happen. Government is attempting to reduce the residual uncertainty that exists in society.

I don't disagree with you....just thinking out loud.


----------



## S.T.I.N.C. (Aug 1, 2008)

tduro said:


> Consider this: http://www.floridachildinjurylawyer.com/2008/07/bicycle_helmet_laws_florida_an.html "If a child is injured while not wearing a helmet, it is not a bar to recovery. In other words, the at fault driver is still responsible for the injuries caused by negligence. " *So the child's failure to wear a helmet would be the driver's fault. *


"So the child's failure to wear a helmet would be the driver's fault."

I disagree with that portion of the statement. If a child doesn't put on a helment and is then struck by a motor vehicle, it is not the driver's fault that the child didn't wear a helmet. Assuming the driver is the cause of the accident, he/she is certainly liable for any injuries caused to the child, however, because the child did not wear a helmet, the child may have contributed to the cause of the injury. That's not to say the child caused the accident, however, if the child was wearing a helment, he/she may have suffered less injury. A child in this situation would be entitled to a settlement (in a comparative negligence state, but not a contributory negligence state), but the settlement may in fact be reduced because in the Court's view, if the child was abiding by the law and wore a helment, he/she may have suffered less injury. Again, the child's negligence (in not wearing a helmet) is a contributing factor to the cause of the injury, and therefore the settlement would be reduced. A similar situation is commonly known as the "seatbelt defense."

A person injured in a motor vehicle accident while not wearing a seatbelt has contributed to the cause of his/her injuries. If the person was wearing a seatbelt, it would be reasonable to believe the individual could have mitigated his/her own injuries. But that person's own negligence in failing to buckle in may have in fact contributed to the cause of the injury. Obviously the at-fault party is still liable, but this is a negotiation tool and a mitigating factor. It sucks, but let that be a lesson to everyone.


----------



## biketavioumaximus (Jun 28, 2007)

SteveUK said:


> "_Never argue with an Idiot, they'll bring you down to there level and then beat you with experience..._"
> 
> _Their_ level, they drag you down to _their_ level. _There_ refers to a place, figurative or otherwise: _go over there_, as opposed to _here_.
> 
> ...


----------



## SteveUK (Apr 16, 2006)

biketavioumaximus said:


> _English teacher? Grammar Nazi?? Thx ur gr8 ....... hang on am I 'arguing with an idiot'?_


It's not really an argument, is it? I mean, basically, you're just name-calling.



biketavioumaximus said:


> _thanks for that?_


You're most welcome?


----------



## wardfoto (Aug 12, 2007)

tduro- interesting that YOU twist my words, then accuse me of not being straightforward. but, whatever works for you.
wear you helmets, people, that's the bottom line. but the government, on any level, needs to stop making laws to dictate the littlest things to us. you know you should wear a helmet, do you REALLY need the government to tell you that? REALLY? no, I didn't think so.
Teach your children correctly, and this becomes a null and void issue. my son, who is not even 4, will call me out if i ride from my front door to the truck in the driveway without my helmet on. So, I always wear my helmet, and then he understands that he must wear a helmet, as well. lead by example, or because you love your children, but NOT because the government told you to do so.
That's it. all I wanted to say. Now, off to work, and then ride tonight. With a helmet, and nobody even told me I had to. Isn't freedom great?
Aren't these mtbr discussions even better?


----------



## biketavioumaximus (Jun 28, 2007)

SteveUK said:


> It's not really an argument, is it? I mean, basically, you're just name-calling.
> 
> You're most welcome?


If you have time (and it appears you do), can you check the rest of my posts and correct my grammar.. I find that function of MTB forums SOooooooooo usefull!

Thanks for being so obliging!


----------



## tduro (Jan 2, 2007)

S.T.I.N.C. said:


> "So the child's failure to wear a helmet would be the driver's fault."
> 
> I disagree with that portion of the statement. If a child doesn't put on a helment and is then struck by a motor vehicle, it is not the driver's fault that the child didn't wear a helmet. Assuming the driver is the cause of the accident, he/she is certainly liable for any injuries caused to the child, however, because the child did not wear a helmet, the child may have contributed to the cause of the injury. That's not to say the child caused the accident, however, if the child was wearing a helment, he/she may have suffered less injury. A child in this situation would be entitled to a settlement (in a comparative negligence state, but not a contributory negligence state), but the settlement may in fact be reduced because in the Court's view, if the child was abiding by the law and wore a helment, he/she may have suffered less injury. Again, the child's negligence (in not wearing a helmet) is a contributing factor to the cause of the injury, and therefore the settlement would be reduced. A similar situation is commonly known as the "seatbelt defense."
> 
> A person injured in a motor vehicle accident while not wearing a seatbelt has contributed to the cause of his/her injuries. If the person was wearing a seatbelt, it would be reasonable to believe the individual could have mitigated his/her own injuries. But that person's own negligence in failing to buckle in may have in fact contributed to the cause of the injury. Obviously the at-fault party is still liable, but this is a negotiation tool and a mitigating factor. It sucks, but let that be a lesson to everyone.


After re-reading the article, I think you're right. And that's good, because the other way would have really sucked!


----------



## tduro (Jan 2, 2007)

S.T.I.N.C. said:


> So does this "child helmet law" exist for parents or children who couldn't or wouldn't otherwise be accountable for their actions? Think about it. If so, does that make it right? Essentially, enforcing a helmet law is similar to enforcing mandatory insurance; government is attempting to protect society from something that "might" happen. Government is attempting to reduce the residual uncertainty that exists in society.
> 
> I don't disagree with you....just thinking out loud.


It seems the law exists to protect children from negligent parents. I don't have a problem with that. Adults are free to choose. I also don't have a problem with governments mandating insurance - to protect law abiding victims from those without the means to be held financially accountable.

I also don't have a problem with preventative laws that protect people from "what might happen". Building codes, vehicle safety standards, drunk driving laws, required innoculations, the armed forces, etc., all protect citizens from what "might" happen. Sure some go to far, but that doesn't mean they're all bad.

Try to imagine a society where anything goes, where there are no laws to take preventive measures of any kind. That's what you'd have if you had no laws to protect someone from "what might happen". It's clear to me that bad things "would" (not "might") happen.


----------



## SteveUK (Apr 16, 2006)

"_My point has been proven._"

Oh yes, the delicate edit to your previous post. "The idiots point" refers to idiots, plural, and really only makes sense to suggest that two or more idiots point at something. The point, or assertion, made _by_ the idiot, would have an apostrophe to denote the possessive case, i.e. the point _of_ the idiot, thus: idiot's.

What exactly was your point, again?


----------



## biketavioumaximus (Jun 28, 2007)

SteveUK said:


> "_My point has been proven._"
> 
> Oh yes, the delicate edit to your previous post. "The idiots point" refers to idiots, plural, and really only makes sense to suggest that two or more idiots point at something. The point, or assertion, made _by_ the idiot, would have an apostrophe to denote the possessive case, i.e. the point _of_ the idiot, thus: idiot's.
> 
> What exactly was your point, again?


LMAO And again my point is proven.....  
It seems you feel you have much more experience in wordsmithery as well...

Whatever...........

Peace out Brother.


----------



## SteveUK (Apr 16, 2006)

"_And again my point is proven...._"

Trouble is, it's not.


----------



## NorKal (Jan 13, 2005)

crashedandburned said:


> On question:
> 
> *"According to the National Transportation Safety Board, head injury is the leading cause of death in bicycle crashes"*
> 
> Does anyone know ANYONE who's died as a result of not wearing a helmet? I don't.


Yes. Four people in one accident actually. Just because YOU don't know anyone doesn't mean it doesn't happen.


----------



## NorKal (Jan 13, 2005)

Jerk_Chicken said:


> In the US, I was used to most cars, if they weren't swerving into me, blowing their horns, and throwing bottles, driving a safe distance around, even when I'm nowhere near them in the shoulder.
> 
> In Germany, the cars keep coming and ride close enough to take out an arm or handlebar with the sideviews.


So U.S. drivers are all overreacting? Or maybe we're all on edge because it's so litigious here.


----------

