Really ?

[Susquatch]

@Susquatch

In reference to me missing your point, I honestly think we missed each other's.

Perhaps. Let's just agree that we did.

No reasonable person is expecting a risk free environment.

Agreed

The main thing I keep repeating is that it appears helmets and seatbelts save lives. So people can say what they want but arguing against the effectiveness seems silly.

Totally agree. But that is motorcycles and vehicles. I support that law. I was talking bicycle Helmuts, not motorcycles. As far as I know, there is no consensus there when it comes to adults. There is some consensus around children who are much more vulnerable than adults.

Now, let's address the elephant in the room.

I don't think we can. It's the elephant in the room for a reason. That aspect of this discussion is government policy. And policy is a forbidden subject on this forum - for very good reasons.

Suffice to say that until there is a law that says I have to wear a Helmut when I ride my bicycle, I'm not going to. When there is a law, I will buy a Helmut but I prolly won't ride my bicycle very often. I will not knowingly break the law.

I will not debate the policy with you here. If you really want to, send me a PM and I'll give you my phone number. We can carve the elephant up on the phone as much as you want.

 

[DPittman]

Back in the 70's before seatbelt laws, I didn't wear my seatbelt most of the time. I was coming home from work it was dark in winter. There was a shortcut route I could take through what was about to be a new development so no houses yet, but the streets were all paved and no cars, and no streetlights yet. Casually driving about 60km/hr and as I entered a bend in the road I realized too late that I was driving on pure black ice, zero steering and near zero brakes. I hit the curb, was thrown out of my seat and ended up in the footwell of the passenger side. I had a good bonk on the noggin, mirror was torn off. Some damage to the front suspension.

Lesson learned, I have never driven without my seatbelt since that day.

I really disliked the idea of the mandatory seat belt law when it came into effect in Alberta. We still had some vehichles that had just lap belts and I was a know it all 18 year old and figured it was just a little too much to be telling me I had to wear a seat belt.
I am now a strong believer in wearing a seat belt for many reasons but I am glad I had to conform because the habit of not wearing a seatbelt surely would have stuck with me for life had it not been law.

 

[Elektrishun]

I don't think we can. It's the elephant in the room for a reason. That aspect of this discussion is government policy. And policy is a forbidden subject on this forum - for very good reasons.

Instead of "address the elephant" maybe it is enough to say "more personal freedom should require more personal responsibility" and leave it at that.

 

[Susquatch]

Instead of "address the elephant" maybe it is enough to say "more personal freedom should require more personal responsibility" and leave it at that.

As long as you express that as your opinion, I think that's ok. On the other hand, if you want to take the position that your opinion is more valid than the opinions of others for whatever reason, then we are suddenly debating policy - which we cannot do here.

I really would welcome that discussion privately because I think we agree more than we disagree. But I also think we disagree enough that it's probably worth some "friendly respectful" private discussion.

 

[kstrauss]

However, motorcycle crashes accounted for ∼10% of all motor vehicle crash fatalities, and per mile traveled, motor cycle crashes are ∼37 times more lethal than automobile crashes.

I know this is a serious topic but I instantly got a picture of Fred Flintstone in my head after reading that last paragraph.

I am reminded of a discussion with an ER doctor friend. She referred to motorcycles as "donorcycles" since they often provided transplant organs. The riders were mostly young and in good physical condition. The only damage due to crashes was often the brain which she felt was obviously defective.

 

[Elektrishun]

As long as you express that as your opinion, I think that's ok. On the other hand, if you want to take the position that your opinion is more valid than the opinions of others for whatever reason, then we are suddenly debating policy - which we cannot do here.

Was trying to avoid mentioning "who pays for this riskier choice?" but it was really hard to avoid at least not mentioning it. I agree, no point looking at options, the law is the law. Still it should at least be taken into consideration when deciding why we make the choices we do. Sometimes it isn't all about you.

I think 99% of everyone's comments in this thread are valid opinions.

1% are seemingly credible sources I found that support my opinion about helmets and seatbelts. I would like to read sources that oppose those stats. Might even look for them myself...

Interested in hearing the opposing views which aren't always clear to me. As a result I found out some jurisdictions in Canada have bike helmet laws. That clarified part of the conversation.

In the end, we all might be left with something to think about. The back and forth when kept civil is a great mental exercise and helps clarify one's own thoughts.

 

[Susquatch]

I really disliked the idea of the mandatory seat belt law when it came into effect in Alberta. We still had some vehichles that had just lap belts and I was a know it all 18 year old and figured it was just a little too much to be telling me I had to wear a seat belt.
I am now a strong believer in wearing a seat belt for many reasons but I am glad I had to conform because the habit of not wearing a seatbelt surely would have stuck with me for life had it not been law.

That would be me too in my 20s. I really disliked that law. Then I had the great displeasure of learning about how seat belts work first hand. The facts, the science, and the dead bodies were really ugly. I rather quickly became a believer. Like you, I'm happy to have had "the education" early.

My Father in law wasn't a believer. He hated being told what to do and basically refused to do it. One day, long after it was law, he asked me to take him somewhere. When I pulled out of the driveway, I noticed he wasn't wearing his seatbelt. So I pulled over and told him I wasn't taking him anywhere in my car if he wasn't gunna wear his belt. So he put it on. A few miles later I saw him secretly slip it off. So I pulled over again and we had a somewhat heated exchange. He put it on again when I told him I wasn't going to break the law and how I wouldn't be able to explain to his wife and daughter how I might not be able to save him if we had an accident that was my fault and would blame myself forever for it. I don't know if he wore it in his own car after that, but I know he always put it on when he was with me. Ironically, he never had an accident after that where it would have mattered.

 

[David]

I'm a seat belt believer, two roll overs made it so.

 

[slow-poke]

I'm a seat belt believer, two roll overs made it so.

What happened to cause a roll over?

 

[David]

What happened to cause a roll over?

First one was 100% my fault. Driving from Vanc to Calgary in the late 80's in my 78 Honda Civic wagon, I had a moment of inattention while putting my map away coming out of Hope and my right front tire caught the concrete barrier, car went up and over and landed on the roof.

Second one, was maybe three years later. I was a passenger in a VW bug that hydroplaned coming around a downhill right hand corner coming out of Summerland. Not traveling fast but there was a literal river of water coming across the road and when we hit that the car did a 360, hit the curb on the opposite side of the road and rolled down the 30 ft embankment.

 

[DPittman]

I'm a seat belt believer, two roll overs made it so.

Been there done that too (but only once)

 

[Susquatch]

Yes, some jurisdictions have bicycle helmut laws. That's the one I was addressing.

The back and forth when kept civil is a great mental exercise and helps clarify one's own thoughts.

I agree, that's why I welcome a phone call discussion.

Unfortunately, our experience here on our forum says that isn't possible. As soon as we allow the policy debate on the forum, some members inevitably escalate the debate and others take that personal and are offended.

But, at the end of the day, this is first and foremost a metal working forum not a place to discuss and debate politics, policy, religion, etc. Therefore we have developed rules which allow some discussion of non-metalworking subjects, but not those which we have found to be inflammatory or divisive or offensive. The moderators try very hard to let that line be somewhat grey while still being ever vigilant about avoiding escalation.

 

[jorogi]

we have developed rules

Oh no, not another danged seudo nanny state oppressor.

Sorry, just had to.

 

[Tecnico]

Put me down as a belt believer as well. There was a day when I participated in oval track racing and things happen. In my case I had bruises from the belts but nothing more so the system worked as intended.

I was indoctrinated young, my father installed belts in the family car ‘way before there were laws.

We have helmet laws too. I did get spoken to one time by the law for moving my bike out of the way (10 ft) at an accident scene without a helmet, at their request.

D

 

[JustaDB]

Head injuries are one of the most common injuries after motorcycle crashes...

I distinctly recall from my admittedly dated data that leg injuries made up the greatest injury area, at 60%.

 

[Elektrishun]

I agree, that's why I welcome a phone call discussion.

Unfortunately, our experience here on our forum says that isn't possible. As soon as we allow the policy debate on the forum, some members inevitably escalate the debate and others take that personal and are offended.

But, at the end of the day, this is first and foremost a metal working forum not a place to discuss and debate politics, policy, religion, etc. Therefore we have developed rules which allow some discussion of non-metalworking subjects, but not those which we have found to be inflammatory or divisive or offensive. The moderators try very hard to let that line be somewhat grey while still being ever vigilant about avoiding escalation.

My "elephant in the room" comment was poorly worded and I feel that I mentioned policy when I should have stuck with morality. And I don't want to go down that rabbit hole, either.

At the very least I will try to summarize my thoughts better.

If someone decides to take what the majority of society might deem a greater risk, by not using a seatbelt or helmet when operating a motor vehicle despite knowledge of statistical evidence that shows it can reduce the effects of an accident, then I believe there is a moral question that should be raised - are you taking into consideration what impact this decision will have on others if you are in a serious accident?

Not looking for answers, just trying to clarify my thoughts to others.

 

[JustaDB]

Maybe it should be stated on your license?

You bet! Matter of fact, let's pro-rate all risky behavior, starting w/ smoking, drinking & drugs. Everybody takes a piss test weekly. You fail, your health insurance is immediately cancelled. Play any sports? Sorry, no coverage. All vehicular drivers are now pro-rated against yearly mileage: the more you drive, the more likely you are to get into a collision, therefore the less coverage you get. It only makes sense, right? Are you a pedestrian? That's dangerous. Do you have a bath tub? You may be tempted to stand up in it. Are you overweight? Coverage revoked. And on and on and on.

Where does it stop?

Plus, if they're going to pull my coverage because I don't wear a helmet or a seatbelt, then I want every premium I've ever paid refunded immediately. With interest.

Back to my main bugbear: How's about we address the cause, instead of the effect? I don't cause the accident by not wearing a helmet or a seatbelt. Period.

 

[Susquatch]

My "elephant in the room" comment was poorly worded and I feel that I mentioned policy when I should have stuck with morality.

Morality as you have used it is basically still policy when it is used in a societal context.

But I don't see the point in discussing helmuts on motorcycles anyway. All of Canada's provinces and territories require helmuts on motorcycles. It's the law, it's not a personal choice issue. So there really isn't anything to talk about.

Earlier, I was discussing helmuts on pedal bicycles. I don't know how to continue that discussion without getting into policy.

 

[JustaDB]

She referred to motorcycles as "donorcycles" since they often provided transplant organs.

I've had discussions w/ doctors on the same topic. I'm afraid I was less than polite in my response.

 

[Elektrishun]

I distinctly recall from my admittedly dated data that leg injuries made up the greatest injury area, at 60%.

I am not a motorcycle guy but eventually bike riders are likely to go down and injure at least one of their legs if you ride often enough. I know I have had road rash from riding a bike.