Really ?

[JustaDB]

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.

I've been riding street bikes for 44 years and have racked up over 200,000 miles in that time. I would estimate I've ridden close to 30,000 miles stateside w/ no helmet. And, knock wood, aside from two very low speed tip overs in the first couple years of ownership (technique related), I've managed to avoid a crash. And that is exactly the point. Defensive driving & avoiding it in the first place.

 

[Elektrishun]

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.

It's just a thought exercise/experiment when you intentionally disregard some elements and strip the subject down to a basic question that is valid whether the other elements exist or not. Take away the law element (which would be a reality in some places) and it is a valid moral question.

I don't want to debate the possible answers but I think it's worth mentioning for private consideration.

 

[Elektrishun]

I've been riding street bikes for 44 years and have racked up over 200,000 miles in that time. I would estimate I've ridden close to 30,000 miles stateside w/ no helmet. And, knock wood, aside from two very low speed tip overs in the first couple years of ownership (technique related), I've managed to avoid a crash. And that is exactly the point. Defensive driving & avoiding it in the first place.

We all try to avoid a lot of things but even the best can still get caught.

 

[DPittman]

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

Like alot of judgments that are made in law.....when a reasonable person with ordinary intelligence and prudence would dictate a said action is reasonable and acceptable.

 

[JustaDB]

We all try to avoid a lot of things but even the best can still get caught.

Don't. Care. My choice.

 

[Susquatch]

It's just a thought exercise/experiment when you intentionally disregard some elements and strip the subject down to a basic question that is valid whether the other elements exist or not. Take away the law element (which would be a reality in some places) and it is a valid moral question.

For our forum purposes, policy is all the discussion, judgement, opinion, taken by people, government, and organizations to help inform the development of government regulations or political direction.

So even if you remove any legal aspects, moral questions (valid or not) are policy.

 

[Elektrishun]

For our forum purposes, policy is all the discussion, judgement, opinion, taken by people, government, and organizations to help inform the development of government regulations or political direction.

So even if you remove any legal aspects, moral questions (valid or not) are policy.

Fair enough.