The mechanics (around the head) are identical. The forces involved differ in magnitude, that is why a motorcycle helmet is much more robust than a bicycle helmet.
Uh, helmet saved my life when I was younger. Helmet saved my Uncle's life when he was hit on his harley. Yeah, he broke over 30 bones in his body, was in traction for many months, but his head and brain where still intact and functioning. You wouldn't even know he was in such a tramatic accident today roughly 25 years later. If either of us didn't have a helmet our family would be visiting us in the Cemetery.
Living testimony isn't relevant? Bicycle/ motorcycle, it's all relevant, as it's all about safety and protecting our heads in an accident. It's more than about being mandated or not. Doesn't matter if it's a bicycle helmet or a motorcycle helmet. They are all intertwined:Bored with hearing these endless "helmet saved my life" anecdotes. They are irrelevant (especially if you are talking about motorcycle helmets, that are an entirely different thing for an entirely different problem).
I personally do not dispute that a good helmet makes a rider safer, and I'm at the point I wear one on 90% of my rides. But I don't think it should be mandated. It would destroy bike share and bike use in cities where millions of bike rides a year are part of mass transit and transit in general. I just like to look at the bigger picture. It's not like having a seatbelt with you every time you sit in your saddle.
Just curious from someone who considered riding 15 years ago, do you or your uncle still ride?Uh, helmet saved my life when I was younger. Helmet saved my Uncle's life when he was hit on his harley. Yeah, he broke over 30 bones in his body, was in traction for many months, but his head and brain where still intact and functioning. You wouldn't even know he was in such a tramatic accident today roughly 25 years later. If either of us didn't have a helmet our family would be visiting us in the Cemetery.
Because you in the bicycle are on the same roads as cars and motorcycles and you want less protection?Yes, motorcycle helemts are entirely different to bicycle helmets, and the underlying morality of the topic is entirely different (the risk to motorcyclists is due to their own speed, the risk to bicyclists is overwhelmingly due to crap driving, a lack of enforcement of road laws on motorists, and crap road-design). So why mention them?
Compulsory bike helmets is like reacting to a situation where one group of people are routinely shooting another group of people on the street and passing a law compelling the victim-group to wear bullet-proof vests, while doing next-to-nothing about the people doing the shooting.
My uncle does, everywhere he goes if there isn't snow. It's in his blood.Just curious from someone who considered riding 15 years ago, do you or your uncle still ride?
You see, he is okay with dying, since it will be the car's fault. And if he ends up with a life long brain injury after hitting a pot hole, that is okay because its the Torys' fault.Because you in the bicycle are on the same roads as cars and motorcycles and you want less protection?
Because you in the bicycle are on the same roads as cars and motorcycles and you want less protection?
You see, he is okay with dying, since it will be the car's fault. And if he ends up with a life long brain injury after hitting a pot hole, that is okay because its the Torys' fault.
wtf is this thread even?
Anyway, I have a solution to this debate, and it's one that pretty much everyone should be able to agree to, because it is profoundly reasonable:
--No requirement for bike helmets. People should be able to choose how they kill themselves. I don't really care
--Requirement to register as organ donor to receive a valid motorbiking license. No family could ever intervene against this mandate once you are vegetabled. No grandfathering in of exemptions from organ donation with license, flat out.
There.
I didn't at all wish bodily harm on you, I'm condensing what you are saying. You can wish for a better world while protecting yourself from the current world.The usual passive-aggressive thinly-concealed-wish that anyone who disagrees with you should suffer serious bodily harm, that one gets from the victim-blaming crowd. Yawn.
I didn't at all wish bodily harm on you, I'm condensing what you are saying. You can wish for a better world while protecting yourself from the current world.
I really enjoy your posts, I definitely don't want any harm to come to you, I'd like you to wear a helmet though
BTW: I went and watched a lot of bike crash videos last night on YouTube. Almost all of them a helmet would've helped. Most of the accidents with cars weren't high speed. Also lots of accidents without cars.
As long as you are willing to sign a waiver that says you don't want the government to pay for your medical bills because you were not wearing a helmet, I have no problem with you not wearing one.Helmet laws are like gun laws. I don’t want anybody telling me I can’t own a gun or have to wear a helmet, but I don’t want to get shot by some psycho having a mental breakdown and I don’t want my health insurance premiums paying to keep some brain dead cyclists alive in a coma for sex month before he or she dies because they weren’t wearing a helmet.
I am willing to compromise to some degree. I will wear a helmet for the sake of others and support bike lanes and push for mental health and rational gun laws. In order to avail myself of the benefits of society I will follow the rules.
I know this response is late, but to be fair, the effect of this soft landing has been very disproportionate. Certain industries, like finance, lending, real estate, and tech have taken it in the shorts.Yeah we've been doing pretty dang well compared to the rest of the world. Inflation was bad for a very short period but not as bad as many countries faced, and it's under control now. Stock market is doing well. Job numbers encouraging. It's not perfect by any means but the soft landing they were aiming for has been pretty damn soft. Not that they'll get any credit for it.
As long as you are willing to sign a waiver that says you don't want the government to pay for your medical bills because you were not wearing a helmet, I have no problem with you not wearing one.
They carry auto insurance for a reason.As long as motorists are willing to sign a waiver that say they will pay the full medical costs of anyone who is injured (including themselves) as a consequence of their decision to drive rather than use a less dangerous form of travel, then I have no problem with them driving a car. And including a share of the health costs caused by the pollution they put out. Oh, and the health costs of any illness they develop as a consequence of not being physically active enough.
When I started running a lot more, I started starting a $1M under/uninsured motorist policy just incase.They carry auto insurance for a reason.
Don't forget long term medical care, SSI disability, etc.As long as you are willing to sign a waiver that says you don't want the government to pay for your medical bills because you were not wearing a helmet, I have no problem with you not wearing one.
Well those are all medical bills.Don't forget long term medical care, SSI disability, etc.
I'm mean sure and I don't want to diminish the pain many felt but the Fed wanted inflation down and was willing to do a lot more economic disruption/pain than this to get it.I know this response is late, but to be fair, the effect of this soft landing has been very disproportionate. Certain industries, like finance, lending, real estate, and tech have taken it in the shorts.
Also, Fox's target demographic, older rural residents more likely to be on fixed incomes, have been particularly hard hit by inflation.
Overall though, the economy is doing very well, all things considered. I expect it to pick up next year as the Fed starts cutting rates.
I'm mean sure and I don't want to diminish the pain many felt but the Fed wanted inflation down and was willing to do a lot more economic disruption/pain than this to get it.