Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Fri Mar 29, 2024 09:22

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 668 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 34  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 28, 2007 21:52 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 13:54
Posts: 1711
Location: NW Kent
SafeSpeed wrote:


It looks like the sharp rise on the pedestrian chart is just an artefact created by the drop in the car stats. I hate to say it but smoothing the curves by eye even the 'seatbelt' drop looks like a rttm type effect.

_________________
Driving fast is for a particular time and place, I can do it I just only do it occasionally because I am a gentleman.
- James May


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 28, 2007 22:02 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 15:52
Posts: 461
Paul_1966 wrote:

Right, so never mind helmets, we should ban motorcycles from the roads completely in that case.


Dear oh dear. Helmets save more than they kill, same for seatbelts.
Not a very compelling argument for not using them.
Everything in life is a risk, if you dont want any risk, then simply pull the plug on life and be done with it.
Its that simple. Just dont try influencing others to take such a stupid irrational stance as yours.

Paul_1966 wrote:
The statistics show that motorcycle riders are many times more vulnerable in an accident than the occupant of a car (the latter with or without a seat belt).


You needed a statistic for that fact? :roll:

Paul_1966 wrote:
Why then, should a "selfish" motorbike rider be allowed to place himself in such a vulnerable position? Doesn't he have any consideration for those who have to come and "scrape him up" either?


Yes he does, thats why he wears leathers and a helmet, to help negate some of the effects the risk is likely to impose on his well being.
If you think gravel rash is worth the price of the freedom to choose it over leathers, then i suggest you try it, otherwise you have no clue.

I suggest you rethink your argument, its patently obvious why seat belts and helmets are mandatory- tough nuts are hard to crack.

_________________
"Safety" Scamera Partnerships;
Profitting from death and misery since 1993.

Believe nothing- Question everything.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 28, 2007 23:20 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
toltec wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:


It looks like the sharp rise on the pedestrian chart is just an artefact created by the drop in the car stats. I hate to say it but smoothing the curves by eye even the 'seatbelt' drop looks like a rttm type effect.


That's not the way I see it. Consider also the absence of the effect in the total chart.

I think the percentage chart makes clear a true underlying effect. But we'll never know because there's really too much noise to be sure.

I think it's also fairly amazing that the percentage chart shows the biggest ever annual risk movement in 1983, while 1983 is far from an exceptional year in all the other views of the data.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 28, 2007 23:28 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
DeltaF wrote:
Paul_1966 wrote:
Why then, should a "selfish" motorbike rider be allowed to place himself in such a vulnerable position? Doesn't he have any consideration for those who have to come and "scrape him up" either?


Yes he does, thats why he wears leathers and a helmet, to help negate some of the effects the risk is likely to impose on his well being.
If you think gravel rash is worth the price of the freedom to choose it over leathers, then i suggest you try it, otherwise you have no clue.

I suggest you rethink your argument, its patently obvious why seat belts and helmets are mandatory- tough nuts are hard to crack.

Actually DelfaF, I think Paul could have a valid, if unsavoury, point.

Paul’s response was to apply your ‘selfish’ choice to motorbike use; that's seemingly an equivalent argument. The seatbelt/no seatbelt choice is effectively the same as the bike/car choice in terms of choice of risk. The fact the rider usually wears leathers and a helmet makes no difference to his argument - they are still at greater risk than if they were to travel by car. However, a line has to be drawn somewhere otherwise we wouldn’t be allowed to get out of bed.

I think there are differences that (thankfully) invalidate Paul’s analogy.
Some people strongly desire the thrill of riding a bike; more significantly, bikers can also bypass congestion. There is no strong desire for drivers to go completely seatbelt free (reversing is one exception); also not doing so doesn’t make the journey quicker or more effective.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 28, 2007 23:39 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Roger wrote:
It may be self-perpetuating, ie, they are designing the safer cabin around belted occupants.


Yes, self-perpetuation.

Roger wrote:
However, since unbelted occupants are the substantial miority, is that a bad thing? I say it is a good thing.


I suspect it's a good thing, but I have nagging doubts about opportunity costs, risk compensation behaviour, dumbing down, unbalanced population and risk transfer.

It'd be a hell of a trick if we could make cars feel (or seem) more dangerous while actually making them far more crash worthy. Then we'd get both benefits.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 28, 2007 23:46 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 18:54
Posts: 4036
Location: Cumbria
Toooo many points!!

Semitone is right. typical car crashes at around 30mph into a solid object tend to generate decelerations of between 15 and 30G at the centre of gravity of the car. That's 15-30 times your own body weight pushing you into either (a) the back of your belt or (b) the inside of the car.

Here are a couple of items of trivia from the world of type approval testing...

Seat belt anchorages in cars need to withstand a force of just under 3 tons for a fifth of a second. (in Europe anyway). For a typical 3-point belt, that's about a ton and a half on the lap part of the belt and the same on the diagonal part. If any of the belt anchorages are attached to the seat structure, you add 20 times the weight of the seat to that load.

Seat BELTS get tested dynamically with a 75kg dummy on a sled. They need to put up with at least a 26G deceleration for 20 miliseconds and limit the excursion of the dummy to within set limits. There are also static strength tests for the webbing but I can't remember what they are off the top of my head. Generally though, they don't "snap" until long after you have!

In the old (largely superseded now) "full frontal" crash test, the steering wheel and column assembly was allowed to exert a force of no more than (about) a ton on the chest of a dummy fired at it. At the same time, the wheel and column assembly needed to ensure that a "head" fired at it was subjected to no more than 80G although "spikes" of up to 120G were allowed if less than 3 miliseconds duration. That applied to every part of the wheel - the rim, the spokes, the centre of the boss.

The new "offstet frontal" crash test is much more sophisticated and uses instrumented dummies in each front seat. The car can pretty much do what it likes, the "pass/fail" criteria are based on how badly injured the dummies are. They measure forces in the big bones and decelerations in various other bits of the body and then the computer downloads the data from them and does "hard sums" to work out how badly off they are.

Finally, my ex boss (long deceased) grew up long before seat belts were commonplace and, as a newly married man, would (very gallantly) extend his left arm in front of his wife in the passenger seat during heavy braking "lest she be injured in a crash".

Quaint, I know, but even he had to laugh when he looked back at that folly!

The "bottom line" is that one hasn't a snoball's chance in hell of resisting severe crash forces unaided - no matter how strong you think you are! And, as Semitone said, the bits of car you're most likely to brace yourself against are supposed to crumple to try and save you from even trying!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 28, 2007 23:47 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
SafeSpeed wrote:
I've got a theory. I have no idea if it is right or not, so bear with me. If it wasn't for this thread it would end up in brainstorming one day.

The reduction of risk of death for an average car driver using a seat belt is about 10%. It's worthwhile, but it isn't huge.

Clearly not all drivers will receive the benefit in equal measure.

It follows that for some groups of drivers the benefit of the seatbelt may be negative. i.e. it might increase their risk.

I reckon that the best drivers are the ones most likely to experience a worsening of risk due to seatbelts, while the worst drivers will get the biggest part of the benefit pie.

It's because of the sorts of crashes that different drivers are most likely to have. The worst driver are the most likely to have huge observation failures shunting nose first into big trouble.

The best drivers are more likely to have other kinds of crashes, perhaps involving side impact. If the average benefit is only 10% of so, then there might be quite large numbers of individuals subject to higher risks while belted.

Anyway, like I said... it's only a theory (although some of it is self-evident).


I've been turning this over in my mind all day (on and off).

I now think it's a racing certainty that some percentage of drivers are more likely to survive without seatbelts because of the sorts of crashes they are likely to get involved in.

With a ~10% net benefit across the whole population it is inconceivable that:

a) the benefit is evenly distributed across the population AND
b) no members of the population have a net benefit which is negative

So now we need to know how big the population of net losers is.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 28, 2007 23:55 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 18:54
Posts: 4036
Location: Cumbria
I'm struck that there are strong paralells between this and wearing of lifejackets in yachts. By and large, the vast majority of "yachties" accept that they are a good thing and can help save a life. Curerntly, we are allowed a great deal of discretion as to whether (and when) we wear them. Clearly, few people wear them in the cabin on a calm day and most people wear them on deck in heavy weather. There are a few who feel that they are somehow bad and cite odd "freak" incidents where they have been thought to be the cause of danger to justify their position.

On another forum I vaguely (and I'd be hard put to find it now) remember a heated debate on the subject and my mind was made up by a tale of a tragedy where someone (exercising his right to choose) ended up doing something that most sane yachties would have regarded as foolhardy and got into trouble. I believe a lifeboatman died trying to save him. (or maybe someone else died because the lifeboat was already out trying to save him and couldn't respond) - something like that anyway.

It left me with a very strong feeling that we all have a moral duty to try and minimise the negative impact our "choices" might have on others.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 29, 2007 00:04 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 18:54
Posts: 4036
Location: Cumbria
Paul_1966 wrote:
If that was some new drug which caused severe injury or death in "only" 1in 200 cases, there would be calls for it to be banned! They certainly wouldn't be promoting its use and thinking about making it compulsory.


I don't think that's a valid example. For a start, there's no way of being sure that the person would NOT have suffered any injury (or even a worse injury) without a belt - it's the "Francesca Lee" point but the other way round.

Secondly, (and I think this has already been said) it rather depends on what your alternatives are if you DON'T take the drug. If I was faced with a "certain death if you don't" and "a 1 in 200 chance of death if you do", I'd be at the bottle like a shot. In fact, right up until the choice was "a 1 in 200 chance of death if you don't" and "a 1 in 200 chance of death if you do", I'd be giving it strong consideration!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 29, 2007 00:06 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Mole wrote:
It left me with a very strong feeling that we all have a moral duty to try and minimise the negative impact our "choices" might have on others.


That's so tricky. May we still climb mountains or play rugby? Ride motorbikes? Get drunk?

It's extremely difficult to draw the line - even if there ever was a line to draw. If anyone can, I'm all ears...

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 29, 2007 00:10 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 18:54
Posts: 4036
Location: Cumbria
Paul_1966 wrote:
Somebody who makes the point of buckling up anyway might drive away without doing it once in a while. Without the law, he would probably wait until a more convenient point to pull the belt across. But because so many people have had the fear of citation and fines put into them over seat belts, that person is now more likely to try to get that belt across him as quickly as possible, "in case a policeman sees me."

I've certainly seen a lot of people fumbling with the belt as they're pulling out of a parking space into traffic, etc.


Clearly the belt's fault then! :wink:

Isn't that a bit like saying that steering wheels cause accidents where people drive the wrong way up one-way streets? Take the steering wheel away and it just wouldn't happen!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 29, 2007 00:18 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 18:54
Posts: 4036
Location: Cumbria
SafeSpeed wrote:
Mole wrote:
It left me with a very strong feeling that we all have a moral duty to try and minimise the negative impact our "choices" might have on others.


That's so tricky. May we still climb mountains or play rugby? Ride motorbikes? Get drunk?

It's extremely difficult to draw the line - even if there ever was a line to draw. If anyone can, I'm all ears...


Absolutely! And before anyone gets the impression that I've got it sussed, I haven't!!! I don't climb mountains, but I do go to sea for absolutely no purpose other than pleasure. I'm fat and I'm therefore likely to become more of a burden on society than someone who isn't. Trouble is, I just like chocky too much!

Interestingly, Mrs. Mole was looking over my shoulder earlier on and commented that (a) she didn't know any A&E consultants that weren't in favour of seat belts (sample size only a few dozen though!) and (b), she thought that it was only fair that doctors be given the right to choose whether or not they treated someone who came in having exercised their right to not wear a seat belt, not wear a crash helmet etc. (and I need to point out that this WAS tongue-in-cheek)! She went to bed though when I asked if she'd refuse to treat someone who had been in an accident in their classic car (being rather fond of them myself)!

I guess it all comes down to what "society" regards as "reasonable".


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 29, 2007 00:24 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Mole wrote:
Paul_1966 wrote:
Somebody who makes the point of buckling up anyway might drive away without doing it once in a while. Without the law, he would probably wait until a more convenient point to pull the belt across. But because so many people have had the fear of citation and fines put into them over seat belts, that person is now more likely to try to get that belt across him as quickly as possible, "in case a policeman sees me."

I've certainly seen a lot of people fumbling with the belt as they're pulling out of a parking space into traffic, etc.


Clearly the belt's fault then! :wink:

Isn't that a bit like saying that steering wheels cause accidents where people drive the wrong way up one-way streets? Take the steering wheel away and it just wouldn't happen!


Oooo, you are awful! :)

This is the old one about what people do do and what people should do.

Just because people shouldn't doesn't mean they won't. And the legislators have a clear responsibility to take into account what real pople do do in the real world.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 29, 2007 00:29 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Mole wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
Mole wrote:
It left me with a very strong feeling that we all have a moral duty to try and minimise the negative impact our "choices" might have on others.


That's so tricky. May we still climb mountains or play rugby? Ride motorbikes? Get drunk?

It's extremely difficult to draw the line - even if there ever was a line to draw. If anyone can, I'm all ears...


Absolutely! And before anyone gets the impression that I've got it sussed, I haven't!!! I don't climb mountains, but I do go to sea for absolutely no purpose other than pleasure. I'm fat and I'm therefore likely to become more of a burden on society than someone who isn't. Trouble is, I just like chocky too much!

[...]

I guess it all comes down to what "society" regards as "reasonable".


The word 'reckless' gets us half way there. And 'irresponsible' another 25%.

But when someone says it's irresponsible to climb mountains we're in the smelly stuff.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 29, 2007 00:35 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 18:54
Posts: 4036
Location: Cumbria
Aww come on, indulge me! :wink:

This is the best thread we've had for a while! I don't (not for one second!) agree with Paul 1966 but it's made me think and (to my mind at least) has all been pretty gentlemanly! (contrasting sharply with certain recently banned posters who held opposing views but unlike Mr. 1966, didn't make any kind of attempt at reasoned argument to back them up)!

Anyway, back O/T, I think manufacturers ARE doing all they can to cater for people doing stuff that they shouldn't do but do do anyway! If I had a quid for the number of times I used to get irate clients moaning about the sharp edge and softness requirements on dashboards, I'd be typing from my wireless laptop on a beach in the Seychelles now! They always used to say "...that's a stupid requirement! thye'd never hit (such-and-such a feature) if they were wearing their bloody seat belt anyway - that's what they're for"!

by 'eck, half past midnight AGAIN!

Nite Nite all!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 29, 2007 09:18 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 15:52
Posts: 461
SafeSpeed wrote:

The word 'reckless' gets us half way there. And 'irresponsible' another 25%.

But when someone says it's irresponsible to climb mountains we're in the smelly stuff.


Im up for it! Its irresponsible to climb mountains..........



......without a safety line. ;) :D

_________________
"Safety" Scamera Partnerships;
Profitting from death and misery since 1993.

Believe nothing- Question everything.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 29, 2007 10:33 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 14:33
Posts: 186
Location: Norfolk
Boy, I see a lot of points to respond to since yesterday.....

Big Tone wrote:
Thinking of something else for a minute; does anyone know if seat belts cause or make whip lash worse?


Sure they do. I had a neighbor who suffered with a bad neck for months after whiplash caused by the belt. It was a relatively minor rear-end shunt.

As I mentioned earlier, a piece of information which never sees the light of day any more is that immediately following the introduction of the belt law doctors reported a substantial increase in the number of victims brought to them with Hangman's Fracture, which as the name implies is a breaking of the vertebrae in the neck in a similar way to the hangman's rope, but in this case caused by severe whiplash.

Quote:
I can see the argument around choice of wearing a belt but does choice not become responsibility when there are other car occupants?


It still comes down to choice. If you don't want to ride with me because I refuse to buckle up, nobody's going to hold a gun to your head and force you. If you assess what you consider to be the potential risks of riding with me and decide that you're willing to accept those risks, then you've done so of your own free-will (influenced by how badly you might need the ride, of course, but still your own decision).

Quote:
If that new drug also provided relief where would instead have been severe injury or death for other 199 of 200 cases (and there was no other viable alternative that performed any better), then I think the general populous would be calling for it.


People might be calling for it to be available, but would they be calling for it to be forced upon everybody against their will?

There is an analogy there with seat belts. When it became mandatory for new cars to be fitted with belts, the government of the day announced that this was purely so that people would have the choice of using them if they wished. The people were assured that there was no way that the government would ever consider actually making use of those belts mandatory.

Gee, the politicians lied to us. Now there's a surprise......

Quote:
Showing my age here but does anyone remember the Jerry Anderson car from Captain Scarlet, I think, where the driver of a car was facing backwards and viewed the front via a camera?


Oh yes! I remember Supercar and Fireball XL5 too! :)

Quote:
I notice the graph for motorbike rider fatalities dips at the same time the helmet law was introduced; 1973 I think


Yes, it was January 1, 1973 that helmets became mandatory in Britain. It depends how accurate the scale of the graph is, but to me it looks as though the numbers had already hit a low point before then, and they started to climb again during 1973/74. Based purely upon the figures on the graph, I don't think there's any way to say that the helmet had any measurable effect on the fatality rate.

I was a couple of months shy of 8 years old in January 1973, so I'm not in a position to recall just how many people were already using helmets voluntarily by then, but I would imagine that the proportion was considerably higher than the number of people voluntarily using seat belts prior to January 1983.

Quote:
I'm still struggling to understand how the proportion of accidents where the wearing of a seatbelt would be detrimental to the survival odds outweighs those where it would be beneficial.


So are you arguing that it should all come down to a matter of probabilities? If the evidence suggested that some device was beneficial in more than 50% of cases, then its use should be made compulsory?

If not 50%, then at what point would you consider it appropriate to mandate use? 60/40? 80/20? 90/10?

As I said earlier, the proportions are almost impossible to determine due to other variables, but they don't really matter. It is clear -- and the government has acknowledged -- that in some cases a belt will prove harmful rather than beneficial. Whether it's in 49% of crashes or only 0.1% is immaterial. The government is still forcing the use of a device in the knowledge that in some cases it will maim and kill, and the government has no right to do so, regardless of how many lives it may save.

Put simply, I am not the property of the state to do with as it pleases.

Quote:
Dear oh dear. Helmets save more than they kill, same for seatbelts.
Not a very compelling argument for not using them.


I was not arguing whether helmets should or should not be used. The point I was making is that riding a motorcycle is much riskier than driving a car. As you said, you don't even need the statistics to realize that.

The comparison is that if I'm not to be allowed to choose whether I (arguably) place myself in greater potential jeopardy by not buckling up, then why should a person be allowed to place himself at much greater risk by choosing to ride a motorcycle?

Quote:
Everything in life is a risk, if you dont want any risk, then simply pull the plug on life and be done with it.


That really sums up the whole situation. Yes, there are risks associated with just about everything. But in most cases the jackbooted government doesn't poke its nose in and tell you what you must do to alleviate those risks. If it did, it would be illegal to go mountain climbing, skydiving, spelunking, scuba diving, or anything else which involves any sort of danger. Even indulging in unhealthy amounts of chocolate and candy bars could become a crime.

Quote:
Yes he does, thats why he wears leathers and a helmet, to help negate some of the effects the risk is likely to impose on his well being.


But there's no law requiring riders to wear leathers, is there? You could legally ride around wearing nothing but shorts and a helmet if you wanted to.

Quote:
Im up for it! Its irresponsible to climb mountains..........
......without a safety line.


Irresponsible, foolish, dangerous -- But not illegal. There's the difference.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 29, 2007 11:01 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 15:52
Posts: 461
Paul_1966 wrote:

Sure they do. I had a neighbor who suffered with a bad neck for months after whiplash caused by the belt. It was a relatively minor rear-end shunt.


Anecdotal. Not empirical evidence. Disregard.

Paul_1966 wrote:
As I mentioned earlier, a piece of information which never sees the light of day any more is that immediately following the introduction of the belt law doctors reported a substantial increase in the number of victims brought to them with Hangman's Fracture, which as the name implies is a breaking of the vertebrae in the neck in a similar way to the hangman's rope, but in this case caused by severe whiplash.


Take your choice then.-
A)Whiplash
B)Rear seat passenger into the back of your head ( headbutt)
C) Decapitation as you go through the screen
D) Exiting the side window at speed to get run down by a truck on the opposite carriageway.
E) Face/tarmac interfacing.
Lesser of all the evils. No contest, you lose.

Paul_1966 wrote:
It still comes down to choice. If you don't want to ride with me because I refuse to buckle up, nobody's going to hold a gun to your head and force you. If you assess what you consider to be the potential risks of riding with me and decide that you're willing to accept those risks, then you've done so of your own free-will (influenced by how badly you might need the ride, of course, but still your own decision).


Arrogant, selfish couldnt care less attitude. What about those you leave behind due to your idiocy?


Paul_1966 wrote:
Put simply, I am not the property of the state to do with as it pleases.


I agree. I am as anti state intrusion as its possible to be, yet i still see the common sense in protecting myself from the consequences of everyday decisions.
This isnt about state intrusion its about real, tangible, provable protection.
Like i said, all you have to do is pull the plug if you dont wish to be protected, just do it where someone else dosent have to deal with the aftermath. This isnt about freedom its about responsibility. Take some.


Paul_1966 wrote:
I was not arguing whether helmets should or should not be used. The point I was making is that riding a motorcycle is much riskier than driving a car. As you said, you don't even need the statistics to realize that.


Your arguments are akin to saying " i should have the right to bash my head off the road because im an idiot".
You already have that right. You have no right to expect a clean up operation when the results of your actions can be easily avoided.

Paul_1966 wrote:
The comparison is that if I'm not to be allowed to choose whether I (arguably) place myself in greater potential jeopardy by not buckling up, then why should a person be allowed to place himself at much greater risk by choosing to ride a motorcycle?


Because riding a motorbike without a helmet is illegal, so is driving without a belt and with good reason- people die more easily without them. Better a whiplash injury than a fatal. Simple.

Quote:
Everything in life is a risk, if you dont want any risk, then simply pull the plug on life and be done with it.


Paul_1966 wrote:
That really sums up the whole situation. Yes, there are risks associated with just about everything. But in most cases the jackbooted government doesn't poke its nose in and tell you what you must do to to alleviate those risks. If it did, it would be illegal to go mountain climbing, skydiving, spelunking, scuba diving, or anything else which involves any sort of danger. Even indulging in unhealthy amounts of chocolate and candy bars could become a crime.


Again, its not about government intervention, its common sense.
You make correlations with climbing etc.
Dan Osman. Google and learn, similar ideas to yours, now deader than fried chicken. Reason? Stupid. Nature always takes care of the stupid.


Paul_1966 wrote:
But there's no law requiring riders to wear leathers, is there? You could legally ride around wearing nothing but shorts and a helmet if you wanted to.


Yes you could ride without leathers and in shorts. Pity the state of you when your soft flesh is ripped off by the force of friction..... like i said, nature loves an idiot.

Quote:
Im up for it! Its irresponsible to climb mountains..........
......without a safety line.


Paul_1966 wrote:
Irresponsible, foolish, dangerous -- But not illegal. There's the difference.


Maybe you should be campaining to get it made illegal? Nobody should have to clean up the after effects of a totally avoidable situation such as those you are proposing.
Roadkill anyone?........ :roll:

_________________
"Safety" Scamera Partnerships;
Profitting from death and misery since 1993.

Believe nothing- Question everything.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 29, 2007 11:17 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 14:06
Posts: 3654
Location: Oxfordshire
'The man' also mandates safety guards on machinery in the workplace. Would you suggest that it should be the personal choice of the machine operator whether they work without a safety guard on their machine?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 29, 2007 11:46 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 09:59
Posts: 3544
Location: Shropshire
Well, an interesting thread at long last :lol:

Reading through its been difficult to ascertain whether Paul_1966 has genuine concerns over the chances of a seatbelt causing him an injury in the event of a crash, or whether he's on an anti-authority day trip.
Picking up DeltaF's point, whilst none of us are instruments of the state to be toyed with as it sees fit, we are not completely independent from it either. Even if we foolishly decide to act against perceived wisdom or legislation and drive without a seatbelt/ride a motorcyle without a helmet/take hard drugs etc etc, the 'jackbooted governement' ( :roll: ) does not absolve itself of its responsility towards us. It will still invest in us financially, professionally and emotionally in order to put us back together and in so doing draw down resources that could be better spent on sorting out someone who has need of their services through genuine accident or tradegy not pure bloody-mindedness.
If there were some mechanism by which individuals could disconnect themselves from their attachement to the state and the amenities it provides then fine, go ahead and knock yourself out standing up for your principles. But if you then come to harm through own choice then tough shit - you made the choice, you showed that nasty government you're and individual and not a cog in a machine (or whatever), you fund your own medical care and find some way of providing for your family.
You never know, you may even feature in next years Darwin Awards ;)

A typical riposte to this point will usually start with the bankrupt argument:
"I pay my taxes....." :evil: :roll:

_________________
Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical, liberal minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 668 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 34  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 11 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.031s | 16 Queries | GZIP : Off ]