Helmet Laws

[Waxy]

Interesting statistic. Ya mind telling me where you got that from or provide a link? Or did ya just pull that out of your arse...

- The numbers work out to 3.5-4 deaths per 100,000, and not all of those are head trauma related, so the numbers in reality are lower, closer to 3-3.5 per 100,000.

turns out riding a quad is slightly safer than walking around in a lightning storm.

Gun violence in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Surveillance for Fatal and Nonfatal Firearm-Related Injuries --- United States, 1993--1998 - depending on what stats you want to use, there's up to 30 gunshot victims per 100,000 in the USA, and approximately 10-12 gunshot fatalities per 100,000.

There you go.

You picked on two statistics I pointed out, but by the looks of it, largely missed or ignored the point. The point is, the world is full of dangerous activities, and full of laws that could be made in the name of your safety that would actually have a much greater potential statistical impact than an OHV helmet law. If you want a LONG list of other common activities that are every bit or more dangerous than quading, just do a little leg work yourself. Then ask yourself, where does it end?

Waxy

 

[Waxy]

Valid points you make there, and I'm all for personal choice, but I still like the idea of a helmet law. Here's why:

1) Guy "choses" to go for an OHV ride with no helmet
2) Guy crashes OHV and dies.
3) Greedy lawyer finds a legal loophole and sues OHV manufacturer over the "senseless" death off said guy caused by "dangerous" machine.
4) Other greedy lawyers use the case as precedent and file their own lawsuits
5) Manufacturers loose millions of dollars paying out lawsuits
6) No more OHVs

It's only a matter of time before something like this happens. If implementing a helmet law has even the slightest chance of preventing this, then isn't it worth dealing with the little bit of extra weight on your head or messing your hair up or whatever BS excuse you pull out when someone asks why you aren't wearing a helmet?

If this point was valid, it would have happened by now, and I'm sure it's not for a lack of trying. Lawyers, quads, helmets and the legal system have been around for a long time.

In fact, I'd turn that around on you, start making a bunch of laws regarding helmets and helmet use, and now you've opened the door for the lawyers use those new laws to again test the limits of responsibility and liability.

Waxy

 

[TheMuffinMan]

Fair enough. I will retract my previous statement and promise that from now on I will keep my mouth shut about helmets. I suppose nature will weed out the weak and the stupid just as it always has. I just hope that all you naysayers on here don't end up demonstrating Darwinian theory in front of your poor children, there are enough orphans in the world as it is.

 

[fargineyesore]

So you figure people that don't agree with your opinion are weak and stupid? I ride with some people that choose not to wear helmets (none of which are weak or stupid) that are better riders than others I ride with that DO wear helmets. People like you would be the first to force everyone in society to do what you think if you could. I and I'd guess, many others wouldn't want to live in that kind of society.

 

[bigdaddy35]

I wear a helmet, and all my kids do to. I don't care if any others chose not to. Their noggin' their choice.

The debate isn't about helmets, it's about gov't legislating all aspects of our lives. It doesn't matter if it's helmets, seat belts, smokes or junkfood.

The thing is we live in a socialist country. Don't kid yourselves to think differently. We have social welfare, social health care, social old age pensions, EI and on it goes. Generally, we Canadians ask the gov't to take care of us. Sure many say they can stand on their own, but when the wheels fall of the bus where do we turn for help? The gov't. We want universal health care, CPP, EI etc. In demanding these services from the gov't instead of purchasing them from private companies we essentially demand the gov't insure us against anything bad that could happen, whether we're the cause of it or not. Let's face it, our gov't turns into an insurance company of sorts to provide these services. Instead of paying for private insurance premiums, we pay taxes, EI and CPP. No matter what we call it, it's the same thing.

On the other side, we demand the gov't spend money carefully, not unlike share holders of insurance companies, and in doing so we want to ensure we get a good return on our dollars.

So, in asking the gov't to behave like an insurance company, they are forced to provide services to us as cost effectively as possible (not that their good at it, but that's a whole other issue). To do this, they must limit their liability and risk. The only way they can is legislate the heck out of us, and implement laws in an attempt to limit the behaviors that will cost them money down the road. Junk food tax, helmet/seatbelt laws, smoking laws/taxes and so on are all examples of this. The more our choices cost the gov't money, the more legislation they will try to pass to limit their risk.

It becomes a balancing act.

Getting rid of the nanny state means getting rid of social programs...how many are prepared to do that?

 

[UkrainianMudKing]

I figure if you get hurt and your not wearing a helmet you should pay the hospital bill.

 

[Bogger]

If your drunk your less likely to be injured in a crash....

Just sayin.....

:d

 

[fargineyesore]

I wear a helmet, and all my kids do to. I don't care if any others chose not to. Their noggin' their choice.

The debate isn't about helmets, it's about gov't legislating all aspects of our lives. It doesn't matter if it's helmets, seat belts, smokes or junkfood.

The thing is we live in a socialist country. Don't kid yourselves to think differently. We have social welfare, social health care, social old age pensions, EI and on it goes. Generally, we Canadians ask the gov't to take care of us. Sure many say they can stand on their own, but when the wheels fall of the bus where do we turn for help? The gov't. We want universal health care, CPP, EI etc. In demanding these services from the gov't instead of purchasing them from private companies we essentially demand the gov't insure us against anything bad that could happen, whether we're the cause of it or not. Let's face it, our gov't turns into an insurance company of sorts to provide these services. Instead of paying for private insurance premiums, we pay taxes, EI and CPP. No matter what we call it, it's the same thing.

On the other side, we demand the gov't spend money carefully, not unlike share holders of insurance companies, and in doing so we want to ensure we get a good return on our dollars.

So, in asking the gov't to behave like an insurance company, they are forced to provide services to us as cost effectively as possible (not that their good at it, but that's a whole other issue). To do this, they must limit their liability and risk. The only way they can is legislate the heck out of us, and implement laws in an attempt to limit the behaviors that will cost them money down the road. Junk food tax, helmet/seatbelt laws, smoking laws/taxes and so on are all examples of this. The more our choices cost the gov't money, the more legislation they will try to pass to limit their risk.

It becomes a balancing act.

Getting rid of the nanny state means getting rid of social programs...how many are prepared to do that?

Good points, too many people in this country want the government to do everything for them. I'm not one of them. I'd rather see less involvement from the Government in my life. Most of these social programs get abused by losers anyway. Too many people want to run others' lives and try to recruit the govt to do it for them.

 

[fargineyesore]

I figure if you get hurt and your not wearing a helmet you should pay the hospital bill.

Well then I think if you get hurt whether wearing a helmet or not your hospital bill shouldn't be covered either because you probably did something wrong i.e. operator error. What do you think of that? Just as reasonable. Let's just make that rule for everyone in society? No one's hospital bill is covered if fault can be found with their actions. Great idea. You just love the idea of forcing people to think the way you do? Good thing "well meaning" people like you aren't in charge or there would be no freedom left in this country. It's getting bad enough as it is.

 

[plio7]

wow that's harsh, i don't think the guys reasoning is that bad.....i believe the law is fine myself because otherwise we all pay for the taxes to support a medical system that pays for morons who cant figure out that HELMETS SAVE LIVES.....but by the same token isn't his argument saying the same thing in a different way. in other countries if you don't pay for your own care you pay your medical bills, is that so wrong. in a terminal illness case then government medical care is A1....i 100% agree paying the bills of those who have an illness or disability, but if you injure yourself due strictly to negligence on your own part why should others pay the bill......

just sayin

Well then I think if you get hurt whether wearing a helmet or not your hospital bill shouldn't be covered either because you probably did something wrong i.e. operator error. What do you think of that? Just as reasonable. Let's just make that rule for everyone in society? No one's hospital bill is covered if fault can be found with their actions. Great idea. You just love the idea of forcing people to think the way you do? Good thing "well meaning" people like you aren't in charge or there would be no freedom left in this country. It's getting bad enough as it is.

 

[fargineyesore]

wow that's harsh, i don't think the guys reasoning is that bad.....i believe the law is fine myself because otherwise we all pay for the taxes to support a medical system that pays for morons who cant figure out that HELMETS SAVE LIVES.....but by the same token isn't his argument saying the same thing in a different way. in other countries if you don't pay for your own care you pay your medical bills, is that so wrong. in a terminal illness case then government medical care is A1....i 100% agree paying the bills of those who have an illness or disability, but if you injure yourself due strictly to negligence on your own part why should others pay the bill......

just sayin

Fine, make everyone in society that doesn't take care of themselves pay for their own care. Fat people, smokers, lazy people, people who eat fast food all the time, mountain climbers, hang gliders, and so on and so on. Reasoning is the same.

 

[fargineyesore]

I agree that wearing a helmet is a good idea, I do most of the time, but I don't agree with forcing people to do it.

 

[plio7]

Fine, make everyone in society that doesn't take care of themselves pay for their own care. Fat people, smokers, lazy people, people who eat fast food all the time, mountain climbers, hang gliders, and so on and so on. Reasoning is the same.

and then there are those that take things to far....now your including fat people and lazy people?? so now you are blaming weight on ones self and not something that might be medical? and being lazy?? how does that even come into this. and comparing it to someone not wearing a helmet while riding a machine at 100mph

what i am saying is if you don't wear a helmet and injure yourself seriously it's on the medical system to pay, simply because of your obvious negligence. if you mountain climb chances are you use the proper safety equipment.....great, if you hang glide, chances are you use the proper safety equipment.....and if not then no you shouldn't be covered, but if your climbing and you slip and your safety gear fails, yea then ya know what cover it, chit happens....but if your free climbing and you fall that's a risk you take. a huge grey ares i realize.

i responded simply because you sit here and take this guys post and say "You just love the idea of forcing people to think the way you do"....and...."Good thing "well meaning" people like you aren't in charge or there would be no freedom left in this country"

when all he is saying is people should be held accountable for they're choices......honestly is he that wrong....sometimes we do need these laws to at least try to regulate stupidity

 

[shan]

there was an episode on Alberta PrimeTime that was talking about helmet law for Alberta - pros and cons. Basically they just want the law because there are too many children riding machines that are too big for them, or don't have experience and getting hurt or killed. There are also too many adults drinking and riding the machines. They are hoping that by having the law that maybe (perhaps) these numbers will go down. They just want everyone to be more aware of the risks of using OHV, and to be smart. They cannot force a person to wear them on private lands, but hoping to on crown/public lands.

 

[Waxy]

and then there are those that take things to far....now your including fat people and lazy people?? so now you are blaming weight on ones self and not something that might be medical? and being lazy?? how does that even come into this. and comparing it to someone not wearing a helmet while riding a machine at 100mph

what i am saying is if you don't wear a helmet and injure yourself seriously it's on the medical system to pay, simply because of your obvious negligence. if you mountain climb chances are you use the proper safety equipment.....great, if you hang glide, chances are you use the proper safety equipment.....and if not then no you shouldn't be covered, but if your climbing and you slip and your safety gear fails, yea then ya know what cover it, chit happens....but if your free climbing and you fall that's a risk you take. a huge grey ares i realize.

i responded simply because you sit here and take this guys post and say "You just love the idea of forcing people to think the way you do"....and...."Good thing "well meaning" people like you aren't in charge or there would be no freedom left in this country"

when all he is saying is people should be held accountable for they're choices......honestly is he that wrong....sometimes we do need these laws to at least try to regulate stupidity

He's exactly right though.

The point is, someone has to decide what's taking it too far, who should that be? You've decided that fat people is where the line should be drawn, he's decided it should be drawn at choosing to wear a helmet.

Like it or not, both things cost the health system money. I'd bet my dirtbike that that those who CHOOSE to eat unhealthy, and CHOOSE not to excercise, and as a result are overweight and have all the related medical problems are WAY more of a drain on our medical system than the individual that CHOOSES not to wear a helmet while riding an ATV. (I'm not going to do the research right now or provide links, so challenge away if you will, but I think it should be pretty obvious to all.) Getting into whether or not the public should be responsible for paying for different types of medical conditions is a very dangerous place to go to. What if there's a history or cancer in someone's family? MS? Diabetes? Should I be able to object to them choosing to have children knowing that it's very likely their offspring are going to cost me a lot of money in healthcare spending? That's really taking things too far, but it's based on exactly the same logic being used to support the idea that someone who chooses not to wear their helmet should bear the entire cost of their healthcare.

The cost to healthcare of individuals choosing to ride without a helmet is simply not a viable reason to support the introduction of a helmet law. People make choices every day that can and DO cost the healthcare system money. The fact of the matter is, you can't legislate an end to stupidity, it's impossible.

Waxy

 

[Waxy]

there was an episode on Alberta PrimeTime that was talking about helmet law for Alberta - pros and cons. Basically they just want the law because there are too many children riding machines that are too big for them, or don't have experience and getting hurt or killed. There are also too many adults drinking and riding the machines. They are hoping that by having the law that maybe (perhaps) these numbers will go down. They just want everyone to be more aware of the risks of using OHV, and to be smart. They cannot force a person to wear them on private lands, but hoping to on crown/public lands.

If that was truly what they said, then that's pathetic. That's the best idea and approach our gov't and OHV clubs can come up with to solve these problems?

Here's an idea, ENFORCE THE CURRENT LAWS regarding minors riding ATVs and drinking and riding. Toughen them or tweak them if required so people take notice and they're actually effective.

Next, spend some time and money educating riders directly about the problem issues.

Problem solved, no new unenforceable laws required.

Waxy

 

[Bogger]

Politics is based on majority rules.... 51% vote....

Most social systems should operate on the 90/90 principal because you are NEVER going to please all the people all the time. (welfare should but will not fit in here)

90/90 = benifits 90% of the population 90% of the time

within any system you are going to have the 10% who can't be pleased and unfortunately there is the 10% who slip thru the cracks and hopefully they can be dealt with on a case by case....

Should a drunk driver recieve free healthcare???
What about a smoker who has sucked back a pack a day for 25 years???
Attempted suicide failure victim????

Everyones opinion will vary, I figure the drunk drive should be billed for services rendered.... the smoker although costly to the system has been paying VERY high taxes on every pack he/she has bought in the past 25 years...so covered...
Suicide fail is tough, case by case...ect....

maybe people who don't wear helmets should be responsible for costs incurred, however the cost is small in comparisson to others....not wearing seat belts, household accidents which could have been easily prevented for example falling off a ladder while cleaning gutters...

 

[martushev800]

Totally one hundred percent agree!! great idea! I've personally always wore my helmet and nothing happened and then one day i went for a 5 minute rip just up the road and back and thats when i got banged up the most.my face would of been looking a whole lot more normal if i had that helmet on when i got caught up in the barb wire fence! so lesson for the day ALWAYS wear your helmet, EVEN if its a 5 MINUTE ride! because usually thats when the most chit goes down, when your not expecting it!

 

[08summit]

I never ride my quad or sled without my helmet on but still don't believe the government should be regulating this...there is more then enough regulation in society from the government already. I also don't care when I'm out riding if anyone else is wearing their helmets as it really doesn't affect me...You can say it affects us all as we are paying for the health care...blah blah blah...I'm with everyone else on this one that says what about the smokers?? the Obese? The alcoholics? Are they not a drain on health care also?...Where do you draw the line? I chose to wear my brain bucket everytime I ride if you choose not to good luck with that and I hope it never bites you on the ass but it should be up to each individual to decide.

 

[bigdaddy35]

People make choices every day that can and DO cost the healthcare system money. The fact of the matter is, you can't legislate an end to stupidity, it's impossible.

Waxy

Exactly right, so get rid of universal health care and we all buy private health insurance. Those with higher risks... smoking, obesity, not wearing helmets etc pay higher premiums. It's simple, those who make unhealthy decisions that risk higher health care costs pay higher premiums.

This way the government doesn't have to try and legislate an end to bad personal choices.