Bob W, It would be a hard law, but I have no inclination to support those motorcyclists who suffered brain injuries from not wearing helmets and are in presistent vegitative states in need of public care for the remainder of their lives. We have a quarterback for last year's superbowl winning football (gridiron) team here who bought a 200 mile per hour motorcycle and crashed it into a little old lady's car as she left turned in front of him in Pittsburgh. No helmet! What a fool. He broke his jaw and face on the windshield of the car, but is back on the football field. His play is erratic and he is now suffering from concussions on the field as some recurrence of the head trama he sustained. Regards, Bob S.
On 11/1/06, Bob W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That might work, Bob, if it were applied consistently in all other > areas of activity, and if the wearing of cycle helmets could be shown > conclusively to be effective. > > Neither of these conditions apply. > > For consistency all insurance and health care would have to be > withdrawn from anybody who was negligent of their health in some way, > for example by smoking, drinking, eating the wrong kind of food, not > taking enough exercise, running with knives, etc. etc. > > And the final judgement is certainly not in yet on the effectiveness > of cycle helmets, so one could not in any case argue that a cyclist > without a helmet was neglecting his health in a way that could justify > (if anything can) withholding or withdrawing medical treatment or > insurance. > > Furthermore, it doesn't take into account who was at fault in an > accident - something that could rarely be determined at the time of > the accident. It is also wide open to mistakes. If someone's helmet > were knocked off in an accident and not immediately visible to the > paramedics, should they withhold treatment on the grounds that the > rider was not wearing their helmet? > > -- > Cheers, > Bob > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > > Behalf Of Bob Sullivan > > Sent: 01 November 2006 21:03 > > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > Subject: Re: Adults on bicycles > > > > I believe the law should read, "If you won't wear a helmet on your > > motorcycle, no public funds or insurance monies may be used to > support > > your life or recovery after an accident." > > Bicycle riding is another matter, but still deserves the helmet. > > Regards, Bob S. > > > > On 11/1/06, Mat Maessen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 11/1/06, frank theriault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Then there's always the possibility that a cyclist may be > > completely > > > > in the right, and that a car might be in the wrong and > > hit a cyclist. > > > > Since cars have a mass of some 20 times that of a bicycle > > and rider, > > > > physics tend to be on the side of the car in collisions. > > I'll take > > > > whatever protection I can, especially if it's unobtrusive and > > > > inexpensive. > > > > > > There's a saying in the motorcycle community: > > > > > > "'I had the right of way' is a terrible epithet for your > > gravestone." > > > > > > I still have the scars on my arm from a bicycle accident I > > had when I > > > was 14. The helmet saved my life in that accident by striking the > > > stone wall and shattering into a million pieces. I still wear the > > > helmet that I bought to replace that one. > > > > > > -Mat > > > > > > -- > > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > > PDML@pdml.net > > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > > > > > -- > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > PDML@pdml.net > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
