Ben Roethlisburger

[Demiurge]

In a serious motorcycle accident...details coming in now.

edit:

Reports from the scene seem to indicate that the accident was serious. According to an eyewitness, Roethlisberger went over his handle bars and hit his head on the windshield of a car. He was not wearing a helmet. The eyewitness reports that Roethlisberger tried to get up, but was bleeding from the head. We'll update the situation as further details become available.

[zombie boy 2000]

Oh my god

[ohskigod]

that is NOT good

hope he is ultimately OK

[AsSiMiLaTeD]

they're talking about it on ESPN radio now...

[MacLeod]

I heard he wasnt wearing a helmet. Im sure that complicates things.

[Demiurge]

I heard he wasnt wearing a helmet. Im sure that complicates things.

Yep, he wasn't. He actually indicated a year or so ago he doesn't like to wear them. I respect people taking responsibility for themselves, but when you make millions in the NFL you might want to rethink that, or better yet...not ride at all.

I too hope he's okay, I really think he's a good QB. It's at least not life threatening, but it'll be interesting if he'll be out for a while or indefinately.

[AsSiMiLaTeD]

yep, no helmet - but I don't think that's required by law. I hear his coach was just warning him about this sort of thing recently...

[ohskigod]

I'll catch heat for this, but I think it was selfish of him to ride without a helmet because he "wanted to". When your making millions, and have teamates and fans counting on you, then there are some things your gonna have to let go. Dont like it? get a 9-5 job, what can I tell ya.

I'm sure this does not do his team well now that there starting quarterback is potentially out for the season. I mean, thank god he is alive, dont get me wrong, but wear a friggin helmet if your gonna ride. (actually, the same argument could be made for riding a bike overall, but for me, at least wear the damn helmet!)

[jdhdiggs]

I remember the helmet law came up and the Governer said that he "was an Eagles fan" so he wouldn't be supporting it. This was months ago and meant as a joke but someone will get him for it I'm sure. Whole thing is a shame.

[tommyboy]

Yep, he wasn't. He actually indicated a year or so ago he doesn't like to wear them. I respect people taking responsibility for themselves, but when you make millions in the NFL you might want to rethink that, or better yet...not ride at all.

I too hope he's okay, I really think he's a good QB. It's at least not life threatening, but it'll be interesting if he'll be out for a while or indefinately.

yeah, that was ALL over the news here in Pittsburgh a year ago. Never thought something like this would happen, hope he is ok... I'm watching the news right now and they said he is in surgery right now.

[Shizelbs]

I hope he recovers and all, but what a dumbass.

[zombie boy 2000]

Ron Gant pulled this stunt with my beloved Braves nearly a decade ago coming off a stellar year....

He was released and his career plummeted

[tommyboy]

I hope he recovers and all, but what a dumbass.

agree, but I don't understand one thing. Why are seatbelts a law but not helmets for motorcycles?

[dorokusai]

I just shake my head when I see a helmet, tanktop, shorts and flip flops on a motocyclist....get the gear, or don't ride. That's pathetic and Ben is an idiot.

[ohskigod]

I just shake my head when I see a helmet, tanktop, shorts and flip flops on a motocyclist....get the gear, or don't ride. That's pathetic and Ben is an idiot.


in 13 years of EMS, I've seen my share of road rash. I mean the gear you can get actually looks cool. leather, denim both protect well when your sliding down the street. Leather is better than denim, and denim is far better than skin.

[MrNightly]

I just shake my head when I see a helmet, tanktop, shorts and flip flops on a motocyclist....get the gear, or don't ride. That's pathetic and Ben is an idiot.

Exactly. A shame really.

I wish I could feel sorry for the guy, but common, kinda like base jumping without a 'chute, or playing football without a helmet... doh.

[brettw22]

When your making millions, and have teamates and fans counting on you, then there are some things your gonna have to let go. Dont like it? get a 9-5 job, what can I tell ya.Invalid arguement IMO.......regardless of him making millions, the same can be said for the dad with kids, single person with parents/siblings, etc.......

Just cuz he does what he does doesn't make him more important.

[Demiurge]

Ha, that is funny, MNight. Ask him if he would play football without a helmet.

[zombie boy 2000]

from SI.COM (associated press)
"In May 2005, Cleveland Browns tight end Kellen Winslow Jr. tore knee ligaments in a motorcycle accident and was lost for the season.

Roethlisberger continued to ride after Winslow's accident and that angered Terry Bradshaw, who quarterbacked the Steelers to four Super Bowl victories during the 1970s.

Visiting the Steelers' training camp last summer, Bradshaw remarked: "Ride it when you retire.""

wonder what Bradshaw is saying right now.....

[I-SIG]

Don't forget about Ron Gant for the Braves back in the early 90's. He broke both bones in his lower leg in a dirt bike accident after consecutive 30/30 seasons. Never was the same.

Wes

[brettw22]

Grace, from Will and Grace:

"Told ya so, told ya so, told ya told ya, told ya so"

[schwarcw]

Here's a link with more infor, it doesn't look good:(
http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/5687558?GT1=8297

[Demiurge]

I think Ben, and everyone else should be able to make a choice with seatbelts and helmets. Everyone knows the consequences.

Being that the guy is set for life if he even remotely manages his money responsibly I wouldn't think about riding a motorcycle at all if I were in his position, let alone without a helmet.

I don't think he should have to follow rules any differently, but he should definitely make some smarter choices. He can only blame himself if this doesn't turn out well, and I hope he doesn't try to point the finger at anyone but himself.

I'm actually surprised this wasn't in his contract. This type of stuff is in a lot of pro-atheletes contracts where they can't ride motorcycles or do other potentially dangerous activities. If it is they can lose a good chunk of, or all of thier salary for the remainder of their contract....

[Demiurge]

Oh, and just remember....Charlie Batch is your current back-up. Yikes. :(

[marker]

Remember former duke All-American Jason Williams was drafted 2nd overall by the Bulls and then suffered career ending knee injuries in a motorcycle crash.

Even though it was specifically in his contract not to ride motorcycles, Chicago honored his contract and paid him, but if I were them, I wouldn't have.

[ohskigod]

Invalid arguement IMO.......regardless of him making millions, the same can be said for the dad with kids, single person with parents/siblings, etc.......

Just cuz he does what he does doesn't make him more important.

Invalid? it all depends on how you look at it. I wouldnt disagree with you in regards to a dad with kids and whatnot. if that was the topic of conversation I probably would have made the same argument? If you do something stupid like ride without a helmet (which is the most basic of safety precautions) its not just your risk, its your stakeholders risk as well. kids, loved ones, teamates, fans. its all the same argument. I'm not saying dont live life, but wear a goddamn helmet?

I dont think its rocket science bud :D

[polksda]

I think Ben, and everyone else should be able to make a choice with seatbelts and helmets. Everyone knows the consequences.

I'm afraid I have to disagree. Stupid self-destructive behavior does need to be regulated, IMO. Why? Because as a society, we bear the brunt of these self-destructive behaviors through higher medical costs and higher insurance premiums that we all end up paying.

I realize that some will argue 'slippery slope', but I'm afraid I don't see a downside to seatbelt laws, helmet laws, and childseat laws...

[Demiurge]

I'm afraid I have to disagree. Stupid self-destructive behavior does need to be regulated, IMO. Why? Because as a society, we bear the brunt of these self-destructive behaviors through higher medical costs and higher insurance premiums that we all end up paying.

I realize that some will argue 'slippery slope', but I'm afraid I don't see a downside to seatbelt laws, helmet laws, and childseat laws...

You can't legislate common sense. Sorry.

[brettw22]

Invalid?In terms of him being held to a higher standard just because he's an NFL player. I'm not disagreeing with you in that he should wear a helmet.....just the premise that he's a level above because of who he is... (i think that makes sense)

[Demiurge]

Most of his teeth are gone, broken jaw, and a few other things. They say a plastic surgeon has been called in. Wow....

[bobman1235]

I think Ben, and everyone else should be able to make a choice with seatbelts and helmets. Everyone knows the consequences.

Being that the guy is set for life if he even remotely manages his money responsibly I wouldn't think about riding a motorcycle at all if I were in his position, let alone without a helmet.

I don't think he should have to follow rules any differently, but he should definitely make some smarter choices. He can only blame himself if this doesn't turn out well, and I hope he doesn't try to point the finger at anyone but himself.

I'm actually surprised this wasn't in his contract. This type of stuff is in a lot of pro-atheletes contracts where they can't ride motorcycles or do other potentially dangerous activities. If it is they can lose a good chunk of, or all of thier salary for the remainder of their contract....

I completely agree with Demi on this, as well as his stance on "you can't legislate common sense". The whole "we as a society pay for these mistakes" nonsense is just that - nonsense. There's no quantitative way to say "this costs taxpayers this much". All this legislation costs money too, you don't see people complaining about that.

You have to take responsibility for YOURSELF. You know what happens if you're on a motorcycle without a helmet and hit the ground. If that's an acceptable risk to you, then you obviously deserve what you get.

It's just not the government or anyone else's job to tell you how to take care of yourself. You gonna outlaw McDonalds next, because it makes health care costs higher? How about alcohol?

[PhantomOG]

is donor-cycle insurance more expensive than auto insurance?

[Shizelbs]

I love this forum.

[bobman1235]

is donor-cycle insurance more expensive than auto insurance?

Moto insurance costs next to nothing. It costs me about 2500 bucks to insure my truck for the year, and about 100 to insure my bike.

Aside from medical costs, if you get in an accident with a motorcycle, you're
a) you're not going to hurt anyone else that badly, just yourself
b) you're not going to cause any damage cuz there's not much MASS behind a motorcycle
c) bikes are relatively cheap, so even with collission / comprehensive, the costs aren't that high.

Maybe your health insurance should be higher, but not your auto insurance.

[PhantomOG]

thanks, didn't know.

[steveinaz]

The car made a left turn in front of him---so that makes him an idiot for not wearing a helmet?....yeah, lets blame the victim. Sometimes you people amaze me.

Don't give me that "we all share the health care cost" BS either, do you:

1. Drive a car
2. Own a pool
3. Drink
4. Smoke
5. live in the city
6. live on a coast
7. live in the tornado belt
8. ski dive
9. bungee jump
10. ride roller coasters
11. fish
12. hunt
13. listen to loud music
14. eat pork
15. eat fish
16. eat beef
17. eat chicken
18. own a car that goes faster than 75mph

Shall I go on, there's thousands more? Every one of these things has UNNECESSARY risks, would you like to be told wether or not you can do them too? Or be charged extra because you do? I'm a motorcyclist and I do wear a helmet because I choose to; I don't condemn those who don't because they choose NOT to. It's called FREEDOM.

Better yet, lets make helmets mandatory for car driving....yeah...it is safer--no one can argue that point. It'll save all you health care cost analyzers a ton of money. Anybody want to crusade that cause? I didn't think so...

Good God.

[Demiurge]

Makes him an idiot? No, but it lessens the degree to which I feel sorry for him. I just think he should have the right to choose whether or not he wanted to wear one.

I think what might make him a bit of an idiot is that he may be squandering away millions and millions of dollars. So, from a purely selfish standpoint on his part I am sure he's saying "God, I am an idiot."

[Airplay355]

He was hit by a 62 year old woman. Man I can't tell you how many times I've almost been hit by old people. When your reflexes are shot, it's time to give up with the driving. I'm sure I'll get kicked in the ass for even mentioning it, but I have a grandma who DEFINITELY shouldn't be driving and I've almost been hit lots of times.

I hope he's OK, even if I don't like the Steelers.

[steveinaz]

I'm just wondering if you'll be ready to give your license up at 62? Be careful what you wish for.....

This is the problem with this country; knee jerk reactions/decisions. Accidents happen, always have, always will. It's a fact of life that all of the zero tolerance legislation in the world won't fix. When they take all of our freedoms away, we'll just beat our heads against the wall---oh, that's right we'll all be wearing helmets...

nevermind.

[PhantomOG]

The car made a left turn in front of him---so that makes him an idiot for not wearing a helmet?....yeah, lets blame the victim. Sometimes you people amaze me.

Regardless of who's at fault he sustained far more injuries than he would have if he were wearing a helmet. Does that make him an idiot? Don't know, but I'll say he's not as smart as you since you do.

I wear a seatbelt whenever I'm in a car -- not because its the law, because I know that if I do get into a wreck, my chances of survival will be higher than without wearing it.

I think you should be able to ride without a helmet. But with freedom comes responsibility, and you can't escape the injury/death chance that multiplies when you don't wear one. So logically, you could call someone stupid/idiot for not wearing a helmet.

[Airplay355]

You are right, I won't. Just a stereotype from an 18yr old who has almost been hit and has a grandma who will drive away with the door open.

[steveinaz]

......sigh.

[PhantomOG]

Since you admit to wearing a helmet, would you let your son or daughter ride without a helmet? I have never and will never ride a motorcycle, and would never let a son or daughter ride one as long as they are under 18. But that's my choice and I'm not saying its for everyone.

My condemnation would also extend to those who choose not to wear seatbelts. Feel free not to, but I'm gonna feel free to call you an idiot when you get thrown from the car.

[ND13]

There's the point of view that the helmet could have broken his neck on impact, also.

[bobman1235]

There's the point of view that the helmet could have broken his neck on impact, also.


I dont' think that's ever happened. If your neck's going to break WITH a helmet, it's going to break without one. How does wearing a helmet increase your risk?

[ND13]

Added weight, inertia, g-forces

It has happened

[bobman1235]

Sigh.

Amongst other (http://starry-gurl.blogspot.com/2006_05_01_starry-gurl_archive.html) sources, from an an article in Motorcycle Cruiser Magazine (http://motorcyclecruiser.com/streetsurvival/dangerous_motorcycle_safety_myths/)


Myth 3: Motorcycle Helmets Break Necks

It seems logical—you put more weight out there on the end of your neck and when you get thrown off the bike, that extra weight will create more pendulum force on your neck. Turns out, it doesn't work that way. In fact, the energy-absorbing qualities of a DOT motorcycle helmet also absorb the energy that breaks riders' necks in impacts. Studies show that helmeted motorcyclists actually suffer fewer neck injuries when they crash compared to riders who crash without helmets.

Most likely you see more neck injuries with helmet wearers because their heads aren't mangled bowls of soup, so there's a chance to explore other avenues of injury.

NOTE that I still advocate one's right to choose, I'm just saying, the smart choice is still the helmet.

[Demiurge]

I dont' think that's ever happened. If your neck's going to break WITH a helmet, it's going to break without one. How does wearing a helmet increase your risk?

My uncle tried saying that crap about not wearing a helmet when he hit a deer head on with his Harley. The doc told him he was full of hot air and just plain lucky to be alive. If anything his cell phone being in his pocket helped him from even more painful injuries as it completely melted as he slid across the pavement.

Like you, it's horse crap to suggest you're better off without one, but I have seen the argument before. I also still support people's right not to wear one.

[Shizelbs]

Helmet manufacturing facilities hurt the environment.

[del44]

Man, the worst bike accident I ever had is when some woman made a left turn in front of me. I was going about 50mph. Didn't even have a chance to lay the bike down. Hit her about the same exact spot Roethlisburger did, passenger side front post. I had a full face helmet on though. Mangled my right knee pretty bad but my head was still intact. Wish I still had the pic of the helmet I was wearing. It was tore the F*** up. BTW, the car I hit was a 62 T-Bird. Get well Ben.

[Mike Reeter]

Remember when the actor Gary Buse crashed his bike and wasn't wearing a helmet? That guy has never been the same since...

Saw him on a talkshow after his "recovery" the guy was literly in another world,could have been an act,but I don't think so.

[wodom1]

My Dad had to lay his bike down a couple of years ago when some punk-ass kid ran a stop sign and nearly nailed him. He saw that the kid was going to run the sign, layed the bike down (2005 Harley Electra Glide) and slid into and over a 1' curb, completely shattering his hand and wrist in the process. He's lucky that he didn't have more substantial injuries and he was wearing a helmet. What made the entire encounter a little bit more eerie is that he was carrying his best friend's ashes with him as he was on his way to Sturgis and he and his group of friends (including his friend's two sons) were going to scatter them together. His friend was killed on his Harley the month prior in WA state when a pickup truck with an unsecured innertube in the bed passed him. The innertube blew out of the truck and hit the bike, killing his friend and critically injuring his grandson who was riding with him. I want to buy a bike sometime in the future, and I will always wear a helmet if/when I get one.

[ND13]

Sigh.

Amongst other (http://starry-gurl.blogspot.com/2006_05_01_starry-gurl_archive.html) sources, from an an article in Motorcycle Cruiser Magazine (http://motorcyclecruiser.com/streetsurvival/dangerous_motorcycle_safety_myths/)



Most likely you see more neck injuries with helmet wearers because their heads aren't mangled bowls of soup, so there's a chance to explore other avenues of injury.

NOTE that I still advocate one's right to choose, I'm just saying, the smart choice is still the helmet.


Tell that to my friend that had his neck broken due to the helmet, per the doctor's findings.. Had no head injuries or damage to the helmet. The added weight snapped his neck forwrd on impact a broke it in two. He was in a coma for 10 years bfore they decided to pull the plug.

I'm not taking either side, and I do wear a helmet when I ride my father's Hog.

When it really comes down to it, we all know or have heard of someone who was killed because of their seatbelt , too. I was just pointing out the arguement from the helmet haters. Another is tthey say they can't hear as well and that COULD cause a wreck, too.

Helmet or no helmet, the odds of you getting seriously injured during a motorcycle wreck are not in your favor.

[bobman1235]

Fair enough, sorry about your friend.

[TroyD]

Put me squarely in the camp that if you are riding a motorcycle without a helmet, you are a moron.

Regardless of who is at fault, shit like that WILL happen. It may not have been his fault....but that is not the point.

If you ride a bike, it's not really a question of IF but a question of WHEN.

BDT

[markmarc]

Let's hope Big Ben is ok, even though I'm a Bronco fan. Secondly, I hope he uses this to advocate bike helmets at least for kids.

[ohskigod]

In terms of him being held to a higher standard just because he's an NFL player. I'm not disagreeing with you in that he should wear a helmet.....just the premise that he's a level above because of who he is... (i think that makes sense)


I hear ya, but I dont think its in the context of him being at a higher level, were just discussing the issue from his vantage point. If a guy with 3 kids was riding without a helmet and went kersplat, and that was where the discusion started, I probably would make the same argument, but from the kids perspective, instead of fans and teamates.

it boils down to the difference between risk, and stupid ass risk. riding a bike = risk/part of life. riding without a helmet = stupid ass risk

its the taking of a stupid ass risk, in the frame of being Ben Rothlisberger (like I care about the spelling :D), I have to point out how assinine it is to take such a stupid risk when you have such a good thing going for you, i.e. great NFL career generating stupid cash.

[F1nut]

I just shake my head when I see a helmet, tanktop, shorts and flip flops on a motocyclist....get the gear, or don't ride. That's pathetic and Ben is an idiot.

My thoughts exactly!

[Airplay355]

Can we go one step further and say that the smart choice is to not ride a motorcycle?

<throws gas on the fire for fun> :)

[bobman1235]

Can we go one step further and say that the smart choice is to not ride a motorcycle?

<throws gas on the fire for fun> :)

Nope. :)

It's not the safest hobby, but there's risk inherent in everything you do, so just be careful and you'll be fine.

It's just so goddamned fun.

Plus, as my friends all say, you never see a motorcycle parked outside a psychiatrist's office. No better therapy than a nice long ride through the country.

[Demiurge]

Nope. :)

It's not the safest hobby, but there's risk inherent in everything you do, so just be careful and you'll be fine.

It's just so goddamned fun.

Plus, as my friends all say, you never see a motorcycle parked outside a psychiatrist's office. No better therapy than a nice long ride through the country.

Just curious, but as a person who also rides a bike, do you think that riding one means you're going to be in a bike crash at some point or seriously injure yourself? I hear that thrown around a lot, but it seems to be rather exaggerated. It seems exaggerated because the injuries are usually much worse (often resulting in death) than your standard fair vehicle accidents. For example...getting thrown from a bike at 25 MPH could get you seriously injured, but might not leave a scratch if that happened in a car.

[bobman1235]

I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that you WILL be in an accident, but I think there's a pretty good chance. I mean, nearly eveyrone who drives a CAR gets in an accident at SOME point in their lives, whether its their fault or not. Obviously riding a bike is more dangerous than driving in a car, even if you DON'T factor in the increased risk of injury. Throw in the fact that what would be a fender bender in a car would tend to be a broken bone ina bike, then yeah, I'd say there's a really high chance that something bad will happen.

I've only been riding for three years, and already had a BUNCH of close calls, and I'm a relatively careful rider. Even had one quasi accident - an older woman ran a red light on me, and i stopped just in time to tap the back of her car as she drove off... caught the bike before it hit the ground, but still, could have been bad.

I'd say if you're a Harley rider who mostly rides in big packs of people, the chances are much much less. If you and your buddy ride around on rice burners, they're much more. All of us in the middle, just keep your head on a swivel and keep your insurance premiums paid up.

[dorokusai]

Tell that to my friend that had his neck broken due to the helmet, per the doctor's findings.. Had no head injuries or damage to the helmet. The added weight snapped his neck forwrd on impact a broke it in two. He was in a coma for 10 years bfore they decided to pull the plug.

I'm not taking either side, and I do wear a helmet when I ride my father's Hog.

When it really comes down to it, we all know or have heard of someone who was killed because of their seatbelt , too. I was just pointing out the arguement from the helmet haters. Another is tthey say they can't hear as well and that COULD cause a wreck, too.

Helmet or no helmet, the odds of you getting seriously injured during a motorcycle wreck are not in your favor.

You might want to have your buddy get that documented, thus ending the "myth".

Wear a helmet, sorry you "Ride Free or Die" folks, but you're morons in my book. I'm a motorcyclist.

[ohskigod]

you hear things like Noels story with the helmet. there is allways anomolies like that. In the infinite number of things that can happen, one is probably being in an isolated situation that snapping a neck solely due to the weight of a helmet could be feasible.
you allways hear stories with seat belts too. there is a rare scenario where having a seatbelt on can actually hurt you, very rare, but possible.

but using those very infrequent stories to justify not wearing a seatbelt or a helmet is weak. being in one of those scenarios is literally like being struck by lightening. far more likely to be in an accident where a helmet or seatbelt will help you than hurt you/get struck by lightening. FAR MORE. in regards to the helmet, its widely known that the skull makes a chintzy carrying case when your going at speeds over 15-20 mph and you hit something

on a side note, ask Fireman32 about his story involving the lack of wearing a seatbelt, and his 18 wheel tractor trailor going *ss over teakettle. its a hoot.

[schwarcw]

I read somewhere where the insurance company statistics show that 47% of motor cycle riders will experience a serious accident.

I like motorcycles, I like to take my brother's goldwing out whenever I get the chance (BTW, I have no motorcycle license). But the last couple of years I have really thought twice about it. I haven't been on a cycle for a couple of years now.

I do like a icycle for the excercise around the neighborhood in the evenings, and I do where a helmet. More of a show for my 8 years old daughter, but it's probably a good idea. I figure it's your choice and I support that. My advice it to wear it. Or, go very fast so it won't matter if you crash:eek:

[schwarcw]

The lasted report is that Big Ben has a broken jaw and nose. It that's all, he's very lucky.

Carl

[Mazeroth]

The lasted report is that Big Ben has a broken jaw and nose. It that's all, he's very lucky.

Carl

...and VERY stupid!

[Dennis Gardner]

Not wearing a helmet doesn't make him an idiot, but headbutting that car might.:rolleyes:

I have no problem with him taking those risks, since he has no wife, no kid, or no parent/siblings depending on his income to make ends meet. Besides, I have always hated the f*cking Steelers anyway.:D

If you think he owes it to his organization, fans, or the world, you put way too much importance on it. Its only a game, and it was around successfully for 100 years before he came along. He's not God.

[schwarcw]

...and VERY stupid!

I agree!

[schwarcw]

Besides, I have always hated the f*cking Steelers anyway.:D

Cleveland or Dallas fan maybe:D

[dorokusai]

Doro - No helmet, disfigured for life....no story. I end up in the circus or with a bloddy stump.

Ben - No helmet, previous "Hero", smashmouth accident, plastic surgeon, all better, what a silly man, hes a rebel(Ride free or die BS), hes a role model, do a commecial, live....blah blah

Fuck him, he chose to ride to be free...thus paid the price, awesome. If you ride without protection?...I will not lose sleep over your death, or disfigurement either...or handicap, loss of wages, family hardship....etc...just think of yourself when you ride that bike! You're cool, you rule!

Yea, the accident scenario folks can go F themselves as well...I'm personally not interested in your rhetoric. I have a taste in this more than you know.

[Dennis Gardner]

Cleveland or Dallas fan maybe:D

Go 'boys!!!

[Dennis Gardner]

Ben has always had a problem with blitzes coming from the left.;) I wonder if they credit that lady with a sack on her insurance premium?

[jdhdiggs]

The more I hear about this, the more I hope its the end of his football career and nothing else. He should have enough money to live on the rest of his life but I don't want people to see this as a "no helmet, no problem, look at Ben" type of thing. I'd rather it be a "Wear your helmet, remember what happened to Ben" type thing... With no permanent damage to the guy.

[bobman1235]

If you're modelling your life and behavior after some random pseudo-celeb / athlete, you deserve whatever happens to you.

[jdhdiggs]

If you're modelling your life and behavior after some random pseudo-celeb / athlete, you deserve whatever happens to you.

Unfortunately, isn't that what a lot of the new generation is doing?

[Demiurge]

I feel more sorry for all the hell that woman driving the car is going to take. They made sure to mention she has a summer home in Maine....:rolleyes:

[zombie boy 2000]

I feel more sorry for all the hell that woman driving the car is going to take. They made sure to mention she has a summer home in Maine....:rolleyes:


After listening to talk radio this morning, it seems that most (if not all) Steeler fans are absolutely livid with Big Ben. The older lady seems to be getting a pass.....

[Demiurge]

After listening to talk radio this morning, it seems that most (if not all) Steeler fans are absolutely livid with Big Ben. The older lady seems to be getting a pass.....

I don't think either of them deserve too much crap, but it's good to hear there aren't a lot of crazies blaming her. Ben has to live with what he did and that's probably punishment enough. After all it was an accident, and it could have been anyone. This time it happened to be a QB with a multi-million dollar NFL contract.

[madmax]

I think Ben, and everyone else should be able to make a choice with seatbelts and helmets. Everyone knows the consequences.

Do you know the consequences?





Most of his teeth are gone, broken jaw, and a few other things. They say a plastic surgeon has been called in. Wow....

Who do you think is going to pay for all this? Not him. Either way, whether his or someone elses fault for the accident, more money will be spent because he didn't wear a helmet. Also, penalties are greater for the person at fault if he dies due to their negligence.



madmax

[steveinaz]

Just curious, but as a person who also rides a bike, do you think that riding one means you're going to be in a bike crash at some point or seriously injure yourself?

Sure, it's always a possibility. If you're a good car driver, chances are you'll be a good motorcycle rider. On a bike you've got to have your head in the game 100% of the time, and always be looking for an "out" in case something happens. The problem is you've got 16 year olds on 140hp/400lb sportbikes out there who just want to learn how to do wheelies and stoppies. They never learn the basics of real riding. They know nothing of traction, suspension loading, lean angles, etc. What they don't get is that any idiot can twist the throttle---takes no skill whatsoever.

In my 20 years of riding I've witnessed a few bad accidents, but never had one myself--but then look at my car driving record: 28 years (since 16), no accidents, 3 tickets, MY WHOLE LIFE. I've never gotten a ticket on a motorcycle. I've taken 3 advanced rider courses as well. The point of all this? It doesn't matter a bit if some idiot (the REAL idiot) decides to turn in front of me.

I wear a helmet primarily for comfort. Anyone who rides and has taken the occasional quick run to the 7/11 w/o their helmet knows how your eyes water, you can hardly breathe with the force of the wind hitting you in the face; add to that the occasional bug in the forehead or tossed up rock (ouch). For me, as comfortable as modern helmets are these days, it's a no brainer. It's just far more comfortable than dealing with the aforementioned.

[Demiurge]

Do you know the consequences?

Yes, a greater chance of dying in an accident. It should be a choice, just like anything else. Do you think charging $10 for not wearing a seatbelt is really anything more than a revenue enhancer for local and county governments? Give me a break....like I said, you can't legislate common sense.


Who do you think is going to pay for all this? Not him. Either way, whether his or someone elses fault for the accident, more money will be spent because he didn't wear a helmet. Also, penalties are greater for the person at fault if he dies due to their negligence.

Well, that is why we have insurance. Insurance is offered because accidents will happen no matter how many laws the nanny crowd wants to pass. Do you have insurance to protect you from injury, or do you have insurance to protect you from huge financial responsibility and expenses to you or someone else? The answer is the latter. Wearing a helmet is your own chosen insurance policy to keep you alive, and that shouldn't be a requirement. It's common sense.

Like has been mentioned earlier, do you eat fatty foods, drink alcohol, or smoke? If you do, you're potentially costing the rest of us money. Potential is the key word, and Ben was involved in an accident. He has to live with his injuries, nobody else. I mean if you want to talk about lawsuits and all that, fine, but you realize that's a different subject. I don't agree that we all have the right to large sums of cash because we were involved in car accidents, but that's just me.

[madmax]

So I should have to pay $900K rather than $100K or possibly face a few extra years of jail time if I cause an accident because some idiot doesn't want to wear a helmet? Are you serious?
madmax

[Demiurge]

So I should have to pay $900K rather than $100K or possibly face a few extra years of jail time if I cause an accident because some idiot doesn't want to wear a helmet? Are you serious?
madmax

Did I say that, or are you saying that? Think about it, I didn't say that was right. Not to mention, that's why you have insurance.

[madmax]

It is a question that goes along with someones right to do something stupid, like not wearing a helmet. Are the people around them responsible for them? Yes. Then the people around them have a right to make them as small as a liability as possible.
madmax

[Demiurge]

It is a question that goes along with someones right to do something stupid, like not wearing a helmet. Are the people around them responsible for them? Yes. Then the people around them have a right to make them as small as a liability as possible.
madmax

You're fighting the wrong fight.

Why in the hell are you stopping at helmets? What is that going to save you from in reality? A broken jaw? If you're going to wind up in a wheel chair with a helmet what was going to happen without one? Death? What's worse?

Why aren't you advocating banning motorcycles outright, since you're never completely safe on them? Would that limit the liability more like you argue or not? See where this is going? Hell, let's ban cars too since we can still get in serious accidents in them too, after all...what would lessen the liability more?

Like I said, you can't legislate common sense.

Motorcycle accidents are going to be hellacious with or without helmets. More laws are not what we need.

[bobman1235]

So I should have to pay $900K rather than $100K or possibly face a few extra years of jail time if I cause an accident because some idiot doesn't want to wear a helmet? Are you serious?
madmax

If you're found to be at fault for an accident, then whatever happens to the person is your fault. If you did nothing wrong, and it's truly an ACCIDENT, then you won't be charged 900K OR 100K. So try not to r un anyone down, and you won't have to worry about it.

By your logic, if that person was driving the safest car on the road they would have cost you the least amount of money, so we should all be required to drive the safest car there is.

[madmax]

If you're found to be at fault for an accident, then whatever happens to the person is your fault.


Yes, and I am the one who will have to pay the cost whether it is exagerated by them being unsafe or not. That is my only point.
madmax

[Demiurge]

Yes, and I am the one who will have to pay the cost whether it is exagerated by them being unsafe or not. That is my only point.
madmax

Then you should be for banning motorcycles all together, because that's going to be a bad accident with or without helmets. Certainly moreso than if you hit a car, right?

[bobman1235]

I SEE your point Max, I just don't agree with it. People shouldn't have to insulate you from yoru own negligence. You're essentially blaming a victim for not protecting himself from you. If I shot someone, should I be pissed at them for not wearing a bullet proof vest? I have to go to jail for 25-life because that a-hole didn't leave the house with a vest on!

Obviously that's a ridiculous and extreme example, I'm just trying to make the point that it's not my or anyone else's responsibility to limit YOUR liability in the case of you hurting me. Yes, it sucks, money-wise for someone who nails a biker. It sucks even more if that biker isn't wearing a helmet. Know what sucks more? Slamming into a pedestrian. I'm betting there's more of those than bikers out there. Should they be wearing helmets? If the only view you're looking at is the view of the liability of a driver who hits them, it's the logical conclusion.

[aaharvel]

looks like jaw surgery (?)
i'm glad it wasn't any more serious.
next time i bet he'll wear a helmet.

[Demiurge]

I SEE your point Max, I just don't agree with it. People shouldn't have to insulate you from yoru own negligence. You're essentially blaming a victim for not protecting himself from you. If I shot someone, should I be pissed at them for not wearing a bullet proof vest? I have to go to jail for 25-life because that a-hole didn't leave the house with a vest on!

Obviously that's a ridiculous and extreme example, I'm just trying to make the point that it's not my or anyone else's responsibility to limit YOUR liability in the case of you hurting me. Yes, it sucks, money-wise for someone who nails a biker. It sucks even more if that biker isn't wearing a helmet. Know what sucks more? Slamming into a pedestrian. I'm betting there's more of those than bikers out there. Should they be wearing helmets? If the only view you're looking at is the view of the liability of a driver who hits them, it's the logical conclusion.

You win with that one.

[madmax]

If I shot someone, should I be pissed at them for not wearing a bullet proof vest? I have to go to jail for 25-life because that a-hole didn't leave the house with a vest on!

No, but if you go hunting you might just want to wear orange. Unless of course you don't think it looks cool, feel the need to feel free, etc. I think that is a more realistic comparison.

madmax

[Dennis Gardner]

No, but if you go hunting you might just want to wear orange.
madmax

Even that doesn't help when you are huntin' with the Dick Cheney.:rolleyes:

[steveinaz]

I SEE your point Max, I just don't agree with it. People shouldn't have to insulate you from yoru own negligence. You're essentially blaming a victim for not protecting himself from you. If I shot someone, should I be pissed at them for not wearing a bullet proof vest? I have to go to jail for 25-life because that a-hole didn't leave the house with a vest on!

Obviously that's a ridiculous and extreme example, I'm just trying to make the point that it's not my or anyone else's responsibility to limit YOUR liability in the case of you hurting me. Yes, it sucks, money-wise for someone who nails a biker. It sucks even more if that biker isn't wearing a helmet. Know what sucks more? Slamming into a pedestrian. I'm betting there's more of those than bikers out there. Should they be wearing helmets? If the only view you're looking at is the view of the liability of a driver who hits them, it's the logical conclusion.

A-frickin-men Bob. PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, stop blaming the victim. With the line of thinking many of you are using, I guess a woman who dresses "seductively" deserves to be raped huh? She brought it on herself, right? She "invited" disaster by looking so good........

come on.

Hindsight is 20/20 and requires absolutely no skill. How many times have you done something that resulted in an injury that you could have done differently? That doesn't make you an idiot, it makes you human. People are so quick to "arm-chair" quarterback.

[Sami]

Lucky he didn't follow the footsteps of Pelle Lindbergh, Dan Snyder and Derrick Thomas.

[brettw22]

Know what sucks more? Slamming into a pedestrian. I'm betting there's more of those than bikers out there. Should they be wearing helmets? If the only view you're looking at is the view of the liability of a driver who hits them, it's the logical conclusion.True story....There's a one legged (previous injury to my involvement) homeless man out there that experienced the front end of my rental car once. And no, it wasn't my 'fault'.......

[madmax]

This is what I'm talking about. Homeless one legged men should NOT be able to walk the streets because it increases my liability.
madmax

[shack]

I'm squarely in the NO HELMET = IDIOT camp.

[PhantomOG]

A-frickin-men Bob. PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, stop blaming the victim. With the line of thinking many of you are using, I guess a woman who dresses "seductively" deserves to be raped huh? She brought it on herself, right? She "invited" disaster by looking so good........

come on.

Hindsight is 20/20 and requires absolutely no skill. How many times have you done something that resulted in an injury that you could have done differently? That doesn't make you an idiot, it makes you human. People are so quick to "arm-chair" quarterback.

I'm not blaming the victim. Is it his fault he got into an accident? No. Was it stupid of him not to be wearing a helmet? In my opinion yes. I'm not saying there should be a law requiring it. I'm not saying he should pay more for anything. All I'm saying is he specifically chose not to wear simple gear that would have greatly reduced his injuries in that accident. In my book that makes him an idiot, regardless of whether the accident was his fault or not.

I've done plenty of stupid things in my life and gladly call myself an idiot for the stupid unnecessary injuries I've had. Yes, its a very unfortunate situation for him to be in, but just because he wasn't at fault doesn't absolve him of his CHOICE not to wear a helmet. We're not talking rocket science here --> ride a bike, wear a helmet. Your average 8 year old can tell you that. Its not 20/20 hindsight. Its common sense safety. He chose to disregard that, he's an idiot.

[schwarcw]

After listening to talk radio this morning, it seems that most (if not all) Steeler fans are absolutely livid with Big Ben. The older lady seems to be getting a pass.....

Here in Pittsburgh there were news crews out in front of her home trying to talk with her. This is sad.

Ben has a nine inch laceration on the back of his head, broken jaw, teeth knocked out, broken nose and sinus bone and other contusions. He now looks like Terry Bradshaw:eek:

Carl

[HBombToo]

I can't understand how a helmit law can be rescinded and at the same time I can pay a fine for not wearing a seatbelt...

If Ben ruined his career its on him.

HBomb

[bobman1235]

Haha, now ESPN is reporting that he didn't even have a license (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2482306) to ride.

Dumbass.

[PhantomOG]

I can't understand how a helmit law can be rescinded and at the same time I can pay a fine for not wearing a seatbelt...

quite the double standard. I'd rather see the cops giving tickets to all those monster-SUV driving soccer moms for driving while talking on the cell phone (not hands-free). Someone else not wearing a seat belt doesn't scare me, but I've seen people do some really scary stuff while yapping on the phone.

[Shizelbs]

Hemlet-less elderly women talking on their cell phone while riding their crotch rockets scares me.

[PhantomOG]

Hemlet-less elderly women talking on their cell phone while riding their crotch rockets scares me.

:D

if I ever did see that I'd keep my car far away from her! :p

[Shizelbs]

Yeah, well my grandma can be pretty stubborn.

[Demiurge]

For you PA folks, have you heard when they're going to announce more on his current condition? I'm just curious what this means for his career, as I am sure every Steeler fan is as well.

[PhantomOG]

"He suffered multiple facial fractures," Pituch said. "All of the fractures were successfully repaired. His brain, spine, chest and abdomen appear to be without serious injury. And there are no other confirmed injuries at this time."
...
ESPN.com's John Clayton confirmed that Roethlisberger also suffered a 9-inch laceration to the back of his head, has lost or chipped a number of teeth and has minor injuries to his knees from hitting the pavement.


from the above linked ESPN license article

[speakergeek]

He's VERY lucky to be alive!

[Demiurge]

from the above linked ESPN license article

I think that's the same stuff we all knew yesterday. I'm just curious what this means for his playing career. :o

[ohskigod]

I think that's the same stuff we all knew yesterday. I'm just curious what this means for his playing career. :o


probably will be fine long term, but this season? could be dicey. jaw surgery takes about 2 months to heal without complications or issues. the issue of "heal" is, will it be "healed" enough to take the pounding of a typical NFL Quaterback.

hey man, could have been ALOT worse.

Just noticed today he was riding a Hayabusa crotch rocket. Riding a cruiser without a helmet is dumb, riding a crotch rocket (much less a friggin Hayabusa) without a helmet is beyond comprehension.

you can wax poetic about pedestrians struck by auto, or the fate of certain one legged homeless folk all day, but I still conbsider my above statement undisputable fact.

that bike isnt fun unless your doing at least 120 :rolleyes:

[Demiurge]

Yeah, yikes...I just heard a news report on the radio that said the Steelers don't know yet if he'll be able to play this season, which I figured. It's just good that they're talking as if he'll be able to come back. I realize he should be okay in the long term, but it was those 'serious knee injuries' they talked about yesterday that made me wonder if he'll ever be able to come back, even if he wants to. Sometimes after accidents like that you're just never right again even if all your wounds are healed.

[Drumingman]

I just shake my head when I see a helmet, tanktop, shorts and flip flops on a motocyclist....get the gear, or don't ride. That's pathetic and Ben is an idiot.

I could not agree more. People who ride like that are called Squids.
You have to ask yourself, what's harder, a helmet or your head?

[bobman1235]

Last I heard on ESPN the "serious knee injuries" ended up not being serious at all. All reports seem to expect him to be fine for next year, though he may miss a few games at the beginning.

Keep in mind pro athletes do heal faster than most of us, with regards to the jaw injury and whatnot.

[Shizelbs]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003057733_ndig13.html

Should've worn a helmet.

[Demiurge]

ROFFLESBERGER

http://www.introscape.com/clubpolk/roflcopter.gif

[tommyboy]

For you PA folks, have you heard when they're going to announce more on his current condition? I'm just curious what this means for his career, as I am sure every Steeler fan is as well.

http://kdka.com/

this is the front page of one of our local tv stations so you can see how obsessed everyone is about it.

Anyways, can you guys do me a small favor? If you scroll down a little bit, there is a poll that asks If the steelers should keep Tommy Maddox. I don't care if you know who he is or not, please click no as the option. I don't think I could take another year of tommy maddox, 4 has been long enough!

[shack]

Thanks for the heads up. I like Tommy. Voting YES!

[Demiurge]

http://kdka.com/

this is the front page of one of our local tv stations so you can see how obsessed everyone is about it.

Anyways, can you guys do me a small favor? If you scroll down a little bit, there is a poll that asks If the steelers should keep Tommy Maddox. I don't care if you know who he is or not, please click no as the option. I don't think I could take another year of tommy maddox, 4 has been long enough!

I voted NO for you.

So far it's 75% NO, and 25% YES.

[tommyboy]

Thanks for the heads up. I like Tommy. Voting YES!

You just want the steelers to suck next year. Sorry to tell you man, but the Tennessee Titans don't have a chance now to do anything since they lost mcnair. They had their chance back in 1999. "He was just...one ...yard...short." hahahahahaha :D

[shack]

You just want the steelers to suck next year. Sorry to tell you man, but the Tennessee Titans don't have a chance now to do anything since they lost mcnair. They had their chance back in 1999. "He was just...one ...yard...short." hahahahahaha :D

Titans suck! Don't assume that because I live in TN that I care what the "Oilers" do. They can go 0 -16 and it won't bother me. They sure won't get any better with "Vick lite".

[schwarcw]

Bring back Kordell:D :eek: :mad: :rolleyes:

[Demiurge]

haha, Charlie Batch....He wasn't as good as Joey Harrington. That's bad. :eek:

[jdhdiggs]

haha, Charlie Batch....He wasn't as good as Joey Harrington. That's bad. :eek:

What? You mean having "couldn't beat out Joey Harrington" isn't a good thing to have on your NFL resume? Surely you jest!

[avelanchefan]

Little late coming to this thread, but I have worked in a Trauma ICU for most of my adult career. My job includes going to the trauma's when they first arrive, so most of the time I get to here or read the paramedics report.

Most times guys that do not wear a helmet are pretty messed up when they come in, and usually are major head traumas. If wearing a helmet, they are still messed up and usually present some type of head trauma. I would say 80+ percent of the time it is not the motorcycle drivers fault when being involved in a accident. I would even say that the number is probably closer to 90 percent.

Ben's motorcycle injuries on a Trauma ward would really be consided on the low side considering he was on a motorcycle, and basically be considered lucky that it was not worse.

One other thing. Out of 15 years doing what i do I have seen a helmet crack twice. Once when I first started and the other just last week. Both people died. The first one was an accident under 30 miles an hour, and I thought how could a low rate of speed do this to a helmet. Same thing last week, I beleive it was under 40 miles an hour, but if you hit that helmet just right it shatters.

[steveinaz]

I have no doubt that helmets are smart and save lives, but I'm against making them mandatory. I don't need the government playing daddy for me, I'll make those decisions on my own. Government is in our personal lives too much already.

[avelanchefan]

Agreed steve....just like seat belts.

[shack]

If seatbelt laws can be mandantory (and they should), boating personal safety gear is mandatory, etc., so should helmets (and they should). And I'm not talking those "skull cap" nothings some call helmets, I'm talking something that actually saves lives. Personal choice. You have a choice. If you choose to ride ...you wear a helmet...don't like it...don't ride. It's your choice.

[Demiurge]

Should we have laws on how much you can eat in a day too? I mean, c'mon. NONE of this crap should be mandatory.

[jdhdiggs]

Unfortunately the laws are there to protect us (the public) against the stupidity of others. Now if ER's didn't have to try to save someone without a helmet or seatbelt unless they could pay for it, then the laws would make no sense. Until then, they "help" keep the public liability down.

I'm against the mandatory laws in principle, but for them in practical terms.

[avelanchefan]

I am in favor of seat belts....that is seat belting your kids in. But as an adult, if you are over the age of 18 and don't want to waer one then who should say you can't.

Now if I was to drive a motorcycle I would be wearing a helmet....but no way would you ever get me on one of those death wheels. (No offense to motocyclists) Just seen to much in my life time.

[shack]

There is NO contitutional right to do whatever you want on publicly owned thouroughfares (which the roads and highways happen to be). They are owned by the collective public which in turn is under the perview and control of the government put in place by the public. Us/they/we have the right to set the terms under which you have the right to use those public thouroghfares...ie: you must have a valid license, must have proper insurance, must obey public laws/rules regarding speed, vehicle condition, etc, must not drive while impared, must wear a seat belt, must wear a helmet and so forth IF you choose to use those publicly owned roads. No one says that you must use them, it is your choice. If you want to drive a car or motorcycle on your private property the rules do not apply. This is not a matter of freedom and/or choice. It is the requirement to obey publicly approved rules and regulations in order to have the privelege to use public property. No more, no less.

[madmax]

Helmet = safety. There are reasons safety equipment is deemed necessary. You have to have lights, right? Hey, if I'm liable for these people getting hurt when I run them down then I have a say in what they are required to use as safety equipment. It is not their right to do as they please. :)
madmax

[Demiurge]

I don't think anyone said there was. I do think that the government needs to stay out of our lives as much as possible. Having a law on the books that forces people to protect THEMSELVES in a vehicle is a ridiculous revenue grab. It has absolutely no bearing on you or anyone else. Can you tell me why a seat belt fine is often $10 (at least it is here)? Why isn't at $300? Answer: Nobody would support it, it's just a dumb law, but when you don't attach any kind of a real penalty to it they can rake in the revenue and nobody will take it seriously or complain about it.

It's hasn't got a damn thing to do with public safety, but rather the government projection on the general public that they're too dumb to take care of themselves. Some people are, but that's their problem.

Wearing a seatbelt has no affect on using public owned roads. What a non-sequitur. It's not like not wearing a seatbelt damages anyones driving experience.

There's no end to this nanny crap, so there's no need to head down the slope to begin with. Most people have a personal connection to seatbelt and helmet laws when they argue so vehemently in favor of them. "If only there were a law my loved one would be here today." Well, not to sound callous, but you don't know that, and even with the law people don't wear always wear seatbelts. Nobody is scared of the legal ramifications, and they couldn't get away with larger fines.

Belts help save lives and prevent injury. So do helmets. No denying that, but you can't legislate common sense and protect the general population from themselves. Doing good ain't got no end.

[Demiurge]

Helmet = safety. There are reasons safety equipment is deemed necessary. You have to have lights, right? Hey, if I'm liable for these people getting hurt when I run them down then I have a say in what they are required to use as safety equipment. It is not their right to do as they please. :)
madmax

There's a difference betweeen personal safety (Protecting you from yourself), and public safety (protecting you from everyone else).

It's important to recognize the difference.

[madmax]

Belts help save lives and prevent injury. So do helmets. No denying that, but you can't legislate common sense and protect the general population from themselves.


Sure you can. The only reason I started wearing seat belts is because it is a law. After doing it for awhile I see the benifit and reasoning but before that they just made me feel uncomfortable. Also, growing up I remember never seeing anyone wearing a seatbelt, now it is the norm. That is because it is a LAW. So most certainly you can legislate common sense and protect the general population from themselves.
madmax

[madmax]

There's a difference betweeen personal safety (Protecting you from yourself), and public safety (protecting you from everyone else).

It's important to recognize the difference.


Why?

[Demiurge]

Sure you can. The only reason I started wearing seat belts is because it is a law. After doing it for awhile I see the benifit and reasoning but before that they just made me feel uncomfortable. Also, growing up I remember never seeing anyone wearing a seatbelt, now it is the norm. That is because it is a LAW. So most certainly you can legislate common sense and protect the general population from themselves.
madmax

Literally, yes you can, but figuratively speaking -- no, you can't. Why? Because it would be a neverending stream of laws. How can you say yes to seatbelt laws and no to the next law? Not to mention you open up a while new litany of law suits on state and local government for not protecting some dumbass from his own stupidity.

$10 fines aren't going to make me wear my seatbelt all the time. There are times I don't want it on, big deal? No, it's not, but I want that choice. It's just like J-Walking -- all sorts of nominal laws the majority doesn't obey.

[Demiurge]

Why?

See above.

[F1nut]

Why isn't at $300? Answer: Nobody would support it, it's just a dumb law, but when you don't attach any kind of a real penalty to it they can rake in the revenue and nobody will take it seriously or complain about it.


It's a big fine here and a couple of points on your driving record, I do believe.

Bottom line, there's a lot of stupid people out there, they need the law to tell them what to do and to protect me from them.

[bobman1235]

I'm glad so many of you are such sheep that you need the GOVERNMENT of all things telling you how to protect yourself.

The whole point of a safety law is to protect the INNOCENT. If you want to engage in risky behavior that will ONLY hurt YOU, then you should be allowed to. What a bunch of nonsense this ridiculous argument has become. Oh pretty please, all knowing and powerful government, tell me what I should and shouldn't do to protect myself, I'm a bumbling idiot!

[Demiurge]

It's a big fine here and a couple of points on your driving record, I do believe.

Bottom line, there's a lot of stupid people out there, they need the law to tell them what to do and to protect me from them.

How does a seatbelt on someone else protect you? I mean, I have heard the financial argument, but it's a shaky one at best.

[shack]

I'm glad so many of you are such sheep that you need the GOVERNMENT of all things telling you how to protect yourself.

The whole point of a safety law is to protect the INNOCENT. If you want to engage in risky behavior that will ONLY hurt YOU, then you should be allowed to. What a bunch of nonsense this ridiculous argument has become. Oh pretty please, all knowing and powerful government, tell me what I should and shouldn't do to protect myself, I'm a bumbling idiot!

I don't need the government telling me what to do. I need them to tell you what to do to keep me from having to pay for high auto insurance, high medical insurance and high medical care because you can't pay for the results of your choices.

[shack]

Anyway it is a moot point. Believe it or not....the majority of people want the safety laws that are on the books to remain. Since there is no "right" use public roads without obeying the laws...there is no recourse.

[Demiurge]

I don't need the government telling me what to do. I need them to tell you what to do to keep me from having to pay for high auto insurance, high medical insurance and high medical care because you can't pay for the results of your choices.

So...what about a law that you have to wear shoes while driving? What type of sunglasses? Or better yet should they be mandatory? Driving with both hands on the wheel at all times? No more music while driving? No drinking or eating?

The point has nothing to do with whether or not seat belts can help save your life. It has everything to do with where it all ends. If someone doesn't want to wear a seatbelt, fine.

IIRC, not wearing a seatbelt weighs against the offending party in court and in many insurance contracts. That's why the financial burden argument doesn't really hold any water.

[bobman1235]

Anyway it is a moot point. Believe it or not....the majority of people want the safety laws that are on the books to remain. Since there is no "right" use public roads without obeying the laws...there is no recourse.

Hahaha, I'd LOVE to see that vote, I'd almost guarantee that you're wrong.

How many times do we have to shoot down these ridiculous arguments about medical and insurance costs before you actually listen anyways? If that's really your only concern (and it's a valid one, if not farfetched) maybe you should think about reforming insurance and liability laws, rather than telling everyone how they should live their lives.

And this "public roads, driving is not a right" nonsense is equally silly. I love how quick you are to just hand over every decision to the government based solely on that kind of specious drivel. What happened to a government for the people, BY the people? THe only thing some of you seem concerned about is your financial interests, and I hate to break it to you, but that's REALLY not the government's job. Or at least it shouldn't be.

[shack]

As I said...it IS a moot point. Safety laws are here to stay.

[shack]

And those of you that think government is not about financial interests....are the ones with your heads in the sand.

[Demiurge]

That's why PA just repealed it's helmet law in 2003?

[Demiurge]

And those of you that think government is not about financial interests....are the ones with your heads in the sand.

He said it shouldn't be, and he's right.

[shack]

That's why PA just repealed it's helmet law in 2003?

Want to bet on whether it gets revisited because of Roethlisburger?

[bobman1235]

Don't just say it's a moot point. We all get passionate and yell and scream about this, and I do respect your opinion despite the fact that it's wrong (:)), but (cue patriotic music) debating these kinds of things is what this country's all about. And just throwing up your hands and saying "well, it's the way it is" ISN'T. Question everything that deserves to be questioned. We all have a differnet opinion about hte government's role and what it should be in our lives, and you shouldn't want to just lay back and accept what it CURRENTLY is just to avoid a little conflict :)

[Demiurge]

Want to bet on whether it gets revisited because of Roethlisburger?

There's a sad commentary on society...

[shack]

I am saying it is a moot point because it is the law, and the majority of the pubic agree with it (me included).

[Demiurge]

I am saying it is a moot point because it is the law, and the majority of the pubic agree with it (me included).

How do you substantiate that claim? :confused:

These laws aren't by public demand by any stretch. I'm also curious why you won't address the other statements about safety. Why do you stop at seat belts? Why don't you support laws about eating and drinking in the car? I mean I can go on and on, but you place no end on the laws. I just don't understand the old government says it's illegal so I will just go along with it mentality. That's not saying you should break the law, but you don't even question it. It's ridiculous and counterintuitive to what this country stands for. I'm definitely with bobman here all the way. Focus on insurance reform, etc., rather than trying to keep everyone safe with laws that you can't possibly enforce.

[shack]

Cost Savings
■ Analysis of linked data from the Crash Outcome Data Evaluation System (CODES) in three States with universal helmet laws showed that without the helmet law, the total extra inpatient charges due to brain injury would have almost doubled from $2,325,000 to $4,095,000.
■ A number of studies have compared hospital costs for helmeted and unhelmeted motorcyclists involved in traffic crashes. These studies have revealed that un-helmeted riders involved in crashes are less likely to have insurance and more likely to have higher hospital costs than helmeted riders involved insimilar crashes.
■ The CODES study, mentioned earlier, also found that brain injury cases were more than twice as costly as non-brain injury cases for the one-year period studied. Among the un-helmeted motorcycle in-patients, charges for those suffering brain injuries were 2.25 times higher than for those without brain injuries. Long-term costs were not included.
■ NHTSA estimates that motorcycle helmet use saved $1.3 billion in 2002 alone. An additional $853 million would have been saved if all motorcyclists had worn helmets.
■ NHTSA estimates that motorcycle helmet use saved $19.5 billion in economic costs from 1984 through 2002. An additional $14.8 billion would have been saved if all motorcyclists had worn helmets during the same period.

Who Supports Universal Motorcycle Helmet Laws?
■ AAA
■ Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety
■ Allstate Insurance Company
■ American Academy of Family Physicians
■ American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons
■ American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
■ American Academy of Pediatrics
■ American Coalition for Traffic Safety, Inc.
■ American College of Emergency Physicians
■ American College of Preventive Medicine
■ American College of Surgeons
■ American Driver and Traffic Safety Education Association
■ American Insurance Association
■ American Medical Association
■ American Nurses Association
■ American Public Health Association
■ American Trauma Society
■ Association of Women’s Health, Obstetrics, and Neonatal Nurses
■ Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine
■ Brain Injury Association
■ Center for Rural Emergency Medicine
■ Emergency Nurses Association
■ Emergency Nurses CARE
■ Epilepsy Foundation of America
■ GEICO
■ General Federation of Women’s Clubs
■ Indian Health Service
■ Motorcycle Industry Council
■ National Association of County and City Health Officials
■ National Association of Orthopedic Nurses
■ National Association of Public Hospitals
■ National Association of Emergency Medical Technicians
■ National Association of State EMS Directors
■ National Association of State Head Injury Administrators
■ National Center for Injury Prevention and Control
■ National Conference of Black Mayors
■ National Flight Nurses Association
■ National Safety Council
■ National Sheriffs Association
■ Nationwide Insurance
■ Native American Injury Prevention Coalition
■ Prudential Insurance
■ State and Territorial Injury Prevention Directors Association
■ Students Against Destructive Decisions
■ State Farm Insurance
■ Think First Foundation
■ Wellness Councils of America
■ Me - and many of my friends who own and ride bikes

[Demiurge]

That's a majority of the public? When in doubt, copy and paste from other websites. Thanks for playing.

[madmax]

I support laws of no eating or drinking in cars, wearing shoes (which is mandatory btw), no cell phone use while driving, prohibited video operation while moving, operating safety equipment, HELMETS ON MOTORCYCLES, etc... Not supporting, passing and obeying such laws costs us all. Thank heaven for knowledgeable and thoughtful government. :)
madmax

[petrym]

Since many of you are citing law, check this out:
A law enforcement source close to the investigation of Monday's crash told Team 4 investigator Jim Parsons that Ben Roethlisberger does have a valid driver's license, but his motorcycle learner's permit is expired.

And there's something else.

Because Roethlisberger never completed testing for his motorcycle license, new questions are surfacing about whether the law required him to wear a helmet.

On the football field, Roethlisberger is a master of the playbook and the rulebook.

But on the road, the rules are different.

A law enforcement source close to the investigation of Monday's crash told Team 4 that Roethlisberger had an expired motorcycle learner's permit when his bike slammed into a turning car.

Here's a timeline of Roethlisberger's driving license:

According to the Ohio Department of Public Safety, his license was transferred to Pennsylvania in October 2004.

In Ohio, his license did not have a motorcycle endorsement; a source inside the Steelers' organization told Team 4 that Roethlisberger got his Pennsylvania motorcycle learner's permit in March 2005. It was valid for one year.

New questions are also being raised about whether Roethlisberger was correct last year when he said his decision to ride a motorcycle without a helmet was not a violation of the law.

When asked why he doesn't wear a helmet, Roethlisberger replied, "Because you don't have to, it's not the law. If it was the law, I'd definitely have one on every time I rode. But it's not the law so (I?) know I don't have to."

But here's what the law says: Motorcycle operators can only ride without a helmet if they have two years of riding experience -- Roethlisberger does not -- or if they have completed an approved motorcycle safety course.

Team 4 doesn't know whether Roethlisberger completed a Pennsylvania Department of Transportation-approved motorcycle safety course because PennDOT won't tell Team 4.

But typically, completing a course would lead to a motorcycle license, and our source said Roethlisberger didn't have one of those -- he was still operating on a permit, an expired one.

http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/9364467/detail.html?rss=pit&psp=news

[petrym]

Looks like the boy wasn't following the rules...

hmmmmm???

[shack]

That's a majority of the public? When in doubt, copy and paste from other websites. Thanks for playing.You ask for data and then question the source. I guess I could have just spouted data off the top of my head and treated it as fact (as some do).

Bottom line and my last post regarding this topic. I believe and support universal motorcycle helmet laws. I feel the same for seat belts and other passive vehicle restraints. Both the positive economic and social outcomes of these laws far outweigh any minor loss of one's freedom and or choice when it comes to using the public thouroughfares. You asked, so yes I'm also for banning eating, talking on the cell phone, shaving, reading, putting on makeup, having sex, getting a blow job (since Clinton differentiated between the two, so will I) and a host of other activities while operating a motor vehicle on the public roads.

Just for Demiurge another cut and paste:

WASHINGTON, April 28 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Following is a statement for attribution to Lt. Colonel Jim Champagne, chair of the Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA):

I am deeply disturbed by the serious increase in motorcycle fatalities. Last week, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) projected that 2004 represented the seventh straight year of increases in this area. NHTSA's preliminary estimate is that 3,927 motorcyclists died in 2004. This is a 7.3 percent rise since 2003 and an 85 percent rise since 1997. Motorcycle fatalities have increased from 5 percent of all motor vehicle fatalities in 1997 to a projected 9 percent in 2004.

Why is this happening? In large part, the lack of motorcycle helmet laws in states is the culprit. Currently, only 20 states and the District of Columbia have a helmet law that applies to all riders. Given the serious trends in motorcycle fatalities, one would think additional states would be mulling enactment of new laws. The reality is that some of the 20 states are actually considering repealing their laws. As chair of GHSA, I have taken action, as the situation is too serious to ignore. Recently, I've testified in Virginia urging that state retain its law. At the request of safety advocates, I have also contacted governors and legislators in Michigan, West Virginia and Maryland urging they reject attempts to repeal their laws. I am also working with advocates in Nebraska to help them defend their law.

I feel so strongly about this issue because I have seen the impact of a motorcycle helmet law in my state of Louisiana. In 1999, Louisiana abolished its universal helmet law. This led to a terrible spike in the death of motorcyclists. In 1998, the year before the law's repeal, we achieved nearly 100 percent helmet usage and experienced 35 motorcycle fatalities. By 2003, the law's repeal had reduced helmet use to 35 percent and fatalities had spiked to 83 -- a 137 percent increase.

Fortunately, in 2004, Louisiana's universal motorcycle helmet law was reinstated. We are the only state in the country to have enacted this law in the last decade -- a shocking statistic given fatality trends.

As I travel the country, I am often told that a helmet law is an infringement on a person's freedom of choice. The problem with this argument is that one's freedom of choice should not negatively affect the rest of society. A recent study from the Medical Center of Louisiana in New Orleans (a Level 1 Trauma Center) showed that 91.8 percent of people admitted after unhelmeted motorcycle collisions did not have any health insurance. We all pay their medical bills.

Whether everyone likes it or not, we legislate highway safety in all states. We pass laws to protect people who are unable or unwilling to protect themselves. Public access highways are built and maintained by the government to provide people with the freedom to travel. It is not a right to operate a vehicle on these roads, but rather, it is a privilege. It is a privilege earned after reaching a certain age, passing a driving test and gaining a license. In order to maintain this privilege, one is required to obey the common sense laws and those should include a universal motorcycle helmet law.

May is Motorcycle Safety Awareness Month. I encourage all states to use this occasion to highlight the need to reverse the sobering fatality trends surrounding motorcycle fatalities.



Seems like I'm not the only one with the public road/privilege point of view.

[F1nut]

How does a seatbelt on someone else protect you? I mean, I have heard the financial argument, but it's a shaky one at best.

Very simple. It protects me from feeling really bad about killing some idiot that would have lived had he/she been wearing their seltbelt or had their helmet on.


The whole point of a safety law is to protect the INNOCENT. If you want to engage in risky behavior that will ONLY hurt YOU, then you should be allowed to. What a bunch of nonsense this ridiculous argument has become. Oh pretty please, all knowing and powerful government, tell me what I should and shouldn't do to protect myself, I'm a bumbling idiot!


Let's say one of your loved ones refused to wear their seltbelt. They get into an accident and die as a result. Are you going to tell me that you'd be ok with that because they, at least, had their freedom of choice in the matter or would you rather have had a law that made he/she wear that seatbelt even if they complained like hell about it, yet were still alive as the result.




One of the main reasons we have seltbelt laws today is because consumer action groups (the general public) spoke up loud enough for the stupid politicians to do something about it. You don't think that the politicians came up with the idea all by themselves, do you!?!

[F1nut]

Speaking of blow jobs....I knew of a young inner city girl in Baltimore that was going down on the ice cream truck vendor while he was driving. He crashed and she bit off his pecker. OUCH!!!

[Demiurge]

You ask for data and then question the source. I guess I could have just spouted data off the top of my head and treated it as fact (as some do).

Bottom line and my last post regarding this topic. I believe and support universal motorcycle helmet laws. I feel the same for seat belts and other passive vehicle restraints. Both the positive economic and social outcomes of these laws far outweigh any minor loss of one's freedom and or choice when it comes to using the public thouroughfares. You asked, so yes I'm also for banning eating, talking on the cell phone, shaving, reading, putting on makeup, having sex, getting a blow job (since Clinton differentiated between the two, so will I) and a host of other activities while operating a motor vehicle on the public roads.

Shack, I am not questioning the source. I am sure all of those organizations support the laws. How posting a list of 25 or 30 organizations that support the laws is the same as saying the majority of the public support the laws is beyond me.

I think these organizations you listed all have their hearts and their heads in the right place. I think maybe some may be missing the point of the argument. It's not whether or not we should encourage one another to wear seatbelts and helmets, but rather whether or not our government should pass laws doing so. I don't think so, and the reason is because it sets a precedent that starts to become a slippery slope. This mentality that we are going to wipe out tragedy and the impact of accidents on our society by passing laws is a ridiculous notion at best. Have you thought about all of the wasted tax dollars (see your money) having government control all of these unecessary laws? 'Click it or Ticket' -- are those signs free? No, it's a cost.

You need to have organizations like some that you listed above pushing awareness, not laws.

I can't be any more succinct than that.

[HBombToo]

Speaking of blow jobs....I knew of a young inner city girl in Baltimore that was going down on the ice cream truck vendor while he was driving. He crashed and she bit off his pecker. OUCH!!!

OK then no more ice cream trucks allowed!:D

[F1nut]

Oh yeah, forgot to add.....I'm against drivers talking on their cell phones while driving. I've never seen so many drivers do so many stupid things while on their cell. It boggles the mind. DC banned hand held cells while driving, the city is a much safer place to drive now.

[Demiurge]

Very simple. It protects me from feeling really bad about killing some idiot that would have lived had he/she been wearing their seltbelt or had their helmet on.

How will you feel if they die wearing their seatbelt or are a cripple?

[F1nut]

How will you feel if they die wearing their seatbelt or are a cripple?

At least I could take comfort in the fact that all current safety laws did the best they could to prevent it when the moron slammed into me.

[F1nut]

The bottom line here is....

Not wearing a seltbelt = MORON
Not wearing a helmet = MORON

Both save lives and that's a proven fact, which supercedes any other viewpoint.

[madmax]

This mentality that we are going to wipe out tragedy and the impact of accidents on our society by passing laws is a ridiculous notion at best.

You keep saying this but the law of the land is how we the people sway each other on the proper ways to conduct ourselves. This is for our benifit and is why we make the laws to start with.
madmax

[Demiurge]

The bottom line here is....

Not wearing a seltbelt = MORON
Not wearing a helmet = MORON

Both save lives and that's a proven fact, which supercedes any other viewpoint.

Unfortunately that's not the discussion!

[Demiurge]

You keep saying this but the law of the land is how we the people sway each other on the proper ways to conduct ourselves. This is for our benifit and is why we make the laws to start with.
madmax

That's my point, what you're saying is NOT we the people. It's We the Government!

I don't know why this is such a hard concept to grasp.

I know for a fact one of the seatbelt gurus here smokes. Can you say hypocrisy? All is fair with these laws until they affect you personally. Hope none of you are overweight. I'd rather stop the nonsense before it's completely out of control.

[PhantomOG]

I don't believe there necessarily should be a helmet law, but it would take an immensely slippery slope to assume that once a helmet law goes into affect, McDonald's immediately gets shut down for being bad for you. There is a big difference between the two, and as fun as it is to throw the slippery slope argument around, I just don't see it truly applicable to helmet laws. Plenty of states already have helmet laws in effect and the world is still spinning.

[petrym]

I know for a fact one of the seatbelt gurus here smokes.
I'm sure whomever you're talking about smokes were it's allowed and does not smoke where's it's not allowed...

I'm with shack and f1nut on this issue. So many many people want all the conveniences without the self-responsibility. You want to drive on these expensive-to-build and expensive-to-maintain roads? Good, follow the rules and don't mouth off about freedoms from seatbelts and helmets.

Also, bringing overweight people into it has nothing to do with helmet and seatbelt laws, if some monstrously huge person hits you when they're running 60 miles an hour, then we'll talk. :rolleyes: ;) :rolleyes:

[Demiurge]

I don't believe there necessarily should be a helmet law, but it would take an immensely slippery slope to assume that once a helmet law goes into affect, McDonald's immediately gets shut down for being bad for you. There is a big difference between the two, and as fun as it is to throw the slippery slope argument around, I just don't see it truly applicable to helmet laws. Plenty of states already have helmet laws in effect and the world is still spinning.

How ridiculous is it? It used to be laughable that smoking would be banned by government in privately owned businesses, but it's already happend all across the country. So long as you don't smoke (which I don't) that crowd won't be bothered, and the anti-smoking zealots are happy as well. Just because the result of a law is good doesn't make it good for our society. Freedom should mean something, and that means making bad choices along with the good. Government should be as hands off as possible.

If you're forced to wear a seatbelt why is eating in the car okay? Why can't we have a law for that? These questions can and will be asked, and has been demonstrated in this thread -- people will support that too. That is scary. I mean we can get situational if you want, beacause there are plenty of accident scenarios where you wouldn't want to be all tangled up in a seatbelt? Silly argument maybe, but so is suggesting the law solves anything.

[TroyD]

I think maybe some may be missing the point of the argument. It's not whether or not we should encourage one another to wear seatbelts and helmets, but rather whether or not our government should pass laws doing so. I don't think so, and the reason is because it sets a precedent that starts to become a slippery slope. This mentality that we are going to wipe out tragedy and the impact of accidents on our society by passing laws is a ridiculous notion at best. Have you thought about all of the wasted tax dollars (see your money) having government control all of these unecessary laws? 'Click it or Ticket' -- are those signs free? No, it's a cost.

You need to have organizations like some that you listed above pushing awareness, not laws.

I can't be any more succinct than that.

Ok, but taken to the other extreme....at what point DO we pass laws?

Should we just legalize everything and let nature and bedlam take it's course all in the name of freedom? Not hardly.

The argument against having a helmet or seatbelt law is what's shaky. It's not even close to being a constitutional grey area. As far as the majority of citizens, that's a moot point as well because we are a republic, not a true democracy.

BDT

[Demiurge]

I'm sure whomever you're talking about smokes were it's allowed and does not smoke where's it's not allowed...

I'm with shack and f1nut on this issue. So many many people want all the conveniences without the self-responsibility. You want to drive on these expensive-to-build and expensive-to-maintain roads? Good, follow the rules and don't mouth off about freedoms from seatbelts and helmets.

Also, bringing overweight people into it has nothing to do with helmet and seatbelt laws, if some monstrously huge person hits you when they're running 60 miles an hour, then we'll talk. :rolleyes: ;) :rolleyes:

As stated above, you're missing the point of the comparison. People who don't wear a seatbelt or a helmet assume that responsibilty, so I don't understand why you claim that we want the freedom without the responsibility. I wear my seatbelt most of the time, and I wear a helmet almost everytime we take the Harley out of the garage. I assume the risk when I don't.

You should be focusing on reforming insurance laws and trial lawyers. You're simply using government to circumvent personal responsibilty, which isn't it's function.

[PhantomOG]

Should we just legalize everything and let nature and bedlam take it's course all in the name of freedom? Not hardly.

my point exactly. you can play the slippery slope game either way and doesn't really stregthen your argument on either side.

[Demiurge]

Ok, but taken to the other extreme....at what point DO we pass laws?

Should we just legalize everything and let nature and bedlam take it's course all in the name of freedom? Not hardly.

The argument against having a helmet or seatbelt law is what's shaky. It's not even close to being a constitutional grey area. As far as the majority of citizens, that's a moot point as well because we are a republic, not a true democracy.

BDT

I think in general laws protecting people from themselves should be severely debated before they are passed. I don't think these laws have been, and I would be interested to see what would happen if laws like these would be put up for a vote. Of course they won't be, which leads to another problem. Laws just end up on the books because a lot of us aren't involved at even a local level in government. How many call their reps up and say "I want you to vote for or against this measure for (insert reason here)?" It's just not a lot.

I just want to stress again that helmets and seatbelts are absolutely a good thing in the bulk of scenarios that it just can't be argued.

I think laws protecting people from others are more in line with where we should be focusing, and is where most of our laws are.

We can come up with ridiculous examples of where this will go next, and we can all laugh until it happens. I'm citing things far and away from being paranoid. I just don't like feeling like my hand is constantly being held, and it makes life way too sterile.

[TroyD]

[QUOTE=Demiurge] People who don't wear a seatbelt or a helmet assume that responsibilty. [QUOTE]

No, they don't. If you think that they do, you are mistaken.

Let's just say for the sake of argument that Roethlisburger didn't have any sort of insurance and no money. What sort of responsibility does he take? It doesn't relieve the meatwagon of the responsibility to come scrape his ass off the sidewalk. It certainly doesn't relieve the hospital and staff of thier responsibility to put humpty dumpty back together again. So, what are his responsibilities again?? Nope, it's mandated by LAW that you have to be treated so, that being the case, it is MORE than acceptable to try and impose some sort of regulation to limit the abuse on that system.

That argument is a crock of shiite and THAT is why we have/need these laws.

NOW, were it a case of if you don't have a helmet/seatbelt and you were treated up to the point of your ability to pay, hey, ride on with your bad self.

You are assuming ALL the responsibility, right??

BDT

[PolkThug]

Wait til the insurance company gets my report showing how much money they could save if there was a law for all automobile operators to wear helmets.

[bobman1235]

No, they don't. If you think that they do, you are mistaken.

Let's just say for the sake of argument that Roethlisburger didn't have any sort of insurance and no money. What sort of responsibility does he take? It doesn't relieve the meatwagon of the responsibility to come scrape his ass off the sidewalk. It certainly doesn't relieve the hospital and staff of thier responsibility to put humpty dumpty back together again. So, what are his responsibilities again?? Nope, it's mandated by LAW that you have to be treated so, that being the case, it is MORE than acceptable to try and impose some sort of regulation to limit the abuse on that system.

That argument is a crock of shiite and THAT is why we have/need these laws.

NOW, were it a case of if you don't have a helmet/seatbelt and you were treated up to the point of your ability to pay, hey, ride on with your bad self.

You are assuming ALL the responsibility, right??

BDT


You're absolutely right Troy, but by mandating the helmet, aren't you treating a symptom, and not the problem? Isn't the problem that someone is allowed on the road without insurance? People continually bring up how driving is not a right, but a privilage. Rather than mandating every personal safety law, why don't we say that to gain that privilage, you HAVE to be insured. Fully. So that no one is responsible for your injuries but you. THAT's attacking the PROBLEM, not a symptom, and THAT'S what should be done.

Sure there will be those who slip through the cracks, and drive illegally without insurance, and end up being "put back togehtre again" on the gov't dime, but... you can't catch everyone.

[Demiurge]

People who don't wear a seatbelt or a helmet assume that responsibilty.

No, they don't. If you think that they do, you are mistaken.

Let's just say for the sake of argument that Roethlisburger didn't have any sort of insurance and no money. What sort of responsibility does he take? It doesn't relieve the meatwagon of the responsibility to come scrape his ass off the sidewalk. It certainly doesn't relieve the hospital and staff of thier responsibility to put humpty dumpty back together again.

That argument is a crock of lshit and THAT is why we have/need these laws.

NOW, were it a case of if you don't have a helmet/seatbelt and you were treated up to the point of your ability to pay, hey, ride on with your bad self.

You are assuming ALL the responsibility, right??

BDT

I'll ammend it. They should, and if they don't where does that put us? The court system, and that's where the reform needs to be.

We've got a jacked up mentaility in this society that if you're involved in any sort of accident one party gets to take it in the ass without lubricant, and the other party wins lifes lottery on the backs of some company, or in the long run the general public, and they ruin the other person's life. Seat belt laws do not change this fact, at all. You, and everyone else here know it.

4 years ago I was hit in the back of my car while at a red light by a drunk driver going 35 miles an hour according to the report. She was slamming on her brakes as she sent me flying into cross traffic, and luckiy for me I didn't get t-boned, criticaly injured, or worse -- killed. She jacked up my back real good, and it still hurts, but I accept it as a risk of getting behind the wheel of a car.

My insurance company went after her and we recovered the loss to my vehicle, and I didn't seek any additional pain and suffering bullshit.

If I wasn't wearing my seatbelt how would that scenario have been any different other than the possibility of greater injury? We can say what if all we want, but it doesn't change a thing. All that matters is that I didn't sue her. An insurance company having to shell out 10-20 thousand more dollars on a single accident isn't what raises our insurance costs in this society, but rather whether or not some asshole decides he wants to sue for millions of dollars. Insurance companies do GREAT, and it's not the chump change that's scaring them.

Like I said, your views are backwards in my opinion. The logic simply doesn't flow. How can you deny lawsuits are the problem? Do you really believe it's an extra broken arm?

[Skynut]

This is the same discussion we had with the smoking ban.

rights of individuals are taken away in the name of the majority. It does not really take a majority to do it though, just the right people complaining to the right people.

We will get no choice unless we can get together and make our voice heard.

If you remember we used to have a right to keep and bear arms, now we do not. Most of us do but many have had that right stripped because laws were passed that made that possible.
We also are limited in what arms we can keep and when we can bear them.
This concept would have been absurd to our founding fathers but yet it happened.
The people of this country have been stripped of their right to defend themselves against our government should it be necessary again.
A very strategic move on behalf of our government in the name of protecting it's people.
Is it bad? I hope not because it is too late to change it.

What happens to alcohol and tobacco? Both are notorious for deaths but both are still legal.