(OT) "No Helmet" advocate killed in SUV-on-bike crash

Back in the 1970s, a law in Australia allowed motorists / riders to go without seatbelts / helmets on the provision that insurance payments be based upon what the injuries would have been had the driver / rider had the protection in use.

It seemed that it was generally accepted as a logical compromise, IIRC.

Any Aussie care to comment?

Karl

L.D. wrote:

I'm not from Aussie, but from Canada, and I will make a comment on the cost of tabacco products in Canada versus the US. A pack of cigarettes are around the $10 mark vs. $2.50 in US. But one has remember the govenment foots the bill for our health care in Canada, where one has private health care in the US, so the 'cost of repairs' to someone from the damage smoking causes must be made up somewhere. That is the 'logical comprimise' Canada has for the tabacco users here; very high taxes on the product.

Craig

So if you get hit in the head with a flying rock while not wearing a helmet and veer into the oncoming traffic and kill someone, that's protecting you from you? I agree with you regarding seatbelts, but not helmets. They aren't the same situation.

Chip

I don't think that is the case anymore Karl.

In response to LD, I would suggest the trouble with not using seatbelts and helmets is that when someone is injured in a crash, it is the community who pay for their stupidity, at least in countries which have a national health system like Australia.

Avantilover

No, they are not. Sombody not wearing a seat belt is 100 times the hazard to those that share the streets with them, compared to sombody not wearing a helment.

Dave Lester

So if someone is on the cell phone or better yet trying to use their gps/laptop/fax machine and drift over and force me off the road and I am injured it's because I was stupid for not wearing a helmet? Most bike riders are more safety concious than the rest of the cagers on the road.The greatest fear is not being seen by innatentive drivers.

Bob40....nearly hit by a neighbor who was too busy to watch the road.

No, of course that doesn't make you stupid for not wearing a helmet. You are right that bike riders are more safety concious than most others on the road. That has nothing to do with the scenario I wrote. Please address what I wrote and don't change the subject.

Chip

I don't know about Australia, but most States in the US have laws (pushed by lawyers concerned about reduced contingency fees) specifically stating your rights of recovery against a negligent driver cannot be reduced because you weren't wearing a seatbelt or helmet, even when required by law.

S2DSteve

Craig, An amazingly high percentage of folks in the US are on a (modified) National Health System. The government just doesn't want to admit it because then they would have to make it efficient.

Karl.

snipped-for-privacy@shaw.ca wrote:

Most bike

right that bike riders are more safety concious

wrote. Please address what I wrote and don't change the subject.

When the man who was later my assistant went to get his car driving licence (GB), after a few minutes the inspector asked him if he used to ride a bike. Alan said, "125 CC every day for two years - no accidents." "Not much point in continuing this test, I guess - let's go back to the office and do the paperwork." said the inspector. (The inspectors had much more freedon to use common sense back then.)

Karl

Karl

right that bike riders are more safety concious

wrote. Please address what I wrote and don't change the subject.

You can, however, reduce the numbers of folks getting killed. There are folks alive today that would not be, except for seat belts, and laws requiring them to be used. I won't get into the helmet issue, those idiots can do to themselves as they please. I will, however, take a stand for the eye protection requirements, as I have seen (and experienced) bugs in the eye, and do know that is a hazard to others, as well.

I'll go beyond that... ya don't have to get hit!

On that issue, we can smile, and agree to disagree. But, if I see you driving in my community without a seatbelt, neither of us will likely be smiling after we meet.

Dave

Natural selection in action?

Darwin candidate?

Not enough data for an accurate comment.

I wear a brain bucket, gloves and boots when I ride.

I also bring out the "Yes, thay ARE all trying to kill me!" attitude.

Mark (need to get another bike) Dunning

will you be bringing us up on anyone close to you acquiring a STD from lack of condom wear? do you ride or just one who feels you need to control someone else?

National health systems are not necessarily efficient but give a feeling of security in that everyone will get treated even though you may have a long wait for public hospital treatment, we also have the Pharmaceutical Benefits System (PBS) a Federal Government subsidised medicine system, so the max one may pay per prescription is around $AUD30 (I think).

Recently, the PBS listed a treatment for Breast Cancer that was previously costing women over $AUD$1000 a month as it's a good treatment, the US drug companies tried to kill off the PBS during our Free Trade Agreement, but failed and always will fail, as we like it this way.

One day the US Government will expend the same effort/money on ensuring all US citizens have access to health care and affordable medications as they do on the Military.

Cheers

John Clements

Oh, contraire! I've made a few observations over the years, and many are documented.

I know, I said I would not get into the helmet issue, but since that is where the tread is going...

Non-helmet users, based on my considerable experience, do represent natural selection, and Darwin candidates in action. And, that's OK, it is their right, by golly! I agree, they are not hurting anybody else, so let 'em be! That said, I do find it offensive that the rest of us have to pay for their upkeep.

Really, when you are cleaning kidneys, spleens, livers, hair, teeth, eyeballs, and the like up off of the street, brains don't really add to the problem... they all fit into the same scoop shovel quite well.

I do appreciate helmets, though, as the brain matter is usually enclosed therein, making clean-up a snap. That's a good thing, as I have observed brains contained in helmets to be larger, and better developed than those not so contained. Meaning, that when a guy is smart enough to wear a helmet, and his brains do get loose, it's a bigger mess than cleaning up after a non-helmet wearer. -¿Ö

I have often wondered, death aside, how many folks that were not killed due to not wearing a helmet might still be alive... if not brain dead... today. And, how many alive, but brain dead non-helmet wearers would be not only alive... but... "normal" today? Well, maybe it's just as well that I don't know, because "normal" is such a relative term.... Better they are in a casket, nursing home, or a rubber room, than on the road with the rest of us. Makes it almost worth paying for their upkeep.

Understand, I am NOT saying we should make them wear helmets! I wouldn't want to be painted with THAT brush, no siree!

Dave Lester

Or a hard rain (or even hail)? Paul Johnson