STOOPID RIDERS

[badgerKDD]

Everyone whinges on about the "nanny state" but the reality is (for me) that the state doesn't impair my lifestyle at all. I think its very important that we keep them in check because they can get carried away very very easily. Has anyone found that the nanny state has changed their lives? Be quite interesting to see.

We had a kid's dad ring our office the other day, asking if his lad could do work experience at our factory as he's mad keen on surfing and really wants to get into the industry when he leaves school. We had to say no as health and safety rules won't allow it, he would only be able to sit and watch us work and maybe make the coffee every now and again! His dad was very understanding and said he'd been told the same thing by most company's he'd asked, the only options for his son was shelf stacking at a supermarket or answering phones in an office! Is it any wonder all the skilled trades are dying out for lack of young people coming in. The nanny state could very possibly change this kids life .

And I agree with Chaos, our democratic freedom of choice is slowly being whittled away by government bodies and health and safety executives who think they know better than the people who actually do the tasks which are deemed too hazardous. But on the other hand cos I like my ugly old mug, and allegedly so do my wife and kids, I wouldn't ever head out without my lid, gloves and leather jacket, but that is my choice law or not!

[kestrel69]

At the risk of sounding really ancient I can still remember the days when helmet's were optional. The majority of us would ride around the local area bare headed without giving it a thought. The wind in your face & hair was a lovely feeling of freedom.
The only time you would see someone in a helmet was either when it was raining, freezing cold, or they were off on a good run somewhere. It was almost considered un-manly to wear a lid.
I think the majority of us were quietly very happy on the day they became compulsory & I think anyone who wants to ride on the road without one should quietly go away & have a quiet think about their sanity.
The number of people suffering serious head injuries when involved in an "off" or an accident was quite honestly, appalling!
Even doing slow speed work whether on or off road the helmet should be considered an absolute must!!

[SlowR1der]

Actually sihk's dont have that choice anymore, that loophole has been closed.

They do trust me and just a clip from the DVLA website to back it up


The law requires anyone riding a motorcycle, scooter or moped, with or without sidecar, to wear protective headgear securely fastened. The test cannot therefore be conducted unless the candidate is wearing properly secured protective headgear.

Note:

An exemption to this requirement exists for followers of the Sikh religion if they are wearing a turban.

[Tom L]

Actually Tom those laws you speak of dont work, kids do buy those things, fireworks included, a law is implemented to protect the innocent.
As for giving you an example of the disasterous nature of the "nanny state"....... for one,and I will limit it to one, the smoking ban........ aggrevated alot of people, caused havoc in the brewery trade and was totally unnecessary, seperate rooms for smokers, easy.
As for people making dumb choices Itotally agree with you, they do, but you must let people choose, dumb or not.

In all fairness that's a pretty poor example if you want to talk about protecting the innocent. Smokers are the minority, it effects everyone else and its harmful. I would never have asked for the ban but now its here im kinda glad, even though it means freezing my ass for the occasional cheeky cig i work in a bar i like not stinking after every shift and ill probably live longer too

I do think the health and saftey patrol do get a bit carried away and thats what i meant by the need to be kept in check. But stuff like helmets and seatbelts just do save lives.

You only get a £30 fine for riding your bike without a helmet. Theres your choice.

[JohnBob]

I'd like to re-iterate that i would not like to see a dictatorship here in the uk. But i do object to mis-informed bullshit being aired.

[JohnBob]

How is it pointless to say the tripe you wrote about helmets are misleading & incorrect?

[Funky]

Hi, my name is chaos Customs and I like to argue every single point everyone has ever made.

ooops, maybe I should have left that for the introduction section...

[Funky]

ooopsy daisy, easy tiger

[Banditmax]

Everyone whinges on about the "nanny state" but the reality is (for me) that the state doesn't impair my lifestyle at all. I think its very important that we keep them in check because they can get carried away very very easily. Has anyone found that the nanny state has changed their lives? Be quite interesting to see.

We had a kid's dad ring our office the other day, asking if his lad could do work experience at our factory as he's mad keen on surfing and really wants to get into the industry when he leaves school. We had to say no as health and safety rules won't allow it, he would only be able to sit and watch us work and maybe make the coffee every now and again! His dad was very understanding and said he'd been told the same thing by most company's he'd asked, the only options for his son was shelf stacking at a supermarket or answering phones in an office! Is it any wonder all the skilled trades are dying out for lack of young people coming in. The nanny state could very possibly change this kids life .

And I agree with Chaos, our democratic freedom of choice is slowly being whittled away by government bodies and health and safety executives who think they know better than the people who actually do the tasks which are deemed too hazardous. But on the other hand cos I like my ugly old mug, and allegedly so do my wife and kids, I wouldn't ever head out without my lid, gloves and leather jacket, but that is my choice law or not!

I think the kid would rather sit there watching what you do for two weeks rather than have to go through the pain of stacking shelves or answering phones. The learning through watching of what your doing would be much more beneficial to him if he does want to get into the industry.

[chris_1127]

thats not what i thought you meant when you said you like poking bears at the weekend Funky...

all for pro choice on helmets and any other safety wear on a bike for that matter, but this discussion has been done to death on here so many times and a lot of people still miss the point so its a bit pointless going round in circles and everyone getting all arsey about it really...

[Funky]

thats not what i thought you meant when you said you like poking bears at the weekend Funky...

all for pro choice on helmets and any other safety wear on a bike for that matter, but this discussion has been done to death on here so many times and a lot of people still miss the point so its a bit pointless going round in circles and everyone getting all arsey about it really...

You know I still love you chris, you big cuddly bear! You're right about the safety gear though, been done so many times. Has jason posted in his view yet though? haha.

[Johnnyb]

My thoughts on the helmet thing are this, its not just the freedom to decide if you want to wear one, its also the trouble it causes for the emergency services and everyone else, the ambulance people who just about to have their tea, then have to go out and scrape your brains up and hold you together till they get you to Hospital, the police who have to close off the road taking pictures of skidmarks for hours, the hundreds of people queueing to go home in a jam they had nothing to do with, not to mention the equiptment and staff at the hospital that have to be paid to look after the person involved for weeks maybe months after, and all these resources could have been better used elsewhere, the financial cost for an accident no matter whose fault it is must run into the tens of thousands when everything is taken into account so therefore the sensible thinking would be to have a law forcing everyone to wear helmets at all times and then maybe some of these costs can be saved, otherwise we are left with two options, one is fine with me the other not so much, option one get the person who prefers to ride helmetless to sign an agreement that if they go down, they foot the bill through private insurance for any costs, option two is to keep putting our taxes up to pay for these accidents if we were allowed to ride without helmets.

Just my thoughts

[chris_1127]

weird and very flawed argument jonnyb - you seem to be suggesting that a helmet will not only stop an accident from happening - i would love to know how - and also that the costs and inconvenience occurred in the aftermath will be lessened. whats the reasoning behind that? Surely if you go by the "helmets save lives" theory then someone suffering brain injury from an impact wearing a crash helmet requiring intensive medical care and potentially years of rehabilitation are likely to incur far greater costs than someone killed in an impact because they weren't wearing a lid?

if you want to look at risk-based healthcare cover then boozers, smokers, adventure sports fans, motorsports participants, boxers etc should surely all fall under similar rules, thats a whole big can of worms to open isnt it?

edit sorry forgot to add not being arsey or argumentative, just interested in the reasoning..

[Johnnyb]

weird and very flawed argument jonnyb - you seem to be suggesting that a helmet will not only stop an accident from happening - i would love to know how - and also that the costs and inconvenience occurred in the aftermath will be lessened. whats the reasoning behind that? Surely if you go by the "helmets save lives" theory then someone suffering brain injury from an impact wearing a crash helmet requiring intensive medical care and potentially years of rehabilitation are likely to incur far greater costs than someone killed in an impact because they weren't wearing a lid?

if you want to look at risk-based healthcare cover then boozers, smokers, adventure sports fans, motorsports participants, boxers etc should surely all fall under similar rules, thats a whole big can of worms to open isnt it?

edit sorry forgot to add not being arsey or argumentative, just interested in the reasoning..

Not suggesting a helmet would stop an accident from happening and not sure i was either, how could it and where can i get one , what i am suggesting is that not wearing a helmet and going under a car,van or coming off on a bend and hitting a hedge, wall or whatever, there is a far bigger chance you will suffer a head injury and need the attention of the emergency services. You might get lucky but the chances aren't good. I back this up with two examples, one a bike filtering up torquay road, a bus stopped to let my m8 out in his car,my m8 and the biker didnt see each other because of the bus and the biker went over his bonnet, his helmet made a big dent in my m8's bonnet but the biker was fine, a bit shaken but was well enough for my m8 to give him a lift home and we stored his bike at work till he got it picked up. The second example was me years ago, going round a bend in winter, back end slid out and down i went, bounced up the kerb and along a dry stonwall, my helmet suffered bad gouges and was useless after that. Had i been helmetless, it would have been my head with the gouges, however in both these examples both of us walked away without damage or the need for the emergency services or additional care and that was my point, with a helmet there is a chance you will walk away but without one the chance is pretty much non existent and even if there was some head injury surely the damage would be less than without one and therefore the cost for rehabilitation would be less, of course there is allways an exception to this but in most cases i reckon my thinking is about right and not flawed or remotely weird.
As for the costs incurred with long term care against instant death, the difference is that the person with the helmet has done everything possible to minimise the risk and therefore in my view entitled to whatever care is necessary to give him or her some quality of life. The risk based healthcare arguement is allready in existance and has been for a very long time in personal insurance policies, if you are a bigger risk then you pay a bigger price for the same cover, ask a smoker who wants critical illness cover on his mortgage he will pay up to 65% more than a non smoker and i bet Lewis Hamilton pays more for life insurance than say myself due to his lifestyle, so it wouldnt be unreasonable to expect someone who wants to increase the risk of them having a bad head injury to pay more for the privilige surely.
Lastly though, i am not the sort of person who would want to tell anyone how to live their lives but i would get the right hump if i had to start stumping up extra money in the form of tax or national insurance contributions to pay for extra healthcare for someone who decided to live their life the way they wanted and entered a persistent vegitative state because of it. Just my thoughts.......

[Tom L]

helmet has done everything possible to minimise the risk and therefore in my view entitled to whatever care is necessary to give him or her some quality of life

they could have got the bus