I don't need no stinking helmet!

[sv-wolf]

This is a 'bad-tempered rant' warning. Sometimes I just get fed up with being 'civilised' about things.

As far as I am concerned the Sikhs fought for the right to wear turbans on their bikes in the UK (back in 1973, I think it was) and they won. And good luck to them. Great, I say.

The rest of us fought for the right not to wear helmets, and we lost - and that is damn bad luck. But I'm not up for whingeing about whether the Sikhs should be made to wear helmets just because I have to.

So, bloody good for the fact that the Sikhs have managed to wrestle a little bit of independent choice away from our political masters.

I've got no time for this 'rights' and 'privileges' baloney either. A right is something given by those with power to those without power. People bang on about their 'rights' usually when they want the powerful to let them do something. They bang on about 'priveleges' when they want the powerful to take something away from someone else. Big generalisation, (I'm feeling too p1ssed off to be detailed about this") but roughly true and the exceptions come to more or less the same thing.

I'll be straight here. I'm British because I was born here and have absorbed the culture and for no other reason. It's not my country: I don't own any of it. And I have no say in how it is run.

OK, every five years I get to put a cross on a bit of paper to choose between two political parties whose main public activity is to squabble about how best to further the interests of the rich and screw everyone else. That's a choice? That's democracy? - 'rule by the people'?

So as far as I am concerned it is just a matter of what you can get out of a political and commercial establishment who have their own agenda.

If people want the right to ride a bike without wearing a helmet they should fight for it. That takes a bit more effort though and it takes collective action. Much easier to whinge about Sikhs wearing turbans.

From where I stand, the moral and financial, religious, national and political arguments are just smoke in our eyes.

OK. Done!

I've been holding back on this since this thread started. And now I feel a lot better! Maybe now I can go off and vegetate in front of the telly for the rest of the evening.

Actually Sikh's are generally pretty cool - kind of like Klingon Hindu...

Very few Sikhs smoke. But the drink like fish. Alcoholism is a big problem among them. (I live almost opposite a Sikh temple and there is a big local Sikh community. There are good and bad among them, like any other group, but on the whole they are a great bunch.)

[paul246]

This is a 'bad-tempered rant' warning. Sometimes I just get fed up with being 'civilised' about things.

As far as I am concerned the Sikhs fought for the right to wear turbans on their bikes in the UK (back in 1973, I think it was) and they won. And good luck to them. Great, I say.

The rest of us fought for the right not to wear helmets, and we lost - and that is damn bad luck. But I'm not up for whingeing about whether the Sikhs should be made to wear helmets just because I have to.

So, bloody good for the fact that the Sikhs have managed to wrestle a little bit of independent choice away from our political masters.

I've got no time for this 'rights' and 'privileges' baloney either. A right is something given by those with power to those without power. People bang on about their 'rights' usually when they want the powerful to let them do something. They bang on about 'priveleges' when they want the powerful to take something away from someone else. Big generalisation, (I'm feeling too p1ssed off to be detailed about this") but roughly true and the exceptions come to more or less the same thing.

I'll be straight here. I'm British because I was born here and have absorbed the culture and for no other reason. It's not my country: I don't own any of it. And I have no say in how it is run.

OK, every five years I get to put a cross on a bit of paper to choose between two political parties whose main public activity is to squabble about how best to further the interests of the rich and screw everyone else. That's a choice? That's democracy? - 'rule by the people'?

So as far as I am concerned it is just a matter of what you can get out of a political and commercial establishment who have their own agenda.

If people want the right to ride a bike without wearing a helmet they should fight for it. That takes a bit more effort though and it takes collective action. Much easier to whinge about Sikhs wearing turbans.

From where I stand, the moral and financial, religious, national and political arguments are just smoke in our eyes.

OK. Done!

I've been holding back on this since this thread started. And now I feel a lot better! Maybe now I can go off and vegetate in front of the telly for the rest of the evening.

Actually Sikh's are generally pretty cool - kind of like Klingon Hindu...

Very few Sikhs smoke. But the drink like fish. Alcoholism is a big problem among them. (I live almost opposite a Sikh temple and there is a big local Sikh community. There are good and bad among them, like any other group, but on the whole they are a great bunch.)

So I guess its alright with you if we send you the bill for his cracked open head and his family's need for social assistance while he rots on disability?

[paul246]

As long as these people (anyone who wishes to ignore the safety of a properly designated motorcycle helmet) are willing to sign a waiver absolving all private and public insurance companies and all private and public medical programs of any social or financial responsibility toward them... then I'm fine with the idea.

Otherwise this person should make a choice between his religion and his chosen recreation.

So, are you going to sign a similar waiver since you choose to ride instead of driving a car? Because you're putting yourself at a mich higher risk (with risk of costs similarly borne by society) by choosing to ride a motorcycle.

Your argument is completely hollow.

Do you look both ways before you cross the street? I hope (for your sake) that you do.

I invested a far amount of money in training and safety gear when I took up motorcycling many years ago. I did it for myself and to help protect my family's interest and ultimately not to make them or myself a burden on society.

I also obey and respect the laws, and try not to take a childish attitude toward them. I know it isn't always convenient, but as an adult I can see the wisdom behind them.

I also respect the advances made within the helmet industry and keep myself apprised of them and upgrade my helmets accordingly.

Please also read my profile as I have other interests with which I try to take a professional approach while practicing the best possible risk mitigation.

[sv-wolf]

So I guess its alright with you if we send you the bill for his cracked open head and his family's need for social assistance while he rots on disability?

You asked the wrong question there, paul.

First, I resent the callous inhumanity of your reply. If someone cracks open his head, in my world the question of how much it is going to cost, or who is to blame are not the principal things we should be thinking about.

Second, I believe in a collective humanity where we share our misfortunes and our risks as well as take advantage of our successes. So, I have no problem with what you suggest, only the contemptuous terms in which you suggest it.

Third, I think the shallow-minded individualism behind your thinking is part of the problem we are discussing here, not the solution.

Fourth, to answer your question directly. The evidence as I understand and interpret it, shows that the tax burden actually falls upon corporations not upon employees - however it appears on the surface, and whatever the idiocies and dishonesties of neo-classical economics might suggest.

Unless you own a large amount of productive capital, you'll be glad to know that someone else's cracked skull and his familiy's grief are not things that need upset your lifestyle choices.

[Edit: All I know about you, paul comes from a couple of posts you have made on this site. So it is probably very unfair of me to direct my comments at you in this way. But as I said, I'm in a bad-tempered, ranting mood at the moment. Think of my remarks as a shout of protest against the common and very dreary ideological attitudes your post rehashes.]

Cheers

Richard

[Kal]

OK, every five years I get to put a cross on a bit of paper to choose between two political parties whose main public activity is to squabble about how best to further the interests of the rich and screw everyone else. That's a choice? That's democracy? - 'rule by the people'?

So as far as I am concerned it is just a matter of what you can get out of a political and commercial establishment who have their own agenda.

Don't you work for local Government?

[shane-o]

So I guess its alright with you if we send you the bill for his cracked open head and his family's need for social assistance while he rots on disability?

You asked the wrong question there, paul.

First, I resent the callous inhumanity of your reply. If someone cracks open his head, in my world the question of how much it is going to cost, or who is to blame are not the principal things we should be thinking about.

Second, I believe in a collective humanity where we share our misfortunes and our risks as well as take advantage of our successes. So, I have no problem with what you suggest, only the contemptuous terms in which you suggest it.

Third, I think the shallow-minded individualism behind your thinking is part of the problem we are discussing here, not the solution.

Fourth, to answer your question directly. The evidence as I understand and interpret it, shows that the tax burden actually falls upon corporations not upon employees - however it appears on the surface, and whatever the idiocies and dishonesties of neo-classical economics might suggest.

Unless you own a large amount of productive capital, you'll be glad to know that someone else's cracked skull and his familiy's grief are not things that need upset your lifestyle choices.

[Edit: All I know about you, paul comes from a couple of posts you have made on this site. So it is probably very unfair of me to direct my comments at you in this way. But as I said, I'm in a bad-tempered, ranting mood at the moment. Think of my remarks as a shout of protest against the common and very dreary ideological attitudes your post rehashes.]

Cheers

Richard

essentially I agree with your touchy feely ideologies, it makes me warm and fuzzy, its very holistic and I to would rather support my community than tear it a new one

but

one rule for one and not for the other...sucks, if you create a rule then it must be applied to all, irrespective of race, religion, creed, culture etc etc should have nothing to do with it.


Helmets are enforced for many reasons, 2 are protection of the head and minimalise mortality and morbidity. Morbidity has a community cost value. Smokers pay extra tax to help cover the cost of their care with smoking related disease, seatbelt s are compulsory to decrease death and injury therefore cost etc etc etc

I don't see why I should have to absorb the cost of risk taking behaviors of any religion, in Canada the rule is all wear helmets...so... everyone should wear a helmet !!!!! period, there should be no room for individual application...or dont make the rule in the first place.


Anyhoo, i like your posts, your one of the few in here that can actually articulate in an interesting readable fashion, and someone who can make a point without stripping people to the corr

[paul246]

So I guess its alright with you if we send you the bill for his cracked open head and his family's need for social assistance while he rots on disability?

You asked the wrong question there, paul.

First, I resent the callous inhumanity of your reply. If someone cracks open his head, in my world the question of how much it is going to cost, or who is to blame are not the principal things we should be thinking about.

Second, I believe in a collective humanity where we share our misfortunes and our risks as well as take advantage of our successes. So, I have no problem with what you suggest, only the contemptuous terms in which you suggest it.

Third, I think the shallow-minded individualism behind your thinking is part of the problem we are discussing here, not the solution.

Fourth, to answer your question directly. The evidence as I understand and interpret it, shows that the tax burden actually falls upon corporations not upon employees - however it appears on the surface, and whatever the idiocies and dishonesties of neo-classical economics might suggest.

Unless you own a large amount of productive capital, you'll be glad to know that someone else's cracked skull and his familiy's grief are not things that need upset your lifestyle choices.

[Edit: All I know about you, paul comes from a couple of posts you have made on this site. So it is probably very unfair of me to direct my comments at you in this way. But as I said, I'm in a bad-tempered, ranting mood at the moment. Think of my remarks as a shout of protest against the common and very dreary ideological attitudes your post rehashes.]

Cheers

Richard

Well, that is closer to reality, without today's tendency toward "sugar-coating". Reality is what his family would face in the end, isn't it?

Also, I don't know you either. But from reading your anti-helmet rant I can only guess at the amount of lost joy from motorcycling it must cost you every time you force that object that the political demons are making you wear, onto you head. You have to wear a helmet where you live, do you not? Must be a real downer to be constantly forced to do something like that.

The person with a postive attitude recognizes that it may not be the most convenient, comfortable or, in some minds, romantic way to travel, but it is still the safest and unselfish thing to do, along with wearing all the other protective gear. The person with a positive attitude would also continue wearing a helmet even if the law was changed to allow no helmet use. He or she wears the certified helmet and other protective gear because they know it is their best chance at survival.

I have witnessed many tragic motorcycle accidents, and luckily I have never been involved in one. Without going into detail suffice to say I was sold on the concept of full protective gear, especially the use of certified helmets, along with proper training and the development of a mature and positive attitude toward the sport

[Kal]

Bollocks to a positive attitude

Life isn't fair, and it isn't a circus either. Get over it and ride on.

[paul246]

SV- my apologies are in order if, as it seems, I misunderstood your original message. So, I am sorry for that.

My issue is of course, the mandated helmet issue. As far as the Sikh that was featured by the original poster, I have no issue with them or any other group for that matter.

So I will stick to my beliefs (full protective gear, all the time) and leave it at that.

BTW, I recall reading your India blog some time back and still have a shortcut to it pasted on my desktop. Great story, thoroughly enjoyed reading it. Next time I'm over your way ( I was in London for a week and the Yorkshire Dales for 2 weeks this past summer) I'll share a Theakstons with you.

[sv-wolf]

Well, that is closer to reality, without today's tendency toward "sugar-coating". Reality is what his family would face in the end, isn't it?

Also, I don't know you either. But from reading your anti-helmet rant I can only guess at the amount of lost joy from motorcycling it must cost you every time you force that object that the political demons are making you wear, onto you head. You have to wear a helmet where you live, do you not? Must be a real downer to be constantly forced to do something like that.

The person with a postive attitude recognizes that it may not be the most convenient, comfortable or, in some minds, romantic way to travel, but it is still the safest and unselfish thing to do, along with wearing all the other protective gear. The person with a positive attitude would also continue wearing a helmet even if the law was changed to allow no helmet use. He or she wears the certified helmet and other protective gear because they know it is their best chance at survival.

I have witnessed many tragic motorcycle accidents, and luckily I have never been involved in one. Without going into detail suffice to say I was sold on the concept of full protective gear, especially the use of certified helmets, along with proper training and the development of a mature and positive attitude toward the sport

Hi Paul

Ah well! Now there's a thing.

I wouldn't dream of getting on my bike without my lid, or riding in anything other than full gear. And if you check back through my posts I think you'll find that's the advice I always give to others, too.

If you confuse good sense with political motivation, or your own particular take on this issue with 'maturity' or 'positiveness' then of course you are going to miss a lot of the issues here.

If I took your comments literally, I would have to conclude that all Sikhs, who ride in a turban instead of a lid for reasons of religious observation, are 'negative' and 'immature'. Even on the simplest level, I think the odds are against that somehow. People lead complex lives and have complex value systems. They do not all weigh them up using the same personal or cultural apparatus that you or I do.

And just to avoid further misunderstanding, I'm not a Sikh or a religious person either. I'm an atheist.


Take care

Richard