Is it really that difficult to put a helmet on?

suzuki2000

suzuki2000

Well-known member
Forum Sponsor
On the way to a meeting this morning I pass this dude on an ebike (insert hatred of those things here) and at least he is wearing a helmet, a bike helmet anyways, but i notice it is on backwards...

It reminded me of this picture.
http://www.hdforums.com/forum/attac...stin-timberlakes-bike-79-backwards-helmet.jpg

If you can't operate the helmet, should you operate the machine? :rolleyes:

He looked like a homeless bum but on a shiny new ebike...
kind of looked like this but scaggly and dirty
http://s1.hubimg.com/u/252192_f520.jpg
 
Last edited:
His head, his life. I don't care what anyone else wears. If they ask me my thoughts, I will tell them, but I will not not a gear missionary.
 
I think all e-bikes and those that ride them deserve to be held accountable as either cyclists or low powered scoots.
They do whatever the **** they want on the road and get away with that *****.

so much anger and hatred for those pieces of junk.
 
nfq said:
I think all e-bikes and those that ride them deserve to be held accountable as either cyclists or low powered scoots.
They do whatever the **** they want on the road and get away with that *****.

so much anger and hatred for those pieces of junk.
Click to expand...

It seems to be a problem with e-bikes and many cyclists, from what I have seen. If your going to be on the road, obey the rules of the road, stop for stop signs, red lights and the rest. It is what it is though, getting angry about it changes nothing, I just deal with things as they come and keep the rubber side down.
 
nfq said:
I think all e-bikes and those that ride them deserve to be held accountable as either cyclists or low powered scoots.
They do whatever the **** they want on the road and get away with that *****.

so much anger and hatred for those pieces of junk.
Click to expand...

Surprisingly, this rider was actually following the road rules, stopped at a light waiting to turn green....

I almost had hope until I realized that he didn't have the mental accuity to understand front and back, therefore I must continue to hate :D
 
wonderings said:
His head, his life. I don't care what anyone else wears. If they ask me my thoughts, I will tell them, but I will not not a gear missionary.
Click to expand...

The only problem with that theory is if he gets into an accident and suffers severe injuries. Then the province, or in other words your taxes and mine, will pay for his medical bills and long term care. So as far as I'm concerned, as long as I'm paying taxes, I can demand everybody to wear a helmet and other appropriate gear.

This covers the ATGATT argument. For instance if you crash while wearing a wife beater, shorts and flip flops, you should be held at least partially if not fully responsible for any road rash injuries. Broken bones and other severe injuries are different, since they can happen even while wearing gear, but if you're negligent you are partially liable.
 
croco said:
The only problem with that theory is if he gets into an accident and suffers severe injuries. Then the province, or in other words your taxes and mine, will pay for his medical bills and long term care. So as far as I'm concerned, as long as I'm paying taxes, I can demand everybody to wear a helmet and other appropriate gear.

This covers the ATGATT argument. For instance if you crash while wearing a wife beater, shorts and flip flops, you should be held at least partially if not fully responsible for any road rash injuries. Broken bones and other severe injuries are different, since they can happen even while wearing gear, but if you're negligent you are partially liable.
Click to expand...

Why stop at helmets then? Why not eating habits? Smoking? Drinking? Make us all work out etc etc.
 
suzuki2000 said:
Surprisingly, this rider was actually following the road rules, stopped at a light waiting to turn green....

I almost had hope until I realized that he didn't have the mental accuity to understand front and back, therefore I must continue to hate :D
Click to expand...

If that's the case then I'd be willing to forgive this dood over the helmet. At least he's showing respect and regard for those he's sharing the road with.
 
wonderings said:
Why stop at helmets then? Why not eating habits? Smoking? Drinking? Make us all work out etc etc.
Click to expand...

You are either one of those people who I see riding half naked all the time, or you're trolling. Sorry, but what you are describing are general habits that have much deeper psychological and physiological implications. Poor diet is caused by so many factors, like poverty, stress, depression, lack of education, etc. Smoking and drinking are addictive, and once someone is hooked, it is VERY difficult to stop. Unless you've experienced withdrawal, you can't begin to understand how painful quitting can be.

Edit: I would actually like the government to ban salt and fat content above a certain level in snacks and corn syrup in drinks. That alone will almost eliminate the obesity epidemic. And if the government is so adamant about people quitting smoking, do not raise prices, just make the damn things illegal. But they are caving in to the cigarette, soft drink and snacks lobby.

Do not confuse the issue. You wouldn't use a grinder without protective goggles, even though the chances of getting a shard of metal into your eye is very small (happened to a friend, now he's ALWAYS wearing goggles). You wouldn't handle acid without gloves, even though the chances of spilling it are small. Why would you ride a bike without any protection, when even a slow speed low side can leave you scarred or disabled for life? What I am talking about is wearing a helmet, gloves, jacket and some damn shoes, not some existential struggle here.
 
Last edited:
I just yelled at an ******* today on an e-bike....he didn't want to wait at the redlight with the rest of traffic so he cuts into a gast station, then up onto the sidewalk on the other side of the street and proceeds to ride along the sidewalk to get to where he is going sooner I suppose. I hate e-bikes and would love to use them and their pilots for target practise.
 
wonderings said:
Why stop at helmets then? Why not eating habits? Smoking? Drinking? Make us all work out etc etc.
Click to expand...
Although the idea of a government mandated work out schedule is laughable (20lb weights would be 24lbs after the weight tax), you have a point. What about not covering the medical expenses of speeders, distracted drivers (text, phone, etc), red light runners, etc...
 
wonderings said:
Why stop at helmets then? Why not eating habits? Smoking? Drinking? Make us all work out etc etc.
Click to expand...

Everyone would probably look and feel a lot better if it was mandatory. Less strain on social services and health care. Maybe an uptick in sports related injuries and STDs but that's nothing in comparison to our current soup of heart disease, diabetes, cancer, substance abuse and mental illness.

Free will is an ugly thing sometimes. Yes, I'm simplifying, so no need to break out the Google links or anecdotes.
 
croco said:
What I am talking about is wearing a helmet, gloves, jacket and some damn shoes, not some existential struggle here.
Click to expand...
Yes, but you seem to miss the point that there is no end to that thinking, until you are so focused on the saftety that you've taken all the fun out of the activity, or deemed the activity unsafe all together. Everyone draws an arbitrary line in the sand where safety is concerned - for most the line is drawn before they even swing a leg over a bike, and even ATGATTers seem like psycho daredevils.

As to the original post, I'd give the guy a pass on the grounds that he can operate the bike effectively and courteously, even if the helmet is a bit of a stumper for him.
 
jolomatic said:
Yes, but you seem to miss the point that there is no end to that thinking, until you are so focused on the saftety that you've taken all the fun out of the activity, or deemed the activity unsafe all together. Everyone draws an arbitrary line in the sand where safety is concerned - for most the line is drawn before they even swing a leg over a bike, and even ATGATTers seem like psycho daredevils.
Click to expand...

You edited out the entire argument I was making. Your using the slippery slope argument, that is if the government mandates one thing, then they will end up controlling everything. That is false, because I'm sure you can name at least of dozen government regulations you agree with. But as I said in my original posts, I don't believe the government should legislate mandatory gear or whatever other safety measures. That is something you pulled out of thin air.

All I was arguing for is a sliding scale system, where you are responsible for preventable injuries. This does not involve the government in any way shape or form. You are free to ride completely naked, without a helmet on a bike without brakes and bald tires. But if you crash and the injuries are directly linked to one of your choices, you should be at least partially or completely liable. To spell it out, if your shoulder gets scraped to the bone because you wore a tshirt, and it could be proven that a leather jacket would have prevented it, the insurance company should not be fully responsible for the loss of your arm. Your choice, your loss.
 
croco said:
I don't believe the government should legislate mandatory gear or whatever other safety measures. That is something you pulled out of thin air.
Click to expand...
I didn't mention government at all.


croco said:
You edited out the entire argument I was making.
Click to expand...
My intention was not to quote you out of context - your full argument is there for everyone to read, just a quick scroll-up from mine. I only quoted part of what you said because it was a specific remark that I wanted to comment on... which was:


croco said:
What I am talking about is wearing a helmet, gloves, jacket and some damn shoes, not some existential struggle here.
Click to expand...
The question of "how much risk is acceptable" in any particular situation is very much an existential struggle. You can certainly bring law and government into the argument, but it's not necessary. My point is that everything you do has a certain amount of risk, and a certain amount of reward. The estimation of the relative amount of each for a given situation will vary hugely between individuals. So what seems like plain old common sense saftey to you, is paranoia to the guy on your left, and wanton recklessness to the guy on your right.

I tried to illustrate this point by mentioning that for most people, 'common sense safety' says don't get on a motorcycle in the first place, never mind what gear you wear.


As far as your proposal for an insurance payout scheme that reflects the level of saftey precaution you had taken prior to the accident - I acutally really like the concept. I think it would be a nightmare to adminster, but the idea makes sense (keep in mind that the normals would argue that under such a scheme, anyone on a motorcyle deserves no payout whatsoever, just for being stupid enough to ride a bike in the first place).

Though much more than that, I'd like to see the safety of the actual driving/manouvering rewarded, than the safety devices used.
Forum Sponsor
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom