Dan The Man

Almost every hospital visit and medical treatment is preventable. Should national medical care be reserved for genetic diseases and acts of god?

Fell from a ladder? Could have been wearing a safety harness. Type 2 diabetes? Could have made better lifestyle choices. Hit by a car crossing the street? Should have been in an SUV instead. Broke your leg skiing? Shouldn't have gone skiing. Lung cancer? Haha no chance.

trustnoone

nope, not those either. Who says people have to live on flood plains, tornado belts, places with freezing temperatures? Get hit by lightning, your own fault. Put the golf clubs down.

closetbiker

It's almost enough to cause one to stay in bed and pull the covers up over your head, but wait, that's not safe either. It turns out there about as many people who die falling out of bed, as die on bicycles.

larry_llama

nope ... shoulda prayed harder

radshark

Careful .. you might fall and crack your skull open. That gum your chewing won't fix it either...

Not that I care - I just don't want to pay for it

radshark

Really .. then it should be easy to show me the Canadian cycling advocates spending more time on this issue than infrastructure and road safety.

Priorities.

Seriously...

closetbiker

The VACC does not support the law, but does support increasing the numbers of people using bicycles, improvement in cycling infrastucture, education, and road safety initiatives

radshark

Come on man .. VACC doesn't speak for all of Canada's cycling advocates. Furthermore, its position concerning helmets does not lead me to believe helmet laws are its largest priorities. Ask cycling advocates in Canada to state their priorities and helmets laws would be near the bottom or not on the list.



My concern with this case is that it may be ill-timed. If Canada improved its cycling infrastructure and safety were it would be more readily apparent that helmets may not be necessary then maybe getting helmet laws over-turned would stand a better chance due to public perception.

closetbiker

Do you disagree that fair treatment of cyclists and encouraging people to ride bikes are goals of cycling advocates?

And since you say if Canada improved its cycling infrastructure and safety to the point at which helmets may not be necessary, aren't you saying the helmet law is a red herring to cycling safety?

(and I hope you're not suggesting helmets provide adequate protection in collisions with motor vehicles but, are you?)

radshark

Read this and mull it over. It's word for word on the VACC site. It's precisely what I'm saying.

"The VACC supports and encourages the use of helmets by cyclists of all ages, but also recognizes an adult’s right to make their own choice. The VACC believes that the over-emphasis of helmet use is detrimental to addressing important cycling safety issues. Although helmet use may reduce the severity of some injuries, the VACC believes the best measures to improve safety for cyclists are:

• Cycling education for both cyclists and motorists

• Cycling infrastructure for improved interactions between cyclists, motorists, and pedestrians."

radshark

Of course not. I didn't say anything about encouraging people to ride.

Nice try. Fair treatment for what? Road space, infrastructure funding,..? Specify.

Nope. I'm saying if public perception changed to a point were people think cycling without a helmet is safe the case may have stood a better chance. Read the post again.

Only and idiot would conclude that. I don't think anyone has ever said that ...

Your confused - you should read over posts more carefully and stop trying to jam words in peoples mouths.

Ultraspontane

No. You attempted to explain what you think are the reasons for fewer cycling deaths in Europe.

If you really think the reason that there are fewer cyclists in the USA is because of these so called helmet laws that never get enforced, then you are very incorrect in your assumption. What is your explanation for areas that have zero helmet laws but still have a very small percentage of cyclists? Its a cultural thing, not a helmet thing.

Its just a ridiculous assertion. And I don't even wear a helmet.

sudo bike

Are you OK paying for it if I fall off a ladder or get struck by lightning? At what point do you draw the line of "due diligence"? We went over this already.

Coulda eaten better, shoulda worn grippy shoes on the roof, shouldn'ta smoked, shouldn'ta spent too much time in the sun, shoulda waited 30 minutes after eating before swimming... really, the list can go on and on.

Others could have eaten better, but I'm OK paying for their care knowing that I'm not perfect and one day they'll pay for me. Making tit-for-tat exemptions just doesn't work on that system. Eventually you'll end up with something that pretty much only covers acts of God, and even in those cases it could be exempted (You shouldn't have gone out in a thunderstorm... sorry, no care for your case of lightning-strikitis). If you start adding conditions, things get messy real quick. We're already well on the road to a fat tax as it is, because the non-fat feel the fat are a drain on the system.

The problem is, everyone thinks what they are doing is best and if someone else isn't doing it the best way, heaven forbid they pay for their irresponsibility (not realizing others feel the same about them). Because, after all, it's always the other guy that's the idiot. It's the culture of selfishness that we're now reaping, really.

closetbiker

Oh, I've read and mulled that over (far before anyone has) because despite not being a member of the VACC, I was asked to help to write it.

Because I've heard the concerns that were voiced by the cycling community after the law was passed, I believe I do have some idea of what's on the cycling community's radar, so when you say something like..

maybe you should consider that you may, in fact, be wrong and consider there may be another reality outside of your own.

radshark

Yep yep that's exactly the way it is... thanks.

radshark

ok .. I just considered you suggestion and found I'm not wrong. Its about priorities. High priorities on radar. Not high - not on radar.

Isn't my reality great?

Don't forget your helmet.

sudo bike

Thanks for the well thought out response.

closetbiker

for you, maybe; for others - not so much

radshark

Thanks .. now stop humping my leg like a mangy mutt.

radshark

hey .. i got an idea - how about you and sudo meet and have a good cry about helmets, how they cramp your style, ruin your hair, etc.. You'll probably feel much better.

Cheers,

sudo bike

I don't know what this means, sorry. You seem upset. Do you need a hug?

<- Check the avatar. No problem with helmets here.