HELMETS, HELMETS, HELMETS
#41
11-02-2000, 09:30 AM
FKNA
Businesses are made of individuals so OSHA is a good example. What OSHA requires my employer to enforce on me effects me the individual very directly.
Drinking on the other hand basically reinforces my arguement for helmets. You can drink all you want this is very true. You can even drink your self to death. But it is illegal to be drunk in PUBLIC.
Smoking is well on its way to becoming illegal. Big tobacco is running out of money to buy its way past the government. Plus not to infringe on non-smokers it would seem prudent for all smokers to smoke inside their bubble suits so they don't harm the lungs of the people around them. And I type this as I myself am puffing away.
Its basically like this. Government has to weight the risks envolved in certain activities against the impact it would have on those activites to make them safer. There is no law requiring bubble suits because the cost and inconvience to the public outweights the potential good it might do. But there are laws about seatbelts. The impact it has on driving and riding in a vechicle are slim compaired to the proven amounts of injury and death that are prevented. I feel no oppression(sp) by the government when it requires that I wear a seatbelt. I still have the freedom to choose not to, but I have to realize that I can be penalized if I get caught breaking that law. I look at helmets as basically the same type of thing. A helmet doesn't impact the joy I feel while riding my Quad be it 45 MPH over whoops and jumps or 10 MPH slogging through the mud.
Businesses are made of individuals so OSHA is a good example. What OSHA requires my employer to enforce on me effects me the individual very directly.
Drinking on the other hand basically reinforces my arguement for helmets. You can drink all you want this is very true. You can even drink your self to death. But it is illegal to be drunk in PUBLIC.
Smoking is well on its way to becoming illegal. Big tobacco is running out of money to buy its way past the government. Plus not to infringe on non-smokers it would seem prudent for all smokers to smoke inside their bubble suits so they don't harm the lungs of the people around them. And I type this as I myself am puffing away.
Its basically like this. Government has to weight the risks envolved in certain activities against the impact it would have on those activites to make them safer. There is no law requiring bubble suits because the cost and inconvience to the public outweights the potential good it might do. But there are laws about seatbelts. The impact it has on driving and riding in a vechicle are slim compaired to the proven amounts of injury and death that are prevented. I feel no oppression(sp) by the government when it requires that I wear a seatbelt. I still have the freedom to choose not to, but I have to realize that I can be penalized if I get caught breaking that law. I look at helmets as basically the same type of thing. A helmet doesn't impact the joy I feel while riding my Quad be it 45 MPH over whoops and jumps or 10 MPH slogging through the mud.
#42
11-02-2000, 11:32 AM
FKNA,
I fall into that category of hunting and other stuff as I drive a utility Quad. I would like to say that I do advocate the freedom of choice as that is what our country was founded on. I would however like to say that accidents can still happen at low speeds that can be traumatic.
I was recently heading back from scouting my deer sites late in the evening. I had not been through the area in about a year but was fairly familiar with the area and thought I knew the trail well enough. There is a creek that runs through the oil well path that I take back to my property. After negotiating the creek there is about a 100 yard stretch that was fairly straight and flat with no obstacles...I thought or at least remebered it that way..i figured I would just gas it and get home.
Well, during the spring the creek had overflowed and eroded an alternate path about 50 feet further up the trail. ( I think the beavers helped with this) Needless to say I hit this ditch doing probably about 20-25mph and was stopped dead in my tracks. All I can remember is trying to get back to my feet in a daze. I had flown over the handle bars and struck my head on a hard object. The impact had cracked my head wide open and blood was running all over the place. I suffered a cracked skull and severe concussion. You can still see the dent in my forehead.
I can tell you now that was a wake up call. I have since not gotten on my quad without my helmet and I refuse to allow any member of my family on it without a helmet either. But this is my choice.
It may appear humorous to some when they see me putting around pulling a trailer from point a to point b wearing my helmet but I value my family to much not to do it.
I do not advocate laws regarding helmet usage as I feel our government imposes too much in that arena already. I merely want to reply to the post to let people know that you dont need to be racing or riding hard to have an accident.
Freedom of choice is the right answer however knowledge and common sense need to be applied in your decision, whatever that may be.
Just my $.02
I fall into that category of hunting and other stuff as I drive a utility Quad. I would like to say that I do advocate the freedom of choice as that is what our country was founded on. I would however like to say that accidents can still happen at low speeds that can be traumatic.
I was recently heading back from scouting my deer sites late in the evening. I had not been through the area in about a year but was fairly familiar with the area and thought I knew the trail well enough. There is a creek that runs through the oil well path that I take back to my property. After negotiating the creek there is about a 100 yard stretch that was fairly straight and flat with no obstacles...I thought or at least remebered it that way..i figured I would just gas it and get home.
Well, during the spring the creek had overflowed and eroded an alternate path about 50 feet further up the trail. ( I think the beavers helped with this) Needless to say I hit this ditch doing probably about 20-25mph and was stopped dead in my tracks. All I can remember is trying to get back to my feet in a daze. I had flown over the handle bars and struck my head on a hard object. The impact had cracked my head wide open and blood was running all over the place. I suffered a cracked skull and severe concussion. You can still see the dent in my forehead.
I can tell you now that was a wake up call. I have since not gotten on my quad without my helmet and I refuse to allow any member of my family on it without a helmet either. But this is my choice.
It may appear humorous to some when they see me putting around pulling a trailer from point a to point b wearing my helmet but I value my family to much not to do it.
I do not advocate laws regarding helmet usage as I feel our government imposes too much in that arena already. I merely want to reply to the post to let people know that you dont need to be racing or riding hard to have an accident.
Freedom of choice is the right answer however knowledge and common sense need to be applied in your decision, whatever that may be.
Just my $.02
#43
11-02-2000, 03:15 PM
Ursus,
When speaking of OSHA you're speaking of individuals (plural) which makes a group. Therefore I still say this is a bad example. OSHA is there to protect an individuals rights not to infringe upon them. This reminds me of the boy that joined the boy scouts then tried to sue because he didn't want to say thier prayer. When part of a group one must accept the rules and regulations of that group.
You state that our government must weigh the risks involved with certain activities. In that case, lets crunch some numbers. There are 40,000 atv injuries each year, 40% which are children 16 and under. Out of the 40,000 there are 12,000 that result in head injuries, 14% result in hospitalization (480). That's going to leave 28,000 injuries each year that are NOT head related. Using your logic our government should step in with laws requiring full safety gear, boots, goggles, chest protector, etc???
Let's put things in perspective here. Each year there are 8,000 horseback riding head related injuries each year, 27% result in hospitalization (2,180). There are 169,000 head related bicycle related injuries, 6% resulting in hospitalization (10,140).
HOSPITALIZATION
ATV = 480
Horseback riding = 2,160
Bicycling = 10,140
Now that we have things in perspective I must assume that you would also be in favor of helmet laws for horseback riders and/or bicyclist. Am I correct in that assumption?
When speaking of OSHA you're speaking of individuals (plural) which makes a group. Therefore I still say this is a bad example. OSHA is there to protect an individuals rights not to infringe upon them. This reminds me of the boy that joined the boy scouts then tried to sue because he didn't want to say thier prayer. When part of a group one must accept the rules and regulations of that group.
You state that our government must weigh the risks involved with certain activities. In that case, lets crunch some numbers. There are 40,000 atv injuries each year, 40% which are children 16 and under. Out of the 40,000 there are 12,000 that result in head injuries, 14% result in hospitalization (480). That's going to leave 28,000 injuries each year that are NOT head related. Using your logic our government should step in with laws requiring full safety gear, boots, goggles, chest protector, etc???
Let's put things in perspective here. Each year there are 8,000 horseback riding head related injuries each year, 27% result in hospitalization (2,180). There are 169,000 head related bicycle related injuries, 6% resulting in hospitalization (10,140).
HOSPITALIZATION
ATV = 480
Horseback riding = 2,160
Bicycling = 10,140
Now that we have things in perspective I must assume that you would also be in favor of helmet laws for horseback riders and/or bicyclist. Am I correct in that assumption?
#44
11-02-2000, 08:21 PM
i agree badcat i think everyone should have to wear a helmet its stupid thats why so many people get hurt on atv's it doesnt take much my one freind wasnt wearing a helmit and i branch from a tree hit him in the head and knocked him out and he rolled down a 30 foot back luckly he survived it but just a simple thing as wearing a helmet can change your life forever
#45
11-03-2000, 12:39 AM
FKNA
To a certain extent I would say you are correct in that assumption if something can make activity safer without detracting from that activity any enjoyment then I am for it.
You said"When speaking of OSHA you're speaking of individuals (plural) which makes a group". Well when I am speaking about Helmet laws I am still speaking about individuals (plural(atv riders)) which makes a group. I still fail to see why my example is not valid. If one wants to join the group of ATV riders on public land and one of the rules and regulations are to wear a helmet then that person shouldn't gripe about personal freedom and helmets. Also OSHA regualtions may require that I do things that I may not want to do so it infringes as well as protects (kinda like a helmet).
I think you need to crunch some more numbers to truly arrive at an accurate figure.
Are there atleast 5 times as many people who ride horses as ATVs? I would think that there are. What about bikes? Are there atleast 21 times the number of bike riders? Most certainly there are, I would hazzard a guess that there are atleast 50 times the number of bikers and I feel that number is conservative. We would also need to examine the severity of injury per activity. Are bike riders when in accidents involving no other vechicles injured as much as ATV riders involved with no other vechicles?
I think if you looked at the number of accidents per activity that ATVs would be much more dangerous. Infact I think that it is a mistake to try to lump ATVs with bikes or horses. ATVs have a danger potential more inline with motorcycles or automobiles.
Yes I realize that there is a fine line between useful protection and overprotection. I am not saying that all hunters should be required to wear flak jackets and army helmets, even if it would make them safer. Why? because it would impact greatly the pursuit of game. It would hinder their movment and their ability to hear their prey. But in most areas I believe that they are required to wear Orange during certain deer seasons and they are restricted to the number of deer that they may harvest.
We as a society sacrifice personal freedom for safety everyday. Be it random drug screening at the workplace, random roadblocks to find DUI offenders, the videotaping of our movements or any numbers of other types of personal freedoms that we the nation as a whole feel that it is alright to sacrifice. And it seems that your whole argument is based on the rational that personal freedom is paramont. When infact it is not(maybe to you it is,but to the nation as a whole it is not).
To me it would seem that it would be more worth your effort to ensure that you still have public places to ride before worrying if in those public places you had to wear a helmet. I would also think that it would be well worth wearing a helmet if it meant that we could ride in our National Forests, our State Parks and other public places.
To a certain extent I would say you are correct in that assumption if something can make activity safer without detracting from that activity any enjoyment then I am for it.
You said"When speaking of OSHA you're speaking of individuals (plural) which makes a group". Well when I am speaking about Helmet laws I am still speaking about individuals (plural(atv riders)) which makes a group. I still fail to see why my example is not valid. If one wants to join the group of ATV riders on public land and one of the rules and regulations are to wear a helmet then that person shouldn't gripe about personal freedom and helmets. Also OSHA regualtions may require that I do things that I may not want to do so it infringes as well as protects (kinda like a helmet).
I think you need to crunch some more numbers to truly arrive at an accurate figure.
Are there atleast 5 times as many people who ride horses as ATVs? I would think that there are. What about bikes? Are there atleast 21 times the number of bike riders? Most certainly there are, I would hazzard a guess that there are atleast 50 times the number of bikers and I feel that number is conservative. We would also need to examine the severity of injury per activity. Are bike riders when in accidents involving no other vechicles injured as much as ATV riders involved with no other vechicles?
I think if you looked at the number of accidents per activity that ATVs would be much more dangerous. Infact I think that it is a mistake to try to lump ATVs with bikes or horses. ATVs have a danger potential more inline with motorcycles or automobiles.
Yes I realize that there is a fine line between useful protection and overprotection. I am not saying that all hunters should be required to wear flak jackets and army helmets, even if it would make them safer. Why? because it would impact greatly the pursuit of game. It would hinder their movment and their ability to hear their prey. But in most areas I believe that they are required to wear Orange during certain deer seasons and they are restricted to the number of deer that they may harvest.
We as a society sacrifice personal freedom for safety everyday. Be it random drug screening at the workplace, random roadblocks to find DUI offenders, the videotaping of our movements or any numbers of other types of personal freedoms that we the nation as a whole feel that it is alright to sacrifice. And it seems that your whole argument is based on the rational that personal freedom is paramont. When infact it is not(maybe to you it is,but to the nation as a whole it is not).
To me it would seem that it would be more worth your effort to ensure that you still have public places to ride before worrying if in those public places you had to wear a helmet. I would also think that it would be well worth wearing a helmet if it meant that we could ride in our National Forests, our State Parks and other public places.
#46
11-06-2000, 05:34 PM
Ursus,
OSHA: I must apologize for not addressing this completely. OSHA is a prime example of our government stepping in and PROTECTING individual rights, not stripping them away. OSHA was put in place in order to protect an individual in the work place. In certain kinds of businesses one might be required to wear a helmet due to OSHA regulations. When one joins a group and/or organization that person must abide by the rules in place. i.e. If I wanted to place something on the grinder in my garage and NOT wear safety goggles, that's my choice (individual right). If I wanted to work at company X and put something on their grinder I would then have to abide by their rules and regulations and by OSHA. Same applies with an atv. If I wanted to go out riding and not wear a helmet it should be my choice just like it should be my choice not to wear goggles at home while grinding. On the other hand if I decided I wanted to join an atv club (which now makes me part of a group or organization) and one of their rules was that helmets are required, then I would have to abide by those rules if I wanted to join that group. As per my previous posts I said OSHA is not a good example because it's dealing with groups instead of individuals. I guess it would be better said that OSHA protects individual rights while helmet laws take away an individuals right. When it comes to dealing with individuals, one on one....our government should NOT be making our decisions for us. Whatever the decision may be, right or wrong it's ours to make.
In regards to statistics that were used. If I could of found the ratio of accidents vs. number of people involved in that particular activity I would of used those numbers. Unfortunately I could not find any sites with that information. Nonetheless I used those stats because there have been some posts using "medical cost" as a reason why we should have helmet laws. And if one were to crunch the numbers one would clearly see that there is a significantly difference between atv related medical costs and other activity related medical costs such as bicycling. And if one is going to use that as an argument I would then assume that they would be in favor for helmets laws regarding bicycling, horseback riding, skiing, etc. As far as you referring to "severity" with these other activities I could not find more accurate information. That's why in my statistics I used "hospitalization" as a statistic instead of "injuries".
Places to ride: I also address that issue and do currently lobby for places to ride. I haven't brought that subject up and or addressed it in this thread since the title of this thread is about helmets. Rest assured, I'm just as passionate about places to ride as I am with protecting individual rights.
National Forests: Even though I'm against helmet laws, I have nothing against having to wear a helmet on a specific piece of land in order to enjoy it. To me it's the same as private land. If the owner of private land requires helmet one can choose to ride on that land or not. When public land as a whole is concerned we do not need LAWS making decisions for us saying we must wear a helmet. We're intelligent individuals and do know how to make decisions for ourselves.
OSHA: I must apologize for not addressing this completely. OSHA is a prime example of our government stepping in and PROTECTING individual rights, not stripping them away. OSHA was put in place in order to protect an individual in the work place. In certain kinds of businesses one might be required to wear a helmet due to OSHA regulations. When one joins a group and/or organization that person must abide by the rules in place. i.e. If I wanted to place something on the grinder in my garage and NOT wear safety goggles, that's my choice (individual right). If I wanted to work at company X and put something on their grinder I would then have to abide by their rules and regulations and by OSHA. Same applies with an atv. If I wanted to go out riding and not wear a helmet it should be my choice just like it should be my choice not to wear goggles at home while grinding. On the other hand if I decided I wanted to join an atv club (which now makes me part of a group or organization) and one of their rules was that helmets are required, then I would have to abide by those rules if I wanted to join that group. As per my previous posts I said OSHA is not a good example because it's dealing with groups instead of individuals. I guess it would be better said that OSHA protects individual rights while helmet laws take away an individuals right. When it comes to dealing with individuals, one on one....our government should NOT be making our decisions for us. Whatever the decision may be, right or wrong it's ours to make.
In regards to statistics that were used. If I could of found the ratio of accidents vs. number of people involved in that particular activity I would of used those numbers. Unfortunately I could not find any sites with that information. Nonetheless I used those stats because there have been some posts using "medical cost" as a reason why we should have helmet laws. And if one were to crunch the numbers one would clearly see that there is a significantly difference between atv related medical costs and other activity related medical costs such as bicycling. And if one is going to use that as an argument I would then assume that they would be in favor for helmets laws regarding bicycling, horseback riding, skiing, etc. As far as you referring to "severity" with these other activities I could not find more accurate information. That's why in my statistics I used "hospitalization" as a statistic instead of "injuries".
Places to ride: I also address that issue and do currently lobby for places to ride. I haven't brought that subject up and or addressed it in this thread since the title of this thread is about helmets. Rest assured, I'm just as passionate about places to ride as I am with protecting individual rights.
National Forests: Even though I'm against helmet laws, I have nothing against having to wear a helmet on a specific piece of land in order to enjoy it. To me it's the same as private land. If the owner of private land requires helmet one can choose to ride on that land or not. When public land as a whole is concerned we do not need LAWS making decisions for us saying we must wear a helmet. We're intelligent individuals and do know how to make decisions for ourselves.
#47
11-07-2000, 10:42 AM
FKNA
I must assume that you didn't read my last post completly. Because in it I state "If one wants to join the group of ATV riders on public land and one of the rules and regulations are to wear a helmet then that person shouldn't gripe about personal freedom and helmets." See the government isn't attacking you or the individual's rights, but rather protecting the group of ATV riders as a whole. So say the DNR decides that all non-enclosed ORV's must be used with proper protective equipment to be operated within the jurisdiction(sp) of the DNR. Or inother words if you ride on DNR maintained land you must wear protective gear ie a helmet. Since they are responsible for the use of that area they would be the 'land owner' so to speak in that they control how the land is used in a manner similar to how a private citizen would decide how their land is used. Now I know what you are going to say, the DNR isn't really a 'land owner' more of a manager that is basically employed by Joe Taxpayer. That is very correct. But I am just as much of a public 'land owner' as any other tax paying citizen. And if enough taxpayers like myself decide that yes helmets in the public land is the way to go and if we are the majority (this being a democracy and all) then our opinion would basically out vote yours. Therefore as the majority we would be the defacto 'land owners' and then you would freely don your helmet and ride along with us or stay on your own property and ride without a helmet. This is basically what the 'Green" people are doing. And like it or not, if they get their way it will be what we are forced to live with, untill such time as they are no longer the majority(or atleast no longer the majority of the voices heard).
Appearently there are more people with your opinion on this matter(or the people who share my opinion just quietly wear their helmets and don't care what happens to you or anyone else), or otherwise it would not be the way it is today.
I quess all we can do is agree to disagree on this topic. Hopefully our debate has been informative to others in the fourm.
I guess it boils down to the fact that you can't mandate common sense, no matter how much one may want to.
I must assume that you didn't read my last post completly. Because in it I state "If one wants to join the group of ATV riders on public land and one of the rules and regulations are to wear a helmet then that person shouldn't gripe about personal freedom and helmets." See the government isn't attacking you or the individual's rights, but rather protecting the group of ATV riders as a whole. So say the DNR decides that all non-enclosed ORV's must be used with proper protective equipment to be operated within the jurisdiction(sp) of the DNR. Or inother words if you ride on DNR maintained land you must wear protective gear ie a helmet. Since they are responsible for the use of that area they would be the 'land owner' so to speak in that they control how the land is used in a manner similar to how a private citizen would decide how their land is used. Now I know what you are going to say, the DNR isn't really a 'land owner' more of a manager that is basically employed by Joe Taxpayer. That is very correct. But I am just as much of a public 'land owner' as any other tax paying citizen. And if enough taxpayers like myself decide that yes helmets in the public land is the way to go and if we are the majority (this being a democracy and all) then our opinion would basically out vote yours. Therefore as the majority we would be the defacto 'land owners' and then you would freely don your helmet and ride along with us or stay on your own property and ride without a helmet. This is basically what the 'Green" people are doing. And like it or not, if they get their way it will be what we are forced to live with, untill such time as they are no longer the majority(or atleast no longer the majority of the voices heard).
Appearently there are more people with your opinion on this matter(or the people who share my opinion just quietly wear their helmets and don't care what happens to you or anyone else), or otherwise it would not be the way it is today.
I quess all we can do is agree to disagree on this topic. Hopefully our debate has been informative to others in the fourm.
I guess it boils down to the fact that you can't mandate common sense, no matter how much one may want to.
#48
11-07-2000, 11:33 AM
Ursus,
Ahhhhhh, we're definitely going to agree on several points now.
You're so right, when it comes to "voice heard" regarding the helmet law those of us that disagree with the helmet laws are the minority. So listen up people, if you're going to complain about the helmet laws make sure your voice is heard in the right places.
"I guess it boils down to the fact that you can't mandate common sense, no matter how much one may want to." This is one of the reasons I oppose the helmet law.
This has definitely been an interesting thread that appear to be reaching it's end. One final note, for or against helmet usage.....it doesn't matter, all of my fellow atvers.....use sound judgement while you are out there today so you can ride again come tomorrow.
Ahhhhhh, we're definitely going to agree on several points now.
You're so right, when it comes to "voice heard" regarding the helmet law those of us that disagree with the helmet laws are the minority. So listen up people, if you're going to complain about the helmet laws make sure your voice is heard in the right places. "I guess it boils down to the fact that you can't mandate common sense, no matter how much one may want to." This is one of the reasons I oppose the helmet law.
This has definitely been an interesting thread that appear to be reaching it's end. One final note, for or against helmet usage.....it doesn't matter, all of my fellow atvers.....use sound judgement while you are out there today so you can ride again come tomorrow.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)