StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Crossroads Inc. wrote:Why is it, every Libertarian I meet (in Arizona) has a hard on for:
Smoking
Carrying a gun of ANY type
Driving with out seat belts,
Biking with out helmets

Give it some time and hopefully natural selection will sort it out.

wautd wrote:

Crossroads Inc. wrote:Why is it, every Libertarian I meet (in Arizona) has a hard on for:
Smoking
Carrying a gun of ANY type
Driving with out seat belts,
Biking with out helmets

Give it some time and hopefully natural selection will sort it out.

The problem is that that (a) does not constitute natural selection, and (b) in the process of selecting themselves, chain-smoking, binge-drinking pistol-packing, helmletless motorcyclists and seatbeltless motorists tend to "select" a lot more people than themselves and others like themselves: The chain-smoker is playing russian roulette with two rounds ion a .44 magnum, yes, but he's got a fully loaded Calico chambered in .22 in the other hand and is spraying it wildly. The Binge-Drinker may not take out anyone but himself if he's polite enough to keep it in his own home, but more often he's going to start barroom brawls, or synergize his alcohol with driving. The guys who don't wear crash helmets or seatbelts are, admittedly, not endangering anyone else directly by their failure to use safety equipment, but if they die, it was still a pointless death; and if they don't die, they serve as a bad example. (Much, much worse is the ones who get thrown from a vehicle and the doctor tells them that if they had been wearing a seat-belt, they would've been killed.*)



*That is an example of a medical tidbit that should be withheld. I know at least one of my peers who only buckles up in my car, and only because the alternative is my leaving her whereverthehell we happen to be if I catch her unbelted. She knows one of these people, those "if I had been wearing a seat-belt, I'd be dead" people, and is convinced that seat belts kill you more often than not.

Crossroads Inc. wrote:How do people GET this why? I mean, reverse psychology is something for grade school kids, saying "Don't do this, its bad" because in truth, it is actually good, Is just so... Juvenile! How the hell do people get so detached from reality?

Well, at least there will be the evolutionary pressure for the extinction of this type of people: They will suffer higher mortality rates.

Iosef Cross wrote:

Crossroads Inc. wrote:How do people GET this why? I mean, reverse psychology is something for grade school kids, saying "Don't do this, its bad" because in truth, it is actually good, Is just so... Juvenile! How the hell do people get so detached from reality?

Well, at least there will be the evolutionary pressure for the extinction of this type of people: They will suffer higher mortality rates.

Ye gods, Have you not got tired of these one line INternet Tough Guy responses yet -_-

wautd wrote:Give it some time and hopefully natural selection will sort it out.

Iosef Cross wrote:Well, at least there will be the evolutionary pressure for the extinction of this type of people: They will suffer higher mortality rates.

What makes you guys think they wont kill other people with their stupidity?

ShadowDragon8685 wrote:The guys who don't wear crash helmets or seatbelts are, admittedly, not endangering anyone else directly by their failure to use safety equipment

I can tell you from professional experience that a person in a car who doesn't wear their seatbelt, in the event of a collision, becomes a fucking missile bouncing around the car's cabin. It is entirely possible for a single person that isn't fastened in to kill everyone else in the car with his own corpse.

God damn Los, that's just...

Man, you just ruined breakfast. You should make a PSA thread warning thread of the little mistakes that have horrible consequences, like the lady who sliced open her ankle.

Korto wrote:When I did a motorcycle safety course, the instructor told us upfront that a helmet is totally useless in a head-on collision. Crush it like an egg-shell. "What it's for, is this..." he said, and then threw the helmet he was holding, sending it skimming hard and fast across the tarmac.
Now, he was either exagerating the uselessness of a helmet in a serious collision, or possibly I mis-remember his exact words, but the point was made.

Nothing will save a motorcyclist in the event of a full head-on collision.

As a (sorta related) counter point however, there's Hans Monderman

To make communities safer and more appealing, Mr. Monderman argues, you should first remove the traditional paraphernalia of their roads - the traffic lights and speed signs; the signs exhorting drivers to stop, slow down and merge; the center lines separating lanes from one another; even the speed bumps, speed-limit signs, bicycle lanes and pedestrian crossings. In his view, it is only when the road is made more dangerous, when drivers stop looking at signs and start looking at other people, that driving becomes safer.

And apparently it works.

It mentions experiments he's tried, but I don't know those communities, and I don't know how congested their roads are. It's also well known that aggressive driving increases in areas of increased traffic congestion, so if you tried this "make the road look tricky, so drivers will automatically be more cautious without requiring signage" trick in an area with extremely congested traffic and aggressive drivers, I'd be curious what the result would be.

In any case, this is only tangential to the main thread subject, which is about the behaviour of right-wing drones who think they're macho for disregarding safety rules. I would point out that it's a sort of toxic brew of ignorance and posturing machismo, rather than being one or the other. I've spoken to and argued with enough of these clowns to know that many of them will passionately and obstinately try to argue their case, using what they sincerely believe to be rock-solid logic and scientific reasoning.

For that reason, I am hesitant to accept the "herd mentality" explanation. I think that mechanism does exist of course (how could it not, since it's part of human nature), but I do believe that many of these people are honestly so stupid and ignorant that they seriously believe the ridiculous tripe they spew in defense of reckless behaviour. Many of them honestly do believe that you're generally safer if you don't buckle up. Many of them honestly do believe that helmets don't make any real difference to your safety. Many of them honestly do believe that the health risks of tobacco drug addiction are grossly overstated. Many of them honestly do believe that conspiratorial nonsense about doctors defrauding the public to help the government generate excuses to tax honest hard-working folk for their harmless smokes.

Helmets might not protect from head-on collisions, but can't bikers fall and hit their heads on the ground in accidents that AREN'T head-on collisions? While a helmet might not save a person's life in a serious accident, a less-serious one might still injure the head and face if one doesn't wear a helmet, and a helmet may protect against these less-serious accidents. The head is a surprisingly vulnerable, and very fucking vital, part of the body and getting hit there is a bad boo-boo.

Even something hitting you while you're riding down the highway can cause significant injury. Ferrari's Felipe Massa was driving his Formula 1 car last year and got hit by a small object that fell off the car ahead of him, and bounced up and nailed him in the head as he drove through it at 300 or whatever km/h. It fucked him up pretty bad and he probably would have died had it happened twenty years ago (advances in helmet materials and design and in neurosurgery and understanding of head injuries). It did take him out for the rest of the season.

Now imagine you going down the highway at 110 km/h and getting hit by something. It could be the difference between getting a clonk on the helmet, and getting a hole in the head.

Shroom Man 777 wrote:Helmets might not protect from head-on collisions, but can't bikers fall and hit their heads on the ground in accidents that AREN'T head-on collisions? While a helmet might not save a person's life in a serious accident, a less-serious one might still injure the head and face if one doesn't wear a helmet, and a helmet may protect against these less-serious accidents. The head is a surprisingly vulnerable, and very fucking vital, part of the body and getting hit there is a bad boo-boo.

I think that's kind of the point. They might not do dick in a head-on crash, but if your bike skids or you otherwise go rolling it might be enough to keep a stray rock you roll on top of from splitting your skull completely open.

Tour of San Francisco, I took a controlled spill cracked my styrofoam helmet, heavy abrasions on my legs and arms (off set by padding), two blown tires and a ground off pedal. All this to avoid someone who came onto the bike course when I was doing 40mph downhill. I'm still alive, though I do have a thick skull, I don't like tempting fate. (then again I've rode a bike without helmet and pads 45mph, down hill during winter here in the park, after I had destroyed my bike helmet being hit by a drunk driver)

PS I like the cervical vertibre colars on those motor cycle helmets.

head on collision at highway speeds.

14 years ago, I was in a head on collision with a motorist on the bike path here in Yosemite park. My bike was totaled, I went over his hood, and into the meadow, my lower back is still fucked up, I had a fist sized dent in my helmet that cracked the inner lining, where my head hit a rock. I survived with just a broken foot. (and a messed up back)

I was only going 10mph, and I'm not sure about the car, but he was driving down a bikepath so he couldn't have been going that fast....

i have a cousin who's studying to become a neurosurgeon, and he calls motorcycle accidents "practice." Reason is, when motorcycle riders hit their heads, sometimes their brain swells to the point where some of it comes out their ears. There's nothing the doctors can do to save them, so they call the med students in to get some practical experience poking around with a human brain.

What do the cops call motorcycle drivers who don't wear helmets? Organ donors, becuase after they make it to a hospital they aren't in the best of shape for much else.

People, safety gear was MADE to keep you safe. IE, not wearing a seatbelt then getting into a car crash can be grounds for a Darwin Award!

bobalot wrote:

wautd wrote:Give it some time and hopefully natural selection will sort it out.

Iosef Cross wrote:Well, at least there will be the evolutionary pressure for the extinction of this type of people: They will suffer higher mortality rates.

What makes you guys think they wont kill other people with their stupidity?

To not use safety belts, helmets, etc, don't kill other people.

Iosef Cross wrote:

bobalot wrote:

wautd wrote:Give it some time and hopefully natural selection will sort it out.

Iosef Cross wrote:Well, at least there will be the evolutionary pressure for the extinction of this type of people: They will suffer higher mortality rates.

What makes you guys think they wont kill other people with their stupidity?

To not use safety belts, helmets, etc, don't kill other people.

Wrong. Halfway up this page and two weeks ago I gave an example of how it's quite possible and even likely for them to take innocent people with them.

Iosef Cross wrote:

bobalot wrote:

wautd wrote:Give it some time and hopefully natural selection will sort it out.

Iosef Cross wrote:Well, at least there will be the evolutionary pressure for the extinction of this type of people: They will suffer higher mortality rates.

What makes you guys think they wont kill other people with their stupidity?

To not use safety belts, helmets, etc, don't kill other people.

You are a fucking idiot. People get turned into mobile missiles when they don't wear seatbelts. They are a danger to the other passengers and anybody outside on impact.

tim31 wrote:A video demonstration for your convenience

If a picture tells a thousand words ... thanks Tim31.

Night_stalker wrote:What do the cops call motorcycle drivers who don't wear helmets? Organ donors, becuase after they make it to a hospital they aren't in the best of shape for much else.

People, safety gear was MADE to keep you safe. IE, not wearing a seatbelt then getting into a car crash can be grounds for a Darwin Award!

I share a house with a bike rider - a Buell Ulysses and a Yamaha R6 - who is keen on safety, eg proper gear plus track days etc to improve skills.

You must wear a full face helmet. Those cool cruiser/Harley/chopper half face helmets are not known as face scrapers for nothing. Anyone riding a motorcycle in shorts and/or a t-shirt is a fool. Sooner or later they will learn intimately what skin grafts are all about.

Seatbelts should be a no-brainer.

bobalot wrote:

Iosef Cross wrote:To not use safety belts, helmets, etc, don't kill other people.

You are a fucking idiot. People get turned into mobile missiles when they don't wear seatbelts. They are a danger to the other passengers and anybody outside on impact.

Case in point: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PU3Gd0RjDr0

Dramatization, sure, but still.

Iosef Cross wrote:Well, at least there will be the evolutionary pressure for the extinction of this type of people: They will suffer higher mortality rates.

Unfortunately, many of them would already have reproduced, so unless they happen to have the whole family with them when they faceslam into an oncoming truck ( ), evolution won't care.

And, incidentally, not wearing a seatbelt yourself might not be too harmful to others, but having your kids not wear it, well, you get the idea.

My fucking dog flew from the back seat to the dashboard when I had to stop suddenly at 30 km/h, that someone would choose not to wear a belt when riding around the highway at 100 just boggles the mind.

And yes, she rides in the trunk now.