#131
|
|||
|
|||
Another Hell Mutt Discussion
On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 13:00:11 -0700 (PDT), in rec.bicycles.tech Frank
Krygowski wrote: That helmet saved my wife's life. Ah yes. There are countless "the helmet saved my life" stories. So... do you mind terribly if I wear one? I'd appreciate it. Jones |
Ads |
#132
|
|||
|
|||
Another Hell Mutt Discussion
If you value your head as much as *I* value your head, then don't
bother to wear a helmet. I don't bother to insure my car, so what's it to me? Jones |
#133
|
|||
|
|||
Another Hell Mutt Discussion
On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 16:02:36 -0700 (PDT), in rec.bicycles.tech Andre
Jute wrote: And (glory hallelujah) I'm converted. *Everyone else is going to hell. You had to wait until you were sixty to discover that? I knew it before I knew anything else, but then I was born a Calvinist, with my place in Heaven reserved on conception. Well, any nitwit knows properly helmets are effective. |
#134
|
|||
|
|||
Another Hell Mutt Discussion
On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 08:13:40 -0500, !Jones wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 12:20:43 GMT, in rec.bicycles.tech Johnny Twelve-Point presented by JFT wrote: Excuse me, sir. Please explain to me exactly how the fact that you spew a string of silly-assed questions onto Usenet places me under some kind of an obligation to provide you with answers. You address that question, then we'll consider yours. Nice dodge attempt. No, I put a lot of thought and effort into my writing. I have seen *that* lame scam run all over Usenet... the person spews forth a long string of brainless questions, then stridently demands answers to all of them. If I attempt to answer them, all that will follow are more brainless questions. Not brainless. RIght on target. Questions about something that easily can be used to support or cut down your statement. Let's summarize: 1. You say that if a cyclist is hit and not wearing a helmet they are more liable for their injury. 2. I ask if that is true for someone walking or travelling in a car who is in an accident, gets a head injury and is not wearing a helmet. 3. You refuse to answer that question. 4. I laugh. It is my position that we (meaning: in the US) tend not to accept responsibility for our own actions. If I smoke and the result is poor health (and it has never been proven that I have contributed in any way to that), then I want the tobacco companies to compensate me. It can be argued that, even though no experimental studies exist that prove smoking causes health problems, common sense would say that I knowingly contributed to my own issues. That would be my analogy... and quite a bit better than your shrieking about guns and bullet-proof vests, etc, IMO. I'm not going to try to make you wear a helmet; however, I reserve "I told you so" rights, OK? Funny, again you point to only one example of mine and not the other, most closely analogous ones: does a pedestrian or passenger in a car who gets a head injury have higher liability if he/she was not wearing a helmet? |
#135
|
|||
|
|||
Another Hell Mutt Discussion
On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 14:22:44 -0500, !Jones wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 12:01:48 -0700 (PDT), in rec.bicycles.tech Frank Krygowski wrote: Are you claiming you did _not_ say, "I would not compel you to wear a helmet; however, I would certainly agree that, should you choose not to use a helmet and (hopefully never) suffer head trauma, then it's your problem, not mine, even if I'm at fault for the precipitating event"? Yes, I said that. I would *never* force you to wear a helmet, however I think it is negligent on your part not to. OTOH, it's a free country. So if a car hits you when you're out walking and your head is injured, can we say you were negligent to not wear helmet? It's a simple and pertinent question. I look forward to your attempt to evade this question. |
#136
|
|||
|
|||
Another Hell Mutt Discussion
On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 18:15:16 -0500, !Jones wrote:
If you value your head as much as *I* value your head, then don't bother to wear a helmet. I don't bother to insure my car, so what's it to me? How much do your value your own head? $79, spent at Nashbar? |
#137
|
|||
|
|||
Another Hell Mutt Discussion
On Jul 14, 5:17*pm, Johnny Twelve-Point presented by JFT
wrote: On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 08:13:40 -0500, !Jones wrote: On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 12:20:43 GMT, in rec.bicycles.tech Johnny Twelve-Point presented by JFT wrote: Excuse me, sir. *Please explain to me exactly how the fact that you spew a string of silly-assed questions onto Usenet places me under some kind of an obligation to provide you with answers. You address that question, then we'll consider yours. Nice dodge attempt. No, I put a lot of thought and effort into my writing. *I have seen *that* lame scam run all over Usenet... the person spews forth a long string of brainless questions, then stridently demands answers to all of them. *If I attempt to answer them, all that will follow are more brainless questions. Not brainless. *RIght on target. *Questions about something that easily can be used to support or cut down your statement. Let's summarize: 1. You say that if a cyclist is hit and not wearing a helmet they are more liable for their injury. 2. I ask if that is true for someone walking or travelling in a car who is in an accident, gets a head injury and is not wearing a helmet. 3. You refuse to answer that question. 4. I laugh. It is my position that we (meaning: in the US) tend not to accept responsibility for our own actions. *If I smoke and the result is poor health (and it has never been proven that I have contributed in any way to that), then I want the tobacco companies to compensate me. *It can be argued that, even though no experimental studies exist that prove smoking causes health problems, common sense would say that I knowingly contributed to my own issues. That would be my analogy... and quite a bit better than your shrieking about guns and bullet-proof vests, etc, IMO. *I'm not going to try to make you wear a helmet; however, I reserve "I told you so" rights, OK? Funny, again you point to only one example of mine and not the other, most closely analogous ones: does a pedestrian or passenger in a car who gets a head injury have higher liability if he/she was not wearing a helmet?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - It is conceptually possible that a pedestrian who is hit by a car could be found comparatively at fault in failing to wear a helmet. The defense would be subject to summary judgment absent evidence that a theoretically "reasonable person" would have worn a helmet in the same or similar circumstances. That's where the defense would fail. With bicyclists, there are plent of theoretically "reasonable persons" who wear helmets, and thus the defense probably would make it to the jury. This is bad public policy and tends to exonerate negligent drivers, so in some states (Oregon for example) there are statutes prohibiting the admission of evidence that a bicycle rider was not wearing a helmet for purposes of proving comparative fault. There is a somewhat similar statute for seatbelts that allows a maximum 5% reduction for not wearing a seatbelt. Also note that some states have defined comparative fault as the fault of the plaintiff that contributes to the accident (viz., the collision) versus the alleged injuries. In those states, the failure to wear a helmet does not amount to comparative fault, but it may amount to a failure to "mitigate damages" -- or it may amount to neither. Comparative fault has developed differently around the United States, particularly as the doctrine applies to safety equipment and mainly seatbelts. If you have any kind of MHL in New York, the statue probably has a provision making it impermissible to offer evidence of the failure to wear a helmet in a civil personal injury case. That's the usual quid pro quo with those statutes. -- Jay Beattie. |
#138
|
|||
|
|||
Another Hell Mutt Discussion
On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 00:19:21 GMT, in rec.bicycles.tech Johnny
Twelve-Point presented by JFT wrote: On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 14:22:44 -0500, !Jones wrote: On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 12:01:48 -0700 (PDT), in rec.bicycles.tech Frank Krygowski wrote: Are you claiming you did _not_ say, "I would not compel you to wear a helmet; however, I would certainly agree that, should you choose not to use a helmet and (hopefully never) suffer head trauma, then it's your problem, not mine, even if I'm at fault for the precipitating event"? Yes, I said that. I would *never* force you to wear a helmet, however I think it is negligent on your part not to. OTOH, it's a free country. So if a car hits you when you're out walking and your head is injured, can we say you were negligent to not wear helmet? It's a simple and pertinent question. I look forward to your attempt to evade this question. Actually, I'm simply going to ignore it. |
#139
|
|||
|
|||
Another Hell Mutt Discussion
On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 21:01:16 -0500, !Jones wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 00:19:21 GMT, in rec.bicycles.tech Johnny Twelve-Point presented by JFT wrote: On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 14:22:44 -0500, !Jones wrote: On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 12:01:48 -0700 (PDT), in rec.bicycles.tech Frank Krygowski wrote: Are you claiming you did _not_ say, "I would not compel you to wear a helmet; however, I would certainly agree that, should you choose not to use a helmet and (hopefully never) suffer head trauma, then it's your problem, not mine, even if I'm at fault for the precipitating event"? Yes, I said that. I would *never* force you to wear a helmet, however I think it is negligent on your part not to. OTOH, it's a free country. So if a car hits you when you're out walking and your head is injured, can we say you were negligent to not wear helmet? It's a simple and pertinent question. I look forward to your attempt to evade this question. Actually, I'm simply going to ignore it. That pretty much sums up your argument -- it can't stand up to a simple and closely related analogy. Weak your thinking is. |
#140
|
|||
|
|||
Another Hell Mutt Discussion
On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 00:17:34 GMT, in rec.bicycles.tech Johnny
Twelve-Point presented by JFT wrote: Funny, again you point to only one example of mine and not the other, most closely analogous ones: does a pedestrian or passenger in a car who gets a head injury have higher liability if he/she was not wearing a helmet? You can make a good case for wearing helmets in cars, I suppose. Since you object to wearing one on a bicycle, I doubt you'd approve. It'll never happen... you'd mess up women's hair. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Unicycling extended my lifeline! | SkierAlex | Unicycling | 4 | June 2nd 08 05:53 PM |
Unicycling extended my lifeline! | uniaddict | Unicycling | 0 | June 2nd 08 07:24 AM |
Unicycling extended my lifeline! | nimblelight | Unicycling | 0 | June 1st 08 11:05 PM |
hyper-extended themb | mornish | Unicycling | 17 | June 24th 06 06:43 AM |
Extended Cloak of Invisibility | Danny Colyer | UK | 7 | December 14th 03 11:30 PM |