Only for the non helmet wearers!

Phil Fouracre

Did very well with eight pages! What about progressing it to religion? Atheists could be non helmet wearers, abused by the 'true believers' I reckon it could run and run, what do you think?

Daz555

Carbonator wrote:

Was just a general feeling that if you do not reasonable care of yourself then you should not expect everyone else to.

Not sure that barreling down rock-strewn single track at 40mph or ripping down a road descent at 60mph could be regarded as taking care of yourself. Helmet or not.

drlodge

Phil Fouracre wrote:

Did very well with eight pages! What about progressing it to religion? Atheists could be non helmet wearers, abused by the 'true believers' I reckon it could run and run, what do you think?

You left out the Agnostics, I feel hurt now.

Mikey23

And what about us Methodists?

Anonymous

Daz555 wrote:

Carbonator wrote:

Was just a general feeling that if you do not reasonable care of yourself then you should not expect everyone else to.

Not sure that barreling down rock-strewn single track at 40mph or ripping down a road descent at 60mph could be regarded as taking care of yourself. Helmet or not.

The two things are very different.
One is a calculated risk, the other is an unnecessary risk

rolf_f

Carbonator wrote:

I do think fat people should pay more for plane tickets though. And have to go in a bigger seat if really fat.
That would be really easy to quantify and 100% fair IMO

Got to say I do resent slightly having to be paranoid about my luggage allowance when the combination of my own weight and that of my luggage weighs less than a lot of fat people alone. I think weight limit should include your own weight!

drlodge

Rolf F wrote:

Got to say I do resent slightly having to be paranoid about my luggage allowance when the combination of my own weight and that of my luggage weighs less than a lot of fat people alone. I think weight limit should include your own weight!

Me too...I also resent having to pack so carefully when there's two of us travelling to ensure neither case goes over the weight limit. Much better to weigh every one in the party and their luggage as a total and compare against a xxx kg / person allowance! But then the airlines won't make as much money of course, so it'll never take off (boom boom).

CiB

Carbonator wrote:

Was just a general feeling that if you do not reasonable care of yourself then you should not expect everyone else to.

I don't think I'd feel comfortable with the NHS refusing to do what's needed to assist a patient's recovery if there was some indication that the malaise was in any way the fault of the victim, whether through cycling or any other activity. That's a really slippery path to start down.

slowbike

The NHS already refuse certain operations if the patient will not change their lifestyle to help themselves too.

But that's not from accidents - I sort of agree with the sentiments of Carbonator, but disagree with the way it would be executed. One man's safe activity is another's high risk.
eg TTing on a dual carriageway - plenty of people do it, personally I don't because it doesn't seem safe enough (I have marshalled on one course).

Daz555

Carbonator wrote:

Was just a general feeling that if you do not reasonable care of yourself then you should not expect everyone else to.

I don't agree with that but even if this came to pass it is obvious that even non-helmet wearing cyclists are "taking care of themselves" in comparison to the sedentry majority so would still feature well up the scale of care.

I imagine helmet wearing indoor turbo riders would get the most benefits under such a system.

Anonymous

Daz555 wrote:

Carbonator wrote:

Was just a general feeling that if you do not reasonable care of yourself then you should not expect everyone else to.

I don't agree with that but even if this came to pass it is obvious that even non-helmet wearing cyclists are "taking care of themselves" in comparison to the sedentry majority so would still feature well up the scale of care.

I imagine helmet wearing indoor turbo riders would get the most benefits under such a system.

This is the second time you have quoted the same text :?
I rebuffed you the first time so why are you doing it again?

There is no 'system' that has been suggested by me. Have you read my text that you have twice quoted? It quite clearly says 'general feeling.
I would be the first to agree that it would be a bit of a nightmare to administer but the point was just to point out that non helmet wear, then multi hundred thousand pounds of treatment at the expense of the taxpayer (everyone else) is a bit wrong.

The option is to spend any amount of money on anyone doing anything in any manner.
Fine if we have unlimited doctors, hospitals and cash, but if not I think the resources should be put to better use elsewhere.

It would be nice if people just agreed with that in principle, but the reality is that a lot of people are out for No. 1 and only when lack of NHS resources affects them personally will they moan about money being wasted elsewhere.

If people do not think they need a helmet then they should be happy to sign a disclaimer to waive the right to any treatment needed if it was clear cut that a helmet would of prevented the injury IMO.

I know it could probably never be clear cut, but hopefully you get my point.

Ouija

Carbonator wrote:

If people do not think they need a helmet then they should be happy to sign a disclaimer to waive the right to any treatment needed if it was clear cut that a helmet would have prevented the injury IMO.

Follow that reasoning and they should sign a disclaimer to waive the right to treatment if they suffer a leg injury and weren't wearing knee, shin or thigh protection. Or waive right to treatment if they get shot and weren't wearing a bullet proof vest (almost happened to me). Or waive the right to treatment if they get electrocuted because they didn't ground themselves properly etc.

Jeez.

Anonymous

Ouija wrote:

Carbonator wrote:

If people do not think they need a helmet then they should be happy to sign a disclaimer to waive the right to any treatment needed if it was clear cut that a helmet would have prevented the injury IMO.

Follow that reasoning and they should sign a disclaimer to waive the right to treatment if they suffer a leg injury and weren't wearing knee, shin or thigh protection. Or waive right to treatment if they get shot and weren't wearing a bullet proof vest (almost happened to me). Or waive the right to treatment if they get electrocuted because they didn't ground themselves properly etc.

Jeez.

Its not at all the same and you are missing the point :roll:

You have to draw a line in the sand somewhere.

CiB

Where shall we draw this line then? How about we start by refusing to help failed would-be suicides? You don't get much more self-inflicted than that, and...

Anonymous

Again, completely different.

zanelad

What about smokers? Should they receive a lower level of care because they smoke, or a higher level of care because of all the extra tax they've paid.

Perhaps the two cancel themselves out.

Questions, questions, questions.

Daz555

"Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race.
H. G. Wells

That's all that matters really. Helmet or not. Get out on your bike.

Every person on a bike is one less car to crush you on your way to work.