Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Moof
Trad climber
A cube at my soul sucking job in Oregon
|
|
|
Topic Author's Original Post - May 21, 2007 - 03:03pm PT
|
How about helmets for motorcycles?
Riding your bicycle?
Taking your multivitamin?
HPV vaccine?
Submitting a DNA sample to a national database?
How free is our society? How free do you want it to be? At what point will climbing be outlawed due to the inherent safety concerns?
|
|
Batrock
Trad climber
Burbank
|
|
|
May 21, 2007 - 03:07pm PT
|
Still cant figure out why seatbelts are manditory for me and my kids in my car but not in a school bus.
|
|
Bart Fay
Social climber
Redlands, CA
|
|
|
May 21, 2007 - 03:17pm PT
|
We transplant recipients are a bit ambivalent on the helmet issue.
|
|
L
climber
A small kayak on a very big ocean
|
|
|
May 21, 2007 - 03:42pm PT
|
Good one, Bart!
|
|
Mungeclimber
Trad climber
sorry, just posting out loud.
|
|
|
May 21, 2007 - 03:44pm PT
|
The hypocrisy is forcing 'helmet' or 'belt' safety when we don't have universal healthcare.
Seems like that would be a better quid pro quo.
interesting Bart, hadn't thought about that before.
|
|
Lambone
Ice climber
Ashland, Or
|
|
|
May 21, 2007 - 03:45pm PT
|
Seatbelts should be mandetory. One of my best friends was killed this year due to not wearing one.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
May 21, 2007 - 03:48pm PT
|
For kids, yes.
For adults...not sure, but if we allow it, how about requiring that they pay for it through increased medical or auto insurance costs?
Edit: "NO" to the DNA database.
|
|
5150
Trad climber
JOSHUA TREE
|
|
|
May 21, 2007 - 03:50pm PT
|
helmet laws suck!!!
|
|
mso4 Man
Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
|
|
|
May 21, 2007 - 03:56pm PT
|
No way!!! This is suppossed to be America...The home of the free.
I have spent plenty of time in a level 1 trauma center and there is no question that they are a good idea but to force someone to wear a helmet or seatbelt surely squelches our Civil liberties.
Kids are one thing because no kid picks his parents and as such can't be assured that he will be treated with saftey in mind. For that reason I think it should mandatory for children to wear them until they are old enough to go to war and then they should be able to make their own choices.
peace
|
|
L
climber
A small kayak on a very big ocean
|
|
|
May 21, 2007 - 04:05pm PT
|
Stupidity sucks, too.
|
|
mojede
Trad climber
Butte, America
|
|
|
May 21, 2007 - 04:05pm PT
|
5150, I agree, and I don't think that having helmet laws reduces fatalities by a statistically significant amount. You flip a bike at 80, or hit a truck, yeah, you might come out "better" wearing a helmet.
Montana does not have a helmet law, thankfully, most riders seem to wear them anyway.
|
|
TradIsGood
Happy and Healthy climber
the Gunks end of the country
|
|
|
May 21, 2007 - 04:09pm PT
|
Seatbelts keep the driver where he belongs through the duration of an accident. So they might allow the driver to avoid killing somebody after bouncing, skidding out of control, etc. Consider the race car accident where the driver brings the car back under control many times due to the shape of the seat and other restraints.
It would be easy to construe a death caused by failure to have the seatbelt on, where it played a factor, as negligent homicide, just as in some states it is a crime to cause death or injury if you have been awake for more than 24 hours.
It is long established principle that our freedom ends at the next guy's nose. So I guess for drivers, the answer has to be mandatory. I have to agree with the kids issue, though one could argue that we are putting the state above the parent in this and many other things.
|
|
caughtinside
Social climber
Davis, CA
|
|
|
May 21, 2007 - 04:09pm PT
|
When I was a punk kid, I only wore my seatbelt some of the time. I was young and invincible. But then my girlfriend's brother got in a car accident. He was a passenger. Now he's paralysed from the neck down.
I always wear mine now, even if I'm only going one mile. I'm not sure why people resist them so, they're easy to put on and aren't uncomfortable, and they can save your life.
I can see the point on the helmet stuff, but I seem to recall them making that law because too many head injured riders were ending up on MediCal because they didn't have adequate health insurance? I'm all for freedom, and I'd let people ride w/o helmets if they could prove they adequately insured themselves against that sort of situation, but how do you enforce it then? a tag on your license plate?
forced vaccines and DNA samples seem to cross a threshold for me, when the government can compel you to stick a needle in your arm.
|
|
Moof
Trad climber
A cube at my soul sucking job in Oregon
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 21, 2007 - 04:18pm PT
|
I'm fearful that the invasive soccer mom cry of every life being sacred, and must be saved (never mind if you make it a wretched life in the process) will eventually invade climbing, heck it might have already.
While living in Virginia many folks hollered at me to wear a helmet. I found this disturbing. My life, my choice. I carry my donor card, my wife knows to let them pick over the carcuss.
I've always worn my seatbelt. I agree it's a good thing to wear it. However I just don't believe the rationale for it being required by law. If you applied the same argument to other facets of life people would balk. Obesity is just as big of a drain on medicare, if not much larger, than quadrapalegics ex-drivers, yet there is no limit on the amount of twinkies or bacon you can buy. WTF? I'm very fearful we may end up there though.
|
|
davidji
Social climber
CA
|
|
|
May 21, 2007 - 04:23pm PT
|
A woman I know was driving in my neighborhood. She saw a mom with 2 small children waiting at the bus stop by the high school. This was a hot summer day. The bus runs twice a day. When school is in session. It wasn't running at all that day.
My friend wanted to give this family a ride to the BART station. But she couldn't. She'd be risking a $250 fine. Per child. Unless it's gone up since I last checked.
Seat belts are nice and all. Child seats are nice too. But we're over the top with restrictive laws, and excessive fines.
|
|
mojede
Trad climber
Butte, America
|
|
|
May 21, 2007 - 04:36pm PT
|
Jody are you out there? Newer vehicles have seat restraint belts that ratchet back into a static mode after full extension. In an emergency (or forgetful Mom) situation, I am totally convinced that my child is just as safe using this system as an approved one. The child sits in the back seat as deep as possible and after the belt is pulled to its full extension, ratcheted-back tight over the hips with the shoulder part going behind their back. They are definately not going anywhere, and though snugged-in, seem quite comfortable for short un-planned errands.
As an LEO, Jody, what's your opinion/ judgement on this commonly-rare system?
|
|
Mighty Hiker
Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
May 21, 2007 - 05:14pm PT
|
In most jurisdictions seat belts are mandatory, as are helmets on motorcyclists (and often bicyclists), child seats for children in cars, and so on. I wouldn't hold my breath on any of that changing - the insurance industry is very powerful. These things all significantly reduce the injury rate, and the severity of injuries.
If seatbelts are a bad thing and an imposition on personal liberty and so on, what about air bags? A main reason they were developed was the refusal of many in the U.S. to use seatbelts. The insurance industry, again. Granted, they're a bit more effective than seat belts, and are fully passive, but they add to the cost of vehicles, and (if you see things that way) are another imposition.
|
|
caughtinside
Social climber
Davis, CA
|
|
|
May 21, 2007 - 05:18pm PT
|
Maybe we should have airbags that only deploy if a sensor in the seatbelt indicates it is buckled? That way, if you don't want to wear your seatbelt you also don't have to have your liberty infringed upon by an airbag?
|
|
Tahoe climber
Trad climber
a dark-green forester out west
|
|
|
May 21, 2007 - 05:21pm PT
|
NO. ABSOLUTELY NOT.
This country was founded on the opportunity to give people freedom of choice.
Even if that choice is, in your opinion, a stupid one.
I vote for CHOICE on every issue - from gay marriage to seat belts and helmets to abortion to flag burning, etc. - to do otherwise sets a precedent with huge, awful consequences for the government to follow.
It sets an example whereby the government can justify eroding our civil freedoms - which all basically are the same thing: fundamentally, the freedom of choice.
And that means making room for people to make the wrong choices sometimes - but if so, they are also free to experience the consequences of such.
SHOULD people always wear their seatbelts?
Sure. I do.
But will the lack of a driver wearing a seatbelt endanger anyone else?
Realistically, NO.
But should the government try to make them?
Is it the government's intended function to make them?
Should the government's resources be used to try to enforce a seatbelt law - spotty at best?
Absolutely not.
Think long term, logical consequences - and of our civil liberties. The precedent is already being used - for example, the bill to try and force climbers to use locator beacons on Mt. Hood.
Meanwhile, should that one pass, it's only a small logical step to making hikers and backpackers take one.
And another small, logical step - based on precedent - to start making everyone carry one, everywhere.
Pretty soon, a person in the government knows where everyone in the planet is at any given time.
Do you really want that to happen?
It's not THAT improbable.
And it all would have began with what short-termed visionaries thought was a no-brainer - to FORCE people to wear seatbelts.
Do us all a favor - vote choice in every issue.
-Aaron
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!