Helmet Nazi's and so it begins - Page 13 - Snowboarding Forum - Snowboard Enthusiast Forums
SnowboardingForum.com is the premier Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-28-2011, 02:42 PM   #121 (permalink)
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Mountains
Posts: 10,050
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by East告de View Post
well, since we're already being wasteful, what's hiring a few more cops cost? lol

Meh,there's no accounting for someone else on a power trip. Just because some jerkoff thinks a STAFF jacket makes him kind doesn't completely nullify whether or not it would be a viable option. If everyone is so much better educated, then why arent they already wearing helmets?

Im just playing devils advocate here since a.im 25 and i wear a helmet, this law doesnt apply to me and b.i think this issue has been blown way out of proportion
You look at the mid 90's and helmet use and you look at helmet use today it's something like 300 plus percent growth in people using helmet. Helmets have consistently seen 50 to 100% sales growth every year.
__________________
Angry Snowboarder Because someone has to call it how they see it!
BurtonAvenger is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 04-28-2011, 02:59 PM   #122 (permalink)
-LIFETIME MEMBER-
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,492
Default

How long to you suppose it will be before some rich douche bags 19 y.o. kid dies and they go on a crusade? It's already okay to have a helmet law for kids, so why not adults? Next would be as B.A. said it will be wrist guards, and a bunch of other BS. I for one want the CHOICE of wearing a helmet. The main reason I wear mine is because it is warmer then a beanie lol. On those bluebird spring days cruising soft corn I don't wear it. If I crack my head, so be it, if I wanted a safe hobby I'd take up golf or bowling

**Please note: the following paragraph is not directed at anyone in particular**

The fact of the matter is, people need to take responsibility for themselves and their kids. If you need the government to make a law so your kid will obey your own rules then you are to stupid to breed. The real key here (as has been said before) is education....PERIOD!! Like the idiot that crusaded for this law, he "thought" skiing was safe, and his daughter was just gonna goof off and throw a few snowballs?? REALLY?? MORON!!! What if one of those snowballs had a chunk of ice in it that put out her eye? Should snowballs be outlawed too? If they were going to make a law to reduce injuries I think it would have been better to have a mandatory safety classes, before a minor can get a pass. That right there would reduce a lot of the accidents, since they would not only learn the limitations of helmets, but also proper etiquette.
__________________
JeffreyCH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2011, 03:17 PM   #123 (permalink)
Veteran Member
 
East告de's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 922
Blog Entries: 1
Default

i dont disagree with many of the points on this page, i really dont. theyre all valid in their own right.

just answer me this :

is this really that big a deal? like.. should this really merit 13 pages of debate?
I would suppose itll be a very long time before some rich douchebag's 19 year old dies and there's a law that makes it mandatory for adults. As an adult himself, the dead teenager's rich dad has no recourse and no room to complain. BUT..perhaps that rich 19 year old has had to wear a helmet since he was 16 since its the law, and because of that, when he's 19, he's still wearing a helmet.and so that day when he hits his head on a rock and wouldve otherwise checked out of this world, hes still there, being some rich douchebags son.



Like I said, I think you all make valid points..I just find it hard to argue that this is really an issue worthy of your points, as complicated as you're all making it to be, and why, if we can all agree it's safer to wear helmets, that it even deserves a debate. I get the whole "we should be able to choose for ourselves and let the parents be parents" argument, but what about this : Lets say your 15 year old son and his friend are going snowboarding. You're a good parent, and you've taught your son well..he knows to wear his helmet while riding..and not to just say he will, but to actually do it. Except he goes out with his friend one day who's parents consist of a mom popping percs like tic-tacs and a dad who's always staring at the bottom of a bottle and who DON'T make him wear a helmet..they get to the mountain, and your son sees his friend not wearing his helmet..and even though he knows better, he's still a 16 year old kid who makes bad decisions sometimes, so he takes his helmet off too. The next day, your son is in a hospital bed with tubes up his nose and down his throat, machines monitoring his heartbeat and vital signs because his brain is a bowl of jello from smashing his head on a rail. Guess what? Your right to choose, and your quality parenting, are worth approximately dick now.
__________________

Never Summer Evo 153/Restricted ReFlex Cartel
Gnu Danny Kass 156 BTX
East告de is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2011, 03:29 PM   #124 (permalink)
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Mountains
Posts: 10,050
Default

Because the law sets a precedent.
__________________
Angry Snowboarder Because someone has to call it how they see it!
BurtonAvenger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2011, 03:36 PM   #125 (permalink)
Veteran Member
 
East告de's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 922
Blog Entries: 1
Default

the precedent is that in this case, the safety of a teenagers brain is worth more than his right to choose to protect it, since by definition he is a minor who is incapable of making the smart decision to begin with.
__________________

Never Summer Evo 153/Restricted ReFlex Cartel
Gnu Danny Kass 156 BTX
East告de is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2011, 04:19 PM   #126 (permalink)
Official SBF Blogger
 
david_z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Detroit suburbs
Posts: 3,435
Blog Entries: 5
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leo View Post
Wouldn't the seatbelt be the lesser of two evils scenario? All stats that I've seen show seatbelts saves more lives than it takes.
Either way, the question is whether the individual has the right to make decisions regarding his/her own well-being. Clearly the law answers that question in the negative.

Sure, statistically that is probably the case. Then again after they mandated seatbealts in the mid-1980s, I'm pretty sure the statistics didn't show a significant decrease in fatalities. I'm not saying "don't wear a seatbelt" but that law is a good one to see the path that the law takes as it metastasizes; originally it had to be a secondary violation where you could not be pulled over simply for not wearing a seatbelt. 20 years later we have "click it or ticket" campaign.

So this starts with minors in NJ and then spreads to other states and the next thing you know it's everywhere and everyone has to do it.
david_z is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2011, 04:22 PM   #127 (permalink)
Veteran Member
 
East告de's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 922
Blog Entries: 1
Default

it took well over 10 years for this law to pass in NJ.. you really think it'll spread with any kind of quickness anywhere else? As many people have said, this is directly in response to placating that guy about his daughter. I don't exactly envision this spreading like wildfire.
__________________

Never Summer Evo 153/Restricted ReFlex Cartel
Gnu Danny Kass 156 BTX
East告de is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2011, 04:24 PM   #128 (permalink)
Official SBF Blogger
 
david_z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Detroit suburbs
Posts: 3,435
Blog Entries: 5
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by East告de View Post
the precedent is that in this case, the safety of a teenagers brain is worth more than his right to choose to protect it, since by definition he is a minor who is incapable of making the smart decision to begin with.
1. By this logic, a teenager is unable to make any decision regarding his health, safety or well-being. So they shouldn't be allowed to drive at all. They also shouldn't be allowed to eat unacompanied by an adult since they aren't capable of making healthy decisions. Etc.

2. The argument implies that there is a correct decision so any adult who opts out is clearly incapable of making the smart decision to begin with. Is not the safety of an adult's brain worth more than his right to make poor decisions? Therefore, adults should also be subject to this law which will force them to make the correct decision!
david_z is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2011, 04:30 PM   #129 (permalink)
Leo
-LIFETIME MEMBER-
 
Leo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Detroit Area
Posts: 6,230
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by david_z View Post
Either way, the question is whether the individual has the right to make decisions regarding his/her own well-being. Clearly the law answers that question in the negative.

Sure, statistically that is probably the case. Then again after they mandated seatbealts in the mid-1980s, I'm pretty sure the statistics didn't show a significant decrease in fatalities. I'm not saying "don't wear a seatbelt" but that law is a good one to see the path that the law takes as it metastasizes; originally it had to be a secondary violation where you could not be pulled over simply for not wearing a seatbelt. 20 years later we have "click it or ticket" campaign.

So this starts with minors in NJ and then spreads to other states and the next thing you know it's everywhere and everyone has to do it.
Well I already brought a point up about the seatbelt thing not being one's personal liability. Not having your seatbelt on endangers your passengers and other motorists.

Wearing a helmet on the other hand is strictly your own personal safety and in no way endangers other people.
__________________
www.aGNARchy.com Reviews and David Z's rants
Leo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2011, 04:42 PM   #130 (permalink)
Veteran Member
 
East告de's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 922
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by david_z View Post
1. By this logic, a teenager is unable to make any decision regarding his health, safety or well-being. So they shouldn't be allowed to drive at all. They also shouldn't be allowed to eat unacompanied by an adult since they aren't capable of making healthy decisions. Etc.

2. The argument implies that there is a correct decision so any adult who opts out is clearly incapable of making the smart decision to begin with. Is not the safety of an adult's brain worth more than his right to make poor decisions? Therefore, adults should also be subject to this law which will force them to make the correct decision!
1. Actually, in NJ (since this is where the helmet law applies) you must be 17 to get your PROVISIONAL license (cannot drive between 11pm-5am, cannot drive with more than one person in the car not in your family, etc.) and you dont receive your license until the ripe age of 18..lets not get into semantics, but 18 is generally considered the age by which you are old enough and mature enough to be considered an adult and to make serious decisions regarding your own health and future. Think about it - think about how you can't get your own health insurance until you're 18, you can't sign yourself out of school (even if you're sick), you can't do pretty much anything..

2. No this argument implies that a teenager isn't old enough to maturely weigh his options and make a smart decision one way or the other. As an adult, it is assumed that you are smart enough and mature enough to weigh the benefits of wearing a helmet vs. whatever cons you might feel there are, and make an educated decision based on that and assume the responsibility that accompanies that risk.

You're grouping adults and minors together when they shouldn't be - if the government and the country viewed adults and minors as having the same levels of cognitive reasoning to determine what is and is not the correct course of action, then there wouldn't be age restrictions on many things.
__________________

Never Summer Evo 153/Restricted ReFlex Cartel
Gnu Danny Kass 156 BTX
East告de is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:49 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
VerticalSports
Baseball Forum Golf Forum Boxing Forum Snowmobile Forum
Basketball Forum Soccer Forum MMA Forum PWC Forum
Football Forum Cricket Forum Wrestling Forum ATV Forum
Hockey Forum Volleyball Forum Paintball Forum Snowboarding Forum
Tennis Forum Rugby Forums Lacrosse Forum Skiing Forums