A Sad Time

[Rasseru]

'It's one of the joys of being young, you are immortal, and you don't worry about security.'

Yes, and one of the joys of being old is, you are almost dead anyway, so you don't need to worry about security.

[junglechef]

Last two motorbikes I bought, came with a fairly good helmet. I stressed (for years) to the wife's two kids ,16&18 ,to wear their helmets, as school requires this too. They look at me and put them on the hook, even if they put them on they would take them off once out of sight.We live in Saraphi and 16 yr old boy has to ride to north side of moat. So riding 80km per hour, dodging cars.???..wife does not incourage them to wear one....

Maybe the helmet would not matter...but sure would increase the odds of living..

I come from a helmet free (up to you) state in USA.....riding a Harley...always wore one when on a long ride, wind and sun will beat you down...

But in Thailand I obey the law and wear one. Makes me feel safer. HOWEVER..in my small local community, going to market..etc etc I do not...not so smart huh?

So it is up to the person....it can only hurt themselves.......BUT I wish they would check their tail lights so I don't run over them..in rural areas the lighting is poor. I see many each night and have had some pretty close calls....put the 30 b. light in..please....

Since we are being honest and as I've posted in this thread I only wear a helmet when I'm going on to a larger road not to the market by way of the rice fields and only a mt bike helmet when doing hard single track in the jungle but I also don't ride near traffic. The wife does the same and the kids always have them on when riding on two wheels. Sending a mixed message and not the smartest thing to do as most accidents happen close to home, perhaps in part because one is there more often. I agree but I guess that is one of the reasons why I live here, to be able to decide what level of risk something is and if I am willing to take it.

Really refreshing to hear some honesty on these threads. In the PC world of the west, it's programmed into our heads that it's always "safety first" and to do otherwise is stupid, suicidal, reckless, etc. So we're supposed to wear a helmet all the time (even on bicycles), wear seatbelts, use an approved child/baby seat, never speed, etc. And then we're supposed to eat right, exercise, not smoke, get an annual check-up, etc., etc. How about individual responsibility that comes with a little freedom of choice?

People who don't wear helmets are not trying to kill themselves. It's a convenience thing and not a nationality thing. I remember years ago that motorcycle riders in the US were up-in-arms about helmet laws, saying that it violated their freedom. (They liked the wind blowing through their hair, basically.) But the insurance companies won out. Just like seatbelts and airbags.

Safety is important, certainly, but it can go overboard. Maybe we should make all drivers wear helmets, just like race car drivers? Would certainly save "some" lives...

Hello Dolly I commend your parenting decisions and in tune w/this discussion also think you should do as you please. Berkshire I happen to drive safely, everyone in my car wears belts, I eat well, exercise, bed early, drink very rarely etc., all other personal choices that I've made so I can enjoy my life as I want. As long as someone is not endangering my or my families life (A VERY BIG POINT HERE!) I wish everyone the same freedom.

[hellodolly]

The nanny state nation eliminates the risk and fun out of life today, in order to try and get more tomorrows in. But in doing so the today has been compromised. Life and death are two sides of the same coin, and the nanny state places the emphasis on avoiding death for as long as possible at the expense of enjoying the spontaneity and freewheeling approach to life.

A nation like thailand instead places emphasis on today, on enjoying life at the possible expense of an early death. Death will come when it comes, but enjoying the today, enjoying life is the motto.

Simply getting on your bike and going where you need to go is a great freedom. It carries a risk, but so does most of life that's worth living.

I won't wear one on local back sois, i will wear one in town. I absolutely hate helmets but unfortunately i'm no longer young where i just assume i will carry on living regardless, and where i'm not old enough to start thinking and worrying about a possible death. It's one of the joys of being young, you are immortal, and you don't worry about security.

Well, that's the way it used to be in western nations, but now the nanny state approach has taken over the poor youth don't even get to risk their lives any more.

Well said.

I know that I am not the only poster on these boards who has been in the units where they send the people to die. A very sad thing indeed. People sitting around the halls just staring straight ahead. The last time I was in one was with a girl friend who was a trained Registered Nurse. She was in to visit her father who could not get out of bed or speak. I watched as she matter of factlly put on gloves rolled him on his side and cleaned him up. He was there in that state for another year before he passed.

I am in favor of quality over quantity. Many people outside those rooms are old and ready to go. My mother passed away at 84 and for the last four years she said she was ready to go she had had a good life and saw no more future other than what I have described. She was still mobile and would go for short walks. but life had lost it's meaning to her, Her kids had all grown up and several of us had gone through life styles that were not nice and survived. She was proud of us and proud of the fact she had done a successful job and we no longer needed her to do for us we did for her.

[Rasseru]

I concur with the trend toward freedom. I'm all for it. I believe that not wearing helmets (or using seatbelts and so on) tends to weed out the dumber members of the human race, but that is all to the good, and whether or no, why not, let them. But, the rest of us lot should not have to bear the expense of the dimwits' dimwittedness. Head injuries to a motorcycle rider who wore no helmet should not be treated at the expense of the general public or insured pool.

[mikey88]

I accept everyone sees these types of social issues differently. I've been influenced by my background in Social Work. Over 20 years work I developed the opinion that many people need to be saved from themselves and the government's role is to care for its people (americans might see that differently). In the west the cost of caring for someone with head injuries for the rest of their lives is enormous. And it all comes out of your taxes. Here there would still be a large productivity loss but the government may not have read that literature yet.

[Rasseru]

'In the west the cost of caring for someone with head injuries for the rest of their lives is enormous. And it all comes out of your taxes.'

Yes, and as long as that is the case, there should be helmet laws. But I'd be happier if that were not the case, and there were no helmet laws and neither taxes nor insurance paid for head injuries caused to people not wearing helmets..

[amexpat]

I concur with the trend toward freedom. I'm all for it. I believe that not wearing helmets (or using seatbelts and so on) tends to weed out the dumber members of the human race, but that is all to the good, and whether or no, why not, let them. But, the rest of us lot should not have to bear the expense of the dimwits' dimwittedness. Head injuries to a motorcycle rider who wore no helmet should not be treated at the expense of the general public or insured pool.

Darwinism doesn't usually apply because most of those dumb members (at least TV members) of the race have already reproduced.

"Head injuries to a motorcycle rider who wore no helmet should not be treated at the expense of the general public or insured pool."

So what do you propose should be done with them?

[Mapguy]

For once I agree with Loaded on this. My life, my choice. Its really none of your business if somebody else decides to wear a helmet or not. **Note, I'm not debating the whether or not its a good idea to not wear a helmet. All I'm saying is that its that persons choice to make.

The thing I really enjoy most about Thailand is it's Libertarian nature in regards to alot of things. Not sure why some of you are so intent on importing your nanny-state ways here.

-Mestizo

I'm all for freedom of choice, as well, but within the limits of what can be called the "social contract." I agree with Loaded that taking individual responsibility for one's actions is fundamentally important but only IF one also recognizes that that is part of the social contract which includes responsibilities as well as rights.

Maybe it is a matter of degree. Do those who insist on riding with the wind in their hair (if they have any hair left) and catching gnats in their teeth also feel that traffic signals and speed limits are onerous? Those basically sensible limits come about as part of the social contract. And how far does Individual responsibility, as Loaded puts it, extend to the practical necessity of cleaning up by societal services of the cranial detritus from the road, treatment of the injured and care for the dead after a motorcycle accident? Does he carry a card in his wallet that says, ""Leave me be; it's my karma!" Does he think it is acceptable just to shovel the mess to the side of the road, a mess, that is, that might be avoided by simply wearing a helmet?

[Rasseru]

'So what do you propose should be done with them?'

Leave them to their own, their friends' and their families' devices, failing which, let them die.

Edited May 28, 2013 by Rasseru

[amexpat]

'So what do you propose should be done with them?'

Leave them to their own, their friends

' and their families' devices, failing which, let them die.

It's good to know you. I hope we never meet.

[Rasseru]

'So what do you propose should be done with them?'

Leave them to their own, their friends[/size]' and their families' devices, failing which, let them die.

It's good to know you. I hope we never meet.

If you're the sort of fellow rides without a helmet, I share your hope.

[theDukes]

As the debate goes on the fact of the matter is that 70-80% of the helmets sold do not meet nominal safety standards. Some are similar to wearing a construction hat. That being said the number 1 reason, besides they can be hot, that most folks do not wearing a helmet is that it messes up the hair. Let me see.. my hair.. my safety.. my hair.. my safety.. my hair.. my safety? Obviously, it has to be the hair. Gotta look good! Now that's real thinking. Who are we to argue?

[masuk]

As the debate goes on the fact of the matter is that 70-80% of the helmets sold do not meet nominal safety standards. Some are similar to wearing a construction hat. That being said the number 1 reason, besides they can be hot, that most folks do not wearing a helmet is that it messes up the hair. Let me see.. my hair.. my safety.. my hair.. my safety.. my hair.. my safety? Obviously, it has to be the hair. Gotta look good! Now that's real thinking. Who are we to argue?

Have you seen the street-side advertisements, encouraging folk to wear a helmet and the message "it's the law". Pictured is the standard police-issue helmet.

The sad thing is, that the helmet the police wear gives protection only from a smallish object falling from above. Maybe devised to prevent mugging. Definitely no protection of the face and certainly nothing to protect the jaw, which is often broken.

If there is such as thing as a Thai safety standard for helmets, I doubt that this would be the one.

[Thailand]

Is there a high incidence of arm injuries to motorcyclists in Thailand?

I ask the question as I often see motorcyclists here riding with their helmet at their elbow. With a view to protecting the middle to upper arm perhaps?

[barefoot1988]

There are few circumstances nowadays in which Darwinian forces can push to make the human species more intelligent. Giving people a choice -- whether formally by having no helmet laws, or informally by not enforcing them strongly -- about wearing helmets on motorcycles is a rare and useful such circumstance. The not so bright ones who don't wear helmets will die in greater numbers, often before producing offspring. The brighter ones who do will survive in greater numbers and produce more offspring. The human species over time will become more intelligent.

Wow, how little you know. I was in many anti-helmet protests in America during the 70"s

Us Harley riders knew the truth. A helmet is only good in a accident under 25 mph.

The U.S. GOV came up with the same facts.After 25mph the helmet justs helps break your neck.

To this day I ride my Harley helmet free in my state and in many other states.

States with helmet laws have about the same death %

Sure a helmet can save you in a low speed accident, I will not dispute that.

When I'm in Thailand I wear a helmet because we are mostly low speed.

But nobody rides a Harley low speed.

you should read clearly. massive differences between 25mph impact on helmet and accident under 25mph. nobody is saying helmet is useless for accident over 25mph. you could be on a 25mph accident and get a full impact on your helmet, you could also be on a 100mph accident with 10mph impact on your helmet

man . . i bet loud pipe save lifes too

[onthedarkside]

A number of unhelpful posts cleared out.

[ThaiSold]

I don't see how your bitching here is going to change anything

[femi fan]

I concur with the trend toward freedom. I'm all for it. I believe that not wearing helmets (or using seatbelts and so on) tends to weed out the dumber members of the human race, but that is all to the good, and whether or no, why not, let them. But, the rest of us lot should not have to bear the expense of the dimwits' dimwittedness. Head injuries to a motorcycle rider who wore no helmet should not be treated at the expense of the general public or insured pool.

Will you also add to the helmet-less people those who:

drink too much

eat heaps of white sugar

drink heaps of coke

eat processed foods

smoke too much

eat too much dairy and meat

engage in dangerous sports?

All such people will extensively use medical facilities while the rest of us have to pay for their poor life choices...

[Rasseru]

You make an excellent argument, femi fan. You have persuaded me that your points have great merit and deserve serious consideration!

[binjalin]

to be fair there has been a dramatic increase in people wearing helmets. 4/5 years ago it was non-existant and now we see Police road blocks everywhere and i'd say 80% wear them compared to 20% previously

[Thailand]

I concur with the trend toward freedom. I'm all for it. I believe that not wearing helmets (or using seatbelts and so on) tends to weed out the dumber members of the human race, but that is all to the good, and whether or no, why not, let them. But, the rest of us lot should not have to bear the expense of the dimwits' dimwittedness. Head injuries to a motorcycle rider who wore no helmet should not be treated at the expense of the general public or insured pool.

Will you also add to the helmet-less people those who:

drink too much

eat heaps of white sugar

drink heaps of coke

eat processed foods

smoke too much

eat too much dairy and meat

engage in dangerous sports?

All such people will extensively use medical facilities while the rest of us have to pay for their poor life choices...

But none of those are against the law where as not wearing a helmet is?

As a matter of interest do insurance companies treat those injured whilst not wearing a helmet any differently to those that do? In the unlikely event they are insured in the first place!

[CobraSnakeNecktie]

I concur with the trend toward freedom. I'm all for it. I believe that not wearing helmets (or using seatbelts and so on) tends to weed out the dumber members of the human race, but that is all to the good, and whether or no, why not, let them. But, the rest of us lot should not have to bear the expense of the dimwits' dimwittedness. Head injuries to a motorcycle rider who wore no helmet should not be treated at the expense of the general public or insured pool.

Will you also add to the helmet-less people those who:

drink too much

eat heaps of white sugar

drink heaps of coke

eat processed foods

smoke too much

eat too much dairy and meat

engage in dangerous sports?

All such people will extensively use medical facilities while the rest of us have to pay for their poor life choices...

its slippery slope invalid logic argument. A single behavior can be singled out modified and not effect other behaviors.

A since when is there any consistency in Thailand's rules anyway?

Even if the govt could achieve worthwhile rational policy goals I doubt they can achieve much with current society. The voters/citizens have been trained to be robots and sheep while the kleptocrats get rich.

Nobody should really care if a someone turns themselves into vegetables. Maybe there is the health care cost angle.

A worthwhile policy goal might be to improve traffic safety so innocent road users are not maimed by careless and untrained drivers.

It's just a mental exercise in theoretical governance however.

[hellodolly]

I concur with the trend toward freedom. I'm all for it. I believe that not wearing helmets (or using seatbelts and so on) tends to weed out the dumber members of the human race, but that is all to the good, and whether or no, why not, let them. But, the rest of us lot should not have to bear the expense of the dimwits' dimwittedness. Head injuries to a motorcycle rider who wore no helmet should not be treated at the expense of the general public or insured pool.

Will you also add to the helmet-less people those who:

drink too much

eat heaps of white sugar

drink heaps of coke

eat processed foods

smoke too much

eat too much dairy and meat

engage in dangerous sports?

All such people will extensively use medical facilities while the rest of us have to pay for their poor life choices...

its slippery slope invalid logic argument. A single behavior can be singled out modified and not effect other behaviors.

A since when is there any consistency in Thailand's rules anyway?

Even if the govt could achieve worthwhile rational policy goals I doubt they can achieve much with current society. The voters/citizens have been trained to be robots and sheep while the kleptocrats get rich.

Nobody should really care if a someone turns themselves into vegetables. Maybe there is the health care cost angle.

A worthwhile policy goal might be to improve traffic safety so innocent road users are not maimed by careless and untrained drivers.

It's just a mental exercise in theoretical governance however.

Agreed

I got lucky they didn't put Pepsi Max on the list.

Now I know that John Q Public has to pick up the bill in some countries.

But that is not a real issue here in Thailand.

It is a list of things that can go on and on and on when you put to much in front of something.

Then we can start on a list of not enough.

I am 71 and have abused every item on the list. Well not the dangerous sport unless American football is considered in there when I was a kid. It has not cost John Q Public one single baht. If I die there is more than enough money put aside for what ever the wife wishes to do with my body. I currently have arthritis and I have paid for all the exams out of my pocket and if I decide to undergo surgery it will come out of my pocket.

Please tell me what I did to much of to get that are what I didn't do to enough of to stop from getting it.

[lumply]

Laws are put in place to protect individuals and to create orderly behaviour in society. If you go through life cherry picking the ones that you wish to follow whilst discarding the ones that you think are inappropriate, then you are not seriously interested in being part of a civilised society. We all have to live by sets of rules whether we agree with them or not. Choosing not to wear a crash helmet is clearly irresponsible and in most countries, against the law; the consequences of breaking the rules are often tragic, as in this case. I would prefer to make a contribution to a charity than to pay to bury a foolish person who clearly has little regard for his own life.