Gouged hand < closed head injury

Post #344,601 by malraux 7/6/11 4:31:33 PM Reply	Gouged hand < closed head injury HTH! ;-) Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
Post #344,604 by mhuber 7/6/11 5:55:04 PM Reply	And who pays Mostly, somebody with a hand injury ends up paying for the related experience themselves or (if 8) via immediate family. Closed head injuries tend to be real, real expensive, and often render the injured party incapable of paying expenses. Your hand protection is mostly your own financial risk, your decision. Your head, though, is my (as a member of your risk group via insurance or unpaid hospital bills) financial risk, so I may feel I have a stake in the decision. I haven't decided where I come down on the whole issue, but while I usually tend to very strongly favor the individual right, in this kind of thing I also see another side as being not automatically wrong. --------------------------------------- I think it's perfectly clear we're in the wrong band. (Tori Amos)
Post #344,606 by malraux 7/6/11 7:02:07 PM Reply	On the gripping hand... I'm much less concerned about informed adults. If someone wants to ride their motorcycle in a Kraut helmet because it looks cool, I don't care. It's their decision. Not that I'm very impressed with people who won't wear a helmet because it ruins their hair-do. And I agree with you on the financial burden. Parents who don't put helmets on their kids, however, are another matter. I consider it along the same lines as smoking in a car with kids. Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
Post #344,607 by drook 7/6/11 7:18:34 PM Reply	Then you should favor helmetless riding Someone crunched the numbers back in the 80s. People without helmets are more likely to die. People with helmets are more likely to have debilitating -- but non-fatal -- brain injuries. So if you're looking just at the finances of it, it's cheaper for you if other people ride without helmets. -- Drew
Post #344,640 by folkert 7/8/11 8:29:23 AM Reply	Is that why... Ohio doesn't have a helmet law? Nor Indiana.
Post #344,646 by drook 7/8/11 9:59:15 AM 7/8/11 9:59:26 AM Reply	Dunno about that All I'm saying is you can't use the economic impact argument to support your desire to tell someone else that they should wear a helmet. (Not "you" you of course, just in general.) -- Drew Edited by drook July 8, 2011, 09:59:26 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #344,669 by static 7/8/11 10:56:11 PM Reply	+5, Illuminating. So many things in this modern western secular society is done for the "economic impact", even if the original impulse was actually quite noble. :-( (Don't get me started on speed cameras...) Wade. Static Scribblings http://staticsan.blogspot.com/
Post #344,651 by hnick 7/8/11 11:16:28 AM Reply	We (ohio) used to have a helmet law. It was repealed on the basis that it was not up to the government to prevent people splitting their heads. The insurance companies pissed and moaned and some quack from the Cleveland Clinic wrote numerous screeds to the paper that it was so heartbreaking fixing the people who were splattered without helmets. I wrote, in response, that he probably picked the wrong profession and he should bitch about his guidance councilor instead. The paper declined to publish it... I am the first to admit that Ohio is an incredibly stupid state, but the helmet laws have nothing to do with it.
Post #344,641 by folkert 7/8/11 8:31:20 AM Reply	Sure it is... But hands are exceptionally important to a persons ability to become a hardworking lackey in the order of Society. SURELY you don't want to deprive johnny his ability to make money for the rich folk?!

Welcome to IWETHEY!