cej@ll1.UUCP (One of the Jones Boys) (08/03/86)
>>If unhelmeted motorcyclists will take on all responsibility to >>insure themselves then I will gladly allow them to take the >>additional risk that coincides with riding without a helmet. > > (Laura points out that many would accept the responsibility if it > were possible for them to do so.) > Not too long ago I was kicked out of a tree by a Forest ranger. > It seems that he was afraid that I might sue if I fell out of the > tree. > > [a pedestrian was] so drunk she had to hold onto a hedge to stand > up. [she] let go of the hedge, and fell into the path of an oncoming > automobile that was not going more than 10 m.p.h [the pedestrian] > being less than 20 feet from where my mother had made a full stop. > [The driver, Laura's mother, was successfully sued.] > > Laura Creighton It seems that the people in the U.S., manifested in our legal system, are with increasing speed losing sight of any concept of personal responsibility. (I say the people in the U.S. since I don't know if other countries find themselves in the same situation in the U.S. does.). I was always taught (or did I just learn) that you may do most anything, as long as you are fully and completely prepared to accept the results of your actions. That it is your social (and personal) responsibility to be aware of all the results your actions could cause, and win or lose, you take the outcome "like a man". (I wish to imply no sexism by the above usage. I thought for several minutes, and could not think of a different phrase which would say the same thing in short order. If you know of one, please let me know by e-mail, and will use it exclusively.) If you can't or don't want to take care of the situation afterwards, don't play the game. That is how I thought things went. This, in my mind, means that you should be able to ride you bike with no helmet, but either you cover the medical expenses, or you get no extra-ordinary care for your head injuries. In the case of Laura's tree climbing, no suing the park and personnel (and it seems Laura wouldn't). Now if you are walking by the tree, and it falls on you, that is a different story. In the case of the drunk pedestrian, I find it to be both an insult to, and a sad commentary on, our society. (Assuming the the pedestrian could not be seen, and just fell in front of the car.) If I drink, and I fall in front of a car, it can only be my fault, and my responsibility. And with reguard to people suing bars because someone got drunk there, and hit them, I almost could not believe it when the first case I heard about found against the bar. Does that mean that if someone gets whiskey from a state store here in Ohio, where the state runs all "package" store sales except for beer and wine, I can sue the state for "letting" him get drunk? My question, and the reason I included net.legal in the newsgroups, would be; Are the lawers responsible for the total disreguard for the concept of personal responsibility? Or is society the driving force behind the lawers? If I go to a lawer with a suit he fees is B.S., but might win in todays courts, and I WANT representation, why shouldn't he represent me? Is today's society only interested in personal freedom and personal responsibility when it gets them what they want? The first one to see an illusion by which men have flourished for centuries surely stands in a lonely place. Gary Zukav - The Dancing Wu Li Masters ...ihnp4!ll1!cej Llewellyn Jones
mat@amdahl.UUCP (Mike Taylor) (08/05/86)
In article <436@ll1.UUCP>, cej@ll1.UUCP (One of the Jones Boys) writes: > >>If unhelmeted motorcyclists will take on all responsibility to > >>insure themselves then I will gladly allow them to take the > >>additional risk that coincides with riding without a helmet. > > Is there any evidence that unhelmeted motorcyclists increase the cost of insurance vs. helmeted motorcyclists ? This is an area where anomalies often occur. For example, the wearing of a helmet increases the probability of surviving an accident (I think a generally well-documented fact). However, this means other injuries must be treated (broken bones, internal injuries, cuts, abrasions, etc.) at some expense. Whereas, a motorcyclist who dies in an accident requires no further treatment, and the insurance company has no long-drawn-out hospital stay to cover. The higher survival probability attributable to the helmet may mean a higher expected cost per accident for the helmeted motorcyclist. While I'm not suggesting I know the facts either, I think that the assumption that unhelmeted motorcyclists cost more to insure bears some examination. -- Mike Taylor ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,amd,sun}!amdahl!mat [ This may not reflect my opinion, let alone anyone else's. ]