Wow, I haven't been snow skiing in probably 25 years. Had no idea they wore helmets for that nowadays!

Cut offs and MAYBE shoes but never a helmet, not even when we rocketed our home-modified contraptions down "dead man's hill." Shot each other with slingshots and BB guns, too. Thankfully I lived long enough to grow a bit wiser.

I think the real question is, was the cute neighborhood girl impressed?
She didn't even notice. That was typical of my luck with girls.

SoonerSoftail,
Wow, so many things I can think of where I agree and disagree. First, when I was very young and my brother even younger, he was riding on the back of my bike and we were both barefooted and in shorts. Somehow, he got his toes caught between the fender guard and the spokes and almost lost his big toe. All of them were damaged, but to a lesser extent than the big toe. As for helmets today, I have heard arguments both ways, but my daughter-in-law's brother is forever 14 (years of age mentally) due to riding his Harley without a helmet and he somehow lost control and planted his head into those metal road guards while entering I-44 from N. W. 10th. The odd thing is, he was a professional motocross rider (went by the name "Big Daddy Owens") and of course, wore all of the appropriate equipment. I don't know why he chose not to wear a helmet on the streets and highways. As a Harley rider, you might even have known him or been involved in the fund raising the HOG group (or some other Harley club, not sure it was "HOG") so kindly organized.
C. T.I do remember that fund raiser. It was Downed Bikers Association that did it. I don't do many of their rides but I did that one because I rode some motocross in the 70s myself. Wearing, actually not wearing, a helmet on the Harley is a whole story of its own.

If the activity was too dangerous to do without safety measures, then it's too dangerous period. I'm sure safety measures and laws make sky diving more expensive and reduce participation. Ignoring safety to increase participation is absurd. Now, if the improvement to safety by those laws is negligible or arguable, then the necessity of those laws would be questionable regardless of it's effect on participation.

I can't believe you mean this literally. Every human activity carries risk, and therefore implies the existence of measures to mitigate that risk. Before I cross the street, I look both ways. That's a safety measure. If I *never* look across the street, and get hit by a bus, your statement above carries the natural implication "it's too dangerous period."

That bridges to a different discussion - in general, I hold to the notion that it's not for Person "X" to say unilaterally Activity "Y" is "too dangerous" for Person "Z." If Person "Z" knows the risks (heck, even if he doesn't), part of being in a free society implies the ability to let Person "Z" *take* that risk, and the requirement that Person "X" doesn't have the ability to prevent it.

And, for me, the standard at which the government should be able to criminalize the failure to exercise a "known risk mitigation" behavior, be it the wearing of bike helmets or operating a nail gun, has to be exceptionally high. If it can be demonstrated more conclusively that bike helmet laws truly depress participation in bike riding, then the succesful presence of the "safety" law is perhaps the very essence of a Pyrrhic victory.

You're basically saying the same things I am. Read the first sentence you quoted again. I'm not saying any risk has to be negated. I'm saying if the risk is so high that it warrants mandatory safety measures (or in your words, "exceptionally high") then affects on participation level doesn't change that risk assessment.

Without getting too detailed... I used to work for a medical device company. There was a process we had to use for regulated medical devices for risk assessment. We had to identify all potential risks for any specific medical device, and rate it on both severity and likelyhood of occurrence. There was then a formula that we used to calculate if it was over an acceptable level, and if so, we had to take steps to mitigate those risks. Some of those mitigations might be labeling. Some might be controls on administration or use. It depends on the device. It's a little more complicated than this, but the point is, if we determined that the risk was unacceptable without mitigation, then the mitigation is non-acceptable, no matter how it might affect use/participation. And we're talking about devices here that might save or at the least seriously improve someone's quality of life. So there's a downside to folks not using them.

And another 'innocent', quasi-political thread started by Tundra results in people fighting.

fighting?

Perhaps the word choice is incorrect. Fighting/arguing/debating. I just find it interesting that the helmet issue is known to be a political hot button, and here we are, another political thread. I wouldn't really say you're 'fighting' per se, but saying the same thing in different ways. In both your points, it looks like you both favor certain safety measures being in place for a given activity. You both agree, yet posts with *bolded text* are being shot at each other.

I could be wrong, but this isn't the first time I've seen Tundra post a politically charged thread 'innocently' in the wrong forum, with similar results.

Meh, I think folks are just interested in the discussion. I know there's nothing heated from my side, and I don't see anything political about it.

It's sort of like helmet laws on motorcycles. You'll never reach a consensus. I ride my Harley daily to work and home, and almost never wear a helmet, and I'm sure there are plenty of folks here with colorful words like "stupid, suicidal, and organ donor" to describe me. They'll not change my minds, and I'll not change theirs. But the discussions can be interesting regardless.

FWIW, the only reason I ever highlight or bold words in someone else's post is to emphasize an area to which I am specifically responding, purely for clarity. Sometimes I can snip down a post, but that often takes what the other person said out of context, so it's a matter of balance.

Yeah, no fight here, just think each person should have very broad latitude to engage in the risk they choose for themselves without being criminalized for failing to engage in someone else's standard of personal safety. If a safety law is driving a non-trivial number people out of a worthwhile activity, it's time to revisit the safety law. That's all. You could apply it to seat belts, football, food consumption, or even smoking. Any time you approve the idea of criminalizing a failure to act as safely as someone else thinks you should act, you set what is to me an uneasy precedent.

I just get itchy when I hear absolutes, and I (unsuccessfully) try not to use them myself, because reality is...in most cases...in the middle.

I do remember that fund raiser. It was Downed Bikers Association that did it. I don't do many of their rides but I did that one because I rode some motocross in the 70s myself. Wearing, actually not wearing, a helmet on the Harley is a whole story of its own.

That's right! I had forgotten about that group. My former boss at Hertz was/is a member of the DBA and told me about the fundraising. You might know him too, he owned Bricktown Charley's (formerly Bricktown Harley's) and Charley's Last Stand.
C. T.