[kphilip]

SHAN2NU, i agree with u!! Great comments dude!!!Helmet Rocks!!!

[vinsanity]

Originally Posted by normally_crazy

good idea but probably the bike wont sell !! ppl mite see that as too negative a comment !! they mite say ride this bike and u die !! baah superstitions !! or we could have it on all bikes - doesnt leave them with a choice !!

But yeah - we could have decals saying - " Ensure Peace of mind for your Family - Wear helmets " or something ??

Ya right..
Some how people just wont understand..
Its like, from the warning:'cigarette smoking is injurious to health' they wanted to change it to 'cigarette smoking makes you impotent'..
So I just thought we must go at it the hard way... hehheee..

Wont work anywayz!!!!!!!!

[ported_head]

Originally Posted by Shan2nu

Probably you forgot to read that chapter on passive smoking. Banning smoking is more to do with other people taking in your smoke rather than you getting affected by it. Why do you think some places have a smoking section and a non smoking section. They're not stopping you from smoking, you wanna smoke........do it, but not in places where it's not allowed.

In India, smoking is mainly banned in public areas, nobody is preventing you from smoking in your house. Similarly, there's no rule against not wearing a helmet when you ride yor bike within your private premises. But the moment you step out, you have to. There are no 2 ways about it.

You might say that even if you don't wear a helmet, nobody else is getting affected by it. But the truth is that if you meet with an accident tom and crack your head, your parents and everybody who is concerned are gonna point their fingures at the government, saying that the government never made any rule against this and see what it has led to. That's why the government has no choice but to implicate these rules.

Shan2nu

Problem is, these are the easy ways out. It's easier to put up laws against smoking in public areas, then it is to curb smoke belching trucks. Pollution in Mumbai was thought to be equivalent to smoking 3-4 cigarettes. That was a couple of years ago, make that 5-6 cigarettes a day now. Close to what I usually do nowadays. These small rules are when nobody wants to make efforts where it would really matter.

Ride a bike in private premises? When was the last time that happened? With anybody? Your kidding me right? I spend close to 15 hours of my day outside the house. How am I supposed to smoke at home then? This is where the problem starts. The constitution applies to everybody, and when these rules start to be implied, they strangle a minority of people, why shouldn't they rebel. Why doesn't anybody raise questions when millions are being refused the right to even basic education, or a minimal standard of living. Why do the rest of the cities still require to adhere only to Euro-2 or Euro-1 compliance still? There have to be 2 ways about certain things, because there will always be a group of people who don't think it's right for them. When it comes to cases such as drunken driving, we need absolutely foolproof rules, because they put everybody else at risk on the road, even the people who are not their family.

When a guy loads his Boxer with 3 other people from his family, including two infants, with him being the only one wearing a small visor on his face, riding on the extreme right hand side of the road, does he really have the right to point fingers at the government, laws withstanding or not? Quite a few of these econo-bike owners are people who are not rich and the affluent kind, who cannot afford a car for their basic safety of his family, because guess what he was probably denied the right to education at some point of his life.


Which is why I say, redundantly, nobody needs to point fingers at the Government, who we all know are a very responsible lot, when the people can tell the right from the wrong, and then choose their own.

[Shan2nu]

Pollution in Mumbai was thought to be equivalent to smoking 3-4 cigarettes. That was a couple of years ago, make that 5-6 cigarettes a day now. Close to what I usually do nowadays. These small rules are when nobody wants to make efforts where it would really matter.

I spend close to 15 hours of my day outside the house. How am I supposed to smoke at home then? This is where the problem starts. The constitution applies to everybody, and when these rules start to be implied, they strangle a minority of people, why shouldn't they rebel.

Why doesn't anybody raise questions when millions are being refused the right to even basic education, or a minimal standard of living. Why do the rest of the cities still require to adhere only to Euro-2 or Euro-1 compliance still? There have to be 2 ways about certain things, because there will always be a group of people who don't think it's right for them. When it comes to cases such as drunken driving, we need absolutely foolproof rules, because they put everybody else at risk on the road, even the people who are not their family.

When a guy loads his Boxer with 3 other people from his family, including two infants, with him being the only one wearing a small visor on his face, riding on the extreme right hand side of the road, does he really have the right to point fingers at the government, laws withstanding or not? Quite a few of these econo-bike owners are people who are not rich and the affluent kind, who cannot afford a car for their basic safety of his family, because guess what he was probably denied the right to education at some point of his life.

Which is why I say, redundantly, nobody needs to point fingers at the Government, who we all know are a very responsible lot, when the people can tell the right from the wrong, and then choose their own.

Think about what you just said. You wanna die bcoz somebody was denied basic education? Be my guest.

The helmet rule could be one step towards improving safety. Banning smoking could be step towards reducing pollution. If you're not gonna let the government start something, they'll never get anywhere.

As bikers, you guys should be telling others to use a helmet.

Rtech, i ask you. Tom if i go to the INRC officials with my bone stock Vtec and say "see guys, i'm low on cash, i can't really afford to get my car modified or buy racing gear, so can we work something out so that i get the chance to race my stock Vtec in the INRC?"

My car, my life, my money - so technically i can do it right? Why do i need a roll cage, rally tyres/suspenssion or even a helmet. I'm willing to risk my life. How do you think they'll respond? And why?

Shan2nu

[Shan2nu]

SHAN2NU, i agree with u!! Great comments dude!!!Helmet Rocks!!!

Thanks, but this is more than just a discussion. Even if one biker starts wearing his helmet after reading these posts, that's one less dead guy (thanks to team-bhp).

You must wonder, why i'm so much for this rule, i don't ride a bike. But most of my friends do.....

Shan2nu

[ported_head]

Originally Posted by Shan2nu

Think about what you just said. You wanna die bcoz somebody was denied basic education? Be my guest.

I'm sorry, here I couldn't understand what you were trying to say. Maybe you could rephrase, please.

Originally Posted by Shan2nu

The helmet rule could be one step towards improving safety. Banning smoking could be step towards reducing pollution. If you're not gonna let the government start something, they'll never get anywhere.

I agree, don't get me wrong, I'm not against the logic behind wearing helmets. But the underlying fundamental still should be education. What are we going to see after this rule, people are wearing construction hard hats, non ISI approved helmets, which you have to agree will still take lives inspite of the rule. Those who are aware of the pros of wearing protective gear, people I do know, have been wearing a helmet all these years too, and some of them wear protective jackets too.

Originally Posted by Shan2nu

As bikers, you guys should be telling others to use a helmet.

As a non-biker, I still urge everybody I know to wear helmets. In fact, I use to wear a helmet when I used to ride my cycle too during school days. I used to buckle-up too, when there was no law, and still do.

Originally Posted by Shan2nu

Rtech, i ask you. Tom if i go to the INRC officials with my bone stock Vtec and say "see guys, i'm low on cash, i can't really afford to get my car modified or buy racing gear, so can we work something out so that i get the chance to race my stock Vtec in the INRC?"

My car, my life, my money - so technically i can do it right? Why do i need a roll cage, rally tyres/suspenssion or even a helmet. I'm willing to risk my life. How do you think they'll respond? And why?

If you are passionate enough about motor-racing, you should ideally also be well-versed with the fact that 'Motorsport is an Extremely Dangerous Sport'
If you still are so desperate, you could sell your VTEC, buy an Esteem, and then get the required modifications done. Which is why it is still a rich man's sport. If you are smart enough to buy a VTEC, you should be smart enough to know, in their championship your death would turn out to be their responsibility. This is the least they could do.
Your car, your life, your money, their Championship.

We all would love the world to be a safer and a cleaner place, but there has to be a systematic approach. Problems have to be tackled at the grass roots level, instead of being merely trimmed.

[Shan2nu]

If you are passionate enough about motor-racing, you should ideally also be well-versed with the fact that 'Motorsport is an Extremely Dangerous Sport'

Motorsport is dangerous? Then how come a large % of people die in road crashes? It's bcoz people don't wanna listen to what others have to say about safety.

On a track, they wont let you in, unless you have the required equipment. "THEIR" rules help save your lives.

If you still are so desperate, you could sell your VTEC, buy an Esteem, and then get the required modifications done

If a biker is really that passionate about riding or desperately in need of a bike, he can buy a slightly cheaper bike and use the remaining amount for the helmet.

If you are smart enough to buy a VTEC, you should be smart enough to know, in their championship your death would turn out to be their responsibility.

If you die in a bike crash the government will be held responsible for not having rules against not wearing a helmet.

This is the least they could do.

That's exactly what the government is doing.

There you go, you just cracked the morse code. There's nothing better in this world, than answering your own questions.

Ride safe, and always wear a helmet. I rest my case.

Shan2nu

[ported_head]

Originally Posted by Shan2nu

If a biker is really that passionate about riding or desperately in need of a bike, he can buy a slightly cheaper bike and use the remaining amount for the helmet.

If you die in a bike crash the government will be held responsible for not having rules against not wearing a helmet.

Alright, what about the people who die because of unregulated helmets? That would be the government right? Or they would not be? You got me confused.There is no one solution, unless tackled at grass roots level.
The point here was, Rtech wants to choose not to wear a helmet, inspite of him being well aware of the pros and cons. Why can't he? Where is the right to freedom? Back to square one. The idea here is not to think I'm against helmets, I'm against my limited democracy.

[F50]

Originally Posted by ported_head

I agree, don't get me wrong, I'm not against the logic behind wearing helmets. But the underlying fundamental still should be education. What are we going to see after this rule, people are wearing construction hard hats, non ISI approved helmets, which you have to agree will still take lives inspite of the rule. Those who are aware of the pros of wearing protective gear, people I do know, have been wearing a helmet all these years too, and some of them wear protective jackets too.

This is what i was trying to explain and hence to give more time.
If govt. is so much worried bout people's safety then they should be for 100% and not 50% safety.(Non ISI helmets n other alternatives)

[Shan2nu]

Rtech wants to choose not to wear a helmet, inspite of him being well aware of the pros and cons. Why can't he?

And i wanna ride a stock Vtec in INRC. It amounts to the same thing. YOu can't argue against that.

Alright, what about the people who die because of unregulated helmets? That would be the government right? Or they would not be?

What if i die in a crash, on a track, due to a weak roll cage (on my car). Who takes the blame for that? I don't think the track officials are gonna be interested.

The same rules apply here.

Like they say, you can take a horse to the water but you can't make it drink. The government have taken yo'll to the water, now it's your choice, buy a ISI helmet and be happy, or buy a fake one and die. In either cases, the government comes out clean. That is how they want it.

Having tried and lost, is better than not having tried at all - even their 50% effort will save lives.

Shan2nu

[Shan2nu]

Infact you should ask the manufacturers to provide you with a helmet. If cars need to have a seatbelt, then why can't 2 wheeler comanies provide a ISI helmet? That would be the best solution.

Forget the government, catch the bike manufacturers.

Shan2nu

[vinsanity]

Originally Posted by Shan2nu

Infact you should ask the manufacturers to provide you with a helmet. If cars need to have a seatbelt, then why can't 2 wheeler comanies provide a ISI helmet? That would be the best solution.

Forget the government, catch the bike manufacturers.

Shan2nu

That according to me is the best solution.. Every 2-wheeler sold in the country should come with atleast a helmet..
Thats the only way 'Real ISI' helmets could be obtained..

But its just the thought of how far a rule would be affective here is the matter..

It shouldn' just be a rule, it should be a law.. Only then people will start to use em..

I guess most of them owning a 2-wheeler are educated enough as to how a helmet can save their life.. Its the matter of discomfort while riding ehich prevents them from using one..

College guys dont use them cos otherwise, when on the road the girls wont be able to see their faces.. Might be thats why they dont use.. [crazy thought that!!] Many think its uncool to have em on.. So dont like to carry it arround..

Hope there is an end to this!!!!

[normally_crazy]

finally i can see some action ( positive one too) on mumbai roads. yesterday i saw traffic cops with helets - yes i did dont be shocked !! wutever junction the cops were there and riding bikes , they had helmets on !!

great maan - finally people wont have the excuse of saying that cops dont follow rules !!

some improvement this eh ? wat say guys ?

[vinsanity]

Not bad!!
I remember when the mobile ph rule came, one paper in B'lore had a photo of a cop riding his bike and was also having his handset in one hand and was talking(Giggle)....

Good to hear atleast they follow and set an example to others....

[amitoj]

Inspired by Shravan and NC, i am also showing my support to the cause through the signature...

cheers
amitoj