CHP and Helmets; Judge rules law unconstitutional

That is an impossibility. Absolutely no helmet can meet that
requirement.

 

He didn't have to pick it up. That's what got him into all that trouble
in the first place!

 

OK. I like your world, but there are two conditions that need to be met
before we can get there:
1. Eliminate the rule that requires emergency medical providers to help
anyone who can't pay for the service. If you want to risk your life and
health, be my guest, but the bar is strictly no-host.
2. Eliminate the right to recover damages for injuries sustained
through negligence. If you don't want to wear a helmet when you ride or
a seatbelt when you drive, have at it. But tell your greedy kids that
when I hit you and didn't mean to harm you, and you die, that the only
claim for wrongful death is against you, not me.

The hyperpatriots claim "Freedom isn't free." They're right, though not
necessarily in the way they thought of it.

Rich, Urban Biker

 

Same rule would apply to hitting bicyclists and pedestrians
who failed to wear protective gear ?

 

Yes. We've allowed the definition of negligence to be pushed to absurd
limits over the last century or so. In cases involving automobile
mishaps, it's negligence is largely a matter of being too rich to not be
sued. Let me give you an example from personal experience:

Three years ago, I rode my 1989 Virago to the grocery store. I parked
at the curb and put down my sidestand. The bike was perfectly stable
when I walked away from it and went into the store.

Twenty minutes later, I got back to the bike and found it leaning on the
hood of the car parked next to it. What had happened was that the
heat softened the asphalt under the sidestand and the bike tipped over.

I reported the incident to my insurance company, and they chose to pay
out over $1000 in damages to the owner of the car. The ironic effect of
their decision was that my motorcycle liability coverage was unaffected
by the accident, but when I bought a car a few months later, I had to
pay a lot more for liability coverage on it (that premium ultimately
collected by another insurer, so it wasn't a matter of getting their
money back).

One could contend that the high price of lawyers led my insurer to
conclude that it was better for them to settle. I contend that the low
standard of what constitutes automotive negligence and in particular the
notion that every accident has somebody who is at fault is driving the
system.

So my short answer is that when a car hurts a bicyclist or a pedestrian,
the person hurt should pay for their own injuries unless they can show
that the driver of the car did something prohibited or failed to do
something required which permitted the mishap to happen.



Rich, Urban Biker

 

So if you shouldn't pay for the damage, the other choices would be
the car owner, the motorcycle manufacturer or maybe the paving
contracter. Who do you figure should pay ? Which of them was
negligent ? Maybe the bike falling over was an act of God ?

I believe this is known as "at fault". You figure pedestrians should
also have to be wearing helmets to collect a liability settlement ?

 

I had the Reuben sandwich at my favorite pub today. The horseradish there
is enough to imperil the life of a weak constitution.