Motorbike repairs Reading

Should motorcycle riders have the proper to choose to wear or never to wear a Motorbike repairs Reading? It is a fiercely debated topic among bikers, politicians and recently the folks of Missouri.

It is a'freedom of preference'debate for a lot of, questioning why the legislators feel they know very well what individuals need a lot better than themselves. It can also be a range issue, how extensive should laws be to protect life and where if the line be drawn? Laws state that an individual is not allowed to intentionally end their very own life, helmet laws attempt to reduce the danger of death, how far will legislators go to protect life and what effect will this have on the standard of living for the patient?

Of course it isn't that simple, we're not absolutely all only individuals but together we constitute a culture and sometimes the actions of people may have positive and negative effects on other individuals and on wider society.

And so the debate widens to consider costs and benefits to society. I'm not likely to go into this area in more detail because the majority of the costs and benefits have previously been widely discussed previously. Considerations range from the immediate lack of life to a rider who's involved with a fatal accident, any pillion rider who's unfortunate enough to be involved, and every other parties who are active in the accident. Pillion riders, like passengers in car accidents form a sad statistic because the accident is generally completely outside of the control, yet they bear the same consequences. Considerations also include hospital services, police investigations, legal inquiries, and road clean up and repair work. Individual freedom of preference should hold strong consideration, and the fact that the utilization or non-use of a motorcycle helmet doesn't directly effect the health of someone else besides themselves (ignoring the Organ Donor Effect).

The Organ Donor Effect - Mitigating the price of motorcycle accidents on society? It isn't a new concept, but one that's received revived publicity lately following a Missouri motorbike helmet law saga. For me the relationship between motorcycle accidents and organ donations is interesting because people will utilize the same relationship to argue both for and against crash helmet laws. You may also find motorcyclists citing the relationship in their arguments against motorcycle helmet laws. This multi usage of the same argument is interesting, any usage of the argument is in fact bizarre because the result implies different values on the lives of motorcyclists in comparison to humans on the organ donation waiting list. Aren't the lives of most humans valued equally? Of course they're not, if they were politicians would not be sending our teenagers to war but be going themselves, but that is off topic. So what's the Organ Donor Effect?

Statistics show a connection exists between motorbike helmet use and the amount of fatal motorcycle accidents from head trauma. Compulsory helmet laws increase helmet use, causing a corresponding decrease in rider fatalities. The Organ Donor Effect is the statistical relationship between a decrease in head trauma related motorcycle rider fatalities and a corresponding decrease in healthy organ donations. Motorcycle riders are generally young and healthy and have an above average likelihood of providing healthy organs following death from head trauma. Statistics show that for each and every motorcycle accident fatality from head trauma, 0.33 deaths have been delayed on the organ waiting list. Note it is not a one to at least one relationship, but rather three riders have to die to save lots of one person needing an organ.

The argument against helmet laws citing the Organ Donor Effect is often along the lines of that the enactment of crash helmet laws will certainly reduce the amount of organ donations annually causing a corresponding increase in the amount of deaths on the organ waiting list.

An argument for helmet laws citing the Organ Donor Effect is statistically stronger, consider that for each and every three biker deaths, only one persons life needing an organ is likely to be saved (extended). So unless the lives of bikers are somehow less important than everyone else, the Organ Donor Effect as a disagreement for, or against motorbike helmet legislation is irrelevant.

Butterfly Effect - Actions may have reactions further away than may initially be considered. The Organ Donor Effect when considering motorcycle helmet legislation is an appealing exemplory instance of a Butterfly Effect. The use of helmets don't only effect those immediately involved with a motorcycle accident, but can also effect third parties which you would not immediately consider - those on organ donor waiting lists. But just because there is a connection, doesn't mean it is an important relationship and doesn't show that it deserves to be considered in the debate.

Much more serious helmet law considerations must be around half helmets and other minimalistic helmets which provide questionable protection. If these helmet styles qualify as adequate protection under law, but don't actually adequately protect the human head in a motorcycle accident. It begs the question of whether there is any point to having the helmet laws in the initial place.