| 12:48 am on Jun 17, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I'd say what's worse are States in the US that still don't have mandatory helmet laws.
| 12:52 am on Jun 17, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Smoking while riding a motorbike without a helmet. (Damn thing keeps going out and I have to look for my lighter while I'm riding).
| 2:06 am on Jun 17, 2006 (gmt 0)|
>>Or are they both the same.
Depends on how fast you want to die...
| 8:59 am on Jun 17, 2006 (gmt 0)|
They banned smoking in all public places in Scotland in March this year. Smokers now have to go outside for a smoke when they are in the pub. The prophets of doom suggested that it would be the ruination of all the pubs but last report I saw was that takings have actually gone up. :)
| 10:06 am on Jun 17, 2006 (gmt 0)|
It is much worse to be smoking a motorcycle whilst riding a helmet.
| 10:54 am on Jun 17, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|The prophets of doom suggested that it would be the ruination of all the pubs but last report I saw was that takings have actually gone up |
Same discussion here in Germany. Government thinks about banning smoking, Pub owners fear decline in turnovers.
However I believe takings would go up. I cannot count how often I did not go into a cafe or bar because I did have an appointment afterwards and did not want to smell like I just came from an all night party.
So here is something that I always wanted to tell all the smokers out there but never dared: You stink! And kissing a girl who smokes tastes like licking a stale ashtray! [Ducking for cover and running away...]
By the way: Thank you for not smoking in this thread and please put on your helmet.
| 11:13 am on Jun 17, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I was going to make a remark about German helmets but propriety prevents me from doing so :)
Seriously, visiting the pub is a much more pleasant experience since they banned it and ... your wife cannot tell when you have been there (unless of course you are p¦ssed!)
| 11:29 am on Jun 17, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Yup, here in Japan things are slowly starting to move forward. Many areas have banned smoking on the streets (often narrow and / or very crowded), except in designated smoking areas. More and more restaurants etc. are improving their non-smoking sections (ironically enough McDonalds is setting a good example here), though there's still a long way to go.
I'm not sure about the legal status of motorcycle helmets, although I hear holding an umbrella while cycling is now frowned on by the police.
For the record I belong to the vast potential market of people who would happily spend much more time and money in various dining and drinking establishments if it no longer involves getting covered in an invisible odourous layer of tarry stickiness.
| 11:51 am on Jun 17, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I think smoking is far safer than say bungee-jumping.
On the other hand, B-J doesn't stink up your clothes.
I'm sure banning smoking is just great, for all the non-smokers at least.
Forever forgotten in these discussions are the withdrawal symptoms of
the smokers, the exclusion, discrimination, social stigmata etc. etc.
There are highly organized, well funded programs to reduce if not eliminate smoking in general.
If 1% of this were done to any other minority, it would be an international outrage.
I would rather be in a pub with 10 smokers than the same establishment, smoke-free,
with a single religious evangelist or one drooling vegetarian. -Larry
PS: Saturday 17 June is "Eat your Vegetables Day", in the USA at least.
I put that at the bottom of my little website, main page BTW.
PPS: Tobacco is as much 'vegetable' as broccoli or spinach.
People smoke tobacco because it tastes bad, no matter how you prepare it. -LH
| 12:02 pm on Jun 17, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|PPS: Tobacco is as much 'vegetable' as broccoli or spinach. |
Hmmmm, so are opium and cocaine, so we won't go there........
Wish I could give up smoking, just don't seem to have the willpower.
But I always wear a helmet and suitable clothing!
Just read that last sentence over and it brought a cheeky grin to my face ;)
| 2:07 pm on Jun 17, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Smoking kills you - and it is a horrible death. Plain and simple.
Smoking also poisons everyone and everything within a large radius of the smoker. Quite selfish on the smokers part.
The dumbest thing I ever see is someone with a smoke hanging from their lips. I think to myself: there goes a fool.
Riding without head protection is at least an immediate danger only to oneself.
(sorry I am so agaist smoking. Must be because I have seen coworkers and my best friends father die of lung and brain cancer from it's effects, and it is not a pretty sight)
[edited by: rfontaine at 2:16 pm (utc) on June 17, 2006]
| 2:10 pm on Jun 17, 2006 (gmt 0)|
It depends ... do you want to die quickly, or slowly?
| 7:08 pm on Jun 17, 2006 (gmt 0)|
We are all going to die. But I would rather go on a motorcycle than in a cancer ward.
| 8:27 am on Jun 18, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Here's a deal for the smokers: you can smoke in my presence if in turn you consent to me being able to spray you, your clothing, your workplace, your children etc. with the pungent, possibly carciogenic odour of my choice ;-).
Personally I wouldn't want to proscribe what anyone does - as long as it doesn't affect me. And unfortunately smoking is the one "vice" with which a minority - even just one or two people in a room - can immediately cause varying degrees of discomfort to the majority.
A sensible solution to the smoking in pubs problem would have been maybe to have a general ban, but create a set number of licences for "smoking pubs". Dunno whether it would be feasible though, and given the choice between no ban and a complete ban I'd prefer a complete ban.
| 8:31 am on Jun 18, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|Smoking while riding a motorbike without a helmet. |
and you forgot about simultaneously talking on mobile ;)
here in India, all the three are banned, but seems no one cares. Earlier i thought that its Indian attitude. but looking at many of posts here, this seems to be a global phenomenon
| 10:49 am on Jun 18, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Smoking is one of the few consumer products that, if you follow all the manufacturer's instructions, will kill around 40% of its users. Plus some of the bystanders.
The death rate for motorcycles is lower than that, much lower.
Though it needs to be age-adjusted. In the UK, the NHS's (National health Service) colloquial term for a young male motorcyclist is "organ donor".
[edited by: lawman at 11:04 am (utc) on June 18, 2006]
| 12:02 pm on Jun 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
As a Pennsylvanian, I'm embarrased that we allow bikers to ride without helmets. I was just listening to NPR talking about the rate of fatalities in FL after they went "helmet free" and it was alarming.
I'm about as liberal as they come, and certainly don't wish to impose my views, religious, political, or otherwise on ANYONE else, but bikers involved in accidents are more likely to DIE without helmets. PERIOD. Now, certainly, a law is NOT going to mean that all bikers start wearing helmets, but if there was a legal incentive, it might help goad those of the biking persuasion to wear a helmet.
Don't even get me started on smoking. All I can say is I'm OVERJOYED that Pennsylvania is considering a smoking ban in bars and restaurants. I don't know what goes on in the brains of restauranteurs who think that by simply designating an area as non-smoking, no smoke will enter that area, regardless of the fact that there is no barrier between the smoking and non-smoking section. RIDICULOUS.
| 3:18 pm on Jun 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|All I can say is I'm OVERJOYED that Pennsylvania is considering a smoking ban in bars and restaurants. |
I understand that a smoking ban in your best interest (mine, too), but the state should not have so much say about what a property-owner does on his own property.
Bar attendance is not mandatory. Keep smoking out of places that the public is forced to visit (the MVA, court, schools, etc), but property-owners should have rights, too.
Bar-owners forced to ban smoking. Wow. Let freedom ring.
| 3:55 pm on Jun 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Well, considering that states that have passed a helmet law has seen 0, yes 0% (you can check for yourself) decline in motorcyle fatalities, I would have ot guess that smoking is worse.
| 4:01 pm on Jun 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
to quote Jeremy Clarkson (first & last time)
" Would you want to enter the next life travelling at 100 miles and hour in a flaming fire ball wearing skin tight leathers?
or in a yellowy grey wrinkly haze? "
| 5:42 pm on Jun 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|Well, considering that states that have passed a helmet law has seen 0, yes 0% (you can check for yourself) decline in motorcyle fatalities |
I wonder what the rise in para/quadraplegics has been though?
|to quote Jeremy Clarkson (first & last time)..." Would you want to enter the next life travelling at 100 miles and hour in a flaming fire ball wearing skin tight leathers?... or in a yellowy grey wrinkly haze? " |
Seeing as Clarkson smokes like a chimney, chances are a yellowy-grey haze will accompany his 100mph departure, leather-clad or not ;)
Speaking of leathers, what always makes me shake my head is seeing (usually male) motorcyclists, riding at speed, while wearing a helmet, but next to nothing else. They might just come out of an accident with their faces intact, but they sure as hell won't have any skin left elsewhere.
Note I said "faces" not "brains", as anyone who rides a motorbike while wearing nothing but a pair of shorts, has no brains to start with.
| 5:58 pm on Jun 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|Smoking while riding a motorbike without a helmet. |
and you forgot about simultaneously talking on mobile ;)
While drunk of course.
Shall we talk about who should pay the bills for these "personal decisions"?
| 6:03 pm on Jun 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|sure as hell won't have any skin left elsewhere. |
| 6:09 pm on Jun 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|won't have any skin left elsewhere |
A cousin of mine was hit by a truck while riding his motorcycle on what was supposed to be a quick errand. He was wearing his helmet (legally required in my province) but hadn't put on his leathers because the trip was only a couple of blocks. The skin wounds caused as much pain as all the other injuries together.
The accident cost him part of a leg, but even something like that can have a happy ending because he ended up marrying his physiotherapist!
| 6:15 pm on Jun 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I don't know, ask Ben Roethlisberger I know he doesn't smoke ;)
| 7:24 pm on Jun 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Riding a cycle without a helmet is dangerous. My brothers life was saved in an accident a year ago where a druk driver ran a stop sign, ran him over, and then backed up over him to get away.
Smoking? Definatly dangerous, wish I could quit. Went from just a little over a pack a day to a pack every two-three days.
anyone ever give hynosis a try? :(
| 8:03 pm on Jun 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|Yup, here in Japan ... More and more restaurants etc. are improving their non-smoking sections (ironically enough McDonalds is setting a good example here), ... |
In London, progress toward a complete no-smoking ban began when the US chain Starbucks started opening locations all over London, all totally no-smoking. Business visibly drained away from other coffee shops where smoking was still allowed, and this experience helped other restaurant and pub owners to understand that no-smoking was better for business.
|Bar-owners forced to ban smoking. Wow. Let freedom ring. |
Few bar-owners want smoking (talk to just about anyone in London who owns or works in a bar). The problem is that bar-owners are reluctant to confront smokers and throw them out, fearing that the smokers will aggressively claim a right to smoke. Passing a law, while undoubtedly a trespass of rights, makes it totally clear that smoking in the workplaces of others (including bars) is not permitted, and reduces arguments (which ARE bad for business).
In California, this same process has gone much farther: there are signs on beaches and in parks forbidding smoking, and smoking is forbidden outdoors within 20 feet of doorways, operable windows, and air intakes. (Proponents of this last argued: "we don't allow people to stand in doorways and urinate, either.") Same good result: everyone knows that smoking is unwanted, and smokers never dare to defy the rule because non-smokers feel empowered to tell smokers to stop.
| 2:02 pm on Jun 22, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|Though it needs to be age-adjusted. In the UK, the NHS's (National health Service) colloquial term for a young male motorcyclist is "organ donor". |
Organ donor is pretty much what we call those around here too. Unless, of course, it's a motorcyclist without a helmet and a cigarette. Then even their organs are of little to no use.
Both are terrible because of the health problems and dangers. I used to smoke but never rode a motorcycle without a helmet (or after drinking). I quite smoking for various reasons and would still never ride without a helmet. I think both are quite dumb. Still, smoking makes many people uncomfortable while riding without a helmet is more a personal idiocy.
Both actions are dumb and dangerous. If you choose to do them beware the consequences, whether that mean becoming a temporary social outcast or breaking all the bones in your face.
| 12:49 am on Jun 23, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|fearing that the smokers will aggressively claim a right to smoke |
I shouldn't worry too much about that. I have never seen smokers claim a right to smoke nearly as aggressively as passionate non-smokers demand that all smokers stop smoking. Smokers usually just go somewhere else where they won't be pestered. Sooner or later the anti-smoking crew turn up and make a fuss.
Why not allow pubs choose to be licenced public smoking areas (or not) and let the market decide? That way non-smokers can go to the non-smoking pubs and smokers can go to the smoking pubs. Everyone is happy, right?
In answer to the original question, smoking is worse. Riding without a helmet is far less likely to damage the health of another person.
| This 47 message thread spans 2 pages: 47 (  2 ) > > |