Why is the blame not being placed where it belongs?

As a Pittsburgh Steelers fan for many years, I've been following the
Ben Roethlisberger story with some interest, and it concerns me that
the vast majority of comments both from the media and from the general
public (at least as read in the "letters to the editor" section of USA
Today, which I normally wouldn't have been reading but was the only rag
available at the hotel I've been at for the last week) is that this
whole incident is somehow Roethlisberger's fault for not wearing a
helmet.

Excuse me? What would have been the difference if Roethlisberger had
been wearing his helmet? He still would have hit the car, he just may
or may not have been as severely injured.

Where's the public outcry against the lady who pulled out in front of
him? Had she not done that, there would have been no incident at all.

I find it very disheartening that all the blame seems to be placed on
someone who was acting in a perfectly legal manner (well, except
possibly for the rumor that Roethlisberger didn't have his "M"
endorsement, but that's somewhat irrelevant) simply because he made the
legal choice to ride without an optional piece of safety gear and
nobody's saying a thing about the person who caused the accident.

This is akin to someone saying that if I hit a SUV that pulls out in
front of me while driving my old Studebaker and get a punctured lung as
a result, it's my own damn fault for not buying a new car with a
collapsible steering column. As I'm sure you can tell, I have a real
problem with that - but it certainly does seem to be where our
society's heading. So what of it? Why is the blame not being placed
squarely where it belongs, on an inattentive driver? I'm not saying
that the lady needs to be publicly beat up over this; I'm sure she
feels bad enough already, but I just can't wrap my mind around how
everyone's faulting Roethlisberger for something that by all accounts
wasn't his fault.

nate

In article .com>, N8N wrote:

> Where's the public outcry against the lady who pulled out in front of
> him? Had she not done that, there would have been no incident at all.

This is the same as what happens when advocating properly set speed
limits. It's the blame-the-victim-of-bad-driving argument that is
consistantly used. If someone turns left in front of you it's your
fault for going too fast despite that you were doing 10mph
under the already absurdly low limit and the person put his vehicle 3
feet in front of yours. Never mind someone cut you off going 20mph
slower and then stomped on the brakes.... it's your fault for 'going too
fast'. 'too fast' often defined as 'more than zero'

Helmet arguments go the same way. At least motorcycle helmets have some
benefit. In bicycling the magic foam hat is supposed to save us when our
chest is crushed by fully loaded semi-tractor-trailer. How a piece of
styrofoam is supposed to do that I don't know, but news articles enjoy
mentioning that the rider didn't wear a helmet even when the injuries
are no where near the top of the head.

Instead of demanding competency this society has moved towards demanding
tolerance and preparation for the incompetent. The problem is that
adapting to the incompetent is a never ending battle because as time
passes better idiots are built. In the end our lives become more limited
and getting things done and getting where we are going requires more
labor, time, and causes more frustration.

> This is akin to someone saying that if I hit a SUV that pulls out in
> front of me while driving my old Studebaker and get a punctured lung as
> a result, it's my own damn fault for not buying a new car with a
> collapsible steering column. As I'm sure you can tell, I have a real
> problem with that - but it certainly does seem to be where our
> society's heading.

Yep. I see the same thing for driving an old car or riding a bicycle.
Their incompetence and bad behavior is my fault because it effects me to
a greater amount that the average bear.

> So what of it? Why is the blame not being placed
> squarely where it belongs, on an inattentive driver?

Because it doesn't benefit government and corporations to have a
competent, responsible population of people who can think. Yes, I know
to many people I sound nuts. But once you've read how schooling has
systematically dumbed down people in the USA in the last century plus
and couple that with the consistant build a better moron nanny state
parental government it starts to become clear.

Incidents like this with the proper media spin get people accepting
greater controls over them. Willingly passing more laws, making more
people lawbreakers. And so goes our free choice, sacrificed to limit the
damage of morons which it will never really accomplish.

N8N wrote:
>
[snip]

> Where's the public outcry against the lady who pulled out in front of
> him? Had she not done that, there would have been no incident at all.

There is no outcry because we don't have the political will to remove
incompetent drivers from the roads. We will belt, air-bag, pad, and
helmet everything in sight in order to minimize the damage done as the
incompetents merrily bounce off of them.

--
Paul Hovnanian
------------------------------------------------------------------
Think honk if you're a telepath.

> N8N said in rec.autos.driving:
> As a Pittsburgh Steelers fan for many years, I've been following the
> Ben Roethlisberger story with some interest, and it concerns me that
> the vast majority of comments both from the media and from the general
> public (at least as read in the "letters to the editor" section of USA
> Today, which I normally wouldn't have been reading but was the only rag
> available at the hotel I've been at for the last week) is that this
> whole incident is somehow Roethlisberger's fault for not wearing a
> helmet.

IME, the big deal probablly is that since Roethlisberger is a big name
in the NFL that he is considered a "role model," and that there are
people out there who will want to follow his lead good, bad or
indifferent and they will come up with all sorts of "what if..."
scenarios where someone else who rides sans helmet and gets Darwinized
will be blamed on that person imitating or following the "lead," of
Roethlisberger.

> Excuse me? What would have been the difference if Roethlisberger had
> been wearing his helmet? He still would have hit the car, he just may
> or may not have been as severely injured.

Probablly would not have been injured as badly...

> Where's the public outcry against the lady who pulled out in front of
> him? Had she not done that, there would have been no incident at all.

Because these people who are quick to criticize Roethlisberger for no
helmet would see too much of themselves in the lady who caused the
accident.

Here's to hoping that Roethlisberger makes a complete rocovery and
returns to his career...


Go JAGUARS!!!!!!

--
--
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to
purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve
neither Liberty nor Safety."
--Benjamin Franklin

> Brent P said in rec.autos.driving:
> Helmet arguments go the same way. At least motorcycle helmets have some
> benefit. In bicycling the magic foam hat is supposed to save us when our
> chest is crushed by fully loaded semi-tractor-trailer.

Its a control thing. They can't rule a cyclist's life in other ways, so
they come up with the helmet requirement. First for unxer x years of
age, and then soon enough to everybody.

> How a piece of
> styrofoam is supposed to do that I don't know, but news articles enjoy
> mentioning that the rider didn't wear a helmet even when the injuries
> are no where near the top of the head.

Dunno. Maybe it gives the nanny state types a comfortable place to put
their figurative thumb down on so that they can twist....

--
"If the Tampa Bay Buccaneers are known as the "Buc's,"
And the Jacksonville Jaguars are known as the "Jag's,"
Then what does that make the Tennessee Titans?"
--George Carlin

necromancer > wrote in
th.net:

>> Brent P said in rec.autos.driving:
>> Helmet arguments go the same way. At least motorcycle helmets have
>> some benefit. In bicycling the magic foam hat is supposed to save us
>> when our chest is crushed by fully loaded semi-tractor-trailer.
>
> Its a control thing. They can't rule a cyclist's life in other ways,
> so they come up with the helmet requirement. First for unxer x years
> of age, and then soon enough to everybody.

In PA, there used to be a helmet law where all riders had to wear them.
It's in the past few years that this law has been loosened up. Going the
other way there, don't 'ca think?

Doug

DYM wrote:
> necromancer > wrote in
> th.net:
>
> >> Brent P said in rec.autos.driving:
> >> Helmet arguments go the same way. At least motorcycle helmets have
> >> some benefit. In bicycling the magic foam hat is supposed to save us
> >> when our chest is crushed by fully loaded semi-tractor-trailer.
> >
> > Its a control thing. They can't rule a cyclist's life in other ways,
> > so they come up with the helmet requirement. First for unxer x years
> > of age, and then soon enough to everybody.
>
> In PA, there used to be a helmet law where all riders had to wear them.
> It's in the past few years that this law has been loosened up. Going the
> other way there, don't 'ca think?
>
> Doug

based on the comments outside this forum, my prediction is "not for
long."

Yes, you are correct, the whole time I lived in PA there was a
mandatory helmet law, no exceptions.

nate

Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> On 16 Jun 2006 12:01:49 -0700, "N8N" > wrote:
>
> >As a Pittsburgh Steelers fan for many years, I've been following the
> >Ben Roethlisberger story with some interest, and it concerns me that
> >the vast majority of comments both from the media and from the general
> >public (at least as read in the "letters to the editor" section of USA
> >Today, which I normally wouldn't have been reading but was the only rag
> >available at the hotel I've been at for the last week) is that this
> >whole incident is somehow Roethlisberger's fault for not wearing a
> >helmet.
> >
> >Excuse me? What would have been the difference if Roethlisberger had
> >been wearing his helmet? He still would have hit the car, he just may
> >or may not have been as severely injured.
>
> Let's look at a slightly different scenario:
>
> Suppose Roethlisberger had been ****ing the woman instead of running
> into her car. Suppose that he wasn't wearing a rubber and she got
> knocked up. Whose fault is it that he is now on the hook for EIGHTEEN
> YEARS' worth of child support payments?
>
> Bottom line, he bears a certain amount of responsibility for
> protecting himself. He knew the risks, but he pulled a Gary Busey
> anyway. This tempers any sympathy I might feel for him.
> --
> What the heck, I'll play too.
> - Dave

I admit that I haven't followed the story all that close but...

I haven't seen anything at all blaming him 'for the crash'. Only for
not wearing a helmut. So far I don't recall hearing anything at all
about what the woman was charged with and I'll bet she was ticketed
heavily.

Harry K

In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:

> Suppose Roethlisberger had been ****ing the woman instead of running
> into her car. Suppose that he wasn't wearing a rubber and she got
> knocked up. Whose fault is it that he is now on the hook for EIGHTEEN
> YEARS' worth of child support payments?

Where did he ask the woman to turn in front of him? See, that's what is
missing.

> Bottom line, he bears a certain amount of responsibility for
> protecting himself. He knew the risks, but he pulled a Gary Busey
> anyway. This tempers any sympathy I might feel for him.

I'll remember that if some dumb trucker crushes your corvette. It's your
fault for not driving something bigger like another semi.

Brent P wrote: <brevity snip>
> In bicycling the magic foam hat is supposed to save us when our
> chest is crushed by fully loaded semi-tractor-trailer.

Are you saying wearing leathers, boots and helmets is ridiculous since
they won't protect your chest from being crushed by a semi...?
-----

- gpsman