Concours Owners Group (COG) Forum

Motorcycle Talk => Motorcycle Safety => Topic started by: 2linby on July 04, 2011, 04:03:04 am

Title: Biker dies from head injuries while protesting helmet law. Definition of Irony
Post by: 2linby on July 04, 2011, 04:03:04 am
Sad.  The only quote that comes to mind is from a bumper sticker aimed at the lack of school education funding.

"If you think education is expensive, try ignorance".   I guess the most any anti-helmet fan can say is perhaps he should have worn slip on boots...........

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2011/07/death_of_motorcyclist_during_h.html
Title: Re: Biker dies from head injuries while protesting helmet law. Definition of Irony
Post by: AngryBaby on July 04, 2011, 04:52:52 am
If you choose to ride with no helmet death is one reality that could face to you.  As a motorcycle rider in general you have to know that at some point it might just be your time.  No matter what you must do whatever you can to avoid it at all cost.  Practice, training, and the right equipment is important to fight this battle.  Ride safe out there!
Title: Re: Biker dies from head injuries while protesting helmet law. Definition of Irony
Post by: millsan1 on July 04, 2011, 05:10:44 am
I don't dress for the ride, I dress for the crash.  That includes a lid, always.  While I appreciate keeping big brother out of my life, and do not like helmet laws, I always wear one, even when in states where they are not required.  I also wear jacket, gloves, and boots, and at least jeans or riding pants.  I have crashed in shorts and t shirt and crashed in full leathers.  Guess which one sucks less?
Title: Re: Biker dies from head injuries while protesting helmet law. Definition of Irony
Post by: S Smith on July 04, 2011, 10:07:25 am
It is sad, but definitely falls in the irony by example catagory.  IMHO, this would be more accurate statement...

If you choose to ride with no helmet death is one reality that could face to you. 


The protective riding gear debate has advocates and zealots that run the gamut from one extreme to the other, and everywhere in between.   I am an advocate for ATGATT, both as a motorcycle safety professional and a rider.  Over the years I have become much more cognizant that many riders want to ability to make their own choice.  This is why while they are students in class they are informed of the benefits protective gear can provide. Outside of class, I just lead by example.

Title: Re: Biker dies from head injuries while protesting helmet law. Definition of Irony
Post by: Ranger Jim on July 04, 2011, 10:25:43 am
 :iagree: Well said Steve.
Title: Re: Biker dies from head injuries while protesting helmet law. Definition of Irony
Post by: Camper Dave on July 04, 2011, 11:22:13 am
You know.... Pointing out someone else misfortune to bolster your view..... Well that just lacks something, I'm not going to put a word on it, but it lacks something...  Just my opinion.

This year, I've worn my helmet 99% of the time I've ridden. But quite honestly, when these threads come up and the holier-than-thou all get together and spout off thier rhetoric, it actually makes me want to ride more without my helmet. Funny the way that works sometimes, when you hear someone firey opinions about something that you hold a different opinion about, kinda makes you want to do it your way even more.

As Steve points out, remove "with no helmet" from that statement and the statement still rings true.
Title: Re: Biker dies from head injuries while protesting helmet law. Definition of Irony
Post by: Cap'n Bob on July 04, 2011, 11:26:35 am
Since this happened close to me, I feel it's almost at home. My wife and I were just discussing this since it's in our local paper this morning.

 I personally think that this probably happened because he was in a large group of slow moving bikes. Riders have a tendency to run into each other or other things avoiding others in these groups. I've seen it time and time again. But that doesn't change the fact that he probably would have survived had he had his helmet on.
 But this is not about how he died as much as his right to choose. I tend to wear my gear and helmet. But there's time I choose not to ATTGATT! That is my choice and don't feel I need the safety police to tell me what "I feel I should do"! I am a big boy (in more than one way)  :)) , and I am aware of the potential consequences of my choices.
 These people are protesting only for their right to choose. I don't want big brother telling me I have to wear this, or use a seat belt, or many other things they put in place now a days. Yes I tend to use my gear most of the time, like seat belts. But I feel it should be my choice as to when and what  "I choose" to wear. And I do not appreciate the government or the safety police telling me what "I feel" I should use.
 So it is more about their right to choose. Not that they want to ride without helmets. I bet most of them would normally ride with their helmets anyway!
Title: Re: Biker dies from head injuries while protesting helmet law. Definition of Irony
Post by: Bergmen on July 04, 2011, 02:51:06 pm
He wrecked because of distracted riding (shoe lace in chain). He could have died from this with a helmet just as easily. It is his lack of attention to the tasks at hand that is more of the issue here IMO.

Dan
Title: Re: Biker dies from head injuries while protesting helmet law. Definition of Irony
Post by: Hogboy on July 04, 2011, 03:33:02 pm
I'm going to chime in here with my own, VERY personal thoughts.  While there is no joy in the death of a fellow rider, there may be educational value that can help us all.

1. Are people that ride without a decent helmet the types that are sloppy in other safety areas?  Can these contribute to injuries/death?

2. Are non-helmet types more prone to poor bike prep (e.g. low PSI worn tires), buying a bike that is all for show and has terrible safety features (read zero ground clearance, crap brakes, almost non-existent suspension, etc.), drinking and riding, riding without armour (running shoes, shorts), etc.?

3. It seems from my observations that newbie riders and those picking up bikes in relation to a late mid-life crisis seem to gravitate to the ill-handling cruisers described above.  Can we conclude that these riders often have disproportionately poorer riding skills/attitudes?

4. Are people that protest helmet laws poorer thinkers than those that support them?  Is social Darwinism at work in this area?

This is a good related read: http://www.webbikeworld.com/Motorcycle-Safety/motorcycle-accident-statistics.htm
Title: Re: Biker dies from head injuries while protesting helmet law. Definition of Irony
Post by: MikeW on July 04, 2011, 07:21:57 pm

4. Are people that protest helmet laws poorer thinkers than those that support them?  Is social Darwinism at work in this area?


In my experience, 99% of the riders I talk to support freedom of choice and 99% of folks that don't ride have a problem with a "no" helmet law. Concerning the latter, I think it's because of the freedom it represents that they don't have or partake in.  Hence, they don't want it for anyone else.
Title: Re: Biker dies from head injuries while protesting helmet law. Definition of Irony
Post by: BJ_CT on July 05, 2011, 03:04:21 am
I'm gonna speak to the 'choice' point of view that CB and CD bring up.  If we had a choice, would we have finished high school?  Is there a cost to the general population (us) when folks chose unwisely?  Just like I hated being 'forced' to finish high school by my parents, I feel the government (us again) has a responsibility to protect me from other people making particularly and obviously poor decisions that will affect me, either directly or indirectly.  Teenagers should be locked up in a basement until they're at least 28.  Cars should have seat belts and air bags and padded dashboards and doors that won't pop open unexpectedly.  Bikers should wear gear.  Beginning riders should be limited in horsepower and engine size until they can prove (tests) that they can handle that ego thing between their legs.  With choice comes responsibility.  The rules help to correct those folks society (us one more time) deem to be acting irresponsibly.    Fighting common sense just to prove a selfish point of view is like carrying a chambered round.  Might not seem like much at the time but way freakin' questionable judgement anyway.

And then there's the question of speeding and passing where I think it's safe in contrast to what the rules say.  Guilty as charged and obviously not practicing what I just preached.

Flame on... :banghead:
Title: Re: Biker dies from head injuries while protesting helmet law. Definition of Irony
Post by: Walker18 on July 05, 2011, 03:21:32 am
Loose laces, that's the 'official' cause of this accident? First off, loose laces, or just laces, don't mix well with sprockets and chains.. First unsafe act he did,
and lucky for the posse around him not getting involved in his out of control condition because of loose laces.. His death was caused by an unfortunate series of events that were unusual and ironic. Loose laces fly into sprocket, pull foot off of peg, distracted by this, rider looks down at sprocket, at that moment, traffic
ahead slows or stops, rider looks up and locks up brakes, high sides over bars and lands on his head. Doubt that could happen that way if you re-created it a
hundred times.. It was his time. God bless his family and friends through this difficult time.
Title: Re: Biker dies from head injuries while protesting helmet law. Definition of Irony
Post by: Cap'n Bob on July 05, 2011, 08:03:42 am
 Actually there is no law saying you have to finish high school. ( at least not where I live) You can choose to leave at 16. But I (like most people) chose to finish high school, even though I had a choice (imagine that).
 Then you have the cost to the general population. Yes that is a question. But should we sterilize people that have children when on welfare? Should we have welfare? Should we police people on unemployment who are also working? Maybe so since that and many other debatable programs cost us money (without a choice). I bet all these programs cost us quite a bit of money every year!
 Should we stop people from boating, sledding, skiing, horseback riding, bicycling, driving cars and other automotive type vehicles, mowing lawns, or other yard maintenance (like chainsaws & blowers), and many, many other activities. That might pose a cost to the general public or a risk of injury and/or death if an accident happens to occur! Or how about hearing and eye protection in all these and more activities.
 We're not able to make that decision either! I bet more people die in automobiles of head injuries every year than in motorcycle accidents. I think helmets, safety glasses, and protective armor should be instituted when driving an automobile to protect us from injury in a crash. Maybe head restraint systems. And how about on board fire suppression systems in case of fire. And maybe six point harnesses. Right now I'm watching the news with an accident on the Garden State parkway. Three people are dead and others injured in a roll over accident in their SUV. Might their Personal protective gear saved these people. There's a good chance!
 No I think instead, I'll support peoples right to choose what they feel is the right protective gear for them for their activities.   ;)


By the way, no flames Bruce. I know it's just your opinion, as is mine!  :)




I'm gonna speak to the 'choice' point of view that CB and CD bring up.  If we had a choice, would we have finished high school?  Is there a cost to the general population (us) when folks chose unwisely?  Just like I hated being 'forced' to finish high school by my parents, I feel the government (us again) has a responsibility to protect me from other people making particularly and obviously poor decisions that will affect me, either directly or indirectly.  Teenagers should be locked up in a basement until they're at least 28.  Cars should have seat belts and air bags and padded dashboards and doors that won't pop open unexpectedly.  Bikers should wear gear.  Beginning riders should be limited in horsepower and engine size until they can prove (tests) that they can handle that ego thing between their legs.  With choice comes responsibility.  The rules help to correct those folks society (us one more time) deem to be acting irresponsibly.    Fighting common sense just to prove a selfish point of view is like carrying a chambered round.  Might not seem like much at the time but way freakin' questionable judgement anyway.

And then there's the question of speeding and passing where I think it's safe in contrast to what the rules say.  Guilty as charged and obviously not practicing what I just preached.

Flame on... :banghead:
Title: Re: Biker dies from head injuries while protesting helmet law. Definition of Irony
Post by: Necron99 on July 05, 2011, 07:33:34 pm
When people die because of their actions, that's regular old Darwinism, not Darwinism of the social variety. 

I respect the opinion of the people who have pointed out that motorcycling is dangerous.  So when I say this, please understand, I mean no disrespect.

But Steve, you changed a quote.

Quote from: AngryBaby on Yesterday at 12:52:52 AM

    If you choose to ride with no helmet death is one reality that could face to you. 

And?  Let me take what you have done a step further.

If you are born, death is a reality that will face you.

Does that mean that we should just cover ourselves in gasoline and run around with 4th of July sparklers?  Of course not.  Let's modify the original statement more concisely, and less tritely.

Quote from: AngryBaby (not really anymore) on Yesterday at 12:52:52 AM

    If you choose to ride you will make a number of choices, many of which may increase or decrease your chances of injury or death should things not go the way you had planned.   These choices include, but are not limited to, the types of gear you wear, the kind of motorcycle you choose, the people you ride with, the condition of the motorcycle, what you've had to eat recently, drugs and alcohol, the manner in which you choose to ride, the laws you chose to obey or disobey....

I agree that leading by example is the best.  And I'm MATGATT (most all the gear all the time) 

What I guess bugs me is that so many folks act like it's an either/or situation, when it's not.  It's a big sliding percentage scale.  There have been PLENTY of ATGATT folks killed stone dead instantly, and plenty of decidedly NOT ATGATT folks who walked away without a scratch.  I prefer to play the odds, and the odds say that more gear generally means less injuries, cast the die and live my life.
Title: Re: Biker dies from head injuries while protesting helmet law. Definition of Irony
Post by: Ctchrisf on July 05, 2011, 07:38:24 pm
I'm a 99% wear helmet and would never support a helmet law.

Lets say A friends needs a lift I choose to go helmet less and give helmet to passenger. If i'm going 3 miles down the road I don't want to get ticketed for that.

this is a great case of Darwin at work here.  And I'm always shocked when I see a helmetless rider pushing his bike with sparks flying off pegs. (yes thats barely moving on the connies but...)

But I'm pretty sure if you told that guy. Hey your going to die on this bike ride today if you don't wear a helmet. He would of chosen to ride lidless.

I just don't want mandated safety cages around the rider or airbag riding suits or safety flags or any number of other laws that could be shoved down our throats in the name of greater safety.

What we do is dangerous, we can die if we are not at the top of our game at any moment. 
Ride safe Brothers
Title: Helmet Irony...
Post by: Gerry B on July 06, 2011, 01:53:22 am
I hate to say I told you so, but....  remember "All The Gear All The Time!"

http://www.kansascity.com/2011/07/03/2991093/ny-motorcyclist-dies-on-ride-protesting.html

OK rant off, asbestos undies on...
Title: Re: Biker dies from head injuries while protesting helmet law. Definition of Irony
Post by: John on July 06, 2011, 02:53:15 am
Folks:

To give you some idea of where I'm coming from, when I started riding, helmets were not required.  However, if you look back at all of my riding, you will see that I was wearing a helmet more than 96% of the time.  Yes, I spent a good number of miles in ignorance.  But even in the last few years, I have ridden without any protective equipment.  What is the difference, I was far more than familiar with: the bike, the area, and the expected traffic.  The bike, the same one I've ridden for 14 years.  The area, I grew up in this area and was very familiar with the area.  The traffic, if I was to meet someone, it would be out of the ordinary, like remote.  Did it feel good to ride without a helmet, YES.  But let's change the scene, put me on the same bike, on another road just a short distance away, NO, make sure the helmet is ON.

My point, each of us have conditions where we could/would ride without protective equipment.  Those are decisions we have made are based upon: 1-experience, 2-training, and 3-expectations.  Now that last one can be a demon, so keep that in mind.  Leave room for the un-expected.  Ahh, now you see what I'm talking about.  The item that bothers me is the fact that our government has made those decisions for us.  This is something where I think they have over-stepped their jurisdiction, thus gone against my individual rights to make decisions for myself.

Think about that, then think of the seat belt laws, the baby seat laws, the child booster seat laws, bicycle helmet laws, and a host of similar laws where our government has made decisions for each of us.  Now I grew up without a baby seat, without a booster seat, without a bicycle helmet law, and for a good portion of my life, without a required seat belt law.  Would they have made any difference in my life, NO.  Would it have made a difference in some people's lives, obviously, YES!  But that does that give the government the right to impose the same rules for all of us.  NO!  It all has to do with odds and knowledge and/or education.  Seems our government is run by the insurance companies, banks, and of course, oil companies.

If the required helmet law were repealed today, would it make a difference for me, yes.  There would be few times I'd ride to the grocery store without a helmet, but not that many (only a half mile from me).  If I were harmed during one of those trips without a helmet, then it could be my problem, at least any head injuries would be due to my decision.

Seems our government has taken away individual responsibility.  So goes the nation.  Off my stump!
Title: Re: Biker dies from head injuries while protesting helmet law. Definition of Irony
Post by: S Smith on July 06, 2011, 09:07:47 am
But Steve, you changed a quote.

Quote from: AngryBaby on Yesterday at 12:52:52 AM

    If you choose to ride with no helmet death is one reality that could face to you. 

And?  Let me take what you have done a step further.

If you are born, death is a reality that will face you.

Does that mean that we should just cover ourselves in gasoline and run around with 4th of July sparklers?  Of course not.  Let's modify the original statement more concisely, and less tritely.

Which is exactly why my edit to the quoted statement works better for me.  According to Merriam-Webster the primary definition of SAFE is: free from harm or risk.  There is nothing in life that is free from risk. So, does riding a motorcycle with/without a helmet change the fact that death is a reality you face?  The statement would remain true if the word "ride" was replaced with drive, ski, sky jump, scuba dive, walk across the street, etc.

Since risk is always a given, we have the power to make a personal choice to reduce risk or not. 


Title: Re: Helmet Irony...
Post by: Camper Dave on July 06, 2011, 09:39:58 am
Hey ya go G-man....since you like to read about your fellow motorcyclist who die...

http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/07/03/1317816/motorcyclist-dies-in-collision.html
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2011/07/03/motorcyclist-dies-following-crash-in-matteson/
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011/mar/26/motorcyclist-dies-after-collision-van-north-las-ve/
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/jun/04/motorcyclist-dies-otay-lakes-road-crash/
http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/6319911-418/motorcyclist-dies-in-matteson-crash.html
http://www.wgmd.com/?p=26307
http://www.wbtv.com/story/15007540/motocyclist-and-car-collided-in-union-co
http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/123832569.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post_now/post/motorcyclist-dies-in-fairfax-crash/2011/06/08/AGOWUcMH_blog.html
http://www.ocala.com/article/20110607/ARTICLES/110609767/-1/entertainment02?p=2&tc=pg
http://www.wral.com/news/news_briefs/story/9630652/

Oh ya... notice that the word "helmet" is missing from these stories.... Must mean they were wearing one, since we all know how the media loves to point it out when they weren't  :(

And please, go to the link that Willy provided and you'll know how I feel... Yep, my helmet is now back on the shelf... And when I die, you can go to my wife and say "I told you so", I'm sure she'll let you know how she feels too...
Title: Re: Helmet Irony...
Post by: Cap'n Bob on July 06, 2011, 09:45:04 am
I could give you a big list in just the last couple of years of motorcycle deaths near me. And all of them had helmets! Including my friend!
Title: Re: Biker dies from head injuries while protesting helmet law. Definition of Irony
Post by: Ranger on July 14, 2011, 06:10:23 pm
We live in a nation of "laws" in spite of the phrase "Land of the Free". A lot of these laws are in place for self preservation, thus some of them fall into a kind of grey area and I think the helmet law is one of them. I don't think anyone would say we shouldn't have speed limit laws. Speed limits are there not only to protect yourself while driving, but also the poor dude you smack into, so not much argument that we need speed limits. Seatbelt law? This one falls into an area that is somewhere between speed limit and helmet law. Seatbelt law not only protects yourself (like helmet law) but also protects the unlearned child sitting in car with you (which is a good thing).  Helmet law protesters will argue that the only one at risk is themselves. Helmet law promoters will argue that helmetless bikers are driving up insurance rates, etc. This is where it gets grey. Nobody really wants to be told what to do, but we are told what to do all the time. (speed limit, seat belt, etc,).  I am 58 so I remember quite well a time when there were no helmet laws and the land of the free was just a bit more free. Apparently in my state and others a sufficient number of motorcyclists were taking up hospital beds with severe head injuries costing tax payers money that the lawmakers decided that motorcyclists needed to be forced to protect their heads. I always wear a helmet and feel quite naked without one, so I never give the helmet law much thought. But when I see a biker in a no helmet law state drive by without a helmet I don't have the thought "that dude is going to end up costing me money!" rather, I just think.. "dude, your asking for it". Base jumping off bridges is a lot more dangerous than riding a bike without a helmet, but it is still legal. The reason it's still legal? Because there are "relatively" very few people doing it. It's a fringe sport like rock climbing, cave diving, skydiving, etc.. and the Feds have little to say about safety equipment. Motorcycling is not a fringe sport. If motorcycling attracted the same number of participants as say Base Jumping, then I doubt the Feds would have much to say about it. Actually, it's not the Feds, it's the state governments. And the last time I checked we still live in a "Republic"  (in spite of the efforts of our current White House crew). This being a Republic, allows us to move to another state if we don't like the laws in our state, or try to change the laws in our state. All in all, if I really try to put myself in a unbiased position, I guess I would come down on the side of those wanting to abolish mandatory helmet laws for anyone over age 21. By that time you likely have some road rash and can decide for yourself if you really want that naked feeling. If we need a mandatory helmet law, just to protect yourself from head injury, then I can think of a whole lot of other stuff that would fall into that category. Anyway, I can see both sides and that is why I began this post by saying it is a "grey area".
Final thought. My state has a helmet law, yet a 16 year old who just took a motorcycle driving course in a WallMart parking lot can legally walk into a Motorcycle shop and purchase (no money down, and no requirement to purchase insurance) a sport bike that will go 165 mph, and with a few simple garage adjustments travel a blistering 180+ mph ......into a telephone pole. At least he/she will be wearing a helmet.  :banghead:
 
Title: Re: Biker dies from head injuries while protesting helmet law. Definition of Irony
Post by: WillyP on July 14, 2011, 07:15:01 pm
No helmet law here in New Hampshire. Live free or die, but what they don't tell you is that whether you live free or not, you still die anyway.

And if you crash into a pole at 65, and die, you'll be just as dead as you would be if you did it at 185. But if you put no money down you will be required to have insurance. If you pay cash you don't have to have insurance.
Title: Re: Biker dies from head injuries while protesting helmet law. Definition of Irony
Post by: 2linby on July 14, 2011, 10:24:47 pm

And if you crash into a pole at 65, and die, you'll be just as dead as you would be if you did it at 185. But if you put no money down you will be required to have insurance. If you pay cash you don't have to have insurance.

A perfect example of the influence of the insurance industry on government regulation. The reason you need full coverage on a bank loan for a vehicle is so the bank and insurance company can take more of your money NOT the government, BUT!! through their pervasive and very influential campaign financing, they (the insurance companies and banks) make the laws, not us!

Sounds fair to me, right?   :-[
Title: Re: Biker dies from head injuries while protesting helmet law. Definition of Irony
Post by: WillyP on July 14, 2011, 11:20:22 pm
No, that is not a law, it is a condition of getting the loan. In other words the bank won't give you any money if you don't have insurance. Govt has nothing to do with that.

Actually, you can get a loan without insurance. Unsecured, personal loan. You can then spend the money however you want.
Title: Re: Biker dies from head injuries while protesting helmet law. Definition of Irony
Post by: Bruce_Reafsnider_TN on July 15, 2011, 12:39:50 am
The real irony is that his helmetless protest and subsequent death have probsly harmed his cause and bolstered the helmet law crowd. 
I was up in the general area when this accident happened.  Sad, really. 
there shouldn't be helmet laws, and I don't think the gov't should legislate stupidity, but no one remembers the hundreds of riders who wear helmets and get home safe.  They'll remember this guy who crashed and died.
Title: Re: Biker dies from head injuries while protesting helmet law. Definition of Irony
Post by: Ranger on July 15, 2011, 07:54:47 pm
No helmet law here in New Hampshire. Live free or die, but what they don't tell you is that whether you live free or not, you still die anyway.

And if you crash into a pole at 65, and die, you'll be just as dead as you would be if you did it at 185. But if you put no money down you will be required to have insurance. If you pay cash you don't have to have insurance.

True, however if your are tooling along at a cool 185 that chances of getting up close and personal with a telephone pole go up dramatically. And I stand corrected on my earlier post. If you bank finance a bike purchase in my state you will be required to have collision insurance. Not sure if they require personal injury insurance which is what you will need for medical expenses.

Another thought: I recently saw a high octane crotch rocket that has a sticker on the tail end that read: "Life begins at 175"  Does that sound like an oxymoron to any one else but me?
Title: Re: Biker dies from head injuries while protesting helmet law. Definition of Irony
Post by: smithr1 on July 15, 2011, 07:59:10 pm
oxymoron no... just a moron
Title: Re: Biker dies from head injuries while protesting helmet law. Definition of Irony
Post by: Gerry B on July 15, 2011, 08:26:36 pm
Hey Davey... glad to see you stopping by. Thanks for the articles. I read them all, but you miss the point. I feel a helmet/gear is not going to save everyone every time. However, I figure wearing it is the least I can do to improve my chances of surviving a crash.  Where and when you choose to use it is your business(at least here in CT).  I'm not going to get drawn into the legal battle over whether the state should mandate it. Consider yourself lucky you have the option. The guy this thread was originally started over died from head injuries that MAY have been prevented by his wearing a helmet.  That's the sad ironic part.  Wearing your helmet or not, lets go for a ride.
Title: Re: Biker dies from head injuries while protesting helmet law. Definition of Irony
Post by: Red Wyvern on July 28, 2011, 12:42:37 pm
He died from someone else's incident, and over reacted, costing him his.  Not unusual.  In an emergency we resort to habit - what is yours?  (I was a MSF train the trainer for 20 yrs).

I'm all about freedom of choice, but also have my own preferences.  That said, why is it EVERY state has a seatbelt law (albeit to obtain federal road funds), but about half the states DON'T have a helmet law (and the BS about "when on a permit", or "under age 21" crap does not apply as a "law".  A helmet law to me is all the time, everyone, period.

My insurance should not be affected because others chose not to wear one, nor should I have to be held liable or financially because of a crash with someone who is not wearing a helmet (if they obtain head injuries it should be their problem, not mine, even if I caused the accident).

But hey, if congress can deem which light bulbs we use, it is possible they'll go from helmet to body armor to..... but I wear all that now!

I trust no one on the road.  And to make it worse, they now have cellphones, GPS's, DVD players, lack of driver education, etc counting against my safety.
Title: Re: Biker dies from head injuries while protesting helmet law. Definition of Irony
Post by: WillyP on July 28, 2011, 12:57:08 pm
That said, why is it EVERY state has a seatbelt law (albeit to obtain federal road funds), but about half the states DON'T have a helmet law (and the BS about "when on a permit", or "under age 21" crap does not apply as a "law".  A helmet law to me is all the time, everyone, period.

By your definition of helmet law, NH does not have a seat-belt law.

And, explain why should someone be forced to wear a helmet, if they don't want to, just to save you money?
Title: Re: Biker dies from head injuries while protesting helmet law. Definition of Irony
Post by: Camper Dave on July 28, 2011, 09:38:53 pm
Or maybe we should just change your statement a bit...

My insurance should not be affected because others chose not to wear one get into motorcycle accidents, nor should I have to be held liable or financially because of a crash with someone who is not wearing a helmet operating a motorcycle(if they obtain head any injuries it should be their problem, not mine, even if I caused the accident).

Guess no-one should ride motorcycles....
Title: Re: Biker dies from head injuries while protesting helmet law. Definition of Irony
Post by: WillyP on July 29, 2011, 02:07:43 pm
Yep... It really is a matter of perspective.

If the insurance companies want to encourage people to wear a helmet, perhaps there could be some bonus in the settlement if you have been injured while wearing a helmet.
Title: Re: Biker dies from head injuries while protesting helmet law. Definition of Irony
Post by: Eddie-FL on July 29, 2011, 03:41:21 pm
This is neither pro or anti helmet law. Its personal experience and I defy anyone to argue that! Way back when in '84, I wrecked my '83 Honda 750 Interceptor. After sliding along on my back thinking "This is fun!" when I came to a stop and got up, I discovered two things. One, I had a broken collar bone and two, I had a gouge about 3/8" deep in the back of my helmet! If hadn't been wearing the helmet, that would have been the back of my head!! Oh yeah, and this was before we had stuff called "riding gear" so I also had a lot of road rash! Would I have been wearing a helmet if Florida did not have a helmet law at that time? I honestly don't know. After all, I was younger and crazier at that time. But I DO know that if I had not been wearing the helmet I would have been in much worse shape. So let's just say I believe in helmets! Do I want someone telling me I HAVE to wear one? Probably not. But, without one, I may not have been here to "enjoy(?)" discussions such as this! JM $0.02.

Eddie
Title: Re: Biker dies from head injuries while protesting helmet law. Definition of Irony
Post by: Cap'n Bob on July 29, 2011, 04:36:34 pm
This is neither pro or anti helmet law. Its personal experience and I defy anyone to argue that! Way back when in '84, I wrecked my '83 Honda 750 Interceptor. After sliding along on my back thinking "This is fun!" when I came to a stop and got up, I discovered two things. One, I had a broken collar bone and two, I had a gouge about 3/8" deep in the back of my helmet! If hadn't been wearing the helmet, that would have been the back of my head!! Oh yeah, and this was before we had stuff called "riding gear" so I also had a lot of road rash! Would I have been wearing a helmet if Florida did not have a helmet law at that time? I honestly don't know. After all, I was younger and crazier at that time. But I DO know that if I had not been wearing the helmet I would have been in much worse shape. So let's just say I believe in helmets! Do I want someone telling me I HAVE to wear one? Probably not. But, without one, I may not have been here to "enjoy(?)" discussions such as this! JM $0.02.

Eddie

Maybe not. But with the helmet you could have broken your neck. But at least your head would have looked good at the funeral!    >:(   Only messing with you. But a lot of truth in jest.

Now here's the Argument you asked for.  :D   The 83 Interceptor wasn't called a 750. The 83 Interceptor was called a V45 Interceptor (yes it was750 though). It wasn't until after the tariff beater Interceptor (700) came out in 84 that Honda started called the V45 Interceptor the Interceptor 750. So now you had the  (just plain ole') Interceptor (700) and the Interceptor 750. So for just that first year (1983). The Interceptor was known as the V45 Interceptor. (I also had one and loved that bike)  There, I found something to give you an Argument. Even though it wasn't the subject you challenged!!!  :)
Title: Re: Biker dies from head injuries while protesting helmet law. Definition of Irony
Post by: Eddie-FL on July 29, 2011, 08:45:43 pm
You are correct, Bob! It even said V45 right on the side! No argument from me on this.  :P Back at ya'!

Don't get me started on the "Harley" tariff! Like somebody interested in the Interceptor was in the market for an HD!!

Eddie