Quote: State troopers tell The Post-Standard of Syracuse that 55-year-old Philip A. Contos of Parish, N.Y., was driving a 1983 Harley Davidson with a group of bikers who were protesting helmet laws by not wearing helmets. Troopers say Contos hit his brakes and the motorcycle fishtailed. The bike spun out of control, and Contos toppled over the handlebars. He was pronounced dead at a hospital. Troopers say Contos would have likely survived if he had been wearing a helmet.

http://beta.news.yahoo.com/ny-motorc...W50fG11c2ljBHB0A3NlY3Rpb25z;_ylv=3

Irony's a bitch. I suppose more than a few of his companions probably changed their minds on the spot.

Coming in for a landing:


View Large View Medium

Photo © Diego Ruiz de Vargas - Iberian Spotters


Every time I see a motorcyclist without a helmet (and I lived in Florida for a few years, so I saw a LOT of them). I think "there's someone who does not value their life". Why someone would do something so stupid is beyond me.

Quoting Dreadnought (Thread starter): I suppose more than a few of his companions probably changed their minds on the spot.

I'd hope so. Shame that it would take something so serious to teach a lesson that should be pretty simple.

-Mir

Condolences to the guy's family, but he's a f***ing idiot.

Irony is, as Dreadnaught said, a raging bitch.

Cheers,
Cameron

RIP....another nominee for the Darwin award indeed.   

[Edited 2011-07-03 22:17:42]

Quoting Mir (Reply 1): Why someone would do something so stupid is beyond me.

It is, quite simply (and as alluded to in the "Darwin awards") natural selection.

Not everyone is born with the same traits, and nature will weed out the weaker ones over time. Yes, this includes those who are not strong enough to survive such a blow to the head, and at the same time aren't intelligent enough to wear a helmet.

The only thing helmet laws do is keep the mildly stupid around (for they will follow the law, not because it's smart to wear a helmet), and eliminate the worst who would flout laws anyways.

I don't believe in God, but if I did, this would a clear situation of God saying, "Dude, you are wrong."

I read about this one earlier today. God I hope that the rest of the riders who were protesting get a clue after that.

Quoting Mir (Reply 1): Coming in for a landing:

  

Never seen that one before!

Quoting futurepilot16 (Reply 3): another nominee for the Darwin award indeed.

Yup - I'd say a very deserving one.

So far, no one has addressed the real question...........should we have a "law" that forces people to wear helmets while riding a motorcycle ?

I'm not asking if it's a "good idea" to wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle, I'm asking if it should be a law ?
There's a very big difference !

From my personal experience riding motorcycles, I can tell you this much: if for any reason you "leave" the MC at any speed much above 5 mph, you are likely to be "better off" if you ARE wearing a helmet, ( most of the time, but not necessarily always )

Will wearing a helmet keep you from getting killed if you have a crash ? Sometimes yes, but sometimes no.

Will not wearing a helmet ( in states with "helmet laws" ) get you a "ticket" from every "hick" cop who sees you ? You betcha !

Are "helmet laws" always a "good idea" ? No they are not.

There are much better ways of keeping your "brains intact" while riding a mc than having some law tell you what you have to wear; Look at it this way....................

Let's say you are fond of hiking in the "country"; everyone knows there are sometimes bears in the country........so we better have a "law".........anyone hiking in the country MUST have a "30.06" bear gun in case you meet a bear..........

Like to swim in the ocean ? better have a "law"........MUST have a "yet- to- be- invented" shark "weapon" in case a shark tries to eat you !

Do you like to fly your Cessna 172 ? A lot of people have been killed in light planes because the engines sometimes quit running........so therefore, you MUST have your Cessna equipped with a "ballistic parachute", ( which are not cheap, but they do work ! )

Fact: there are many "activities" that have the "potential" to get you killed; very few have a "law" which purports to "take away the risk" of the activity. What we DON"T need is more laws trying to "protect" people; what we DO need is more people with common sense !

I happen to have the need of using a chain saw a lot; if you look through all of the hospital emergency room statistics, you will quickly learn that chain saws are by far the leading cause of people coming in with serious injuries to ER's; yet there is no law in any state, requiring people using chain saws to wear protective chain saw "chapps"; are "chapps" a good idea, and do they really "work" ? yes, they are a VERY good idea, and yes, they really DO work; I have a pair I wear ( sometimes ) But just having a pair of chapps on isn't going to "keep you safe" while using a chain saw; that only comes from long experience using them, and having a thorough knowledge of operation, plus some common sense.
I might add, I bought my chapps only after having an "incident" that sawed clear through my left knee-cap, and knicked the cartiledge on the knee joint. That "incident" was the direct result of a complete lack of experience and of using common sense at the time.

Let's face it folks.........you can't legislate safety ! But you can "train" intelligent, reasonable people to do things safely.

Overall, wearing seat belts while driving an automobile has obviously saved a lot of people's lives, but in spite of all the seat belt laws, the speeding laws, and all the other laws, there are still just as many people getting killed every year in car crashes as there ever has been; the reasons behind this are a little more "complex", but if "government" really wanted to ever became really "serious" about this problem, the fatality rate in cars could be cut by 90 % ; but don't hold your breath until "government" takes the "necessary steps" to alleviate the problem; because "government" just doesn't have the "will" to take the necessary steps.

Charley

Quoting Geezer (Reply 8): Let's say you are fond of hiking in the "country"; everyone knows there are sometimes bears in the country........so we better have a "law".........anyone hiking in the country MUST have a "30.06" bear gun in case you meet a bear..........

How many people are attacked by bears in the US every year? I bet it's a miniscule amount, without even mentioning the number of motorcycle accidents.

Oh, and if you ever go to Svalbard and wander outside the city, you ARE required to carry a gun in case of bear attacks.

Quoting Geezer (Reply 8): Like to swim in the ocean ? better have a "law"........MUST have a "yet- to- be- invented" shark "weapon" in case a shark tries to eat you !

How many people get eaten by sharks in the US every year?

Quoting Geezer (Reply 8): Do you like to fly your Cessna 172 ? A lot of people have been killed in light planes because the engines sometimes quit running........so therefore, you MUST have your Cessna equipped with a "ballistic parachute", ( which are not cheap, but they do work ! )

The weight penalty alone makes it unreasonable at cost, and honestly far less people die in plane crashes than motorcycle crashes.... and most of those are pilot error anyways. The airplane doesn't fall out of the sky when the engine stops unless someone screwed something else up.

Quoting Geezer (Reply 8): What we DON"T need is more laws trying to "protect" people; what we DO need is more people with common sense !

You can't legislate "common sense", so you do the next best thing.

Quoting Geezer (Reply 8): if you look through all of the hospital emergency room statistics, you will quickly learn that chain saws are by far the leading cause of people coming in with serious injuries to ER's;

Um, no. I can categorically state that car accidents are the leading cause of injuries in the ER. I believe auto accidents in general are the third leading cause of death behind heart disease and cancer.

Quoting Geezer (Reply 8): I happen to have the need of using a chain saw a lot; if you look through all of the hospital emergency room statistics, you will quickly learn that chain saws are by far the leading cause of people coming in with serious injuries to ER's

Uh.....

Quoting Geezer (Reply 8): there are still just as many people getting killed every year in car crashes as there ever has been

Wrong. Particularly by rate. Since the late 70s there are half as many motor vehicle deaths, going by rate.

Quoting Geezer (Reply 8): but if "government" really wanted to ever became really "serious" about this problem, the fatality rate in cars could be cut by 90 % ; but don't hold your breath until "government" takes the "necessary steps" to alleviate the problem; because "government" just doesn't have the "will" to take the necessary steps.

What are you "talking" about the "government" not "doing"?

Helmet laws are there to protect society from idiots.

1. Taking care of the vegetables that would regularly result from accidents is very expensive.
2. If another driver causes an accident that results in the death of another human being it's a huge mental burden for the rest of his life.

Fatalities per kilometer driven have been going way, way down since the 70s, around the globe.

Quoting Dreadnought (Thread starter): Troopers say Contos would have likely survived if he had been wearing a helmet.

So you have to be a forensic pathologist to be a State Trooper in New York?

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 9): The weight penalty alone makes it unreasonable at cost, and honestly far less people die in plane crashes than motorcycle crashes....

Are we just talking numbers then? Not percentages? If it saves one life, as is the proponents of helmet laws claim, isn't it worth it?

As someone said, you can't legislate common sense. Why not also legislate a heavy jacket with armor, leather pants, heavy boots, and armored gloves while at it? I've been very lucky in my 32 years of riding to have only been involved in one accident, which resulted in a broken foot. 3 decades of riding has taught me that with the exception of very slow speed crashes, as in the case of Gary Busse, a helmet will only keep your brain contained and your chances of suffering fatal injuries from hitting a non moving object or trauma from hitting the ground, several times, are much more likely to kill you than a head injury. All you have to do is go to the paper in the link and search fatal motorcycle crashes to get the idea.

Quoting Geezer (Reply 8): Will wearing a helmet keep you from getting killed if you have a crash ? Sometimes yes, but sometimes no. Will not wearing a helmet ( in states with "helmet laws" ) get you a "ticket" from every "hick" cop who sees you ? You betcha ! Are "helmet laws" always a "good idea" ? No they are not. There are much better ways of keeping your "brains intact" while riding a mc than having some law tell you what you have to wear; Look at it this way.................... Let's say you are fond of hiking in the "country"; everyone knows there are sometimes bears in the country........so we better have a "law".........anyone hiking in the country MUST have a "30.06" bear gun in case you meet a bear.......... Like to swim in the ocean ? better have a "law"........MUST have a "yet- to- be- invented" shark "weapon" in case a shark tries to eat you ! Do you like to fly your Cessna 172 ? A lot of people have been killed in light planes because the engines sometimes quit running........so therefore, you MUST have your Cessna equipped with a "ballistic parachute", ( which are not cheap, but they do work ! )

Please stop    . Riding a motorcycle without a helmet is the equivalent of driving a car without a seat belt...nuff said. The last time I checked, it was against the law to be in a car without having a seat belt on. All those other activities are completely different than riding a motorcycle and wearing seat belts.

I am quite sure there are plenty of stats to prove that wearing a helmet when operating a motorcycle on or off road will significantly reduce head injuries or death from head injuries in a crash. That is why most USA states as well as most counties require them to be used on the public roads. I know there are issues as to wearing a helmet from being hot, to limiting the ability to fully see and hear around yourself or just the lack of the air breezing through your hair but those issues are overwhelmingly balanced by the common sense that with no other protection when on a mc, you have to use some common sense. Let us also not forget that many mc accidents are not the fault of the rider themselves, but due to the lack of respect of other motorists as to them so one must protect themselves from them too.

Quoting Mir (Reply 1): Every time I see a motorcyclist without a helmet (and I lived in Florida for a few years, so I saw a LOT of them). I think "there's someone who does not value their life". Why someone would do something so stupid is beyond me.

Indeed. I even wear an approved helmet when riding my bicycle down the street. There are countless cases in the bicycling community where people who've had a serious injury without a helmet would have had no problems if they were wearing a helmet.

Quoting Geezer (Reply 8): So far, no one has addressed the real question...........should we have a "law" that forces people to wear helmets while riding a motorcycle ?

Because:

Quoting Dreadnought (Thread starter): Troopers say Contos hit his brakes and the motorcycle fishtailed. The bike spun out of control, and Contos toppled over the handlebars. He was pronounced dead at a hospital. Troopers say Contos would have likely survived if he had been wearing a helmet.

We the taxpayers are paying for the troopers who had the unfortunate duty of responding to Mr. Contos's fatality, and who were probably were tasked with telling his family.

We're also the ones who built the road that Mr. Contos was driving on.

So, "we the people", through our elected officials, do have a big say on what Mr. Contos can or cannot do on "our" roads.

If he and his friends really need to feel the wind blowing through their hair, they can go buy some acerage and build themselves some roads to run around on.

Quoting Geezer (Reply 8): Overall, wearing seat belts while driving an automobile has obviously saved a lot of people's lives, but in spite of all the seat belt laws, the speeding laws, and all the other laws, there are still just as many people getting killed every year in car crashes as there ever has been;

Absolutely false.

Hell, why stop with helmet laws, ban the motorcycle altogether!

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/citylink...otorcycle-20110613,0,4414821.story

Check the follow up article in the related link "It's still time to ban the motorcycle"

And yes, I am a helmet-wearing biker.

If bikers agree to:

Notify their insurance company of their decision to go helmet free and pay whatever difference or other consequence that decision merits, and

Sign a legal waiver that prohibits lawsuits by them or their surviving relatives/estate against the other party involved in the crash, the state which maintains the road, motorcycle manufacturer, etc..., and

Have the Spouse/surviving relatives/estate sign as well, and

Affix a sticker on their licence plate issued by the state which signifies compliance with the above so law enforcement can easily see that the helmetless rider is not "cheating"



If they do that, and themselves assume all responsibility for consequences relating to that decision, then have at it. Enjoy that wind thru your hair. If you are willing to have your family alone bear the brunt of what happens after a brain injury, then that is indeed your right.

Quoting Geezer (Reply 8):

If I am involved in a car accident where a biker dies just because he was not smart enough to wear a helmet, I will have to live with killing someone for the rest of my life and, depending on the circumstances, I may have to be punished by the law as well. So, what you are saying up there is irrelevant, nobody told anyone NOT to drive a bike, but please, obey the law!

Quoting Geezer (Reply 8): should we have a "law" that forces people to wear helmets while riding a motorcycle ?

No

Quoting 4holer (Reply 17): If bikers agree to: Notify their insurance company of their decision to go helmet free and pay whatever difference or other consequence that decision merits, and

I think this is the sensible way to do it. Let people choose and pay the consequences. I have no idea if my state has a helmet law or not, but I would wear mine regardless. It is not only the chance of an accident, but also gravel and debris kicked up from the road, and even large bugs that be somewhat distracting if they hit you in the face at 60 mph. I understand the attraction of not wearing one, but for me the risks outweigh the merits.

Quoting lowrider (Reply 19): Notify their insurance company of their decision to go helmet free and pay whatever difference or other consequence that decision merits, and I think this is the sensible way to do it. Let people choose and pay the consequences. I have no idea if my state has a helmet law or not, but I would wear mine regardless. It is not only the chance of an accident, but also gravel and debris kicked up from the road, and even large bugs that be somewhat distracting if they hit you in the face at 60 mph. I understand the attraction of not wearing one, but for me the risks outweigh the merits.

No this is not sensible at all. The cost of maintaining a life with a significant head trauma will run into the 100s of thousands.

My neighbor's son, a Navy fighter pilot, bought a Harley while overseas. Eventually it shows up and he needs to turn it around to put in the garage. So he puts down the round to do a u-turn in a cul-de-sac. Being a new rider, he goes down. Hits his head at very low speed. Into a coma he goes. Out about one week later. End of Navy career. Multi-million? dollar taxpayer investment wiped out in seconds. Significant likely reduction in life earning potential. Sad but true.

Quoting Geezer (Reply 8): So far, no one has addressed the real question...........should we have a "law" that forces people to wear helmets while riding a motorcycle ?

I'm all for motorcyclists not wearing helmets, particularly the ones that ride the obnoxious noismakers around the neighborhood.

Quoting lowrider (Reply 19): Let people choose and pay the consequences.

   I never understand why someone wouldn't want to wear a helmet or a seatbelt

Quoting 4holer (Reply 17): Notify their insurance company of their decision to go helmet free and pay whatever difference or other consequence that decision merits, and Sign a legal waiver that prohibits lawsuits by them or their surviving relatives/estate against the other party involved in the crash, the state which maintains the road, motorcycle manufacturer, etc..., and Have the Spouse/surviving relatives/estate sign as well, and Affix a sticker on their licence plate issued by the state which signifies compliance with the above so law enforcement can easily see that the helmetless rider is not "cheating"

  

Quoting tootallsd (Reply 20): Into a coma he goes. Out about one week later. End of Navy career. Multi-million? dollar taxpayer investment wiped out in seconds. Significant likely reduction in life earning potential. Sad but true.

The loss of earning potential is part of the price he will pay. The rest is just that troublesome nuisance of people being allowed to choose activities that are not perfectly safe.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 21): I never understand why someone wouldn't want to wear a helmet or a seatbelt

I don't either, having witnessed the effects of high speed trauma first hand, but it is not for me to understand someone else's motives. The freedom to choose includes the poor choices.

Quoting lowrider (Reply 22): I don't either, having witnessed the effects of high speed trauma first hand, but it is not for me to understand someone else's motives. The freedom to choose includes the poor choices.

I'd be dead at least twice over if it wasn't for a seat belt, and at least once as a kid when I had a major accident on a skateboard (not doing tricks, just riding down a hill) and the helmet prevented me from hitting my head on the asphalt, which almost surely would have knocked me out or worse.

It's not a question of "freedom" to me, it's a question of being stupid to prove a really stupid point. Sorry to all of you who don't believe you should be required to wear one, but it's how I feel.

Quoting san747 (Reply 23): Sorry to all of you who don't believe you should be required to wear one, but it's how I feel.

How you "feel" is utterly irrelevant. No one is saying you can't wear a seat belt or a helmet, or both if you wish. Legislation based on such feelings is a path to tyranny.

Quoting lowrider (Reply 24): How you "feel" is utterly irrelevant. No one is saying you can't wear a seat belt or a helmet, or both if you wish. Legislation based on such feelings is a path to tyranny.

Oh of course I know it's irrelevant, and I know it's emotional. But I just think that rebelling against a clear common sense safety precaution in the name of "freedom" is investing energy trying to prove a really dumb point, which was even more obviously shown by this man's unfortunate and unnecessary death.

If you want to fight incursions of your civil liberties, I encourage it. But fight against REAL injustices, not a helmet law. You're wasting your time and looking really stupid to everyone else for it, which ultimately just undermines your (I believe worthy) message.

Quoting san747 (Reply 25): But I just think that rebelling against a clear common sense safety precaution in the name of "freedom" is investing energy trying to prove a really dumb point, which was even more obviously shown by this man's unfortunate and unnecessary death.

I don't waste time worrying about helmet laws, but if other folks want to, that is fine. There are enough "crusades" to go around, be it helmets, trees, whales, pot, old airplanes, faith, or politics. One person can't fight all them all.

Quoting lowrider (Reply 26): I don't waste time worrying about helmet laws, but if other folks want to, that is fine. There are enough "crusades" to go around, be it helmets, trees, whales, pot, old airplanes, faith, or politics. One person can't fight all them all.

Very true, and let the record show I have no issue with the people actually protesting. That is a very important right we have as Americans. I just think this particular crusade is a very dumb one.

Quoting tootallsd (Reply 20): Being a new rider, he goes down

I think most States have laws that during the first year of your motorcycle license you have to wear a helmet and some even restrict having passengers aboard. That would include the trip down the street to turn the bike around although I find it strange he felt he had to go that far to do it. As I said above, low speed accidents such as the one you described and the one actor Gary Busse was involved in a few years back pointedly show where serious head injuries can and do occur. However, if you are travelling at highway speeds and someone pulls out in front of you, or you lose control, chances are the trauma the rest of your body receives will be enough to do you in or leave you in pretty sorry shape for the rest of your life, if not dead. Some additional information on the OP's linked crash.

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.s...eath_of_motorcyclist_during_h.html

Rathbun was not on Saturday’s ride, but she said she had talked to people who were. Rathbun and Richard Contos said the accident happened because Philip’s bootlaces got stuck in a chain.

The biker looked down to inspect the problem, looked up and saw traffic slowing and slammed on the brakes, Richard Contos said, repeating what state police told him. That sudden braking caused the motorcycle to fishtail and Phil Contos lost control, state police said Saturday.

Another story said that this was not the bike he usually rode either. That alone would have made me put on a helmet as any bike you are not familiar with can be tricky. When we moved to Texas I had to take a motorcycle safety course even though I had a motorcycle endorsement on my license that I was turning in. I was used to riding large sport bikes and got stuck on a small cruiser. I almost dumped the thing twice and nearly flunked the test at the end of the day due to the difference in balance and power between the two bikes.

Quoting san747 (Reply 27): I just think this particular crusade is a very dumb one.

Do you think we should make people riding in convertibles wear helmets? If the car flips their heads are just as badly exposed.   

I think helmet laws stir up debate like gun control laws. Myself I think a helmet law is a good thing and I don't ride or own a bike, just my opinion.

Quoting lowrider (Reply 24): No one is saying you can't wear a seat belt or a helmet, or both if you wish. Legislation based on such feelings is a path to tyranny.

Tyranny? Sheesh...

Are laws on baby car seats also the path to tyranny?

Just think of how we're resticting the freedom of movement of that child, right during its formative years. That child should be free, and if it becomes a projectile during a car accident, well, that's the price for freedom!

Quoting dxing (Reply 28): However, if you are travelling at highway speeds and someone pulls out in front of you, or you lose control, chances are the trauma the rest of your body receives will be enough to do you in or leave you in pretty sorry shape for the rest of your life, if not dead.

Right, but a helmet is a low cost device to protect the most crucial part of your body, at least in terms of your future quality of life. In general, ending up with a battered body and a functional brain is a lot better than ending up with a battered body and a dysfunctional brain. Unfortunately some see such common sense thoughts as taking us down the path to tyranny.

Quoting dxing (Reply 28): Do you think we should make people riding in convertibles wear helmets? If the car flips their heads are just as badly exposed.

So much for common sense.

It's not at all common for an automobile to flip provided the driver was obeying all the other driving laws.

You see, an automobile has four wheels and is inherently much more stable than a motorcycle which has two wheels.

In this cited case, the motorcycle was dumped due to the driver locking up the brakes after a momentary distraction.

If this happened in a convertible with people wearing safety belts, it would have been just bent metal and perhaps some airbags deployed.

You see, the laws are actually quite balanced: they are trying to make the protection needed match the situation without creating an undo burden. In my mind, buying and wearing a certified helmet is not an undo burden.

I agree with the following statement.

Quoting san747 (Reply 27): I just think this particular crusade is a very dumb one.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 15): We the taxpayers are paying for the troopers who had the unfortunate duty of responding to Mr. Contos's fatality, and who were probably were tasked with telling his family.

Not forgetting Emergency Dept staff who have to patch-up those stupid enough to venture onto today's roads on a motor-cycle without a helmet. I wish I could show the anti-helmet lobby some of the photos I have seen taken in the back of ambulances when MVA victims have been certified as dead on arrival. Lying on a stretcher with your head cracked open, your brains in a container next to it while your body has pissed and shit itself is not a dignified way to go. Even more difficult is trying to explain to the distraught next of kin why at that stage they cannot see the remains of their loved one.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 30): In general, ending up with a battered body and a functional brain is a lot better than ending up with a battered body and a dysfunctional brain.

Agreed, but my point was, and remains, at highway speed, helmet or no, a persons body is more than likely going to suffer life ending injuries. This guy was not going highway speed if he was in a motorcycle run in a town. So see my posts about slow speed crashes and head gear. When I'm riding down the freeway on my bike I'm under no illusions that if I crash, I'm more than likely going to die from blunt force trauma. When I'm on surface streets I'm under no illusion that if someone pulls out in front of me, helmet or no, chances are my midsection and internal organs are going to be crushed or impaled in the accident. At slow speeds my concern is more for my head than the rest of my body.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 30): It's not at all common for an automobile to flip provided the driver was obeying all the other driving laws.

It's not at all uncommon for a motorcyclist to die of blunt force trauma to the body in a highway or freeway accident while his or her head is completely intact.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 30): You see, the laws are actually quite balanced: they are trying to make the protection needed match the situation without creating an undo burden. In my mind, buying and wearing a certified helmet is not an undo burden.

I do. It comes down to personal responsibility. If you want to accept the responsibility of not wearing a helmet, you should have that option.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 30): Are laws on baby car seats also the path to tyranny?

When you find me a toddler that can speak up and reason for itself that it would really rather be in a car seat for its own safety, then you might have a point worth discussing. I have no problem with adults who choose to engage in risky activities of their own free will. It is an entirely different thing to do it to someone else, for no benefit, who cannot choose otherwise or voice an objection.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 30): Unfortunately some see such common sense thoughts as taking us down the path to tyranny.

Ok, would you let me decide on a variety of things you cannot do because I think they might be bad for you, even if it has no bearing on me? That is what you are defending.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 30): In my mind, buying and wearing a certified helmet is not an undo burden.

So wear one. No one is stopping you. Just don't force your opinion on others.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 30): Just think of how we're resticting the freedom of movement of that child, right during its formative years. That child should be free, and if it becomes a projectile during a car accident, well, that's the price for freedom!

It's funny how I can't think of a single child in my neighborhood when I was growing up, and there were plenty of them, that died or was seriously injured in a car accident and none of us were in car seats. We also didn't have bicycle helmets, knee or elbow pads, played with plastic dry cleaner bags, fireworks, and some of us even fired guns before we were 12. When we fell of the bike we got up and dusted ourselves off and kept playing. We were smart enough to know not to hold on to a lit firecracker, or point a gun at anyone else. Most of these rules seem to be put in place to protect people that are just too stupid to look out for themselves or teach their kids how to avoid injury. Just another example of the loss or personal responsibility in our culture. Way off topic but had to be said.

Quoting tootallsd (Reply 20): Quoting lowrider (Reply 19): Notify their insurance company of their decision to go helmet free and pay whatever difference or other consequence that decision merits, and I think this is the sensible way to do it. Let people choose and pay the consequences. I have no idea if my state has a helmet law or not, but I would wear mine regardless. It is not only the chance of an accident, but also gravel and debris kicked up from the road, and even large bugs that be somewhat distracting if they hit you in the face at 60 mph. I understand the attraction of not wearing one, but for me the risks outweigh the merits. No this is not sensible at all. The cost of maintaining a life with a significant head trauma will run into the 100s of thousands.

Of course it's sensible! You maintain your right to do what you want while not doing so on MY wallet! Your decision incurs risk of a very expensive result, and your insurance company can figure out exactly how significant that risk is. Saying it is not sensible tells me you want to have it both ways. Life is not like that.

Quoting dxing (Reply 32): It's not at all uncommon for a motorcyclist to die of blunt force trauma to the body in a highway or freeway accident while his or her head is completely intact.

In my experience the biggest single cause of death, by far, for motorcyclists involved in MVAs is head trauma.

Quoting lowrider (Reply 33): Ok, would you let me decide on a variety of things you cannot do because I think they might be bad for you, even if it has no bearing on me?

Unfortunately most things we think are have no bearing on others really do. This motorcycle crash victim impacted the lives of the troopers, the ambulance crew, the hospital employees, his friends, his family, and so on. It also had an impact on the taxpayers who have to pay for the first responders and the accident investigators, etc.

Quoting lowrider (Reply 33): Just don't force your opinion on others.

Until you buy and maintain your own roads, you're just going to have to deal with the fact that others can and do have a say over what you can do on them.

Quoting EDICHC (Reply 36): In my experience the biggest single cause of death, by far, for motorcyclists involved in MVAs is head trauma.

With or without a helmet? Just curious.

I won't argue your experience in your country, but my experience in 30 years of riding, and having lost several friends and acquaintances is that at highway speed, helmet or no, they were on their way to being dead from the moment the accident started. One was run over by a vehicle coming from the other direction. One was impaled on a street sign. Another hit the side of the car so hard that every rib in his body was broken which in turn punctured a lung and other organs. He bled to death internally before the damage could be repaired. His head did not have a mark on it and he had no helmet on. Meanwhile I can attest to falling off my bike at a standing stop when I accidentally popped the clutch and whacked my head on the ground. I was wearing a helmet but have no doubt I would have had a nasty bump or worse without it. That is why I say at slow speed your head is much more likely to take the brunt than at highway speeds.

[Edited 2011-07-05 08:49:58]

Quoting dxing (Reply 38): I won't argue your experience in your country,

My experience in ED is not in NZ, it was in the UK which has much higher speed limits and traffic density that NZ. Notably the speed limits in the UK are also higher than in the US. The majority of fatal accident victims involving motorcycles I encountered were as the result of high speed impacts.

Quoting dxing (Reply 38): and having lost several friends and acquaintances is that at highway speed, helmet or no,

There will always be, unfortunately, fatal accidents involving motorcycles, as you say, helmet or not. That is the nature of biking, the rider is very exposed and vulnerable compared to other road users. It just seems folly to me not to take the one single (and relatively simple) action to significantly improve (though by no means guarantee) your chances of survival in the event of an accident.

Quoting lowrider (Reply 33): Ok, would you let me decide on a variety of things you cannot do because I think they might be bad for you, even if it has no bearing on me?

Regulation happens in all aspects of life, its called rule of law. Otherwise you have anarchy. All road users have to observe speed limits. Car drivers are required by law to wear seat belts. Helmets, though by no means infallible, do considerably contribute to the safety of motorcyclists. Away from road traffic examples, you live in a country (like most countries) where supply, possession and use of Cocaine is forbidden by law. You are forbidden in law to use this substance because it is potentially significantly harmful for you to do so. Like wise to ride a motorcycle without a helmet is potentially significantly more harmful that not wearing one. When the fiscal and emotional cost becomes more than society is willing to bear, that is when the legislators must act in society's name.

As I have said I have had to directly deal with the aftermath of the actions of irresponsible bikers, so it does have a bearing on me even though I have ridden a motorcycle.

I heard someone say the other day that helmet laws are a bit ridiculous, in that why is the government spending time and effort trying to protect a brain that obviously is not smart enough to try to keep the skull that contains it intact? It might sound insensitive, but aren't their internal organs much better used on someone else?

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 40): I heard someone say the other day that helmet laws are a bit ridiculous, in that why is the government spending time and effort trying to protect a brain that obviously is not smart enough to try to keep the skull that contains it intact? It might sound insensitive, but aren't their internal organs much better used on someone else?

Yeah but please don't forget us healthcare workers who have a duty of care to try and save these folks, regardless of their wilful neglect of their own safety.

Quoting dxing (Reply 34): It's funny how I can't think of a single child in my neighborhood when I was growing up, and there were plenty of them, that died or was seriously injured in a car accident and none of us were in car seats.

Not a statistically valid sample size.

Some more significant data:

Quote: The leading cause of death among children in America is automobile collisions. "1,335 children ages 14 years and younger died as occupants in motor vehicle crashes, and approximately 184,000 were injured," according to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). That's four deaths every single day. Many of these deaths, however, are preventable. "Placing children in age– and size–appropriate car and booster seats reduces serious and fatal injuries by more than half," claims CDC, relying on data from the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA).

Ref: http://injurylaw.reganfirm.com/2009/...-needlessly-killed-in-car-crashes/

Yes, it's an injury lawyer's web page, but the web page gives links to the CDC report.

[Edited 2011-07-05 09:21:22]

Quoting EDICHC (Reply 39): you have anarchy. All road users have to observe speed limits.

Because that keeps everything moving in unison and provides some order between vehicles.

Quoting EDICHC (Reply 39): Helmets, though by no means infallible, do considerably contribute to the safety of motorcyclists.

But traffic is not affected one way or the other if someone is not wearing a helmet.

Quoting EDICHC (Reply 39): Away from road traffic examples, you live in a country (like most countries) where supply, possession and use of Cocaine is forbidden by law. You are forbidden in law to use this substance because it is potentially significantly harmful for you to do so.

Because it is potentially harmful not only for the user, but for people not even using the substance who may have an interaction with the user and not even be aware of the danger they are putting themselves in. Not so with someone not wearing a helmet.

Quoting EDICHC (Reply 39): When the fiscal and emotional cost becomes more than society is willing to bear, that is when the legislators must act in society's name.

Given the small percentage of motorcycle riders over all in our society the cost is compariably small versus the damage that alcohol does, so by that token we should re-institute prohibition.

Quoting EDICHC (Reply 39): As I have said I have had to directly deal with the aftermath of the actions of irresponsible bikers, so it does have a bearing on me even though I have ridden a motorcycle.

You have to deal with the aftermath of the actions of irresponsible automobile drivers, should we outlaw cars?

Quoting dxing (Reply 43): You have to deal with the aftermath of the actions of irresponsible automobile drivers, should we outlaw cars?

No and likewise I am not advocating the outlawing of motorcycles. I do advocate the compulsory use of seatbelts though. Just as I advocate for the compulsory use of helmets.

Quoting dxing (Reply 43): Not so with someone not wearing a helmet.

So your loved one dying where the wearing of a helmet might have have saved them would not affect you? Someone receiving serious head injuries tying up a valuable bed in an ICU does not affect othes who may need that bed? Not wering a helmet can affect others just not in the direct sense.

Quoting dxing (Reply 43): Because that keeps everything moving in unison and provides some order between vehicles.

But that is not the prime reason for speed limits, the prime reason to minimise the risk of accidents fatal or otherwise. The links between excessive speed and fatality rates are well documented.

Quoting dxing (Reply 43): But traffic is not affected one way or the other if someone is not wearing a helmet.

I never said it was, the chances of the rider's survival in the event of an accident are affected however.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 42): 1,335 children

Out of a total of how many? How many children drown in pools each year? Should we outlaw owning a pool?

Quoting EDICHC (Reply 44): No and likewise I am not advocating the outlawing of motorcycles. I do advocate the compulsory use of seatbelts though. Just as I advocate for the compulsory use of helmets.

Since neiher can affect the flow of traffic thus other motorists on the road I don't see where you have a valid point given your previous statements.

Quoting EDICHC (Reply 44): So your loved one dying where the wearing of a helmet might have have saved them would not affect you?

Them dying would affect me. Whether they had a hemet on would not.

Quoting EDICHC (Reply 44): Someone receiving serious head injuries tying up a valuable bed in an ICU does not affect othes who may need that bed?

Someone who used a chainsaw without receivign proper instruction or in an unsafe manner does the same. Should we outlaw chainsaws? Do you get my drift here?

Quoting EDICHC (Reply 44): Not wering a helmet can affect others just not in the direct sense.

So can not having grip strips in the bottom of a tub but they are not mandatory in private homes. If someone wants to disregard not wearing a helmet that is their business. People die, trying to pass a law or regulation to prevent everyone of them is doing nothing but making life miserable for everyone all the time.

Quoting EDICHC (Reply 44): But that is not the prime reason for speed limits,

It absolutely is one of the prime reasons for speed limits. Many of our freeways were designed and built for speeds faster than what is posted. The posted limit is to keep order between the vehicles.

Since you are resorting to "reductio ad absurdium", I might as well go there with you.

Quoting dxing (Reply 43): But traffic is not affected one way or the other if someone is not wearing a helmet.

Sure it is, if they hit the brakes, they fishtail, their head hits the highway, and their brain matter is ejected.

The resulting police and medical activity will certainly cause a traffic jam.

If you think I'm making this up, read reply 31 all over again.

Or are you advocating just kicking the deceased's body into the ditch alongside the road and waiting for the vultures to get it?

Quoting dxing (Reply 45): Out of a total of how many? How many children drown in pools each year? Should we outlaw owning a pool?

No but we should take reasonable measures to reduce preventable deaths, like insisting on flotation devices for children below a certain age.

We do that for boating here in the US and I don't see the boating community making a big fuss about it.

Quoting dxing (Reply 45): Them dying would affect me. Whether they had a hemet on would not.

And if a helmet may have saved them from fatal head injuiries?????

Quoting dxing (Reply 45): Since neiher can affect the flow of traffic thus other motorists on the road I don't see where you have a valid point given your previous statements.

I am making no statement about traffic flow, you raised that issue. I am solely talking about accident survivability among motor cyclists.

Quoting dxing (Reply 45): So can not having grip strips in the bottom of a tub but they are not mandatory in private homes. If someone wants to disregard not wearing a helmet that is their business. People die, trying to pass a law or regulation to prevent everyone of them is doing nothing but making life miserable for everyone all the time.

OK so do you advocate the repeal of seat belt laws? Do you advocate every piece of government legislation remotely linked to personal safety? A compulsory helmet will not restrict your personal freedom in any way, it stop you riding your motor cycle, it will not restrict where you can go on your motor cycle. If a law making the wearing of a helmet is passed by a democratically elected legislature in the interests of the public good than it is their, your's and everyone's business. If you don't like the law you can either move to a different state or vote against the party that introduced it at your next election. That's democracy.

Quoting dxing (Reply 45): It absolutely is one of the prime reasons for speed limits. Many of our freeways were designed and built for speeds faster than what is posted. The posted limit is to keep order between the vehicles.

First I have heard of that...truly. But if that is what you want to believe...

Quoting dxing (Reply 45): Someone who used a chainsaw without receiving proper instruction or in an unsafe manner does the same. Should we outlaw chainsaws? Do you get my drift here?

Clearly an inappropriate analogy. I am not talking about eliminating risk but the practical and enforceable minimising of risk. I have never seen a fatal injury involving a chainsaw in 5 years working in an ED. I have seen two moderately severe but not life-threatening injuries in that time from that source. In the same period I have seen a dozen DOA due to head injuries sustained in motorcycle accidents, and many more that would have been fatal had the victim not been wearing a helmet. I have also seen a similar number of victims severely brain damaged. Do you get my drift here?

Quoting Geezer (Reply 8): What we DON"T need is more laws trying to "protect" people; what we DO need is more people with common sense !

Or less people without common sense ... dear old Darwin had it right but the government passes laws to protect . Its common sense to ware a helmet.... if you don't you may have your head crushed in. Is that not "natural selection" ?

Quoting dxing (Reply 28): Do you think we should make people riding in convertibles wear helmets? If the car flips their heads are just as badly exposed.

If I'm not mistaken, convertibles are required to be designed so that in the event it does roll over, the heads of the passengers will not contact the ground - that's what the roll bars are there for.

-Mir

You guys are all missing the point. Motorcyclist who ride without a helmet perform a vital role in society -

ORGAN DONATION.

Where else would we find perfectly good organs attached (detached) from brain stems?