Author Topic: Irony, thy name is.... (Read 6287 times)

AmbulanceDriver · « **on:** July 04, 2011, 05:22:21 PM »

A New York anti-helmet law protester crashed his motorcycle during a protest ride... And died.... From an injury that a helmet would have saved him from.

http://www.katu.com/news/national/124978164.html

Gowen · « **Reply #1 on:** July 04, 2011, 08:30:43 PM »

Ok, I'll be the first to say it... "it's they way he would of wanted to go..."

CNYCacher · « **Reply #2 on:** July 04, 2011, 08:41:32 PM »

Yeah that one was in my neck of the woods. I was going to post it here.

Some of the ABATE guys were in the July 4 parade in our town today.

I liked this helmet:

henschman · « **Reply #3 on:** July 05, 2011, 01:20:32 AM »

At least you could say he died in the cause of liberty.

Maybe we should make a poll on this... how many of you feel like you are so stupid that you need the government to tell you to take basic safety precautions like wearing a helmet or seatbelt? Or not to do crack, cocaine, and heroin for that matter?

Please join me in prayer... God save us from those who would save us from ourselves. Amen.

Hawkmoon · « **Reply #4 on:** July 05, 2011, 07:29:54 AM »

Quote from: henschman on July 05, 2011, 01:20:32 AM

At least you could say he died in the cause of liberty.

Maybe we should make a poll on this... how many of you feel like you are so stupid that you need the government to tell you to take basic safety precautions like wearing a helmet or seatbelt? Or not to do crack, cocaine, and heroin for that matter?

Please join me in prayer... God save us from those who would save us from ourselves. Amen.

As a rider who always wears a helmet, I am firmly on both sides of the fence here. And this incident makes the point.

No, I don't think motorcyclists should be required to wear a helmet. If they wish to risk death by preventable injury, that should be their right. However ... since helmets CAN prevent serious brain injury and death, IMHO any motorcyclist who is injured or killed in a collision with a car when he is not wearing a helmet should not be able to recover any damages from the driver of the other vehicle. If the motorcyclist wants to accept the risk of rising unprotected, then he/she needs to ACCEPT the risk of riding unprotected.

bedlamite · « **Reply #5 on:** July 05, 2011, 09:01:34 AM »

Quote from: Hawkmoon on July 05, 2011, 07:29:54 AM

As a rider who always wears a helmet, I am firmly on both sides of the fence here. And this incident makes the point.

No, I don't think motorcyclists should be required to wear a helmet. If they wish to risk death by preventable injury, that should be their right.

Yes.

Quote from: Hawkmoon on July 05, 2011, 07:29:54 AM

However ... since helmets CAN prevent serious brain injury and death, IMHO any motorcyclist who is injured or killed in a collision with a car when he is not wearing a helmet should not be able to recover any damages from the driver of the other vehicle.

No. Not wearing a helmet does not absolve the other driver of negligence if they caused the accident.

Quote from: Hawkmoon on July 05, 2011, 07:29:54 AM

If the motorcyclist wants to accept the risk of rising unprotected, then he/she needs to ACCEPT the risk of riding unprotected.

Yes. This should be taken care of through the riders insurance. Helmet=cheaper insurance. No helmet=more expensive.

MicroBalrog · « **Reply #6 on:** July 05, 2011, 09:06:11 AM »

I would like to first of all express condolences to this man and his family.

Second, I've tired already of hearing infuriating leftoids make comments about this event and how it supposedly proves the late individual wrong and stupid. No, it does not. They are not smart people.

lupinus · « **Reply #7 on:** July 05, 2011, 10:39:57 AM »

Quote from: bedlamite on July 05, 2011, 09:01:34 AM

No. Not wearing a helmet does not absolve the other driver of negligence if they caused the accident.

Yes. This should be taken care of through the riders insurance. Helmet=cheaper insurance. No helmet=more expensive.

Why should the driver be responsible for costs that are the result of the rider not taking basic steps to protect him/herself from injury? What if the rider tells his insurance he wears a helmet, but failed to do so?

I don't feel it should be a law, if someone doesn't want to wear a helmet that should be their choice. But as Hawk said, if they want to accept the risks, the should accept them in full.

Tallpine · « **Reply #8 on:** July 05, 2011, 10:53:27 AM »

Quote from: lupinus on July 05, 2011, 10:39:57 AM

Why should the driver be responsible for costs that are the result of the rider not taking basic steps to protect him/herself from injury? What if the rider tells his insurance he wears a helmet, but failed to do so?

I don't feel it should be a law, if someone doesn't want to wear a helmet that should be their choice. But as Hawk said, if they want to accept the risks, the should accept them in full.

So ... a driver knocks a bike down, and the rider's leg gets broken. But the rider wasn't wearing a helmet, so the driver isn't responsible for the rider's broken leg

I don't wear a helmet riding horseback either. Some would say that is crazy/stupid.

MechAg94 · « **Reply #9 on:** July 05, 2011, 11:18:43 AM »

Quote from: Tallpine on July 05, 2011, 10:53:27 AM

So ... a driver knocks a bike down, and the rider's leg gets broken. But the rider wasn't wearing a helmet, so the driver isn't responsible for the rider's broken leg

I don't wear a helmet riding horseback either. Some would say that is crazy/stupid.

I'm not sure that is what he meant.

IMO, the person who caused the accident should cover that, but if there are additional injuries resulting from the ride not wearing a helmet, that is where the rider or the rider's insurance should accept responsibility.

In your example, if the rider smacked the back of his head on the pavement as the motorcycle fell over, perhaps he should be responsible for that injury.

grampster · « **Reply #10 on:** July 05, 2011, 11:19:22 AM »

Michigan may go back to not having to wear helmets. The senate bill requires $100,000 of insurance to go helmetless.

Other side of the coin: One of my employees had a son that was killed on a cycle. He was wearing a helmet and head injuries killed him.

Our No Fault law in Michigan provides that when a cycle collides with an auto, the insurance company that covers the auto pay the medical, lost wages and rehab costs of the cycle rider even if the auto driver was not at fault. I had one case where a motorcycle rider made a careless U turn and struck a legally parked car. He had various injuries including ultimate amputation of a leg. The car's insurance company paid the entire injury claim to the cycle rider.

Boomhauer · « **Reply #11 on:** July 05, 2011, 12:47:24 PM »

Quote

the insurance company that covers the auto pay the medical, lost wages and rehab costs of the cycle rider even if the auto driver was not at fault.

Now that's a bullshit law right there...did the car owner's insurance costs go up in the example you gave?

lupinus · « **Reply #12 on:** July 05, 2011, 01:18:39 PM »

Quote from: Tallpine on July 05, 2011, 10:53:27 AM

So ... a driver knocks a bike down, and the rider's leg gets broken. But the rider wasn't wearing a helmet, so the driver isn't responsible for the rider's broken leg

I don't wear a helmet riding horseback either. Some would say that is crazy/stupid.

No, not quite what I'm saying. What I am saying is that if an injury is sustained that could have been prevented by the rider using basic safety gear it should be on the rider if they sustain it. The helmet, or lack thereof, has nothing to do with a broken leg.

The rider has every right, IMO, to ride around in full on safety gear or tank top and flip flops. I just don't think it should be on anyone else to cover the bills when they sustain additional injury because they choose to not use basic safety gear. If there's clear cut negligence on the other person a case could be made for it I suppose, but generally speaking I feel it should be on the rider who made the decision to take on the additional risk.

Balog · « **Reply #13 on:** July 05, 2011, 01:22:45 PM »

If a driver in a car is not wearing a seatbelt the same rules would apply to them, yes? And of course if the motorcyclist is wearing anything less than a full face helmet, spine protector, one piece racing leathers, and armored boots it's pretty much their own damn fault if someone runs them over because they didn't do enough to prepare for it. I say we extend that logic to cars who have not installed 5 point racing harnesses and fire bottles.

lupinus · « **Reply #14 on:** July 05, 2011, 01:35:08 PM »

Yes, if someone makes the choice to not wear a seat belt and flies out the windshield I'd say it's on them, barring some pretty clear cut and/or serious negligence on another vehicles part.

And there's a difference between making use of basic safety equipment like a helmet and full on racing gear.

Balog · « **Reply #15 on:** July 05, 2011, 01:42:43 PM »

Sounds like a pretty slippery slope, especially because there is zero motivation to inflict those type of punitive laws on drivers. Who determines if a helmet "would" have prevented an injury vs "might" have prevented an injury? What constitutes "basic safety equipment"? And if you are injured to any part not or insufficiently, protected, should you then be solely liable for that? Ankle crushed and you aren't wearing armored boots? Sorry, no insurance coverage for you! And why limit it to equipment but not training? What should we make mandatory there? Taking a basic MSF course? Taking a refresher every year, every 5, every 10? Taking an advanced class?

Tallpine · « **Reply #16 on:** July 05, 2011, 02:14:12 PM »

Pedestrians should be required to wear helmets

roo_ster · « **Reply #17 on:** July 05, 2011, 02:41:29 PM »

Quote from: henschman on July 05, 2011, 01:20:32 AM

Maybe we should make a poll on this... how many of you feel like you are so stupid that you need the government to tell you to take basic safety precautions like wearing a helmet or seatbelt? Or not to do crack, cocaine, and heroin for that matter?

Mock at your own peril, right up until you use a Dremel Tool to clean between your teeth because gov't didn't require a Ruger-like safety billboard(1) on the side of the Dremel. Or a Black & Decker palm sander to remove callouses.

(1) In English, Spanish, French, and braille.

CNYCacher · « **Reply #18 on:** July 05, 2011, 03:22:03 PM »

Quote from: roo_ster on July 05, 2011, 02:41:29 PM

Or a Black & Decker palm sander to remove callouses.

That works pretty well actually.

Jamisjockey · « **Reply #19 on:** July 05, 2011, 07:10:46 PM »

He died free. Helmet laws are nothing but yet another form of ridiculous nanny state tyranny.

cassandra and sara's daddy · « **Reply #20 on:** July 05, 2011, 07:14:38 PM »

Quote from: JamisJockey on July 05, 2011, 07:10:46 PM

He died free. Helmet laws are nothing but yet another form of ridiculous nanny state tyranny.

there are some things worth dying over.

buried two buds who woulda had a shot if they had on helmets. was there for ones melon splitting. the reality differs from the abstract discussion. though his kids are getting over it. sorta

Balog · « **Reply #21 on:** July 05, 2011, 07:27:06 PM »

Quote from: JamisJockey on July 05, 2011, 07:10:46 PM

He died free. Helmet laws are nothing but yet another form of ridiculous nanny state tyranny.

It's possible to be free and stupid. I agree wholeheartedly that laws requiring helmets should go. I also think riding a motorcycle (especially on public streets) without a helmet is idiotic.

Matthew Carberry · « **Reply #22 on:** July 05, 2011, 07:36:32 PM »

It is wrong to require training to own a firearm.

It is stupid to not get training when you own a firearm.

It is wrong to require people to know how to use and to take a topo map and compass when going into the back country instead of solely relying on a GPS.

It is stupid to not know how to use and to take a topo map and compass into the backcountry instead of solely relying on a GPS.

Works for almost everything in life.

cassandra and sara's daddy · « **Reply #23 on:** July 05, 2011, 07:36:59 PM »

from a 14 year old boy about his dad "dying free" "stupid motherblank left me and my sisters because he was a dumbass!"

grampster · « **Reply #24 on:** July 05, 2011, 10:49:57 PM »

Quote from: Avenger29 on July 05, 2011, 12:47:24 PM

Now that's a bull*expletive deleted* law right there...did the car owner's insurance costs go up in the example you gave?

No. But the principal of the thing is wrong. The idea behind No Fault auto insurance is that each driver buys a policy to indemnify himself against loss he experiences regardless of fault...much like health insurance or life insurance doesn't have any fault issue considered with a claim. We always used to joke that Stupid is an insured peril because it's not necessarily negligence. In addition No Fault has a liability portion that protects the policy owner when his fault is "gross negligence" and he causes death, dismemberment, serious impairment of bodily function, or disfigurement. Those injuries must be objectively present and provable, not subjective such as phantom pain that cannot be objectively shown as to reason. In the stated case, the parked car was properly parked and unoccupied. No fault of the owner of that car whatsoever.

News:

Author Topic: Irony, thy name is.... (Read 6287 times)