Irony, thy name is....

[cordex]

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

I have a relative who drank his way through a failing liver this year.  His family has similar things to say.  You going to send your local chapter of the Anti-Saloon League a donation based on that anecdote?  I'm not.

Taking unnecessary risks may be stupid and result in heartbreak for loved ones, but it doesn't need to be illegal.  We are nerfed more than enough as it is.

[roo_ster]

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

From the mouths of babes...

Still doesn't justify a helmet law.  Plenty of other legal ways to off oneself.

[MicroBalrog]

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

This protester here took a calculated risk to make a point about an issue of individual liberty. It's not the same thing as some irresponsible person riding his motorocycle sans helmet without any comprehension of the risk. It's not stupid just because it includes a risk to your life.

[Balog]

This protester here took a calculated risk to make a point about an issue of individual liberty. It's not the same thing as some irresponsible person riding his motorocycle sans helmet without any comprehension of the risk. It's not stupid just because it includes a risk to your life.

Risking your life over something trivial when you have dependents is indeed stupid and irresponsible. This is not a major or important issue. A husband and father's first duty is to his wife and children. Risking one's life to make genuine improvements in the world is one thing: I'm certainly glad the FF did. Risking your life because of a relatively benign even if stupid and nanny-state-ish law is foolish imho.

[MicroBalrog]

Risking your life over something trivial when you have dependents is indeed stupid and irresponsible. This is not a major or important issue. A husband and father's first duty is to his wife and children. Risking one's life to make genuine improvements in the world is one thing: I'm certainly glad the FF did. Risking your life because of a relatively benign even if stupid and nanny-state-ish law is foolish imho.

This makes no sense.

The situation is in no way comparable to what the Founders did.

Riding a motorbike without a helmet may be risky, but it's nowhere as dangerous as going into battle against the British Empire in 1775.

What is the chance (percentile-wise) of killing yourself per specific helmet-less ride? I doubt it is over 0.5%. Any one given ride is a very limited risk.

This specific ride had one out of 550 members crash and die - a 0.18% casualty rate, and they had good reason to believe even such a thing would not occur (they were not riding recklessly at high speed in an uncontrolled setting).

But had this person even known that one of the riders would crash, doing something that has an 0.18% risk to end in your death is hardlly RECKLESS BREAKNECK STUPIDITY. (According to the article, wearing a helmet makes you only 40% less likely to die).

[CNYCacher]

doing something that has an 0.18% risk to end in your death is hardlly RECKLESS BREAKNECK STUPIDITY.

I am not commenting on the motorcycle stuff at all, just your stats.  Doing something that has 0.1% chance of death on a regular basis is reckless, and will be the end of you.

[MicroBalrog]

I am not commenting on the motorcycle stuff at all, just your stats.  Doing something that has 0.1% chance of death on a regular basis is reckless, and will be the end of you.

Yes, of course. But this isn't what we're talking about. We're talking about his decision to attend this specific rally (of course, the actual chance of crashing per ride is far lower).

[cordex]

(According to the article, wearing a helmet makes you only 40% less likely to die).

Why not just eliminate the additional risk of injury associated with all motorcycle-involved accidents altogether by banning motorcycles?

[MicroBalrog]

Why not just eliminate the additional risk of injury associated with all motorcycle-involved accidents altogether by banning motorcycles?

You're giving people ideas.

[cordex]

You're giving people ideas.

Nah, it's not like they haven't already thought of it.  Once moderating the risks to an individual's own health and safety from their personal choices is a valid reason to pass legislation (and we have plenty of precedent for that) then it's only a matter of time before anything with even a modicum of danger is licensed, regulated, banned or trashed in the media.  And there will always be someone with a pocketful of bloody anecdotes lamenting the lack of "sufficient" legislation.

[KD5NRH]

Risking your life over something trivial when you have dependents is indeed stupid and irresponsible.

This.  As I said on FB, I don't like helmet laws, but I consider civil disobedience in this case to be only marginally less idiotic than setting myself on fire to protest the burn ban.

What is the chance (percentile-wise) of killing yourself per specific helmet-less ride? I doubt it is over 0.5%. Any one given ride is a very limited risk.

If you figured in all the drunks that get lucky every weekend and manage to not get caught or hit anything, I'd bet the chances of even having a wreck while driving drunk are well under .01%, but I don't see anybody sensible advocating DUI as a means to protest the laws against it.

[RoadKingLarry]

Quite a bit of opinion being thrown around here. Some of the choice of words don't seem to fit in to a POLITE discussion.
The anti-freedom kool-aid runs strong in this thread.
Change a few key words and some of it could have been written by the Bady Bunch.

If someone gets killed while riding a motorcycle everyone goes on and on about how dangerous motorcycles are.
If someone gets killed while driving a car we all get in our cars and go to the funeral.

In my 34 years of riding I've known quite a few people that have died in motorcycle crashes. Some were wearing helmets, some weren't.
A few years ago a couple I knew were killed riding, the news outlets all made a point of mentioning they wern't wearing helmets. I don't think a helmet would have made a darn bit of diffrence when the unsecured farm tractor came off the trailer and smashed them.
The son of a close friend of mine was killed while test driving a bike he planned to buy. He had been back from Iraq less than a month. He was stopped at a stop sign when a drunk driver plowed over him, she kept going for about a 1/4 mile dragging the rider and most of the bike till the damage done to her car cause it to stop. The high dollar Shoei helemt he was wearing didn't help much.
As to the the argument that if a negligent driver hits a biker and the biker wasn't wearing a hlemet then the biker is partly to blame for his injuries is to me the same as saying if a negligent shooter accidently shoots some one then the person shot is partly to blame becasue they weren't wearing a bullet proof vest.

I've only got a just little over a quarter of a million miles in the saddle, probably a little over half of that sans helmet. I don't think I'm an idiot for making that choice nor do I think I'm stupid, ignorant or irresponsible, I am fully aware of the risks I take when I pull out of the driveway on my bike.

 

[CNYCacher]

Larry,
I've heard people who are against helmet laws make the claim that helmets can actually be a hindrance to safety by decreasing the rider's ability to see (and now that I think of it, hearing is probably also impaired).  How do you feel about that?

[AmbulanceDriver]

RKL, I don't want to seem impolite.  But just as your experiences affect your opinion of this matter, so do my experiences.  And I've seen entirely too many injuries....  For me, if I were to ever ride a motorcycle, the appropriate riding apparel is nothing less than full leathers, an armored spine protector, a full face helmet, and armored boots and gauntlets. 

Because after seeing degloving injuries, nearly full body road rash, spinal injuries, and (worst of all) traumatic brain injuries........ 

Do those injuries affect my opinion?  Absolutely. 

So as long as you are fully aware of the risks, and are willing to take that risk, that's fine.  But please, also make sure that you are sufficiently insured, should the worst happen and you be reduced to a near vegetable.

Sorry if that sounds harsh, but the reality of what I've seen *is* harsh.

[RoadKingLarry]

Larry,
I've heard people who are against helmet laws make the claim that helmets can actually be a hindrance to safety by decreasing the rider's ability to see (and now that I think of it, hearing is probably also impaired).  How do you feel about that?

Modern helmets are pretty nifty pieces of engineering and several orders of magnitude better than what I started with more than 30 years ago(and way more expensive!!), Both in protection, comfort and visibility. As far as reduced hearing Vs. no helmet I think the helmet would give you the edge at least at at highway speeds due to wind noise, at city speed maybe not so much.

If you want to try a little experiment though try driving around in your car wearing a full face helmet. I know of several helmet law protestors that have been ticketed for it because the helmet "impaired their ability to see and hear".

AmbulanceDriver-

Because after seeing degloving injuries, nearly full body road rash, spinal injuries, and (worst of all) traumatic brain injuries........

I'm willing to bet you have also seen horrific injuries in automobile crashes as well. Do you wear full race gear when you drive your car?


---------------------------


I have no problem with the choices someone else makes with regards to their acceptable level of risk. I do however take some offense at being labeled an idiot because of the level of risk I am willing to take. I don't denigrate others because of their lifestyle or choices and I would expect the same courtesy, at least here.

[Balog]

You're right RKL, that was rude of me and I apologize. You're also right in that no safety gear can eliminate all injuries.

It would be pretty disingenuous to pretend that wearing safety gear does not significantly decrease the severity of injury in the majority of accidents. It's also misleading to ask about safety gear in a car. The safety gear is called a couple thousand pounds of steel.

If you go into it knowing the risks, and with the insurance to 1. provide for any dependents and 2. pay for your own medical care in the worst case then feel free. I personally consider that level of risk a poor choice, but that is my opinion.

[AmbulanceDriver]

You're right that I've seen horrible injuries in car accidents.  But *much* less frequently than with motorcycles.  Also, the injuries in car crashes tend to be less severe than motorcycle accidents, unless the driver isn't wearing a seat belt.   I also have really good insurance coverage just in case I am badly injured or killed, making sure that I and mine are taken care of in case something horrible happens. 

And no, I don't think that you're an idiot for riding a motorcycle, regardless of what safety equipment you choose to wear or not wear.  I do understand the feeling of freedom that a bike can bring, and I won't begrudge anyone that feeling. 

And no, I honestly don't understand the desire to ride a motorcycle, especially at highway speeds, without a helmet.  But I'm not gonna force you to wear a helmet, or full leathers, or anything like that.  But don't ask me to pay for the choices that you make (not you in particular, but the general "you"). 

[KD5NRH]

I've heard people who are against helmet laws make the claim that helmets can actually be a hindrance to safety by decreasing the rider's ability to see (and now that I think of it, hearing is probably also impaired).  How do you feel about that?

Stick your head out the car window at 55MPH, facing forward.

Sunglasses help a bit with the squinting, but goggles or a face shield are much better.  Wind noise at anything over 25MPH pretty much masks car engines until they're too close for the warning to be much use.