Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: 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
-
Ok, I'll be the first to say it... "it's they way he would of wanted to go..."
-
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:
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.static.flickr.com%2F5240%2F5902798191_6a749ff4dc_b.jpg&hash=e35907b86cc804df6102f0ebfbd64e205d4ec87b)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
Pedestrians should be required to wear helmets :P
-
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.
-
Or a Black & Decker palm sander to remove callouses.
That works pretty well actually.
-
He died free. Helmet laws are nothing but yet another form of ridiculous nanny state tyranny.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
from a 14 year old boy about his dad "dying free" "stupid motherblank left me and my sisters because he was a dumbass!"
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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).
-
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.
-
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).
-
(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?
-
Why not just eliminate the additional risk of injury associated with all motorcycle-involved accidents altogether by banning motorcycles?
You're giving people ideas.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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").
-
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.