View Full Version : Irony defined: NY motorcyclist dies on ride protesting helmet law…
NY motorcyclist dies on ride protesting helmet law
AP – 2 hrs 29 mins agoONONDAGA, N.Y. (AP) —
Police say a motorcyclist participating in a protest ride against helmet laws in upstate New York died after he flipped over the bike's handlebars and hit his head on the pavement.
The accident happened Saturday afternoon in the town of Onondaga, in central New York near Syracuse.
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.
JRD77VET
07-03-2011, 1:07pm
:sadangel: for his family
Helmets should be personal choice of the rider provided they have a few years experience and are over a certain age ( 21? )
That said, I NEVER go out on my motorcycle without leather jacket, full face helemt, gloves and boots. ( I will admit I don't always wear my kevlar lined jeans )
I would much rather sweat than get skin grafts. Sweats washes off, road rash doesn't
#1...he should have the choice...this is (was) the land of the free?
#2...proof that the lack of a skid lid is what killed the man?
Are Seatbelts a violation of your freedom?
If he survived and was a vegetable for the next 30 years, who's gonna pay for that?
Are Seatbelts a violation of your freedom?
yes
Then you must hate Pesticide laws, traffic signs, drinking and driving laws, and even shooting your handgun in public :skep:
#1...he should have the choice...this is (was) the land of the free?
#2...proof that the lack of a skid lid is what killed the man?
Choice? Freedom?
1)Driving and riding is a privilege that can be taken away. Its not a right, there are laws to follow.
2) Proof? he flipped over the bike's handlebars and hit his head on the pavement.
Oh, I'm sure some African Tribesman could have shot him with a poisonous dart on his way over the handlebars, but more than likely, smacking your unprotected head against the pavement will do serious damage.
NeedSpeed
07-03-2011, 1:25pm
Are Seatbelts a violation of your freedom?
Not in and of themselves. Requiring their use is.
Choice? Freedom?
1)Driving and riding is a privilege that can be taken away. Its not a right, there are laws to follow.
2) Proof?
Oh, I'm sure some African Tribesman could have shot him with a poisonous dart on his way over the handlebars, but more than likely, smacking your unprotected head against the pavement will do serious damage.
sorry, looks like I'm slow today...missed the "proof" :rofl:
as far as freedom...
I can ride my motorcycle w/o a helmet in Florida...but I can not drive my car w/o a seat belt.
how f'd up is that?
NeedSpeed
07-03-2011, 1:27pm
Then you must hate Pesticide laws, traffic signs, drinking and driving laws, and even shooting your handgun in public :skep:
These are all different.
Then you must hate Pesticide laws, traffic signs, drinking and driving laws, and even shooting your handgun in public :skep:
most pesticide laws are politically motivated and stupid
traffic signs are for driver information
drinking & driving is a hazard to the public...riding a bike w/o a helmet...or driving a car w/o a seat belt, is not
handgun...see above
most pesticide laws are politically motivated and stupid
So when they use the improper ones and you get cancer, that is okay?
traffic signs are for driver information
So you are okay with the guy that runs the stop sign and kills your family?
drinking & driving is a hazard to the public...riding a bike w/o a helmet...or driving a car w/o a seat belt, is not
What about the hazard to yourself or your passenger? Again who is gonna pay for the vegetable for the rest of his life?
handgun...see above
At the end of the day, I don't care. I will look out for myself. But to do these things (and there is no place to draw the line), you should have to sign a waiver with your annual registration that states when it happens, no one will pay for your expenses / care. If they can't pay, just leave them on the side of the road.
JRD77VET
07-03-2011, 1:45pm
At the end of the day, I don't care. I will look out for myself. But to do these things (and there is no place to draw the line), you should have to sign a waiver with your annual registration that states when it happens, no one will pay for your expenses / care. If they can't pay, just leave them on the side of the road.
Let say you have paid your fee and are fully covered. You are on business and have to travel thru a bad section of a certain city. Someone runs a red light, hits you in the side and your vehicle crashes into a pole.
The low life scum rush to your vehicle and take your wallet. When rescue gets there, you no longer have your proof of coverage so they leave you there unconscious, bleeding with serious internal injuries. ( basically to die )
Yup, your idea will work pretty well.
NeedSpeed
07-03-2011, 1:48pm
At the end of the day, I don't care. I will look out for myself. But to do these things (and there is no place to draw the line), you should have to sign a waiver with your annual registration that states when it happens, no one will pay for your expenses / care. If they can't pay, just leave them on the side of the road.
You can't mandate health for one. And drawing the line is the problem. The next thing you know they'll tax fatty food more because it's likely to cost more in health care. I'm sure the number of "vegetables" is low and an insignificant portion of your tax dollars.
Two, there are plenty of cases where wearing a belt may actually have caused the fatality.
You can't fix stupid with laws.
Let say you have paid your fee and are fully covered. You are on business and have to travel thru a bad section of a certain city. Someone runs a red light, hits you in the side and your vehicle crashes into a pole.
The low life scum rush to your vehicle and take your wallet. When rescue gets there, you no longer have your proof of coverage so they leave you there unconscious, bleeding with serious internal injuries. ( basically to die )
Yup, your idea will work pretty well.
pssst, they have these new fangled things called Computers now. They store information that can be checked (and rather quickly).
At the end of the day, this is a stupid argument. As in the case of the OP's article, Darwin's Theory will take care of this all by itself.
JRD77VET
07-03-2011, 1:54pm
pssst, they have these new fangled things called Computers now. They store information that can be checked (and rather quickly).
OK, it's a rental car, your ID was stolen and you are unconscious. How do they know you're covered?
( I am with you in agreement that taking care of one's self is your own responsibility. Give those a helping when it's needed but don't allow it to be a lifestyle )
( I am with you in agreement that taking care of one's self is your own responsibility. Give those a helping when it's needed but don't allow it to be a lifestyle )
this ^^^
welfare is supposed to be a "safety net"...
it has become a "hammock"
OK, it's a rental car, your ID was stolen and you are unconscious. How do they know you're covered?
( I am with you in agreement that taking care of one's self is your own responsibility. Give those a helping when it's needed but don't allow it to be a lifestyle )
:rofl: What about the RFID Chip in their right shoulder?
NeedSpeed
07-03-2011, 2:05pm
At the end of the day, this is a stupid argument.
The fact that some states have laws and some don't doesn't make it stupid.
The government doesn't give a sheet if I'm safe. Having the law is another source of revenue and another reason to pull me over.
At the end of the day, I don't care. I will look out for myself. But to do these things (and there is no place to draw the line), you should have to sign a waiver with your annual registration that states when it happens, no one will pay for your expenses / care. If they can't pay, just leave them on the side of the road.
I see where you are trying to go with this but where would this end?
If you get right down to it, if you ride a motorcycle and get injured, they should just leave you alongside of the road since its inherently more dangerous than a car.
I see where you are trying to go with this but where would this end?
If you get right down to it, if you ride a motorcycle and get injured, they should just leave you alongside of the road since its inherently more dangerous than a car.
please be sarcasm?
NeedSpeed
07-03-2011, 2:09pm
please be sarcasm?
Yes, the government should make it impossible for you to hurt yourself or others. It's their job.
:D
please be sarcasm?
Sarcasm?
Me?........nah.
Just an exaggeration to point out the possible consequences of enacting wavers and where they might lead to.
Kerrmudgeon
07-03-2011, 3:20pm
My head may not be too much to look at, but it's the only one I have. Two legs, two feet, two eyes, two testicles, but only one big brain! Skid lids have save my life before. :thumbs:
Burro (He/Haw)
07-03-2011, 3:38pm
Personal choice bitches. Enough said.
ft laud mike
07-03-2011, 3:44pm
Are Seatbelts a violation of your freedom?
If he survived and was a vegetable for the next 30 years, who's gonna pay for that?
:iagree:
At the end of the day, I don't care. I will look out for myself. But to do these things (and there is no place to draw the line), you should have to sign a waiver with your annual registration that states when it happens, no one will pay for your expenses / care. If they can't pay, just leave them on the side of the road.
:iagree::cheers:
Someone else's moronic choices should not cost me $$, (this also applies to idiots who have child after child with no intent to get a job
MEC5LADY
07-03-2011, 3:46pm
Personally I have seen enough head traumas to last a friggen lifetime and if I never see another one it will be alright with me.
Personal choice bitches. Enough said.
we are losing them a little bit each day.
SnikPlosskin
07-03-2011, 9:32pm
Anybody seen someone spread their brains out on the pavement for real?
I was doing some photography back in college and into my frame came a cycle hitting a car. The cycle driver flew off the car (I naturally panned with him) and landed head first on the pavement - his head blasting open like a watermelon dropped from a helicopter.
I was firing about 5 frames per second - not thinking about it, just reflex. Gave the film to the cops.
I was using a zoom lens. I saw brains.
Probably a good idea to wear a helmet. Should it be a law? Well, he did make an awful mess on the street. But nope. Too many nanny laws.
If you don't wear a helmet, you deserve what you get because Darwin's law applies.
JRD77VET
07-03-2011, 9:36pm
..................
If you don't wear a helmet, you deserve what you get because Darwin's law applies.
Blunt and directly to the point.
Then you must hate Pesticide laws, traffic signs, drinking and driving laws, and even shooting your handgun in public :skep:
Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Happy to help.
Neither side of the helmet argument, but a friend lost her Aunt on Friday in Tampa.
Single car / motorcycle accident. CLASSIC "Left turn in front of motorcycle" accident.
The driver of the car was 52; the couple on the motorcycle were 62 and 69. Neither were wearing skid lids.
Grandfather, grandmother killed in crash, other driver flees | wtsp.com (http://www.wtsp.com/news/topstories/article/199573/250/Grandfather-grandmother-killed-in-crash-other-driver-flees)
boracayjohnny
07-03-2011, 9:41pm
Blunt and directly to the point.
Yes.
Loco Vette
07-03-2011, 11:09pm
Personal choice bitches. Enough said.
It's a personal choice when your DA doesn't hit the grownups in the country for $300k a year to keep you fed and your poop wiped in the facility of your choice when a 30 mph laydown becomes a disaster because you wanted your freedom.
Burro (He/Haw)
07-04-2011, 7:21am
It's a personal choice when your DA doesn't hit the grownups in the country for $300k a year to keep you fed and your poop wiped in the facility of your choice when a 30 mph laydown becomes a disaster because you wanted your freedom.
Weak. VERY weak. So you're a "More laws" less personal freedom kinda guy.
Loco Vette
07-04-2011, 8:17am
Weak. VERY weak. So you're a "More laws" less personal freedom kinda guy.
Actually I am exactly the opposite. I am all for you being able to turn yourself into a greasy spot, but you should have to bear the consequences, not me.
Burro (He/Haw)
07-04-2011, 8:24am
Actually I am exactly the opposite. I am all for you being able to turn yourself into a greasy spot, but you should have to bear the consequences, not me.
Not according to your post. You cant have it both ways Loco. You cant be in the "Less mandated safety laws" camp and then take the "But I'm not paying if someone gets hurt" camp.
Loco Vette
07-04-2011, 8:53am
Not according to your post. You cant have it both ways Loco. You cant be in the "Less mandated safety laws" camp and then take the "But I'm not paying if someone gets hurt" camp.
So what's your thought on welfare for dependent children? Same concept, someone does what they feel like and then the rest of us pay for it, because someone would be hurt otherwise.
I was practicing in Mobile, AL when Florida repealed their helmet law. Literally overnight the average cost of admission for a motorcycle wreck went from $15,000 to $75,000 because a low-speed acccident that used to produce some road rash and a broken leg now included a concussion and a broken skull. This is where you should be responsible for your actions. If you don't want to use readily available safety gear, then don't expect the rest of us to be your safety net.
I do also find it amusing that the same people who agitate to repeal helmet laws have the sanctimonious "Look twice, save a life: Motorcycles are everywhere" bumper stickers.
Burro (He/Haw)
07-04-2011, 9:09am
So what's your thought on welfare for dependent children? Same concept, someone does what they feel like and then the rest of us pay for it, because someone would be hurt otherwise.
I was practicing in Mobile, AL when Florida repealed their helmet law. Literally overnight the average cost of admission for a motorcycle wreck went from $15,000 to $75,000 because a low-speed acccident that used to produce some road rash and a broken leg now included a concussion and a broken skull. This is where you should be responsible for your actions. If you don't want to use readily available safety gear, then don't expect the rest of us to be your safety net.
I do also find it amusing that the same people who agitate to repeal helmet laws have the sanctimonious "Look twice, save a life: Motorcycles are everywhere" bumper stickers.
WELLLLLLLLL, you have some valid points there, I will admit. :D I just do not like being told you SHALL wear your seat belt, and you SHALL wear a helmet.
It just goes against my idea of personal choice. :cheers:
As for the welfare to dependent children argument, In many cases, (NOT ALL) the goal is more kids = more money. It's no accident some fat hillbilly ends up with 6 screaming kids in many MANY cases. I doubt anyone mounts up on their MC and thinks; "Lets crash. That way the state can wipe my ass and clean up my drool for the next 20 years."
I do also find it amusing that the same people who agitate to repeal helmet laws have the sanctimonious "Look twice, save a life: Motorcycles are everywhere" bumper stickers.
pretty sad that a professional like yourself would call that particular bumper sticker sanctimonious...
when facts are most fatal accidents are caused by a driver of a vehicle other than a motorcycle who almost always has the same line: "but, I didn't even see the motorcycle"
public awareness of other smaller & less visible vehicles sharing the road has nothing to do with those who fight for liberty & freedom of choice.
I fail to see the sanctimony in that.
Burro (He/Haw)
07-04-2011, 9:56am
when facts are most fatal accidents are caused by a driver of a vehicle other than a motorcycle who almost always has the same line: "but, I didn't even see the motorcycle"
:iagree::iagree:
Loco Vette
07-04-2011, 10:18am
pretty sad that a professional like yourself would call that particular bumper sticker sanctimonious...I fail to see the sanctimony in that.
In isolation, it's not. Coupled with an attitude that says "I don't need no stinking helmet" or "I can split lanes if I want", it is.
Upon further pondering, I guess that it is a blanket statement by me that may or may not have anyone who actually puts those two thoughts together, and I agree that a lot of motorcyclists are hurt by drivers who are not paying attention. I withdraw my "sanctimonious" comment until I can post a picture of that sticker on a motorcycle with a helmetless rider. :slap:
However, people often "don't see" other cars, trucks, etc and cause wrecks, it's just that the consequences aren't as bad. Moron drivers are moron drivers, and they ain't gonna change no matter what they are going to hit or how many slogans people come up with.
In isolation, it's not. Coupled with an attitude that says "I don't need no stinking helmet" or "I can split lanes if I want", it is.
the bold shows you come to the discussion with a bias. :yesnod:
Upon further pondering, I guess that it is a blanket statement by me that may or may not have anyone who actually puts those two thoughts together, and I agree that a lot of motorcyclists are hurt by drivers who are not paying attention. I withdraw my "sanctimonious" comment until I can post a picture of that sticker on a motorcycle with a helmetless rider. :slap:
even a helmetless rider with that particular sticker does not make it sanctimonious
one is about liberty & freedom...the other is about public awareness.
your position would have an automobile driver with a "share the road" tag for bicyclists and not wearing his seat belt "sanctimonious"
However, people often "don't see" other cars, trucks, etc and cause wrecks, it's just that the consequences aren't as bad. Moron drivers are moron drivers, and they ain't gonna change no matter what they are going to hit or how many slogans people come up with.
so, all public awareness campaigns should be halted...whether grass root, corporation, or government sponsored?
smacking your unprotected head against the pavement will do serious damage.
We might need to do some experiments...
At the end of the day, I don't care.
How about at the beginning of the day. Do you care then? Or in the middle of the day?
You can't fix stupid with laws.
Doesn't stop the government from trying. :toetap:
I was doing some photography back in college and into my frame came a cycle hitting a car. The cycle driver flew off the car (I naturally panned with him) and landed head first on the pavement - his head blasting open like a watermelon dropped from a helicopter.
Clearly, you don't take YouTube quality video. You're supposed to drop the camera when something like that happens.
:leaving:
Loco Vette
07-04-2011, 11:44am
In isolation, it's not. Coupled with an attitude that says "I don't need no stinking helmet" or "I can split lanes if I want", it is.
Upon further pondering, I guess that it is a blanket statement by me that may or may not have anyone who actually puts those two thoughts together, and I agree that a lot of motorcyclists are hurt by drivers who are not paying attention. I withdraw my "sanctimonious" comment until I can post a picture of that sticker on a motorcycle with a helmetless rider. :slap:
However, people often "don't see" other cars, trucks, etc and cause wrecks, it's just that the consequences aren't as bad. Moron drivers are moron drivers, and they ain't gonna change no matter what they are going to hit or how many slogans people come up with.
the bold shows you come to the discussion with a bias. :yesnod:
Even if that was true, everyone has an opinion. You trying to negate mine by calling it a bias instead of an opinion is as disingenuous as libs screaming "Racism" every time someone opposes an Obama initiative.
even a helmetless rider with that particular sticker does not make it sanctimonious
"I am more concerned about my freedom than my safety, as long as I can depend on everyone else to be safe for me."
In our industry we often have multiple overlapping rules to prevent bad things from happening, in case one rule is ignored. Depending on your typical on-the-cellphone driver to follow all the safety considerations so you don't have to follow the one you are most in control of may not be sanctimonious, but it damn sure ain't too bright.
one is about liberty & freedom...the other is about public awareness.
your position would have an automobile driver with a "share the road" tag for bicyclists and not wearing his seat belt "sanctimonious"
I already withdrew my earlier blanket statement about drivers with the sticker because it assumed the driver was in support of repealing helmet laws, and I had no basis to make that assumption.
However, your example would indeed be true as well, if the driver was a bicyclist and chooses to make his safety my issue just because he is on a bicycle, and disregards his safety at other times.
so, all public awareness campaigns should be halted...whether grass root, corporation, or government sponsored?
I never said that, I just don't think it is going to have an effect.
Even if that was true, everyone has an opinion. You trying to negate mine by calling it a bias instead of an opinion is as disingenuous as libs screaming "Racism" every time someone opposes an Obama initiative.
"I am more concerned about my freedom than my safety, as long as I can depend on everyone else to be safe for me."
In our industry we often have multiple overlapping rules to prevent bad things from happening, in case one rule is ignored. Depending on your typical on-the-cellphone driver to follow all the safety considerations so you don't have to follow the one you are most in control of may not be sanctimonious, but it damn sure ain't too bright.
I already withdrew my earlier blanket statement about drivers with the sticker because it assumed the driver was in support of repealing helmet laws, and I had no basis to make that assumption.
However, your example would indeed be true as well, if the driver was a bicyclist and chooses to make his safety my issue just because he is on a bicycle, and disregards his safety at other times.
I never said that, I just don't think it is going to have an effect.
fair enough :cheers:
btw, I wear a helmet...usually a DOT half, but in summer I do ride w/ a beanie. I always wear long pants...but I do ride w/ a tee shirt in the summer.
I have been riding the big bikes for 10 years...I have dropped 3 of my bikes on 3 seperate occassions...all were in parking lots while sitting still. I hope it remains that way. :cheers:
Truck Guy
07-04-2011, 11:57am
Personal choice bitches. Enough said.:iagree: True, but think about the pain and expense this douchebag is putting his family through right now. Because of his "personal choice".
Of course now he is also the poster idiot for the reason to push helmet laws.
The exact opposite of what he was out there to accomplish. Ironic, huh?
If you don't wear a helmet, you deserve what you get because Darwin's law applies.:iagree: The chance you take.
Blunt and directly to the point.:iagree: The only way to be...
Loco Vette
07-04-2011, 11:58am
fair enough :cheers:
btw, I wear a helmet...usually a DOT half, but in summer I do ride w/ a beanie. I always wear long pants...but I do ride w/ a tee shirt in the summer.
I have been riding the big bikes for 10 years...I have dropped 3 of my bikes on 3 seperate occassions...all were in parking lots while sitting still. I hope it remains that way. :cheers:
Glad you didn't get hurt, hope it stays that way! :thumbs:
I guess I am a PITA. I wear the fire suit when racing even though it is not required in my class, because as one buddy put it "I would feel awfully stupid if I was on fire and the suit was in the trailer." I ain't got the stones to ride a bike, though.
You still in the panhandle area? I am thinking of a trip to see my Mobile buddies soon and would love to buy you a beer. :cheers:
Truck Guy
07-04-2011, 12:05pm
when facts are most fatal accidents are caused by a driver of a vehicle other than a motorcycle who almost always has the same line: "but, I didn't even see the motorcycle"
:iagree: Seems like even more of a reason to protect yourself out there.
Keep yourself safe from the idiots around you that "didn't even see the motorcycle" :yesnod:
Glad you didn't get hurt, hope it stays that way! :thumbs:
I guess I am a PITA. I wear the fire suit when racing even though it is not required in my class, because as one buddy put it "I would feel awfully stupid if I was on fire and the suit was in the trailer." I ain't got the stones to ride a bike, though.
You still in the panhandle area? I am thinking of a trip to see my Mobile buddies soon and would love to buy you a beer. :cheers:
I'm in Destin...
we should get together...Chad is your bud correct? I like the big guy, he's a good man :cheers:
:iagree: Seems like even more of a reason to protect yourself out there.
Keep yourself safe from the idiots around you that "didn't even see the motorcycle" :yesnod:
thanks.
As I get older...I'm almost paranoid when I ride...I guess it's a good thing. And I enjoy fall & winter riding most, because It's more comfortable to wear more gear in Florida.
Summer in Florida on an air cooled big twin is not fun...so, my bike sits alot this time of year. I did get out Saturday for a ride with a bud...we did 150 miles just going over to PCola Beach and puttin' around.
Loco Vette
07-04-2011, 1:01pm
I'm in Destin...
we should get together...Chad is your bud correct? I like the big guy, he's a good man :cheers:
:thumbs: Will put it on the list next time I wind up down that way!
themonk
07-04-2011, 2:03pm
Personal choice bitches. Enough said.
Exactly, just like seatbelts. Governments should not be in charge of your safety when it comes to things like this, they just pass laws to make it mandatory that way it generates revenue if you disobey these laws, do you really think the government gives a rat's ass if you wear a helmet or not considering all the other dangerous things that they allow us to do.
JRD77VET
07-04-2011, 6:57pm
This same news story is generating some "good discusions" on the kawi triple forum
I've been riding continuously for 44 years youngster. It's my opinion you are 100% wrong but that's beside the point. This is America, I'm tired of loosing personal privileges to the fricking liberals who know everything that's for my own good. I left California for that very same reason. I live in a state where personal freedoms are abundant. We used to have a helmet law and it was repealed long ago. We have races up mountains where you can park your chair anywhere you want. If you get run over because you're stupid - tough but it's your life.
I'll concede helmets can save lives, but do the proper research and you'll find that an overwhelming percentage of deaths involving motorcycles - wearing a helmet would not have mattered anyway. In fact there is a small percentage where perception impairment was a contributing factor.
People pushing helmet laws are idiots because they're ignorant of real facts or they live in a state where if injured the state will carry you for life so it becomes a financial issue disguised behind a mandatory law. We don't have stupid laws like that where I live!
Myself and only for myself - I have a living will, a DNR, organ donor card, plenty of medical insurance and life insurance too. My kids are grown and I'm an adult. If I die tomorrow from ANY cause I won't be a burden financially to anyone or anything. I live my life the way I choose - not by somebody's sense of what's good for me or a hidden agenda.
Here's another reply to that statement
It's not a political issue, or a personal rights issue. Driving is a priviledge, not a right! If you live in a country, and are allowed to leave, then it is your duty to that country to abide by it's laws.
The helmets law is for the the "ones" that don't have any common sense.
The ones that can truely, and morally, not wear a helmet when riding, are the ones with no family or friends. For the simple reason, if a person is so self centered they they don't care about their family/friends/and loved ones, the ones that will hurt for the rest of their lives because of whatever reason that person didn't wear a helmet.
It doesn't (or ever mattered) if it's a law or not, it's the respect for the people that know and love you. Family and friends will understand if you have a dangerous hobby/job, but never will, if they lose you out of you own arrogance.
The guy is dead, he is not suffering like the rest of his family will the rest of their lives...........
Fastguy
07-04-2011, 9:09pm
These laws are generally pushed by insurance companies, hawked by lobbyists and championed by lawmakers trying to "save the children'.
I ride in a no-helmet-law state but always wear a full face, plus armored gear.
I am always torn on this because I have seen people saved by helmets that would have been f'd without them and people who took minor spills without helmets that suffered major injuries. On the other hand, I do not like .gov interference regarding personal choices.
99 pewtercoupe
07-04-2011, 9:19pm
I do not ride a bike
However several years ago I was on a cruise with a bunch of bike riders from work. My wfe and I were in the Vette following the bikes. One of the bikes went down. Two people on it. Both were wearing helmuts even though this state does not require it. One of the riders works for me. She has had 12 surgeries since then and is almost back to normal. There is no question she would have died w/o a helmut. When the helicoptertook off to get her to an emergency trauma center, I was amazed how many people rode off not wearing helmuts even though they had them with them.
I will stay on four wheels
Fastguy
07-04-2011, 9:26pm
Two guys I know both lowsided and slid down the road on their heads. The one wearing a full face burned a hole through the helmet and recovered with bumps and bruises. The one with no helmet has just a hole in the side of his head where his ear used to be.
"and in other news...
someone died in car accident today...yes, they were wearing their seat belt...yes the air bags deployed...
and, there was a tragic death on the bay...a man was killed when his small fishing boat blew up...
then, there's that terrible news of the doctor in his private plane flying home from the holiday weekend...aircraft lost both engines...
a young boy was killed when he fell from a tree in his grandmothers back yard...he loved that old tree..."
"back to you in the studio Tom"....
Uncle Pervey
07-04-2011, 11:32pm
I believe in personal freedom as strongly as Lars does, however I also think that there is some personal responsibility that each person has to agree to in order to operate any sort of vehicle, motorized or muscle powered. I have a family that I care about, I choose to wear a helmet and protective gear while riding a motorcycle, I also wear my seatbelt.
If you want to ride without a helmet or a seat belt in your car/truck then you ought to automatically disqualify yourself for any sort of medical insurance or SSI or Medicare if you get disabled. In fact I believe that if you want that much freedom then you ought to have the freedom to die.
You have a duty to obey traffic rules and laws and to use common courtesy and not drive like a complete asshat. However if you choose to ride in your car without a seat belt or ride your bike without a helmet, then you automatically negate any responsibility by EMS to try and save you. Yes they might save your freedom seeking ass but if they don't then your heirs don't get to sue anyone. If you do recover you will be free to spend the rest of your crippled assed life paying off your medical bills. :yesnod: :leaving:
themonk
07-05-2011, 12:15am
:rofl: idiot.
Protest some more, I dare ya!
Scissors
07-05-2011, 5:01am
Choice? Freedom?
1)Driving and riding is a privilege that can be taken away. Its not a right, there are laws to follow.
2) Proof?
Oh, I'm sure some African Tribesman could have shot him with a poisonous dart on his way over the handlebars, but more than likely, smacking your unprotected head against the pavement will do serious damage.
I was thinking more along the lines of a broken neck, but I suppose the African Tribesman thing could have also been it. We are talking about NY.
Scissors
07-05-2011, 5:09am
Not according to your post. You cant have it both ways Loco. You cant be in the "Less mandated safety laws" camp and then take the "But I'm not paying if someone gets hurt" camp.
Huh? Sure you can. The two camps are on the "personal responsibility" side of the debate.
You get to choose to have your fun, and then you get to handle your own consequences, if any. The side of personal responsibility mandates that you get to choose what kind of and how much safety gear to use, rather than forcing others to wear/use something specific. It also mandates that you save up for and pay for your own treatment/care rather than forcing others to pay for it.
However, the latter would apply only to tax dollars; not to purchased insurance which, by definition, is designed to take money from the healthy/smart/lucky and give it to the unhealthy/stupid/unlucky, and which (should be) entered into willingly.
Scissors
07-05-2011, 5:11am
pretty sad that a professional like yourself would call that particular bumper sticker sanctimonious...
when facts are most fatal accidents are caused by a driver of a vehicle other than a motorcycle who almost always has the same line: "but, I didn't even see the motorcycle"
It's close to 50/50, actually. "Idiot turned in front of motorcyclist" is pretty much tied with "motorcyclist failed to negotiate turn" when it comes to the fatal accidents.
VatorMan
07-05-2011, 5:59am
It's close to 50/50, actually. "Idiot turned in front of motorcyclist" is pretty much tied with "motorcyclist failed to negotiate turn" when it comes to the fatal accidents.
Yep. Ever since I went to an 8K HID front light, I have not had one car turn in front of me.Serious.
Scissors
07-05-2011, 6:03am
Yep. Ever since I went to an 8K HID front light, I have not had one car turn in front of me.Serious.
"Loud lights save lives."
VatorMan
07-05-2011, 6:58am
"Loud lights save lives."
THIS. :yesnod:
Fastguy
07-05-2011, 11:32am
"Loud lights save lives."
Do they make them for older bikes with the single giant headlight?
Fastguy
07-05-2011, 11:38am
Glad you didn't get hurt, hope it stays that way! :thumbs:
I guess I am a PITA. I wear the fire suit when racing even though it is not required in my class, because as one buddy put it "I would feel awfully stupid if I was on fire and the suit was in the trailer." I ain't got the stones to ride a bike, though.
:
Therein lies the slippery slope. Are you running Nomex gloves, boots and helmet liner? a roll bar, a roll cage? Five point, six point, Neck brace, HANS or Hutchens? Halon system? You know from being on track a stock C5 or C6 can attain dangerous speeds, faster than slower cars with mods dumped into higher classes. Where do you decide what is "safe enough"?
C5Nate
07-05-2011, 12:03pm
when facts are most fatal accidents are caused by a driver of a vehicle other than a motorcycle who almost always has the same line: "but, I didn't even see the motorcycle"
public awareness of other smaller & less visible vehicles sharing the road has nothing to do with those who fight for liberty & freedom of choice.
Do you have any data to back up those facts?
One of the main reasons my son quit riding is he lost too many of his buddys on their sport bikes. Many were doing stupid stuff but some were due to slick spots, sand in the road, one hit a deer, the deer won.
Scissors
07-05-2011, 12:13pm
Do they make them for older bikes with the single giant headlight?
Actually Harley offers LED headlights for both its smaller and larger (8") single housings, as well as the auxiliary housings. I swapped mine out to LED as soon as I found out about them.
Scissors
07-05-2011, 12:14pm
Do you have any data to back up those facts?
One of the main reasons my son quit riding is he lost too many of his buddys on their sport bikes. Many were doing stupid stuff but some were due to slick spots, sand in the road, one hit a deer, the deer won.
A simple FARS database query will reveal the answers to your questions. It's available online.
Joecooool
07-05-2011, 12:31pm
If some idiot doesn't want to wear a helmet, that's on him. I just wish when they passed the law they also passed another one saying if you chose not to wear one, you have to carry a minimum million dollars PIP insurance.
VatorMan
07-05-2011, 12:37pm
Do they make them for older bikes with the single giant headlight?
Yes. Google slim ballast HID motorcycle kit. Usually runs $50 and will really change how people see you.
Loco Vette
07-05-2011, 12:43pm
Therein lies the slippery slope. Are you running Nomex gloves, boots and helmet liner? a roll bar, a roll cage? Five point, six point, Neck brace, HANS or Hutchens? Halon system? You know from being on track a stock C5 or C6 can attain dangerous speeds, faster than slower cars with mods dumped into higher classes. Where do you decide what is "safe enough"?
In order:
Yes
No
Yes
Cage
6 point
HANS
No halon
"Safe enough" is when I feel that I have reached a point of diminishing returns on safety. I am likely to do a halon system at some point in the future, though.
And I know that this is arbitrary, but once you start exceeding the minimum required by the rules, any analysis is going to be fraught with that kind of thing.
Fastguy
07-05-2011, 3:49pm
Everyone has their own definition of "safe enough". I know people who are pro-helmet but ride in t-shirts and shorts, no other gear but a helmet. Others ride in full head to toe race leathers, gloves, motorcycle boots and track gloves. Is one too dangerous and one overkill?
When I started tracking my car it was helmet and that's it. Since then, I have done nothing to make the car faster, but I have gotten faster so now I wear an SA helmet, firesuit, gloves, boots, neck brace and a 5-point along with a welded moly 5 point rollbar and a race seat. Even though the rules only call for a helmet in most cases, its cheap insurance to have the right gear.
If some idiot doesn't want to wear a helmet, that's on him. I just wish when they passed the law they also passed another one saying if you chose not to wear one, you have to carry a minimum million dollars PIP insurance.
so...
you want every one who goes out on a boat to have PIP? or any one who goes rock climbing to have PIP?
how about those who walk or jog on the public sidewalk or road way? how about bicycle riders who share the highway?
and what are your thoughts of the Coast Guard helping watercraft in distress?
A simple FARS database query will reveal the answers to your questions. It's available online.
Well, but then I would have to go look it up. :rolleyes:
Motorcycle Involvement in Crashes
In 2008, 2,554 (47%) of all motorcycles involved in fatal crashes collided with another type of motor vehicle in transport. In two-vehicle crashes, 77 percent of the motorcycles involved were struck in the front. Only 7 percent were struck in the rear.
Motorcycles are more likely to be involved in a fatal collision with a fixed object than are other vehicles.
In 2008, 25 percent of the motorcycles involved in fatal crashes collided with fixed objects, compared to 19 percent for passenger cars, 14 percent for light trucks, and 4 percent for large trucks.
In 2008, there were 2,387 two-vehicle fatal crashes involving a motorcycle and another type of vehicle. In 41 percent (985) of these crashes the other vehicle was turning left while the motorcycle was going straight, passing, or overtaking the vehicle. Both vehicles were going straight in 666 crashes (28%). Thats odd.
One out of four motorcycle riders (25%) involved in fatal crashes in 2008 were riding their vehicles with invalid licenses at the time of the collision, while only 12 percent of drivers of passenger vehicles in fatal crashes did not have valid licenses.
Motorcycle riders involved in fatal traffic crashes were 1.4 times more likely than passenger vehicle drivers to have a previous license suspension or revocation (18% and 13%, respectively).
In 2008, 4 percent of the motorcycle riders involved in fatal crashes had at least one previous conviction for driving while intoxicated on their driver records, compared to 3 percent of passenger vehicle drivers
In 2008, 35 percent of all motorcycle riders involved in fatal crashes were speeding, compared to 23 percent for passenger car drivers, 19 percent for light-truck drivers, and 8 percent for large-truck drivers.
In fatal crashes in 2008 a higher percentage of motorcycle riders had blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of .08 grams per deciliter (g/dL) or higher than any other type of motor vehicle driver. The percentages for vehicle riders involved in fatal crashes were 29 percent for motorcycles, 23 percent for passenger cars, 23 percent for light trucks, and 2 percent for large trucks.
In fatal crashes in 2008 a higher percentage of motorcycle riders had blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of .08 grams per deciliter (g/dL) or higher than any other type of motor vehicle driver. The percentages for vehicle riders involved in fatal crashes were 29 percent for motorcycles, 23 percent for passenger cars, 23 percent for light trucks, and 2 percent for large trucks.
See, motorcycle riders must be low life, criminals. :willy:
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.