Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

FNN - New York Giants Mathias Kiwanuka and Brother Involved In Motorcycle Accident


HapHaszard

Recommended Posts

http://www.footballnewsnow.com/2010/new-york-giants-mathias-kiwanuka-and-brother-involved-in-motorcycle-accident/

By J.M. Gatskie

Football News Now Staff Writer

New York Giants defensive end Mathias Kiwanuka and his brother Benedict were involved in a traffic incident that left his brother in critical condition following a motorcycle accident Friday.

Witnesses said that the brothers were speeding down an Indianapolis street on their motorcycles about 2 p.m. when Benedict’s bike hit a car pulling out of a driveway, according to Lt. Jeff Duhamell of the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department. The impact of the crash sent Benedict flying more than 100 feet and he landed in the road.

Benedict was rushed to nearby Methodist Hospital with multiple injuries, including a severe arm injury, according to Duhamell.

Mathias apparently swerved around the car, but allegedly told a witness that he took a “spill” from his bike. He was uninjured but rightfully concerned about his brother.

Benedict Kiwanuka was not wearing a helmet at the time of the accident all though there was one attached to his bike, according to Lt. Duhamell. He did not know if Mathias was wearing one.

The car;’s driver suffered facial lacerations and was taken to the hospital. Her injuries did not appear to be serious.

Lt. Duhamell said the accident is under investigation, that no citations have been issued, and the law requires blood samples be taken from everyone involved in a potentially fatal accident. At this time, investigators do not believe alcohol, and or drugs, were a contributing factor.

A standard NFL contract includes general wording that priohibits players from activities that “may involve a significant risk of personal injury.” It was not known if Kiwanuka had a specific clause forbidding him from riding a motorcycle in his contract.

click on the link above for the rest of the article

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just curious, do all states require bikers to wear helmets? A buddy of mine in Florida said they're not required down there. But of course this is all irrelevant, and not wearing a helmet is pretty much asking for the worst. With that said my thoughts and prayers are with the family and I hope he gets a full recovery.

You all know how we always say Vet mins + incentives? Well we should start saying "4 game suspension min" for every player mentioned in controversial news

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just curious, do all states require bikers to wear helmets? A buddy of mine in Florida said they're not required down there.

http://www.iihs.org/laws/HelmetUseCurrent.aspx

Current US motorcycle and bicycle helmet laws

May 2010

Twenty states and the District of Columbia have motorcycle helmet laws that require all riders to wear a helmet. Twenty-seven states have a motorcycle helmet law that only require some riders to wear a helmet. Three states (Illinois, Iowa, and New Hampshire) do not have a motorcycle helmet law.

Low-power cycle (LPC) is a generic term used by IIHS to cover motor-driven cycles, mopeds, scooters, and various other 2-wheeled cycles excluded from the motorcycle definition. While state laws vary, a cycle with an engine displacement of 50 cubic centimeters or less, brake horsepower of 2 or less, and top speeds of 30 mph or less typically is considered an LPC. Twenty-two states have motorcycle helmet laws that cover all low-power cycles. Twenty-five states and the District of Columbia have laws that cover some low-power cycles.

Twenty-one states and the District of Columbia have bicycle helmet laws that require some young bicyclists to wear a helmet. Local law may require helmet use for some or all bicyclists.

click on the link for the states and requirements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.iihs.org/laws/HelmetUseCurrent.aspx

Current US motorcycle and bicycle helmet laws

May 2010

Twenty states and the District of Columbia have motorcycle helmet laws that require all riders to wear a helmet. Twenty-seven states have a motorcycle helmet law that only require some riders to wear a helmet. Three states (Illinois, Iowa, and New Hampshire) do not have a motorcycle helmet law.

Low-power cycle (LPC) is a generic term used by IIHS to cover motor-driven cycles, mopeds, scooters, and various other 2-wheeled cycles excluded from the motorcycle definition. While state laws vary, a cycle with an engine displacement of 50 cubic centimeters or less, brake horsepower of 2 or less, and top speeds of 30 mph or less typically is considered an LPC. Twenty-two states have motorcycle helmet laws that cover all low-power cycles. Twenty-five states and the District of Columbia have laws that cover some low-power cycles.

Twenty-one states and the District of Columbia have bicycle helmet laws that require some young bicyclists to wear a helmet. Local law may require helmet use for some or all bicyclists.

click on the link for the states and requirements.

personally im against helmet laws, if you want to protect yourself and be safe, you can be responsible, if you dont, than you're helping the US.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

personally im against helmet laws, if you want to protect yourself and be safe, you can be responsible, if you dont, than you're helping the US.

Each to their own, it's your prerogative; but I don't personally get how anyone can be against something that can be the difference between life and death.

Maybe it comes from having a nurse as a partner, and everything she sees on a daily basis; but I wouldn't even let the kids go out on a bike ride without a helmet. And that's on push bikes.

Here's praying the dude in question pulls through.

Hail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

personally im against helmet laws, if you want to protect yourself and be safe, you can be responsible, if you dont, than you're helping the US.

Once your in an accident without a helmet, and you happen to survive, and become 90% disabled, your insurance runs out, who do you expect to take care of you for the rest of your life? The taxpayers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once your in an accident without a helmet, and you happen to survive, and become 90% disabled, your insurance runs out, who do you expect to take care of you for the rest of your life? The taxpayers?

Seriously Hap, there's some real ignorance as to the potential seriousness of a head injury.

I know it's getting into murky ground due to the limitations on civil liberties and the like the government has to impose; but on something like this I don't see why it's not taken out of the hands of individual states and made a federal law right across the board like it is in England.

That said, IMHO, ANYONE that takes to the road on a motorcycle without wearing a helmet for protection has a complete disregard not only for their own life, but everyone else connected to that life should they suffer the very real consequences of that decision.

Hail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seriously Hap, there's some real ignorance as to the potential seriousness of a head injury.

I know it's getting into murky ground due to the limitations on civil liberties and the like the government has to impose; but on something like this I don't see why it's not taken out of the hands of individual states and made a federal law right across the board like it is in England.

That said, IMHO, ANYONE that takes to the road on a motorcycle without wearing a helmet for protection has a complete disregard not only for their own life, but everyone else connected to that life should they suffer the very real consequences of that decision.

Hail.

I agree, years ago I used to think I was such a good rider that nothing could happen to me, a severe case of road rash, changed my thinking very quickly.

Luck would have it I was wearing a helmet, which probably saved my live since it was cracked and not my head. I don't care how good a rider you are there are other people on the road with you that can do dumb things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People who have a wish to brush up against death's icy limbs are going to do it regardless of a law. Also, plenty of motorcyclists are killed who wear helmets. If you're flung ONE HUNDRED FEET at say, even 30 mph (maybe it was faster?) you have the potential to really wreck your body.

The idea that it's not the motorcycle riding itself which is very dangerous is absurd. Helmet laws are just another encroachment (just like seat belt laws) and symptomatic of a society in which people are not treated as ends in themselves but as means to an 'orderly' society. And why it follows that insurance 'runs out' or that anyone SHOULD support someone who rode their motorbike without a helmet is another sign that our values are off. People are accountable for their actions and people are not entitled to the support or life-giving aid of others. They may earn it, it may be given FREELY but should never be coerced or expected.

And hell, if you fly through your windshield or if your head is run over by a truck, you're not going to live anyway, generally, so there really is not some great social health costs here. That is always exaggerated and frankly, does not of itself become a justification to infringe on another's autonomy, even the autonomy to make a really dumb decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once your in an accident without a helmet, and you happen to survive, and become 90% disabled, your insurance runs out, who do you expect to take care of you for the rest of your life? The taxpayers?

actually before you get on your high horse, i dont ride, i also dont smoke, that doesnt mean I like what the government is imposing upon the people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once your in an accident without a helmet, and you happen to survive, and become 90% disabled, your insurance runs out, who do you expect to take care of you for the rest of your life? The taxpayers?

compared to the people that are getting away with breaking our rules? or criminals on death row for life?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People who have a wish to brush up against death's icy limbs are going to do it regardless of a law. Also, plenty of motorcyclists are killed who wear helmets. If you're flung ONE HUNDRED FEET at say, even 30 mph (maybe it was faster?) you have the potential to really wreck your body.

The idea that it's not the motorcycle riding itself which is very dangerous is absurd. Helmet laws are just another encroachment (just like seat belt laws) and symptomatic of a society in which people are not treated as ends in themselves but as means to an 'orderly' society. And why it follows that insurance 'runs out' or that anyone SHOULD support someone who rode their motorbike without a helmet is another sign that our values are off. People are accountable for their actions and people are not entitled to the support or life-giving aid of others. They may earn it, it may be given FREELY but should never be coerced or expected.

And hell, if you fly through your windshield or if your head is run over by a truck, you're not going to live anyway, generally, so there really is not some great social health costs here. That is always exaggerated and frankly, does not of itself become a justification to infringe on another's autonomy, even the autonomy to make a really dumb decision.

great post

Link to comment
Share on other sites

actually before you get on your high horse, i dont ride, i also dont smoke, that doesnt mean I like what the government is imposing upon the people.

Used to be (still is actually) that there are charitable hospitals or those practitioners that do a certain amount of work pro bono.

People like to risk things, they'll find ways. It's part of being alive, it's that men used to be able to go to war (and no one escaped the duty/honor) or go off and be brigands or that life itself offered excitement. Should you or I pay for these seeming frivolities? No. But nor do we have the right to impose our will on others through law, custom and society used to be enough for common sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Used to be (still is actually) that there are charitable hospitals or those practitioners that do a certain amount of work pro bono.

People like to risk things, they'll find ways. It's part of being alive, it's that men used to be able to go to war (and no one escaped the duty/honor) or go off and be brigands or that life itself offered excitement. Should you or I pay for these seeming frivolities? No. But nor do we have the right to impose our will on others through law, custom and society used to be enough for common sense.

Wow, i am liking your posts. Well done again.

I agree that we cant go around paying for it, but yes, life is about responsibility and for some there is that adrenline rush that they need to feed.

We should be able to talk about the seat belt law and talk about it a lot because that was passed for the sole purpose of "saving lives" Well if that is the case, how soon before you stop other activities, because its "saving lives"

People should not only be scared when the government wants to impose, but i find it scarier when other people WANT them to impose it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

actually before you get on your high horse, i dont ride, i also dont smoke, that doesnt mean I like what the government is imposing upon the people.

i dont smoke either (or ride motorcycles) but i kinda feel like people who choose to ride sans helmet may as well be able to do so. i would think that they are only hurting themselves (and those who love them of course). it is sort of survival of the fittest.

as far as smoking, i couldnt go to a restaurant or bar where people were smoking without choking or my eyes burning. but, more than that, you could argue that their second hand smoke affects others negatively where motorcyclists without helmets maybe dont so much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i dont smoke either (or ride motorcycles) but i kinda feel like people who choose to ride sans helmet may as well be able to do so. i would think that they are only hurting themselves (and those who love them of course). it is sort of survival of the fittest.

as far as smoking, i couldnt go to a restaurant or bar where people were smoking without choking or my eyes burning. but, more than that, you could argue that their second hand smoke affects others negatively where motorcyclists without helmets maybe dont so much.

Well you could argue the fact that second hand smoke did something, if you could also prove the person did nothing with their lives and didnt go near any other factor that could cause caner.

The whole thing with teh second hand smoke, is while it is bad, may not even be the reason you get cancer, unless you inhale lots of it like an addict, you never hear the damned second hand smoke addicts, but they are there.

Now you wnat to get into the other theories where some people are showing the research that cancer is already in the body, than smoking wont harm you, second hand or not because you are going to get it. Seen that theory, others are saying its in the cells already and the cells give it to you, but that discredits that new cells form, or they are tyring to sell that you get cancer cells, i dont know all of it, but some are sprouting that.

Going after smoking was more of a politcal/ enviromental hack job than anything else. Might it have caused cancer, well you sure werent going to sue any match stick companies if you were a dumbarse and burnt down your house and got cancer thru second hand smoke.

But you call tell people what to do and some are loving it, just read this thread alone, and that was a big reason to go after smoking.

I mean if they really really really cared, wouldnt amusement parks come down soon, it is to save your life that they come down so we're all safer? Sadly they wont do that or anything else that doesnt give them money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

as far as smoking, i couldnt go to a restaurant or bar where people were smoking without choking or my eyes burning. but, more than that, you could argue that their second hand smoke affects others negatively where motorcyclists without helmets maybe dont so much.

A great man once said "Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in a pool"

:silly:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...