Yahoo: NY motorcyclist dies on ride protesting helmet law

[allannis]

this is such an absurd comparison that all it does is highlight how ridiculous the helmet opponents' position is. as Larry said, the ratio of health risk to freedom abridged is not remotely comparable.

Its my head, if I'm not worried about it why should you.I am not sure what comparisons you think I was making, I was just trying to point out riding a motorcycle is dangerous with or without a helmet, and that you could make the same arguments against riding them at all. Whats rediculous is you think you should tell me what to do ,for my own good ,and I don't even know you.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Let's ban motorcycles. Let's ban swimming pools. Let's ban beer. Let's ban Big Macs. Let's ban guns. Let ban everything that poses a risk to us.

Let's ban sports betting, it's bad for us.

So, it's all or nothing?

Are you opposed to building codes? Should I be allowed to wire my house any damn way I feel like?

[Prosperity]

Let's ban motorcycles. Let's ban swimming pools. Let's ban beer. Let's ban Big Macs. Let's ban guns. Let ban everything that poses a risk to us.

Let's ban sports betting, it's bad for us.

let's allow random people to build nuclear weapons

let's ban guns

let's allow drunken driving

let's ban drinking

hmmmmmm

[ljs]

We have a Harley, and I would never ride w/o a helmet. Although just across state line, in Idaho- there is no helmet law. So yeseterday we went for a ride, and cruised into Idaho. So many bikers w/o a helmet. And 3 people, in less than an hour- pulled out right in front of us, nearly hitting us.. Matter of fact, one guy opened his car door at a stop light and started cursing us out- After he ran a stop sign and nearly hit our bike. And I gaurantee you we were not going over the speed limit.

No effing way I'm ever getting on a motorcycle without a helmet.

[twa]

What is the number of people killed in the lobby of offices every year? What is the number for motorcycle riders?

It seems like a comparison between the two would be important.

Otherwise' date=' you are just making up stupid comparisons for the sake of making up stupid comparisons. Which would be stupid.[/quote']

Ya'll smoke in the lobby? ...I'm calling the cops.

you have any numbers ?

[allannis]

We have a Harley, and I would never ride w/o a helmet. Although just across state line, in Idaho- there is no helmet law. So yeseterday we went for a ride, and cruised into Idaho. So many bikers w/o a helmet. And 3 people, in less than an hour- pulled out right in front of us, nearly hitting us.. Matter of fact, one guy opened his car door at a stop light and started cursing us out- After he ran a stop sign and nearly hit our bike. And I gaurantee you we were not going over the speed limit.

No effing way I'm ever getting on a motorcycle without a helmet.

I agree, I wear a helmet when I ride, even when I go into PA. where I'm not forced to. However I don't think its my place to tell others that they have to.

---------- Post added July-6th-2011 at 02:51 PM ----------

So' date=' it's all or nothing?

Are you opposed to building codes? Should I be allowed to wire my house any damn way I feel like?[/quote']

How do you equate building codes with helmet laws ?

[Bang]

How do you equate building codes with helmet laws ?

Same way the other guy equated it to Big Macs and swimming pools.

Absolutes make no sense, that was the point.

~Bang

[China]

Absolutes make no sense, that was the point.

~Bang

Only a sith deals in absolutes.

wgpytjlW5wU

[NavyDave]

Let's ban motorcycles. Let's ban swimming pools. Let's ban beer. Let's ban Big Macs. Let's ban guns. Let ban everything that poses a risk to us.

Let's ban sports betting, it's bad for us.

Dang dude. After seeing all of those bright ideas, lets ban Liberalism it poses a risk to our way of life.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

How do you equate building codes with helmet laws ?

If I want to burn my house down, don't I have that right?

[ljs]

I agree, I wear a helmet when I ride, even when I go into PA. where I'm not forced to. However I don't think its my place to tell others that they have to.

My problem is that the cost of more medical bills, police/emt response etc- gets passed to the rest of us. in the form of higher medical costs, higher insurance premiums....

On one hand, if people want to be stupid and not wear a helmet, that is on them. But I also don't want to be paying for it.

[greenspandan]

Only a sith deals in absolutes.

wgpytjlW5wU

the phrase "only a sith deals in absolutes" is completely absolutist. obi wan, nooooooO!

[allannis]

If I want to burn my house down' date=' don't I have that right?[/quote']

Not if you endanger others or other's property.. How does a biker not wearing a helmet place you or other people in danger. I tend to believe you are smarter than this.

---------- Post added July-6th-2011 at 05:20 PM ----------

My problem is that the cost of more medical bills, police/emt response etc- gets passed to the rest of us. in the form of higher medical costs, higher insurance premiums....

On one hand, if people want to be stupid and not wear a helmet, that is on them. But I also don't want to be paying for it.

I say make someone who rides without a helmet pay higher insurance premiums. police/emt response would be the same with a mc accident with or without a helmet. each case should consider lack of protection used where there is injury to the head.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Not if you endanger others or other's property.. How does a biker not wearing a helmet place you or other people in danger. I tend to believe you are smarter than this.

So if I had a house far away from anyone else on many acres of land, I should not be subject to building codes?

I make two arguments here: 1) Driving is a privilege, not a right. Riding a motorcyle is a frivolous privilege at that. 2) The state has the right to make reasonable accomodations. Making you wear a helment means that you may not wasting time in a Trauma 1 Emergency Room some day and then into a long-term ICU. The time of those medical professionals could be put to better use. I don't see how anyone can argue that the state has an interest in seeing people being minimally cautious and productive.

[Fred Jones]

To me it is simple.

If you don't want to wear a helmet, don't wear one. But, if you crash and burn through your health insurance don't go crying to the tax payers to bail you out. Don't stick your hand in my pocket because of your stupidity.

So, every state should have a helmet law to keep the stupid out of my pocket. If you can ride, crash, and pay for your recovery on your own, go ahead.

[Burgold]

To me it is simple.

If you don't want to wear a helmet, don't wear one. But, if you crash and burn through your health insurance don't go crying to the tax payers to bail you out. Don't stick your hand in my pocket because of your stupidity.

So, every state should have a helmet law to keep the stupid out of my pocket. If you can ride, crash, and pay for your recovery on your own, go ahead.

I guess the question for me is if you opt not to wear a helmet would you be willing to waive the right to sue or waive your family's right to sue should you suffer permanent injury, head trauma, or death? If you don't then your not wearing a helmet is a very costly proposition to me and society.

[allannis]

So if I had a house far away from anyone else on many acres of land' date=' I should not be subject to building codes?

I make two arguments here: 1) Driving is a privilege, not a right. Riding a motorcyle is a frivolous privilege at that. 2) The state has the right to make reasonable accomodations. Making you wear a helment means that you may not wasting time in a Trauma 1 Emergency Room some day and then into a long-term ICU. The time of those medical professionals could be put to better use. I don't see how anyone can argue that the state has an interest in seeing people being minimally cautious and productive.[/quote']

Building codes are in place so that future owners have the right to a standard of safety. your other argument could be made about riding motorcycles period. Many states don't force people to wear helmets.

[AdamB]

I guess the question for me is if you opt not to wear a helmet would you be willing to waive the right to sue or waive your family's right to sue should you suffer permanent injury, head trauma, or death? If you don't then your not wearing a helmet is a very costly proposition to me and society.

I sort of agree except that it should be if the injury/death is the result of a head injury - if a rider loses their legs as the result of an accident, whether or not the rider was wearing a helmet is of no consequence. However, playing devil's advocate:

1. That almost turns the hypothetical situation into "blame the victim" - if person A hits Person B, then Person A should still be liable whether Person B was wearing a helmet or not since it was their actions which caused the situation. I have heard people more than once almost excuse a cager who caused a fatal accident because the victim was on a motorcycle (helmet or not). Of course this is assuming the rider was actually following the laws and not acting like an idiot at 70 mph on an interstate, etc. If the rider was a twit popping wheelies in traffic, I have little symphathy.

2. If riding without a helmet means that the rider/family cannot sue since they were not taking appropriate safety steps, it is not that big of a leap to say the same thing if the victim is in a car without airbags or an older car without shoulder-restraints, etc. Yes, very much a slippery slope example, but that does not mean someone will not try to push the argument when challenging a helmet law such as you suggest.

Now, personally, I think it should be:

1. If under 18, there is no choice - you have a helmet on, minimum 3/4 helmet, or you are not on a motorcycle as rider or passenger. Period, no exceptions, off-road or on. I know Texas already has something similar to this on the books, and some states have even banned those under 16/18 from being on anyform of motorcycle including ATVs (I would not go that far).

2. Similar to what Larry suggested - if you choose to not wear a helmet, you must present proof of both X amount in health insurance and X amount in life insurance. At that point you are given a special sticker that goes on your licence plate. No sticker and no helmet - big fine and loss of motorcycle endorsement for 1 year. Those with out of state plates are required to wear a helmet at all times.

I am a rider, and I have been in an accident. With a helmet, I suffered relatively minor injuries - staples in my elbow, road rash on my hands because I forgot my gloves that day, and a badly sprained knee. $7500 in medical bills which I paid out of pocket via a payment plan I setup with the hospital. Without the helmet, considering I know for a fact that I bounced my head hard off the asphalt a minimum of 3 times, I may not have walked (limped) away from it.

[allannis]

I guess the question for me is if you opt not to wear a helmet would you be willing to waive the right to sue or waive your family's right to sue should you suffer permanent injury, head trauma, or death? If you don't then your not wearing a helmet is a very costly proposition to me and society.

As I have been saying if a biker suffers a head injury that could have been avoided by wearing a helmet that should be considered, however an at fault driver should be held accountable for causing the accident to begin with.

---------- Post added July-6th-2011 at 06:30 PM ----------

:point2sky

I sort of agree except that it should be if the injury/death is the result of a head injury - if a rider loses their legs as the result of an accident, whether or not the rider was wearing a helmet is of no consequence. However, playing devil's advocate:

1. That almost turns the hypothetical situation into "blame the victim" - if person A hits Person B, then Person A should still be liable whether Person B was wearing a helmet or not since it was their actions which caused the situation. I have heard people more than once almost excuse a cager who caused a fatal accident because the victim was on a motorcycle (helmet or not). Of course this is assuming the rider was actually following the laws and not acting like an idiot at 70 mph on an interstate, etc. If the rider was a twit popping wheelies in traffic, I have little symphathy.

2. If riding without a helmet means that the rider/family cannot sue since they were not taking appropriate safety steps, it is not that big of a leap to say the same thing if the victim is in a car without airbags or an older car without shoulder-restraints, etc. Yes, very much a slippery slope example, but that does not mean someone will not try to push the argument when challenging a helmet law such as you suggest.

Now, personally, I think it should be:

1. If under 18, there is no choice - you have a helmet on, minimum 3/4 helmet, or you are not on a motorcycle as rider or passenger. Period, no exceptions, off-road or on. I know Texas already has something similar to this on the books, and some states have even banned those under 16/18 from being on anyform of motorcycle including ATVs (I would not go that far).

2. Similar to what Larry suggested - if you choose to not wear a helmet, you must present proof of both X amount in health insurance and X amount in life insurance. At that point you are given a special sticker that goes on your licence plate. No sticker and no helmet - big fine and loss of motorcycle endorsement for 1 year. Those with out of state plates are required to wear a helmet at all times.

I am a rider, and I have been in an accident. With a helmet, I suffered relatively minor injuries - staples in my elbow, road rash on my hands because I forgot my gloves that day, and a badly sprained knee. $7500 in medical bills which I paid out of pocket via a payment plan I setup with the hospital. Without the helmet, considering I know for a fact that I bounced my head hard off the asphalt a minimum of 3 times, I may not have walked (limped) away from it.

I agree:point2sky

[Burgold]

I sort of agree except that it should be if the injury/death is the result of a head injury - if a rider loses their legs as the result of an accident, whether or not the rider was wearing a helmet is of no consequence. However, playing devil's advocate:

1. That almost turns the hypothetical situation into "blame the victim" - if person A hits Person B, then Person A should still be liable whether Person B was wearing a helmet or not since it was their actions which caused the situation. I have heard people more than once almost excuse a cager who caused a fatal accident because the victim was on a motorcycle (helmet or not). Of course this is assuming the rider was actually following the laws and not acting like an idiot at 70 mph on an interstate, etc. If the rider was a twit popping wheelies in traffic, I have little symphathy.

I was thinking of adding a caveat like that, but decided against it... I guess if we were to extend it to head, neck or spinal. I do agree it's akin to blaming the victim which is wrongheaded. Then again, it's pretty wrong headed not to wear seatbelts or to wear a helmet. The only real reason I can see to not where a helmet is machismo which is a pretty ridiculous reason in my opinion.

[twa]

Why is driving considered a privilege and not a right in your mind LKB?

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Why is driving considered a privilege and not a right in your mind LKB?

You can't do it without permission from the state. No one argues with this setup, correct?

A right is something that you can do without state permission. Driving is not such a thing.

[Larry]

Why is driving considered a privilege and not a right in your mind LKB?

Having it shouted thousands of times by "conservatives" on ES? :whoknows:

[kubstix]

As someone who has had crotch rockets since I was 18, your just plain dumb if you don't wear a helmet. Someone please tell me a good reason not to? I don't want to hear that bologna about them not being comfortable either because it's not true at all. They stop bugs, protect your melon, and look badass.

[Burgold]

Why is driving considered a privilege and not a right in your mind LKB?

You think driving's a right? If so, should everyone be provided a motor vehicle? Driving is a privilege and a responsibility not a natural God given right.