A guy in New York goes for a helmet law protest ride....................crashes his bike and hits his head, He would have lived if he had a helmet on. :scratch_one-s_head:
http://www.wfaa.com/news/Helmetless-motorcyclist-dies-during-NY-helmet-protest-124939199.html (http://www.wfaa.com/news/Helmetless-motorcyclist-dies-during-NY-helmet-protest-124939199.html)
I have always and will continue to wear a full faced helmet. Without a doubt, I would not be sitting here today chatting on the FJ form if I was not wearing that helmet.
I nearly always wear a helmet. That's not the issue, it's having the right to decide not to. Sometimes I'll go without, if I'm listening for something specific or working on something. We don't need more stupid laws for stuff that doesn't really alter other people's lives.
Wow crazy story,
I used to ride with no helmet here in California back in the day , then I grew up and found I could ride faster with a helmet on.
maybe it should be a speed thing or cc's. If you ride at the posted of 35mph or more you must have a helmet on, or if you ride a 250cc or larger.
Nobody likes being told what to do and there are times I miss the open air and cruisin with no helmet but I have been known to do other stupid shit too.
thin out the herd and let nature take its course.
I have no problem with bikers not wearing helmets, IF the following 3 conditions are met:
1) The biker must be a organ donor.
2) The biker must carry at all times a $1 million dollar major medical health insurance policy
3) The biker must carry at all times a $5 million dollar long term health care insurance policy.
If a biker is caught riding without a helmet, and without the above 3 items, then the biker is arrested, the bike is towed and forfeited, and the licence is revoked.
Justice should be swift, sure and without interpretation by the courts.
My big peeve is not the helmet-less bikers who die, that's sad, it's the bikers who are unfortunate enough to live the rest of their days under long term care in a convalescent hospital using OUR tax dollars to support their care.
Vote for me in 2012 :ireful:
Quote from: Pat Conlon on July 04, 2011, 12:27:14 PM
I have no problem with bikers not wearing helmets, IF the following 3 conditions are met:
1) The biker must be a organ donor.
2) The biker must carry at all times a $1 million dollar major medical health insurance policy
3) The biker must carry at all times a $5 million dollar long term health care insurance policy.
If a biker is caught riding without a helmet, and without the above 3 items, then the biker is arrested, the bike is towed and forfeited, and the licence is revoked.
Justice should be swift, sure and without interpretation by the courts.
My big peeve is not the helmet-less bikers who die, that's sad, it's the bikers who are unfortunate enough to live the rest of their days under long term care in a convalescent hospital using OUR tax dollars to support their care.
Vote for me in 2012 :ireful:
Pat, I know you wear your gear all the time, I will vote for you....
If it were not for the law, there times I would take short runs to a friends home near by or to the corner store without it. But I think the law is good thing. Going to Idaho next week. It's almost shocking to see the riders without helmets. Goes to show, without the law many riders will not wear them. The silly little helmets I see most cruisers wear seem useless.
Mike
Well.. he's eligible for a Darwin award. Survival of the fittest (and smartest).
I could care less if someone wants to not wear a helmet. I for one will never wear nothing less than a full face.
Good idea Pat. :good2:
Quote from: Pat Conlon on July 04, 2011, 12:27:14 PM
I have no problem with bikers not wearing helmets, IF the following 3 conditions are met:
1) The biker must be a organ donor.
2) The biker must carry at all times a $1 million dollar major medical health insurance policy
3) The biker must carry at all times a $5 million dollar long term health care insurance policy.
If a biker is caught riding without a helmet, and without the above 3 items, then the biker is arrested, the bike is towed and forfeited, and the licence is revoked.
Justice should be swift, sure and without interpretation by the courts.
My big peeve is not the helmet-less bikers who die, that's sad, it's the bikers who are unfortunate enough to live the rest of their days under long term care in a convalescent hospital using OUR tax dollars to support their care.
If they have a group policy, then having big insurance just means that they're still costing the rest of us money. The organ donor thing, I'm sorry, is retarded (but then, I don't like the concept in the first place, so I'm biased). And doubly so if they've got a religious reason for it. Some of the religious things are stupid, but the idea of religious freedom (as long as it doesn't hurt others) is kinda why we're here.
You're putting a band-aid on the symptoms and not fixing the problems, I think. Make healthcare affordable so that people can pay their own bills (and remove the insurance completely, except perhaps for major sortsa things), and it'd be much less of an issue. Or better still, if you're found at the roadside, bleeding, etc, and not wearing proper gear, why can't the EMT's just leave you there? Either way you're cutting massive costs out of the system.
But then, it's right up there with things that are illegal (in places) that don't directly alter anyone's life but their own. Helmet laws, seatbelt laws, gay marriage laws, all fit in this category.
Andy, this is a great discussion for today.
Misinformed folks seem to think that riding a motorcycle (or driving a car) is some sort of constitutionally guaraenteed freedom. Of course it is not.
It is a privilege granted by society. If your religous beliefs (against organ donation) prevent you from participating in that privilege, so be it.
Futhermore, riding a motorcycle without a helmet is a privilege, if you can not afford the insurance, buy and wear a helmet. Peroid. Simple, easy peesey.
I'm all for freedom of choice.
That does not necessarily mean that your choice is free. If you can afford it, go for it. If you can't afford it, get a fuckin job.
No, I absolutely agree.
However, saying that you should have to afford insurance is putting the cart before the horse. If you're going to be an idealist on it, why not instead remove the insurance crap, lower the prices for everyone, and go from there? The problem (imo) is that if you can't afford your care (at the ER, specifically), they cannot skip out on giving you care. Periodically it happens that a place will refuse care for financial reasons (they're a known deadbeat, for example) and get into massive trouble when the person dies or it turns out they had money but no ID, etc. Remove the non-payers from the system and the distributed costs for the rest of us are suddenly quite reasonable.
I don't have a religous belief against organ donation, though my ICE card lists me as religous so that my personal beliefs will be met (no blood for me, etc). That doesn't limit anyone else's personal freedoms, so why have a law saying it? I think it's a privilege to have someone donate their organs to you, rather than a right. :)
I'm all for wearing a helmet (and jacket, and earplugs, and gloves, etc), and generally do. But I'm also unhappy when I'm forced to do so. Freedom of choice being the ideal there. I cannot carry a concealed weapon (welcome to IL, I think the only state now that doesn't have CCPs?), but it's one of the few states where I'm not required to wear a helmet for my own safety. Running around the block while listening for that stutter coming onto the needles is easier without a lid on.
Like I said though, it's up with gay marriage and other limitations on personal freedom that really don't alter anyone else's way of life. Common sense should be the law, rather than requiring a law.
Anyhow, it's Independence day. Nothin to do with freedom, other than that of being free of England's control.
Using the argument that speed should dictate whether you wear a helmet or not is a just waste of space. You nly need to consider the damage done to your skull if it hits the road or a kerb at just 10mph.
Also arguing that it doesn't impact onother people's lives is a fallacy. The estimated cost of looking after someone with long term head injury problems runs into millions a year. Is it that person's right to inflict that cost on the general public or is it their responsibility to ensure that they don't?
In NZ we have just spent the last two years protesting against huge hikes in compulsory ACC levies which are paid as part of annual road licencing on all vehicles. The cost went from a few hunred to over $700 a year if you ride a bike over 600cc. The fee covers accident claims in all sectors and is also paid by employers for their staff. The government's argument that big bike riders have more accidents and more serious accidents has been disproved but we're still wearing the extra levy. If, as Pat suggests, there are some restrictions that must be met before riding without a helmet then perhaps your average brain dead motorcyclist who is prepared to turn their own life and those of their families to custard, might reconsider and do the only sane thing - wear one even to ride to the corner store. I know from my recent bird strike what a helmet can do for you.
Ned
Quote from: Ned on July 04, 2011, 02:57:48 PM
Using the argument that speed should dictate whether you wear a helmet or not is a just waste of space. You nly need to consider the damage done to your skull if it hits the road or a kerb at just 10mph.
Also arguing that it doesn't impact onother people's lives is a fallacy. The estimated cost of looking after someone with long term head injury problems runs into millions a year. Is it that person's right to inflict that cost on the general public or is it their responsibility to ensure that they don't?
The first part was tested by some study, yes? You're only going to fall so far from a sitting position, or at worst a highside. Sliding into something is where you really get swatted though.
And no, it absolutely doesn't impact anyone else's lives..... but there's a big if here, and that's if you can afford the care yourself. It's when you run out of money or don't have insurance, etc, and the bill is paid either as a write-off (costing everyone who pays their bills), or from the government (costing everyone who pays their taxes). The costs associated with major injuries aren't the issue, it's who foots the bill! But then in the states, we could easily cut 80% off our total healthcare spending by simply executing everyone over a given age, as that's where the vast majority goes. The easiest answer is to stop treating high-end healthcare like a right, but instead like something that you actually have to purchase.
I took my 84 out today for the first long ride since I got it all back together, 103 miles on the engine with a trip to the Ceasar's Head and back. As I was cautiously making my way around the turns, peaks and dips in the road I thought about Pat and his accident. When your actually riding a motorcycle it's alot easier to understand how something like that can happen, sneak up on you, even with a experienced rider (that I'm not). South Carolina has no helmet law and as much as I would like to ride without one it's not worth the risk. I may lose all the skin on my elbows, knees, hands and ass but I won't break my calculator, hopefully.
One of the first things I noticed when I went to interview for my job at R&R cycles was there were no helmets for sale in the showroom.I'm guessing maybe 10% at best of our customers wear helmets.Our MA customers have to wear them to get home.But they stop at the border to put on/take off their helmets.I have seen a few do this without stopping.
I drive by every day, memorials on the side of the road where two of our customers have died.Both were single vehicle accidents.Both were slow speed head/curb impacts with no helmets.
I always wear a helmet,without exception.As a person who cares about people other than just myself I am 100% for a helmet law.I have heard all the "reasons" not to wear one and I don't believe any of them.
While we are at it what about age/experience/cc laws. There is something wrong with a 16 year old kid buying a 100hp/150 mph bike.
Andy
Formal research - possibly not, but talk with or listen to all the reports from doctors in ERs around the world and they all say the same. Not wearing a helmet on a bicycle is serious enough. You can't say with any certainty when or where you may come off and slide into a solid object or bang your head on the road and even at 10mph the effect is often serious. I've landed on my chin just running up a path in the dark and was out cold for half an hour and had a nice concussion for days afterwards. (It was the beer effect that made me trip) I think it has been fairly conclusively proved that wearing a helmet saves a lot of damage. If it's such a big issue with human rights we could argue that having to hide your gonads in public is also an infringement - after all the worst things that could happen as a result of flapping them in the breeze: a dog rips them off, they freeze and drop off, an old lady takes a fancy to you and starts stalking you or they get caught in some machinery.
Second point - if you feel that the family of a victim of serious head injury is not impacted perhaps you need to find someone in this situation and talk to them. The public purse in most countries with anything like a welfare state is always hit by costs. We know in the US you can sue or be sued by anyone for for just about anything if you can afford a lawyer and that without medical insurance an ambulance will leave you on the side of the road in favour of someone who has insurance but that isn't the case in most places.
Ned
Ned, I'm agreeing with you, to a point. I'm a nurse, I do see a fair bit of the costs associated. And yet, I will continue to say that if my neighbor wants to do something stupid, I will defend his right to do it, unless it costs me money (and therefore limits my freedom), or directly limits my freedom. My argument is simple, that a helmet isn't going to save a fundamentally flawed system that expects people who cannot afford a service to recieve that service. Skip worrying the helmets, and start worrying the costs. I think the rest would sort itself out really nicely. The problem that I have is the slippery slope argument. More people die from car wrecks, for example, and it was discovered that seat belts can reduce that. The reason why most of the US has seatbelt laws isn't that it saves lives, it's that it saves costs from those who weren't paying their bills after getting severely hurt. Making seatbelts mandatory equipment happened, lives were saved and costs were cut. As of next year, you cannot buy a car in the US without stability control, for the same argument. I see that as a direct punishment to those who weren't crashing their cars, now they have to directly pay more for something because of a potential cost savings at the healthcare end. Why not go after the other end, and stop providing free services to those who cannot afford it? Unprotected sex causes children, and that raises costs per capita much, much more than all of the head injury cases in the world. Rather than ban everything that's unsafe for everyone, I'd rather see costs limited in a way that can raise quality of life for everyone, including those who don't induldge in unsafe practices.
One of my riding buddies had an off about a week ago. Fortunately for him he was wearing a full-face helmet, because he slid, face down, along the pavement (read: highway). He would have lost half his face without the helmet. As it is, he lost a few of his front teeth due to the impact of helmet against his face.
My 2c.
Bill.
Quote from: billwest on July 05, 2011, 05:46:52 AM
One of my riding buddies had an off about a week ago. Fortunately for him he was wearing a full-face helmet, because he slid, face down, along the pavement (read: highway). He would have lost half his face without the helmet. As it is, he lost a few of his front teeth due to the impact of helmet against his face.
Yea Bill, that was me 4 weeks ago...sliding face down on Hwy 25. I didn't lose consciousness, I remember thinking that the asphalt looked like a giant pissed off belt sander as it was grinding away my face shield.... I shudder to think...
Quote from: Pat Conlon on July 04, 2011, 12:27:14 PM
I have no problem with bikers not wearing helmets, IF the following 3 conditions are met:
1) The biker must be a organ donor.
2) The biker must carry at all times a $1 million dollar major medical health insurance policy
3) The biker must carry at all times a $5 million dollar long term health care insurance policy.
If a biker is caught riding without a helmet, and without the above 3 items, then the biker is arrested, the bike is towed and forfeited, and the licence is revoked.
Justice should be swift, sure and without interpretation by the courts.
My big peeve is not the helmet-less bikers who die, that's sad, it's the bikers who are unfortunate enough to live the rest of their days under long term care in a convalescent hospital using OUR tax dollars to support their care.
Vote for me in 2012 :ireful:
Sorry Paddy, not on that ticket..... Maybe if the hospitals weren't required to care for those without the insurance you specified, but I don't agree they should be required to carry that insurance. Nor with the theft of their property......
Quote from: Pat Conlon on July 05, 2011, 12:18:28 PM
Yea Bill, that was me 4 weeks ago...sliding face down on Hwy 25. I didn't lose consciousness, I remember thinking that the asphalt looked like a giant pissed off belt sander as it was grinding away my face shield.... I shudder to think...
My mate also lost one of his pinkies, broke 4 ribs, has a badly lacerated knee, had to have a temporary tracheotomy, but is now on the mend. He is in a spinal recovery ward, just in case. He (aged late 60's) is looking forward to riding again..............
But, he is happy about the helmet!
Quote from: billwest on July 06, 2011, 06:47:03 AMMy mate also lost one of his pinkies, broke 4 ribs, has a badly lacerated knee, had to have a temporary tracheotomy, but is now on the mend. He is in a spinal recovery ward, just in case. He (aged late 60's) is looking forward to riding again..............
But, he is happy about the helmet!
Using the above example one could take it even further and argue that since riding a motorcycle is dangerous, helmets don't go far enough. Therefore all who choose to ride (regardless of helmet laws) should be required to have the insurance requirements as mentioned earlier along with the penalties for not doing so.
But why stop there? Should a motorcyclist be required to wear certified full body protective gear at all times? The argument is the same IMO. ATGATT should be required in order to be consistent with the helmet argument. After all, a head injury is not the only thing that can rack up high medical costs
(skin graphs, spinal cord injury, loss of limb) or cause a lifetime of misery for the victim and their families and since motorcycles are inherently dangerous.... Those who are ATGATT, more power to you
Again, where does it stop? Do we want government telling us what extreme sports we can engage in or we must meet a government mandate on protective gear and insurance requirements? People are free to make bad choices. It might not be fair, but I suppose that's one of the costs of living in a free society. JMHO So another question might be; "what freedoms and how much are we willing to give up so the government can save us from ourselves?" Slippery slope?
Quote from: DailyDriver on July 06, 2011, 10:59:59 AM
Again, where does it stop?
People are free to make bad choices. It might not be fair, but I suppose that's one of the costs of living in a free society.
JMHO So another question might be; "what freedoms and how much are we willing to give up so the government can save us from ourselves?" Slippery slope?
Good discussion. Again...Don't confuse "freedoms" with "privileges". Everyone should be "free" to engage in hazardous activities......
Except where society deems it important to licence those activities, and grant that privilege to those who qualify, like flying a plane, or driving a car or riding a motorcycle. People are not "giving up their freedoms" by having to get a licence to fly a plane. The same with motorcycling.
IMHO, It is entirely appropriate, even fiscally prudent, for society to try and mitigate exposure to economic loss (along with health and life safety, etc) by putting conditions on that licencing.
The idea from Andy and Rich that strict insurance requirements for helmet less riders is unfair because our society already treats those injuries for free (at the cost of taxpayers) and Andy's concern about possible denial of care, are good points.
The "slippery slope" concern I think is the most valid. We have already started down it, where will it end?
When will health insurance for motorcycle riders become mandatory? Next year?
We already have other insurance requirements, it seems pretty simple to add a couple of new words to the existing law....
How about mandatory ABS brakes? oooops, nevermind.
Mandatory air bags for motorcycles? Honda would love that...
Modern society can not take a laissez-faire approach to motorcycle riding. That horse has already left the barn.
My idea was to strike some kind of balance between society's concerns and the individual's desire to ride without a helmet.
So perhaps, for now the best answer is NO....
That is until we socialize all medical care here in America. Free medical care for everyone, yea, that's the ticket. :dash2:
I think what Pats trying to say if you want to be stupid, then be responsable also.
You should have the right not to wear it or gear but don't expect me/us to pay for your rights when it goes bad.
Why should I pay for your rights. I respect that you can ride with out a helmet, so respect my rights not to have to pay for someone elses mistakes/rights.
If not, responsable goes to disrespect.
My 2 cents
Bob W
Succinct ... Thanks Bob.
Yep..... If they start adding more restrictions to us, then we need to push for a helmet law for cars. All occupants......
They have head injuries, too. :empathy3:
Nope, but if everyone would take responsibility for their own action (good or bad) this would be a better place.
But because of all the bleeding hearts in this country that will never happen :ireful:
And they already do put restrictions on us seat belts ring a bell.
You can have any right you think you should have as long as it doesn't cost others, for you to have it.
Bob W
Quote from: Pat Conlon on July 06, 2011, 12:15:55 PM
Quote from: DailyDriver on July 06, 2011, 10:59:59 AM
Again, where does it stop?
People are free to make bad choices. It might not be fair, but I suppose that's one of the costs of living in a free society.
JMHO So another question might be; "what freedoms and how much are we willing to give up so the government can save us from ourselves?" Slippery slope?
That is until we socialize all medical care here in America. Free medical care for everyone, yea, that's the ticket. :dash2:
I wouldn't encourage "free" medical care as the answer - you'll end up like NZ with lots of "compo kings" - individuals who live off state provided medical assistanc, paid for several times over by the tax payer, the employer and the motor vehicle owner in the form of compulsory Accident Compensation Insurance. It prevents us from suing anyone who may have caused us to have an accident but gets overused by certain sectors with "bad backs" etc. Many remain on it for their entire lives after serious accidents. It pays for most aspects of recovery except physio' has been removed.
We motorcyclists are often held to blame for the fund always being in the red and hence huge hikes in the fee for riding a bike. Also not a good scenario as we are now heavily penalised, well beyond the real cost and not fair since the majority of accidents it pays for are car and home related - like falling out of trees...
The whole topic of wearing the right gear is a matter of commonsense. Helmets have been compulsory here since the seventies. I've always worn one. It's even compulsory to wear one on a bicycle except it's seldom enforced. If they save you from serious injury then wear one. If you haven't got much to protect then you'll probably choose not to.
Ned
Its my understanding that Michigan has just introduced a law removing the helmet requirement IF you hold a minimum of $100,000 in medical insurance. I think this is probably a pretty good compromise for the base arguments of liberty vs personal responsibility.
It is my opinion (and the case in most of the developed world) that medical care IS a right enjoyed by all citizens. The US is the one out of step in this regard. Then again, they still execute criminals, so......
As a "first-responder" that attends traffic accidents, I would rather not have to collect the remains from head impacts. Containing them within a helmet is much more tidy and less revolting, though it does make CPR more difficult.
Arnie
Quote from: Arnie on July 06, 2011, 10:10:05 PM
As a "first-responder" that attends traffic accidents, I would rather not have to collect the remains from head impacts. Containing them within a helmet is much more tidy and less revolting, though it does make CPR more difficult.
Arnie
....hence the expression "Brain Bucket"
Ned
Quote from: DailyDriver on July 06, 2011, 10:59:59 AM
But why stop there? Should a motorcyclist be required to wear certified full body protective gear at all times? The argument is the same IMO. ATGATT should be required in order to be consistent with the helmet argument. After all, a head injury is not the only thing that can rack up high medical costs(skin graphs, spinal cord injury, loss of limb) or cause a lifetime of misery for the victim and their families and since motorcycles are inherently dangerous.... Those who are ATGATT, more power to you
My mate was actually lamenting the fact that he didn't wear protective pants, like Draggin Jeans, or even leather. His choice, btw.
Perhaps we will soon see MotoGP racers going around in shorts and T-shirts, because of freedom of choice? Or are they smarter than that?
Another 2c.