Furd Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Bareheaded motorcyclist dies in helmet protest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddahj Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 State police say evidence at the scene plus information from the attending medical expert indicated Contos would have survived had he been wearing a helmet as required by state law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Holy Roller Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Run away winner of the 2011 Darwin Awards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 ABATE of NY Inc. is organizing a memorial "to honor an individual who rode for freedom and risked his all for freedom," Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 They do that here too, which is funny cuz they're the ones who teach the motorcycle safety course that the state puts on. My point being, using the words "giving his all for freedom" should never be used for somebody that decided not to wear a freaking motorcycle helmet. I'd like to smack that guy in the face. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 My point being, using the words "giving his all for freedom" should never be used for somebody that decided not to wear a freaking motorcycle helmet. I'd like to smack that guy in the face. +1. A downright insult to those that really do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 My point being, using the words "giving his all for freedom" should never be used for somebody that decided not to wear a freaking motorcycle helmet. I'd like to smack that guy in the face. Werd, By that criteria, there's a freaking long line of "heroes who gave their all for freedom". Like idiots who aren't going to let the man tell them they're not allowed to jump off the roof of the gym into the pool and then paint their guts on the cement because they came up a few feet short. A true patriot to be sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh 0ne Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 I think individuals should be allowed to chose wether or not they want to wear a helmet. That being said, memorializing and glorifying his choice not to wear one and comparing that to something remotely heroic is pretty stooopid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 I think individuals should be allowed to chose wether or not they want to wear a helmet. That being said, memorializing and glorifying his choice not to wear one and comparing that to something remotely heroic is pretty stooopid. Sums up my stance. Mind you, I'm not going to be on the front-lines campaigning for that right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 (edited) I think individuals should be allowed to chose wether or not they want to wear a helmet. I agree... And then my tax-dollars shouldn't have to pay to peal him off the sidewalk... But since they do, I'm happy with the current law... Edited July 5, 2011 by delusions of granduer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrip Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 (edited) I wonder how his wife and kids feel about him giving his all for freedom. Edited July 5, 2011 by mrip Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 (edited) I suspect it's a lot cheaper on society than if he was wearing a lid. You mean if you just left them laying on the side of the road? Well yes, but that's not a viable option. I'm a libertarian, so it seems ironic to argue in favor of laws that restrict "freedom", but it's the same reasons in favor seat-belt laws... When operating a potentially life-threatening vehicle (especially a motorcycle, where you've gotta be 100 times less likely to survive a crash without a helmet), then you have the responsibility to take the proper precautions before doing so... It's not a matter of freedom, it's a matter of negligence that the tax-payers have to pay more for if you don't. (ETA: This guy really should have used his head on this one :obligatorypun:) Edited July 5, 2011 by delusions of granduer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh 0ne Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 You mean if you just left them laying on the side of the road? Well yes, but that's not a viable option. I'm a libertarian, so it seems ironic to argue in favor of laws that restrict "freedom", but it's the same reasons in favor seat-belt laws... When operating a potentially life-threatening vehicle (especially a motorcycle, where you've gotta be 100 times less likely to survive a crash without a helmet), then you have the responsibility to take the proper precautions before doing so... It's not a matter of freedom, it's a matter of negligence that the tax-payers have to pay more for if you don't. (ETA: This guy really should have used his head on this one :obligatorypun:) If he has an accident, with or without the lid, someone has to pay for the clean up. You think it costs more to clean up a dead guy then an alive guy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 You mean if you just left them laying on the side of the road? Well yes, but that's not a viable option. I'm a libertarian, so it seems ironic to argue in favor of laws that restrict "freedom", but it's the same reasons in favor seat-belt laws... When operating a potentially life-threatening vehicle (especially a motorcycle, where you've gotta be 100 times less likely to survive a crash without a helmet), then you have the responsibility to take the proper precautions before doing so... It's not a matter of freedom, it's a matter of negligence that the tax-payers have to pay more for if you don't. (ETA: This guy really should have used his head on this one :obligatorypun:) I imagine Opie was implying that it's cheaper to deal with a dead guy than someone seriously injured. Honestly, I don't know whether helmets are more likely to make someone who would have otherwise be killed in an accident "only" very seriously injured or whether they're more likely to make someone who would have otherwise been very seriously injured not very injured at all. So, speaking strictly from a public money standpoint, it could be a wash. Assuming, again, that is the primary issue for you. I would imagine that argument sounds better than it is. I wonder, for instance, how much public money goes to paying the health cost of people who have crashed without wearing a helmet (specifically when how much public money may be saved because a guy kills himself rather than ending up in the hospital). The way people use the argument you brought up, one would think it's a major drain on public money. Is it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 (edited) If he has an accident, with or without the lid, someone has to pay for the clean up. You think it costs more to clean up a dead guy then an alive guy? The way people use the argument you brought up, one would think it's a major drain on public money. Is it? I have no idea if it costs more to pay for medical bills than to clean up a dead body (though at very least it's going to require a ton more police investigation), but that's kind of beside my point... Our taxes pay to deal with "accidents", yes, but if they're going to pay for someone's gross negligence then I feel that society has the obligation to have statutes to try to reduce acts of that negligence. It's a little more iffy when the only likely victim is you and the tax payer, but I still do not believe this is an issue of freedom. But let me ask: What about examples where the victim would have only suffered road-rash, not even necessarily requiring hospitalization, but hits his head and dies? It's a very likely scenario (I've heard it happen plenty) where people walk away from a crash unscathed when wearing a helmet, but the chances are far greater it's going to be serious and deadly with no helmet on. Edited July 5, 2011 by delusions of granduer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramhock Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 What about the mindset of the poor driver who kills a cyclist, who wouldn't have been kiiled if wearing one. Everyone is selfish. Currently, teaching my 16 year old to drive. Whilst going thru a parking lot, I told him he needs to be aware of the cars & children dashing out from between them. I told him if he had 0% cause in hitting a child, he would still feel absolutely horrendous. I would hope if you are a cyclist & choose to not wear a helmet, that you tell your insurance company so they can charge you accordingly, lofl. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 I have no idea if it costs more to pay for medical bills than to clean up a dead body (though at very least it's going to require a ton more police investigation), but that's kind of beside my point... Our taxes pay to deal with "accidents", yes, but if they're going to pay for someone's gross negligence then I feel that society has the obligation to have statutes to try to reduce acts of that negligence. It's a little more iffy when the only likely victim is you and the tax payer, but I still do not believe this is an issue of freedom. But let me ask: What about examples where the victim would have only suffered road-rash, not even necessarily requiring hospitalization, but hits his head and dies? It's a very likely scenario (I've heard it happen plenty) where people walk away from a crash unscathed when wearing a helmet, but the chances are far greater it's going to be serious and deadly with no helmet on. Again, I'm not suggesting that this should or should not be the primary basis for deciding whether or not someone should be required by law to wear a helmet. I'm just curious what the actual costs involved are. Whether or not they're really significant. Wouldn't that be worth knowing? At least if we're going to use that as a reason for why people should be required to wear helmets? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeeR Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 I'm trying to figure out why anyone would be against such a law. It's someone's right to put their life in totally unnecessary risk - for what? The right to show how "cool" and tough they are? So they can pretend they're Henry Fonda? The right to make their spouse a widow and/or a single parent? The more you think about it the dumber it is. Also since it's a given that taxpayer money would pay for them in one way or the other, dead or alive, this "right" isn't, ie should not exist. If we could somehow make it so those refusing to wear one were left to fend for themselves or charity of passersby, then at least monetarily it would make sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh 0ne Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 I'm trying to figure out why anyone would be against such a law. It's someone's right to put their life in totally unnecessary risk - for what? The right to show how "cool" and tough they are? So they can pretend they're Henry Fonda? The right to make their spouse a widow and/or a single parent? The more you think about it the dumber it is. Also since it's a given that taxpayer money would pay for them in one way or the other, dead or alive, this "right" isn't, ie should not exist. If we could somehow make it so those refusing to wear one were left to fend for themselves or charity of passersby, then at least monetarily it would make sense. My office is 5 minutes from my house. On back roads, no traffic. It would be easier and more convenient if I could ride to and from work without putting on a helmet. Plus, it messes up my hair. I am not putting anyone else at risk by not wearing a helmet, other then myself. So why do you have the rigth to tell me that I have to wear one? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh 0ne Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 This is not going well, Opie and I are on the same page. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 My office is 5 minutes from my house. On back roads, no traffic. It would be easier and more convenient if I could ride to and from work without putting on a helmet. Plus, it messes up my hair. I am not putting anyone else at risk by not wearing a helmet, other then myself. So why do you have the rigth to tell me that I have to wear one? What hair? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh 0ne Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 What hair? I was making a funny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetsfan Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Bareheaded motorcyclist dies in helmet protest this story brought to you by AFX and Rooty Toot Jasperson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeeR Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 (edited) I am not putting anyone else at risk by not wearing a helmet, other then myself. So why do you have the rigth to tell me that I have to wear one? I don't, but the society you live in does, for reasons I've already explained. Re. "I am not putting anyone else at risk by not wearing a helmet" yeah you are, although not severe - a simple example: you're driving along and a bug/stone/whatever whacks you in the face. Instinctively your reaction would likely be to reach for your face or flinch or otherwise react in a way which would be more likely to cause you to crash, potentially injuring others. With a helmet, this risk is greatly reduced. Edited July 5, 2011 by BeeR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 I'm trying to figure out why anyone would be against such a law. It's someone's right to put their life in totally unnecessary risk - for what? The right to show how "cool" and tough they are? So they can pretend they're Henry Fonda? The right to make their spouse a widow and/or a single parent? The more you think about it the dumber it is. Also since it's a given that taxpayer money would pay for them in one way or the other, dead or alive, this "right" isn't, ie should not exist. If we could somehow make it so those refusing to wear one were left to fend for themselves or charity of passersby, then at least monetarily it would make sense. I'm not arguing that it isn't a dumb idea to ride without a helmet. And I'm not going to hit the streets and campaign for this right either. But I also do understand that there are no shortage of things that people enjoy that others consider reckless and foolish. Rock climbing: Free climbing OK? What about leading? Surely top roping is OK though it's still not as safe as not climbing at all. Bouldering up to a certain height without ropes? You can crack your skull falling 10 ft. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.