I think this proves itself...

[bone crusher]

http://news.yahoo.com/ny-motorcyclis...143217859.html

This is sad but it proves the point. If you don't wear a helmet, you should not ask for any public funding/healthcare for your extended hospital stay, should you need one...there has to be some personal responsibility out there...

[ARtraveler]

Sad outcome to a protest. I believe in ATGATT--but am not going to criticize those who believe otherwise.

Each to their own ride.

[BajaRon]

http://news.yahoo.com/ny-motorcyclis...143217859.html

This is sad but it proves the point. If you don't wear a helmet, you should not ask for any public funding/healthcare for your extended hospital stay, should you need one...there has to be some personal responsibility out there...

Very sad indeed. And how ironic!

I agree, the public wallet should not be tapped for people who willing and unnecessarily risk additional injury or death by not wearing a helmet.

But the fly in the ointment is always, does it stop with the helmet?

There will be those who say if you're not wearing every possible safety item you should not be covered. It sounds ridiculous but there have been suggestions of roll cages for motorcycles. There have even been some prototypes built.

One step beyond that and you'll find people who advocate the abolition of motorcycles altogether.

I’m with you, no helmet, no coverage. I wish I could be certain that it would stop there.

[arntufun]

I read this earlier today and it was very sad to hear. Although my personal opinion is, it should be the riders choice but this action of the rider (God rest his soul) really put a wrench in the movement to make this a riders choice. This will set this movement back years and years. But make no mistake about it, the only person it hurt was the rider.

Now the troopers were very quick in making a determination that the rider most likely would have survived if he wore a helmet. Thats just plain wrong they would take the opportunity not to care about the person but to take a pop shot at the very thing they were protesting. Heartless cops !!!

[SSG Bean]

I like the military's stance on this subject. A Soldier is required to wear a helmet, gloves, long sleeves, bright or reflective clothing in limited visibility situations, long pants, and leather shoes that cover the ankle bone. If a Soldier is found to not be wearing the protective equipment, they can be billed for care they receive. If the rider is killed in the accident, their family may not receive the death benefit from the Soldiers Group Life Insurance (SGLI). This is all determined by a line of duty investigation that asks two basic questions: was the Soldier breaking the law(ie. riding like an idiot), and were they wearing all the appropriate equipment?

All that being said, many of the investigators are not going to deny benefit to the family if there is not huge irrisponsibility. If the Soldier has everything else right, but say he's wearing tennis shoes, the family is probably still going to receive the death benefit. However, the helmet is definitely required; non-negotiable.

[coz]

i don't think that guy is spending any time in a hospital. now , everyone out there stop smoking, drinking, eating bad food, driving cars, flying planes, bungee jumping, rock climbing, boating, jet skiing, snow skiing, snow mobiling, shooting their guns and on and on and on so nobody ever gets hurt. sounds like there was some driver going on there. do you people think a helmet is going to save you when you run 80 or 90 on the freeway? i doubt it. if i had to wear all the gear in ohio i wouldn't bother, i'd just drive a car.

[scudrunner]

But make no mistake about it, the only person it hurt was the rider.

Are you sure? How about family and friends?

Heartless cops !!!

Just about every accident I read about where the occupant wasn't wearing a seat belt, the cops say the accident probably would have been survivable had they been wearing their seat belt. This appears to be no different.
Helmet wear is the rider's choice in Texas, but I have little sympathy (and no money) for anyone who puts them self at risk without any mitigation.

[arntufun]

Are you sure? How about family and friends?


Although I agree with this statment of yours, but I was speaking in regards of the accident itself !!!



Just about every accident I read about where the occupant wasn't wearing a seat belt, the cops say the accident probably would have been survivable had they been wearing their seat belt. This appears to be no different.
Helmet wear is the rider's choice in Texas, but I have little sympathy (and no money) for anyone who puts them self at risk without any mitigation.

How is it alright for them to comment and speculate on something they have no proof of ??? Oh ya, they are the cops and speculation is what they do best.

[SSG Bean]

I don't think the point is to tell everyone to live an entirely risk averse life, but to point out that engaging in overly risky behavior ends up costing tax payers and the general public something. Part of the reason that healthcare is so expensive is because unpaid bills are rolled into overhead costs and paid by many. If someone could honestly say that irresponsible behavior is only their business, I wouldn't care. However, it ends up costing me money, so I do care.

i don't think that guy is spending any time in a hospital. now , everyone out there stop smoking, drinking, eating bad food, driving cars, flying planes, bungee jumping, rock climbing, boating, jet skiing, snow skiing, snow mobiling, shooting their guns and on and on and on so nobody ever gets hurt. sounds like there was some driver going on there. do you people think a helmet is going to save you when you run 80 or 90 on the freeway? i doubt it. if i had to wear all the gear in ohio i wouldn't bother, i'd just drive a car.

[bruiser]

I like the military's stance on this subject. A Soldier is required to wear a helmet, gloves, long sleeves, bright or reflective clothing in limited visibility situations, long pants, and leather shoes that cover the ankle bone. If a Soldier is found to not be wearing the protective equipment, they can be billed for care they receive. If the rider is killed in the accident, their family may not receive the death benefit from the Soldiers Group Life Insurance (SGLI). This is all determined by a line of duty investigation that asks two basic questions: was the Soldier breaking the law(ie. riding like an idiot), and were they wearing all the appropriate equipment?

All that being said, many of the investigators are not going to deny benefit to the family if there is not huge irrisponsibility. If the Soldier has everything else right, but say he's wearing tennis shoes, the family is probably still going to receive the death benefit. However, the helmet is definitely required; non-negotiable.

This goes for retired (me) and civilian riders as well. You can't get through the gate without it. Even bicycle riders and skate boarders must wear a helmet on base.

[bruiser]

This is a shame. I too would leave it up to the individual. However, I will wear mine. I have a responsibility to my family. In regards to the comment about banning motorcycles, I've heard that comment before. Mostly from people who have either had a bad experience with bikers or those who just don't understand. But, we can say lets ban small cars, cars over 10 years old, tractor trailers... You see where this is going.

[SpongeBob]

"You can't fix stupid."

- Dr. Phil

[Dar]

"You can't fix stupid."

- Dr. Phil

Even when when stupid is doing the fixing.

[BajaRon]

Now the troopers were very quick in making a determination that the rider most likely would have survived if he wore a helmet. Thats just plain wrong they would take the opportunity not to care about the person but to take a pop shot at the very thing they were protesting. Heartless cops !!!

Hate to go on about this, but it is an extremely important subject.

Having been in the fire service and seeing more accidents than I ever wanted to, plus being a rider myself, it isn't usually that difficult to evaluate whether or not an accident was survivable under different conditions (like wearing a helmet or seat belt in a car).

No use getting gory here but suffice it to say, when there is no blunt trauma (like the rider hitting something solid) other than striking your head on the pavement with a properly fitted helmet and chin strap secured almost always means a concussion at worst. Even with a pretty hard strike there is normally nothing more than a good headache. A much lesser encounter with that same pavement and no helmet can easily be fatal.

I've been to fatal crashes where the rider was wearing full protective gear so yes; there are no guaranties. Just like I've seen fatalities in cars, the person having their seat belt on. But in both cases it was by far the exception whereas the rule was critical or fatal injuries to the rider with no helmet or person with no seat belt.

On a motorcycle, your odds of avoiding injury or death go way up with the proper gear and a huge amount of that percentage increase lies with your helmet.

Law enforcement/EMS must also respond to news media. And you know they asked (especially in a “Helmet Law Protest Event”) could this have been avoided. My experience is that law enforcement/EMS will answer honestly. If they think the rider would have cashed in his chips anyway, they will usually say so. But even if this were some kind of knee jerk response, it doesn't change the overwhelming odds.

None of this makes a fatal accident any easier, nor will it end the debate. Though this debate ended with me in the mid 70’s after responding to a fatal MC accident where it was obvious to me that had the rider been wearing a properly fitted helmet he would likely have suffered little more than some road rash and dammaged helmet.

His wife was on the back with a full face helmet, she walked away with some minor injuries, the MC was rideable.

[bone crusher]

I like the military's stance on this subject. A Soldier is required to wear a helmet, gloves, long sleeves, bright or reflective clothing in limited visibility situations, long pants, and leather shoes that cover the ankle bone. If a Soldier is found to not be wearing the protective equipment, they can be billed for care they receive. If the rider is killed in the accident, their family may not receive the death benefit from the Soldiers Group Life Insurance (SGLI). This is all determined by a line of duty investigation that asks two basic questions: was the Soldier breaking the law(ie. riding like an idiot), and were they wearing all the appropriate equipment?

All that being said, many of the investigators are not going to deny benefit to the family if there is not huge irrisponsibility. If the Soldier has everything else right, but say he's wearing tennis shoes, the family is probably still going to receive the death benefit. However, the helmet is definitely required; non-negotiable.

My wife's in the army and I didn't even know this...good information...

[bone crusher]

i don't think that guy is spending any time in a hospital. now , everyone out there stop smoking, drinking, eating bad food, driving cars, flying planes, bungee jumping, rock climbing, boating, jet skiing, snow skiing, snow mobiling, shooting their guns and on and on and on so nobody ever gets hurt. sounds like there was some driver going on there. do you people think a helmet is going to save you when you run 80 or 90 on the freeway? i doubt it. if i had to wear all the gear in ohio i wouldn't bother, i'd just drive a car.

30-40% of motorcycle accidents do NOT involve another person...usually dropping a bike on a slick curve, on gravel, etc...not necessarily high speed. No question a helmet is a life-saver...like a seat belt in a car...yeah, some people don't like to wear them...but more often than not, they will save your life!

[bone crusher]

I don't think the point is to tell everyone to live an entirely risk averse life, but to point out that engaging in overly risky behavior ends up costing tax payers and the general public something. Part of the reason that healthcare is so expensive is because unpaid bills are rolled into overhead costs and paid by many. If someone could honestly say that irresponsible behavior is only their business, I wouldn't care. However, it ends up costing me money, so I do care.

Agreed...obesity, smoking, etc...lifestyle choices should not be covered...as a society, with now close to 40% of our population overweight and with all the illnesses that go along with that, should work harder to stay healthier...in all facets of life.

[bone crusher]

Hate to go on about this, but it is an extremely important subject.

Having been in the fire service and seeing more accidents than I ever wanted to, plus being a rider myself, it isn't usually that difficult to evaluate whether or not an accident was survivable under different conditions (like wearing a helmet or seat belt in a car).

No use getting gory here but suffice it to say, when there is no blunt trauma (like the rider hitting something solid) other than striking your head on the pavement with a properly fitted helmet and chin strap secured almost always means a concussion at worst. Even with a pretty hard strike there is normally nothing more than a good headache. A much lesser encounter with that same pavement and no helmet can easily be fatal.

I've been to fatal crashes where the rider was wearing full protective gear so yes; there are no guaranties. Just like I've seen fatalities in cars, the person having their seat belt on. But in both cases it was by far the exception whereas the rule was critical or fatal injuries to the rider with no helmet or person with no seat belt.

On a motorcycle, your odds of avoiding injury or death go way up with the proper gear and a huge amount of that percentage increase lies with your helmet.

Law enforcement/EMS must also respond to news media. And you know they asked (especially in a “Helmet Law Protest Event”) could this have been avoided. My experience is that law enforcement/EMS will answer honestly. If they think the rider would have cashed in his chips anyway, they will usually say so. But even if this were some kind of knee jerk response, it doesn't change the overwhelming odds.

None of this makes a fatal accident any easier, nor will it end the debate. Though this debate ended with me in the mid 70’s after responding to a fatal MC accident where it was obvious to me that had the rider been wearing a properly fitted helmet he would likely have suffered little more than some road rash and dammaged helmet.

His wife was on the back with a full face helmet, she walked away with some minor injuries, the MC was rideable.

All great points. People will always look for excuses, however, the facts are very clear that wearing a proper helmet saves lives...period!

[Weave2u]

The way I see it is that a large chunk of my check is paying people who haven't held jobs going back three generations, so why not cover people like this guy?

[BajaRon]

The way I see it is that a large chunk of my check is paying people who haven't held jobs going back three generations, so why not cover people like this guy?

Unfortunately, you are right. And just as unfortunately, the effort is to put more people on the hand out list, not less.

You know what started the 1987 LA Riots? Welfare checks were late....

[Oldmanzues]

I go way back to late fifities when the USAF would write you up for wearing a hement in uniform. Ireceived some write ups. Commander threw them away. Good idea.
I believe in ATGATT. A good helmet is not the coolest thing, but not bad. Mesh gear is actually cooler then riding in a tee shirt in my opion.
A local reporter was kind of egging on a cop. The pocket rocket had went off the road the rider hit a tree. He was not wearing a helmet, or much else. The reporter asked if had been wearing a hlmet, would the rider survided ? The cop replied, the bike was observed going between 80 and 100 MPH just before the crash. When a human body hits a solid object like a tree at that speed, a helmet is not going to help, nor a jacket.

A local female rider says, dress for the crash, not the ride. Another one is I would rather sweat a little at a stop light, then bleed to death at a crash scene.

It is up to you to ride your ride, wear what you want or for that matter what you ride.
Oldmanzues.

[Smylinacha]

Years ago I never wore a helmet. Then when I started riding my own I did and have since but then a couple of weeks ago we went riding. I had a migraine and the helmet made it worse so I didn't wear it. Boy did it feel good! Makes it hard to put one on again, but I will. I really think a full face can save your life but not so sure about 1/2 helmets (which I wear in warm weather) so I don't know if I am helping myself any with the half helmet. Mine is DOT approved but I don't understand how a 1/2 helmet can be DOT approved when if you fall and hit your head you've gotta fall the right way so your face doesn't come off. I don't know - I don't like helmets but I have been trying hard to keep mine on. I was just bad a couple of weeks ago. I can't stand seat belts - they ride up too high on me even adjusted so I just clip it to the seat and then sit on it. I know that's bad but I feel less constricted.

[SpydeRider2010]

it is sad that yet another bike lost their life, while riding.

as for me... I used to ride in OK without a helmet. when I went
back to Germany; I worked several accident scenes, where the
only thing that saved their butts were, a helmet.

I have also worked several accidents in the past; where we
cleaned a pretty messy scene; because they weren't wearing
a helmet.

helmets are a sweaty pain in the butt. but it's worth the sweat;
Vs the blood.

just put the damn thing on... and get over it.

[dltang]

Michigan is on the verge of repealing their helmet law but there is a twist. Here is how they are talking about handling it:
http://www.mlive.com/politics/index....tml#incart_mce

Here's copy and past of the article:
Motorcyclists who want to ride without a helmet in Michigan moved one step closer to that decades-old dream with Senate passage of a bill that would remove the helmet requirement for those over the age of 21.
But it could be expensive.
The measure approved on a bipartisan 24-14 vote also includes a requirement that those who choose to ride without a helmet would have to purchase $100,000 in medical payment coverage, which at today's prices would appear to cost a minimum of $1,000.
Right now, medical coverage is optional for motorcycles. Though under Michigan’s no-fault law, a cyclist that collides with a car or truck, an estimated 60 percent to 70 percent of accidents, is entitled to full, lifetime medical coverage provided by the insurance coverage on the car.
If a cyclist runs off the road and hits a tree, however, there is no coverage beyond any of that optional coverage the cyclist purchased. And it’s pricey even with the state’s helmet law that presumably lowers an insurer's exposure -- $50 to $75 per $5,000 of coverage.
Even with the helmet law, that exposure is high. According to the Michigan Catastrophic Claims Association, motorcycle owner assessments make up less than 2 percent of the total paid into the fund annually. Motorcycle injuries, however, account for more than 7 percent of the medical claims.
With no helmet, the insurance risk rises and the cost of that $100,000 in coverage is likely to be more than it is now, but Peter Kuhnmuench of the Insurance Institute of Michigan said he’d have to check with his members to find out how much.
“The consequences of a person’s decision not to wear a helmet is borne by all of society through higher insurance costs, lost productivity and increased health care costs,” said Kuhnmuench.
Given the connection between insurance costs and the helmet law, Gov. Rick Snyder says he wants it all tied up in a broader look at no-fault insurance in Michigan.
“We’re having some internal dialogue now and with some groups out there about what parts of auto insurance we can work at to make it part of a broader reform package,” Snyder said today.
That would be doable unless the the Legislature first sends a stand alone helmet repealer to his desk. Procedure holds that the House can't take up the Senate bill until next week at the earliest. Lawmakers are scheduled to break for the summer on Thursday.
Sen. Roger Kahn, R-Saginaw Twp., fought for $250,000 in minimum coverage. Emergency room treatment and a surgery alone can cost $60,000 alone, said the cardiologist. Beyond the cost he said: “Simply put, allowing Michigan residents to ride without a helmet is putting their lives at risk.”
Backers said wearing a helmet should be a matter of personal choice. With or without a helmet, said Sen. Tom Casperson, R-Escanaba, “riding a motorcycle can be inherently dangerous.”

[gjco]

Most days I choose to wear a helmet. A few days I don't. I appreciate having the option in my state........

I agree 100%