I think this proves itself...

[bone crusher]

http://news.yahoo.com/ny-motorcyclist-dies-ride-protesting-helmet-law-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-motorcyclist-dies-ride-protesting-helmet-law-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 :cus: 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.:gaah:

[scudrunner]

But make no mistake about it, the only person it hurt was the rider.
Are you sure? How about family and friends?

Heartless :cus: 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 !!! :thumbup:



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. :yikes::yikes:

[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.:gaah:

[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 :cus: 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.:gaah:
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.ssf/2011/06/michigan_senate_repeals_helmet.html#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........:thumbup:

I agree 100%

[hotmanali]

I have been riding fro 12 years and I can't imagine NOT wearing a helmet. Most accidents out there on 2 or 3 wheels are not the riders fault so why not add another level of safety. I understand the wearing shorts or t-shirts or even flip flops when cruising the beach but never not a helmet.

Still a very sad incident but you have to think about the trauma if it does happen.

[Bill Soderlin]

I believe in FREDOM of choice. I have riden over fifty years. Almost half of that time without a helmet. Mostly in my young and stupid years. A lot of my riding time now in in Del. and Pa. states where I could go helmetless, but I wear my helmet. I fact I proably would still wear it if Md. went lidless. I don't care if you want to wear your helmet 24/7 even to bed you have that right but that choice shoul be yours. I am lucky enough to have insurance to the point I will never be a drain on the public. Lives would also be saved if we all wore helmets in cars, but that won't happen because law makers and thier wives would be incoinvienenced. I am also a member of NRA and a Vetern wio believes in freedom.

[Bob Denman]

I believe in FREDOM of choice. I am also a member of NRA and a Veteran wio believes in freedom.
:agree: You can't legislate common sense...
I wish that the report on that accident had a few more details. The estimated spped at which this occured might have been important; (even though the killing fall was probably only four or five feet.) The Police would probably have seen enough to render an opinion on survivability that had at least some validity.

[wyliec]

:agree: You can't legislate common sense...
I wish that the report on that accident had a few more details. The estimated spped at which this occured might have been important; (even though the killing fall was probably only four or five feet.) The Police would probably have seen enough to render an opinion on survivability that had at least some validity.


I checked the different write ups and this one had the most; but, nothing about speed:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j5QJwnHv-tPuOjeymCAL6yDtFRQw?docId=c8cd24dbcab84836a8a396bb b6bca410

bonecrusher,

Do you know if there has been a study making a comparison of head injury statistics for motorcyclists in states with optional helmet laws and states with mandatory helmet laws?

[SteveMac]

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.

Being that this is Independence Day I just had to respond. What you are saying here Bonecrusher results in a very slippery slope. Where does it stop? For you it might stop with everything that you personally feel is unsafe or is "adverse to society" but there is always someone higher up on the food chain who thinks up something that will affect you needs to result in declined coverage. Then your opinion will change.

No. Too many men and women have died to provide freedom for us all for us to begin so easily casting it away.

When you begin that process you may only be a generation away from saying that certain ethnicities or only those of a certain age should be covered because it is too costly or just because someone higher up decided it should be so.

[wyliec]

Being that this is Independence Day I just had to respond. What you are saying here Bonecrusher results in a very slippery slope. Where does it stop? For you it might stop with everything that you personally feel is unsafe or is "adverse to society" but there is always someone higher up on the food chain who thinks up something that will affect you needs to result in declined coverage. Then your opinion will change.

No. Too many men and women have died to provide freedom for us all for us to begin so easily casting it away.

When you begin that process you may only be a generation away from saying that certain ethnicities or only those of a certain age should be covered because it is too costly or just because someone higher up decided it should be so.


On the one hand I agree with you and then on the other hand I can agree with bonecrusher.

I work in the 'healthcare' field and on a daily basis I see injuries and surgeries that may have been avoided with lifestyle changes. But, in the end there isn't a one size fits all answer. I just go to work; do my thing; shake my head; and go home when I am done.

[Bob Denman]

Let's face it; NONE of us fit into that cute little mold that creates kind, obedient and altruistic citizens. Our one common characteristic is our individuality.
Freedom of choice allows us to make both poor and great decisions... :2thumbs:
Like this one...

[bone crusher]

I checked the different write ups and this one had the most; but, nothing about speed:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j5QJwnHv-tPuOjeymCAL6yDtFRQw?docId=c8cd24dbcab84836a8a396bb b6bca410

bonecrusher,

Do you know if there has been a study making a comparison of head injury statistics for motorcyclists in states with optional helmet laws and states with mandatory helmet laws?

Not sure...this would not make for a good study anyway...reason is because if most everyone in the 'optional' state wore helmets, it would skew the results. Plus, you'd have to break down all the crashes (don't like using the word 'accident' as it's not appropriate terminology) and see what was hurt. You could more easily just look at head injuries from motorcycle crashes for those who wear helmets and those who do not...however, this has already been done over and over again...there is really no case on the other side.

It's like the law with wearing a seat belt. Sure, if your car goes over a bridge and the seat belt doesn't release, you're in trouble...but in the other 99.999% of cases, the seat belt is going to protect you. Same with a proper helmet...I think people like to be daring...so be it...just do it on your dime...

I think this comes down to simple safety...head safety is paramount.

[bone crusher]

Being that this is Independence Day I just had to respond. What you are saying here Bonecrusher results in a very slippery slope. Where does it stop? For you it might stop with everything that you personally feel is unsafe or is "adverse to society" but there is always someone higher up on the food chain who thinks up something that will affect you needs to result in declined coverage. Then your opinion will change.

No. Too many men and women have died to provide freedom for us all for us to begin so easily casting it away.

When you begin that process you may only be a generation away from saying that certain ethnicities or only those of a certain age should be covered because it is too costly or just because someone higher up decided it should be so.

Slippery slope? Please don't be paranoid and this has nothing to do with Independence Day...come on...nobody in uniform has died for our country protecting car or motorcycle rights...this is a simple safety issue...like seat belts, anti-lock brakes, airbags, car seats, etc...

A flaw with your argument is that underage drivers DO pay more for insurance...why? Because it's been proven they're far more dangerous behind the wheel. You know those actuarialists? They're good at this stuff...it's also been proven that not wearing a helmet leads to far more problems.

I don't mind if people don't want to wear a helmet...just do it on your own dime. I don't want taxpayer money or insurance money (because our premiums go up) covering someone who is now not functional and in a hospital for years...this is a case of it's nobody's fault but your own.

For me, it's the same with cigarette smoking. We all know the hazards...if you smoke and get lung cancer, too bad...take care of yourself. It's nobody's fault but your own.

What is wrong with personal responsibility? I don't understand... One reason this country has major issues is because anytime something happens, it's someone else's fault. People need to be responsible for their actions...period!

[Mr. White]

I spent 29 years in the military so you have choices in your lifestyle. If legal and you do not wear a helmet, so be it. Isn't is great you have a choice.

I started riding in 1948 and wore a football helmet...there were no motorcycle helmets then, or at least not in my area. My buddies laughed at me until one hit the curb with no helmet and his Mother had to feed him with a spoon and wipe the cereal off of his mouth as he slobbered....not a nice sight.

I wear a FF helmet...365/24/7 ever since they were available. I have had one accident. I was at a stop sign, with my feet on the ground and a 21 YOM citizen rear ended me...distroyed my Wing, broke six ribs, lots of road rash on my leg, and three huge gashes in my helmet....My brains would still be on the road with no helmet.

I felt good when the policeman asked me if I knew my name and what happened. I responded "George Lewis and I was hit from the rear". He said, "I am glad you were wearing a helmet, it is a mess but your head isn't."

'nuff said.

:spyder2:

[Bob Denman]

I don't mind if people don't want to wear a helmet...just do it on your own dime. I don't want taxpayer money or insurance money (because our premiums go up) covering someone who is now not functional and in a hospital for years.
What is wrong with personal responsibility? People need to be responsible for their actions...period!

So very much of your argument makes GREAT sense... in a perfect World... There always seems to be somebody out there who wants to redistribute everything so that everybody is the same. :gaah: We rail against it, but just don't have the ability to get them to see things our way...
In a larger venue... America is The Land of Opportunity; we are all given the same opportunity with our very first breaths. Some folks want to use it to the fullest; good for them! :D Others will squander theirs and look for a way to change the ground rules of the game in mid-stream...

Bone C... I completely understand your frustration at how things are played out...Shoot; I agree with about 95% of what you say... It just would never work with the way things work today... :cus:

Back off the soapbox... I'm gonna go play in traffic while drinking tequila! :roflblack:

[SteveMac]

Slippery slope? Please don't be paranoid and this has nothing to do with Independence Day...come on...nobody in uniform has died for our country protecting car or motorcycle rights...this is a simple safety issue...like seat belts, anti-lock brakes, airbags, car seats, etc...

A flaw with your argument is that underage drivers DO pay more for insurance...why? Because it's been proven they're far more dangerous behind the wheel. You know those actuarialists? They're good at this stuff...it's also been proven that not wearing a helmet leads to far more problems.

I don't mind if people don't want to wear a helmet...just do it on your own dime. I don't want taxpayer money or insurance money (because our premiums go up) covering someone who is now not functional and in a hospital for years...this is a case of it's nobody's fault but your own.

For me, it's the same with cigarette smoking. We all know the hazards...if you smoke and get lung cancer, too bad...take care of yourself. It's nobody's fault but your own.

What is wrong with personal responsibility? I don't understand... One reason this country has major issues is because anytime something happens, it's someone else's fault. People need to be responsible for their actions...period!

Not being paranoid bro. Just saying that it is not possible to define a stopping point. I am an overweight guy who does wear a helmet doesn't smoke and doesn't drink to extreme. So it would be a easy for me to pick and choose what everyone else gets covered for but I simply am imperfect so I can't make that choice for others.

Yes, kids have higher incidences of accidents and pay more I don't dispute that. People who exceed the speed limit probably have higher incidences of accidents than those who don't speed. Have you ever exceeded the posted limit? If so perhaps you shouldn't be covered if you are in an accident. In states where it is legal to go without a helmet how can you say that should not be covered, but a person illegally speeding should be?

Women have higher incidences of breast cancer, blacks have higher incidences of high blood pressure… should those not be covered?

Again, it is easy to point to things to not cover if you don't fall into that group, but that will eventually come home to roost.

People who have served this country didn't do so for specific rights or freedoms that you or anyone else should choose. They paid the price for FREEDOM. The singular.

We just disagree on this. Not being paranoid. We both just have an opinion. Thank God neither of us have ultimate power. LOL!!

At least we agree on being SpyderLovers.

Peace bro and have a great 4th!

[Sny]

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. :yikes::yikes:
Sounds like you don't have a lot of respect for the men in uniform... I'm sure you have your reasons...

That said, it also sounds like no matter what they say you will pick it apart and use it against them.

How do you know they have no evidence? The article doesn't need to prove anything. News is all about speculation these days, very little is factual and objective. If the news wants to poke fun at an unfortunate situation and use it to support their own opinion, they can and do... and did.

Feel free to hate the reporter for their abuse of the situation. But don't use it as an excuse to discredit law enforcement. There's plenty of factual ways to do that.

What if the department claimed that he would likely have survived because he had almost no injuries anywhere else in or on his body? He landed head first.

My family makes a habit of bouncing their heads off the pavement, always with a helmet, and we're all still alive to talk about it... and bitch about our insurance ;)

Keep it cool, keep it real, no need to sling mud just for the sake of slinging it.

Sorry if I'm throwing gasoline on a fire... I'm a bit of a pyro... :doorag:

[MouthPiece]

Perhaps we should be wearing them when we drive our cars?:dontknow:

Chris

[Bob Denman]

:D :thumbup: :shemademe_smilie::shocked:

[bone crusher]

Not being paranoid bro. Just saying that it is not possible to define a stopping point. I am an overweight guy who does wear a helmet doesn't smoke and doesn't drink to extreme. So it would be a easy for me to pick and choose what everyone else gets covered for but I simply am imperfect so I can't make that choice for others.

Yes, kids have higher incidences of accidents and pay more I don't dispute that. People who exceed the speed limit probably have higher incidences of accidents than those who don't speed. Have you ever exceeded the posted limit? If so perhaps you shouldn't be covered if you are in an accident. In states where it is legal to go without a helmet how can you say that should not be covered, but a person illegally speeding should be?

Women have higher incidences of breast cancer, blacks have higher incidences of high blood pressure… should those not be covered?

Again, it is easy to point to things to not cover if you don't fall into that group, but that will eventually come home to roost.

People who have served this country didn't do so for specific rights or freedoms that you or anyone else should choose. They paid the price for FREEDOM. The singular.

We just disagree on this. Not being paranoid. We both just have an opinion. Thank God neither of us have ultimate power. LOL!!

At least we agree on being SpyderLovers.

Peace bro and have a great 4th!

I'm with ya! Have a great 4th and no matter what happens, be safe and have fun!!

[bone crusher]

Perhaps we should be wearing them when we drive our cars?:dontknow:

Chris


Hah...that's the whole point of the cage...actually, neck injuries are far worse in cars vs. head injuries...than again, if they are severe enough, you will see concussions. Only in the case of a broadsided impact at high speeds will you tend to see skull fractures as passengers on both sides of the car risk impacting one another or the door columns in the vehicle.

[arntufun]

Sounds like you don't have a lot of respect for the men in uniform... I'm sure you have your reasons...

That said, it also sounds like no matter what they say you will pick it apart and use it against them.

How do you know they have no evidence? The article doesn't need to prove anything. News is all about speculation these days, very little is factual and objective. If the news wants to poke fun at an unfortunate situation and use it to support their own opinion, they can and do... and did.

Feel free to hate the reporter for their abuse of the situation. But don't use it as an excuse to discredit law enforcement. There's plenty of factual ways to do that.

What if the department claimed that he would likely have survived because he had almost no injuries anywhere else in or on his body? He landed head first.

My family makes a habit of bouncing their heads off the pavement, always with a helmet, and we're all still alive to talk about it... and bitch about our insurance ;)

Keep it cool, keep it real, no need to sling mud just for the sake of slinging it.

Sorry if I'm throwing gasoline on a fire... I'm a bit of a pyro... :doorag:




Opinion: It was not the place or the time for the trooper to make
that statement.
Opinion: Most Cops think they are above the law.
Fact: I was not commenting on the reporter of the news.
Fact: The trooper that made this ignorant comment is just a trooper.
Fact: Trooper is not a expert to make any comments what would or
wouldn't happen if he was wearing a helmet (SPECULATION).
Fact: The above text in bold is now speculation on your part.
Fact: You do not just hit your head when you wreck a motorcycle.
Fact: I did not understand your paragragh where you bounce your
head off the pavement.
Fact: I never sling mud, I only give my opinion. Some of my opinions
people will not like.
Fact: Being a pyro, you will need more than a book of matches in
Alaska in winter. I was commenting on your last sentence.
:roflblack::roflblack:
Fact: I respect your opinion and still like your green Spyder. :thumbup:

[grumpybob]

I didn't know the gentleman from Parish that was killed, although I spent a lot of time in Parish a few years ago training and putting on pancake breakfasts for the Search and Rescue team Both Nan & I were on.

A helmet has save my life twice. Once in Nam, although it still took 26 stitches to sew the side of my head up after they pulled the metal out of it. Once in a motorcycle accident when I hit the road doing about 65 mph.

My two friends, Tom Boas and Gary Cavallero both killed on cycles. Gary was going 25 - 30 miles an hour across a railroad track. Tom was hit head on by a Caddy on a foggy morning. Both were wearing helmets.

I was asked to go on the protest ride but did not go. Sometimes s**t happens and no matter what nothing can prevent it.

All we can do is our best to protect ourselves in the fashion we think is best at the moment and go with it.

I feel for his family and friends.

[Bob Denman]

Fact: The trooper that made this ignorant comment is just a trooper.
Fact: Trooper is not an expert to make any comments what would or
wouldn't happen if he was wearing a helmet (SPECULATION).
Fact: You do not just hit your head when you wreck a motorcycle.
Fact: I never sling mud, I only give my opinion. Some of my opinions
people will not like.
Somebody's got their gripe on against LEOs... JMHO :D
1st fact: that he was in fact a Trooper makes your first noted fact a bit heavy-handed... and mean spirited (just a trooper...)
2nd fact... Troopers are trained in accident reconstruction techniques so that they can figure out what happened when it hit the fan.
3rd fact... That's why I would have like a bit more info... Was there a secondary impact ?
Your 4th fact is largely supposition.
Give them a chance. They're out there putting their lives on the line for us! (Hey! 3 different ones in one sentance! :D)
...and your yellow Spyder ain't too half bad either! :2thumbs::2thumbs::D

[arntufun]

Somebody's got their gripe on against LEOs... JMHO :D
1st fact: that he was in fact a Trooper makes your first noted fact a bit heavy-handed... and mean spirited (just a trooper...)
2nd fact... Troopers are trained in accident reconstruction techniques so that they can figure out what happened when it hit the fan.
3rd fact... That's why I would have like a bit more info... Was there a secondary impact ?
Your 4th fact is largely supposition.
Give them a chance. They're out there putting their lives on the line for us! (Hey! 3 different ones in one sentance! :D)
...and your yellow Spyder ain't too half bad either! :2thumbs::2thumbs::D




Bob, So they are trained to speculate ??? My point exactly !!! Thank you. :roflblack::roflblack: You can't say a "regular" trooper can reconstruct a accident. Thats why they depend on experts to come to the scene. But they can tell you how fresh the donut is sitting on the shelf at Dunkin Donuts. So that does count for something. :roflblack: Your RT is purty also. :thumbup::thumbup:

[Bob Denman]

:hun: As close as you are to Albany and you don't have any frineds who have been to that Academy?
Now I'll admit that I've got friends (or at least friendly adversaries! :D) who have been there and taught there...Accident reconstruction is part of what gets stuffed under their cool-lookng hats during their stay. (ask one about tear gas day!:roflblack:)
Donuts?? Who mentioned DONUTS????? :shocked:

Anyway; it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what happens during an "incident". I've been doing my job here for 33 years (filling out accident reports... :gaah:) and can almost do it! We didn't actually get enough from the report to know, but there was lots more information available at the scene that would point to the culprit...

[arntufun]

:hun: As close as you are to Albany and you don't have any frineds who have been to that Academy?
Now I'll admit that I've got friends (or at least friendly adversaries! :D) who have been there and taught there...Accident reconstruction is part of what gets stuffed under their cool-lookng hats during their stay. (ask one about tear gas day!:roflblack:)
Donuts?? Who mentioned DONUTS????? :shocked:

Anyway; it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what happens during an "incident". I've been doing my job here for 33 years (filling out accident reports... :gaah:) and can almost do it! We didn't actually get enough from the report to know, but there was lots more information available at the scene that would point to the culprit...




Great debate Bob. In my area we have had many LEO's that have got in trouble lately from a variety of different offenses, so it has left a bad taste in my mouth about LEO's thinking they are above the law. One Trooper accually ran over a guy I knew during the night off duty and kept going. The person that he hit body parts were found underneath his truck. The only reason he got caught was, the troopers girlfriend called the cops on him when they got home. The trooper is claiming that he was already dead when he hit him. BS he wasn't dead already !! So I hope you can understand my opinions of LEO's. :thumbup::thumbup:

[Bob Denman]

Are they perfect? Of course not... Should they try to be? Shouldn't we all? :D

Have you ever ridden with the Blue Knights? I firmly believe that their mtto ought to be "Ride With Impunity" The first thing that they do when pulled over for speeding is pull out their badges... :roflblack:... en masse!
That having been said, I still thank them for putting themsleves in between civilized society and the morons out there! :shocked:

[arntufun]

Are they perfect? Of course not... Should they try to be? Shouldn't we all? :D

Have you ever ridden with the Blue Knights? I firmly believe that their mtto ought to be "Ride With Impunity" The first thing that they do when pulled over for speeding is pull out their badges... :roflblack:... en masse!
That having been said, I still thank them for putting themsleves in between civilized society and the morons out there! :shocked:


And Rodney King thanks you for that !!! :roflblack::roflblack::roflblack:

[fleegeds]

Slippery slope? Please don't be paranoid and this has nothing to do with Independence Day...come on...nobody in uniform has died for our country protecting car or motorcycle rights...this is a simple safety issue...like seat belts, anti-lock brakes, airbags, car seats, etc...

A flaw with your argument is that underage drivers DO pay more for insurance...why? Because it's been proven they're far more dangerous behind the wheel. You know those actuarialists? They're good at this stuff...it's also been proven that not wearing a helmet leads to far more problems.

I don't mind if people don't want to wear a helmet...just do it on your own dime. I don't want taxpayer money or insurance money (because our premiums go up) covering someone who is now not functional and in a hospital for years...this is a case of it's nobody's fault but your own.

For me, it's the same with cigarette smoking. We all know the hazards...if you smoke and get lung cancer, too bad...take care of yourself. It's nobody's fault but your own.

What is wrong with personal responsibility? I don't understand... One reason this country has major issues is because anytime something happens, it's someone else's fault. People need to be responsible for their actions...period!

This is right on... (not to distract from the banter) :roflblack:

Freedom with Responsibility

You choose you pay. Yes I know other people will miss them but that is also part of there decision. Removing freedom to stop people from being stupid is never going to fix things and just make life harder for everyone else.

child safety on lighters and med is good, they are too young to understand the ramifications of there decisions, but when we try to out law stupidity it is never going to happen.

[wyliec]

Great debate Bob. In my area we have had many LEO's that have got in trouble lately from a variety of different offenses, so it has left a bad taste in my mouth about LEO's thinking they are above the law. One Trooper accually ran over a guy I knew during the night off duty and kept going. The person that he hit body parts were found underneath his truck. The only reason he got caught was, the troopers girlfriend called the cops on him when they got home. The trooper is claiming that he was already dead when he hit him. BS he wasn't dead already !! So I hope you can understand my opinions of LEO's. :thumbup::thumbup:

This I find interesting. I'm checking with my daughter. She usually tells me this type of stuff. Her husband is a Trooper and I'm curious as to the disposition of this case.

[arntufun]

This I find interesting. I'm checking with my daughter. She usually tells me this type of stuff. Her husband is a Trooper and I'm curious as to the disposition of this case.



Here is the article about it. He was not lying in the road like the tropper said. He was walking on the side of it. :cus: lying Trooper. I'm sure his cop buddys will help get him out of it. Link below.



http://blog.timesunion.com/crime/trooper-charged-with-leaving-the-scene-of-a-fatal-accident/8139/

[Bob Denman]

I can't believe that this almost proves my point... :shocked: here we have an obvious poor choice for a career in law enforcement and you seem pretty willing to paint all Police; even the good ones, with the same broad brush.

Kind of like when a motorcyclist does something stupid (Or a hunter... or someone who is left-handed :hun: :shocked:...), and everybody takes it in the neck as a result.

Thanks for the link! :D

[arntufun]

I can't believe that this almost proves my point... :shocked: here we have an obvious poor choice for a career in law enforcement and you seem pretty willing to paint all Police; even the good ones, with the same broad brush.

Kind of like when a motorcyclist does something stupid (Or a hunter... or someone who is left-handed :hun: :shocked:...), and everybody takes it in the neck as a result.

Thanks for the link! :D



Your probably right. I'm painting with a broad brush. I still thing your awesome bob !!! By the way, I'm left handed ! LOL

[IWN2RYD]

This is a horrible topic. Nothing but wounds and emotional responses ever come of this.

But you know what. This fella should be covered. Otherwise then new "Restrictions" will be added.... OOPS... You fell off the back of your porch that was built in 1991? Sorry no coverage, you should have had up-to-code balusters installed. "Denied"...

That said. How many here absolutely hated when your County or State made the helmet a ticket-able offense? Then Law?

Now how many of us in that group (I was one of them) have seen accidents, colleges, friends, family or what have you, get hurt or die but you know in your heart that had that person(s) been wearing a helmet would be less injured or alive today? Or heck, feel Blessed with the gift of life because you lived when not wearing a helmet during a motorcycle accident? That is me as well.

We went through this same back and forth when seat-belts became a ticket-able offense and then Law. Yes some folks that got ejected in an accident lived. Now how many of those today do we see? Not many. Most feel bad because had they of been seat-belted they may have lived.

The amount of data is overwhelming to the fact that Helmets save lives. Period.

As far as I am concerned, it is the same as a seat-belt. You want to drive a car. Wear one. If you want to ryde a motorcycle type vehicle, wear a helmet and protective gear.

If not, do your ryding on private property and stay off the roads my tax dollars pay for. nojoke

[Bob Denman]

Your probably right I'm painting with a broad brush. I still thing your awesome bob !!!

Gosh... I can feel the man love... scary... :shocked: :roflblack:

[qasamm]

I wear a helmet just in case there is an afterlife. I do not want to hear "I told you so" from my wife, mother, son....

[Firefly]

No time to read all over responses--- but how did this guy cost anyone a dime on medical bills? If he had been wearing a helmet *maybe* he only would have been brain damaged and required 24 hour care for the next 30 years.

There's no good proof either way on this.

It's a personal choice- plain and simple- just like seat belts should be for adults.

Now, if my MC insurance company wants to charge me more because I don't wear a helmet then so be it. This is what they used to do with seat belts.

[boborgera]

Now, if my MC insurance company wants to charge me more because I don't wear a helmet then so be it. This is what they used to do with seat belts.

:agree:
They charge more to tobacco users also.
Hey, They charge more for sport bikes.

[bone crusher]

No time to read all over responses--- but how did this guy cost anyone a dime on medical bills? If he had been wearing a helmet *maybe* he only would have been brain damaged and required 24 hour care for the next 30 years.

There's no good proof either way on this.

It's a personal choice- plain and simple- just like seat belts should be for adults.

Now, if my MC insurance company wants to charge me more because I don't wear a helmet then so be it. This is what they used to do with seat belts.

In this case, the guy was DOA...however, not all head impacts result in death...if they did, insurance companies wouldn't be as concerned...sad to say, but true. The cost to insurance companies is far greater in head impact injuries if the rider is not wearing a helmet...I don't think you want to argue that helmets do not protect the head from serious injury. It's like the seat belt laws...sure, there are exceptions, but the vast majority of the time, they protect/save lives. How about air bags and child seats...same with these too...care to argue that child seats should be a personal decision too?

I know you can't legislate stupidity, but you can make it so the rest of us don't have to pay for these people. Be responsible...period!

Hey, if people want to ride without a helmet, let them...just make them personally responsible for any head injury (if they do survive). This is fair. You are playing the odds and they are not in your favor. Don't ask the house to cover your losses (like my analogy??)

[Bob Denman]

I DO like your analogy! :2thumbs:
...but that just ain't gonna happen given the current "climate"...

[bone crusher]

I DO like your analogy! :2thumbs:
...but that just ain't gonna happen given the current "climate"...


yeah, sad...eh?

[Fire911]

Let'em ride like they want. I believe in natural selection and government intrusion has messed up the whole thing.

I wear mine 99.99999% of the time, but I want to protect the 1/4 million I spent for whats in my head. I have seen my share of accidents and it goes both ways, sometimes the protection Helps and sometimes it doesn't.

I use to skydive, race motorcycles and oh yeah....go into burning buildings....on purpose. Does that mean I can't do those things anymore unless I up my insurance? The fire department, police departments, and Armed Forces will have trouble getting volunteers if the public stops covering things that MAY get you hurt.

It is interesting to hear peoples ideas:popcorn:, but most don't look forward enough to see the consequences.:bdh:

[bone crusher]

Let'em ride like they want. I believe in natural selection and government intrusion has messed up the whole thing.

I wear mine 99.99999% of the time, but I want to protect the 1/4 million I spent for whats in my head. I have seen my share of accidents and it goes both ways, sometimes the protection Helps and sometimes it doesn't.

I use to skydive, race motorcycles and oh yeah....go into burning buildings....on purpose. Does that mean I can't do those things anymore unless I up my insurance? The fire department, police departments, and Armed Forces will have trouble getting volunteers if the public stops covering things that MAY get you hurt.

It is interesting to hear peoples ideas:popcorn:, but most don't look forward enough to see the consequences.:bdh:
Really, can you go into burning buildings without gear on or a mask/helmet? Can you go into battle without any protective gear? Does SWAT voluntarily wear bullet-proof vests?

:shemademe_smilie:

[SteveMac]

OK. I am a little confused here. Are you for or against wearing helmets? :roflblack: :spyder: :roflblack:



Really, can you go into burning buildings without gear on or a mask/helmet? Can you go into battle without any protective gear? Does SWAT voluntarily wear bullet-proof vests?

:shemademe_smilie:

[BajaRon]

Really, can you go into burning buildings without gear on or a mask/helmet?
:shemademe_smilie:

Well, you can, but if you're working for any fire service I know it will be your last day on the job, if you make it out alive.

If we were found to be operating any vehicle while on duty (even our own) without having the seat belt properly fastened it was an automatic 10% pay reduction for 6 months. That was the 1st offence. I don't know what the penalty for 2nd offence was and I don't know anyone who got it twice.

I hated wearing seat belts and I was pretty put off when they implemented this policy. But it got to be so automatic I do it now and never even realize it. That kind of pay cut was a real motivator.

It's not so much that I thought it was a bad idea to wear my seat belt, I just didn't like someone telling me I had to. But if you don't like someone telling you what to do and how to do it, the fire service is not for you.

Would you like to hear the penalties for not wearing gloves, helmet, etc., on any hazardous assignment?

[Bob Denman]

Look at how we're venturing into a much broader arena with this discussion... :D
Well I don't care! :gaah: They're NOT gonna make me put a condom on when showering!! :roflblack:

[spyder3]

"Well I don't care! They're NOT gonna make me put a condom on when showering!!" :hun: :yikes:

[SteveMac]

Look at how we're venturing into a much broader arena with this discussion... :D
Well I don't care! :gaah: They're NOT gonna make me put a condom on when showering!! :roflblack:

TMI Bob. Way way TMI!!

[bone crusher]

OK. I am a little confused here. Are you for or against wearing helmets? :roflblack: :spyder: :roflblack:

My point is that certain professionals have to wear helmets due to their work environment...this should be the case with those who ride a motorcycle. However, if people want to literally take such a great risk, and they legally can, let them be 100% responsible for any head injury they sustain...

[bone crusher]

"Well I don't care! They're NOT gonna make me put a condom on when showering!!" :hun: :yikes:


Um, I'm a little lost here...why the condom when in the shower? What am I missing? Or better yet, maybe it's good that I miss this...:D