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]

no extended stay

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....