(CNN) -- A bareheaded motorcyclist participating in a ride to protest mandatory helmet laws was killed when he was thrown over the handlebars in Onondaga, New York.Now, they claim he would have survived had he been wearing a helmet, and that might be true. Of course, he might also have been a vegetable, but he'd be alive, right? Hitting the pavement noggin-first, even at low-speed, can be an unpredictable at best. Even with a helmet there's no guarantee that the trauma would have been too great anyways.Philip A. Contos, 55, of Parish, New York, was on a ride organized by the Onondaga chapter of American Bikers Aimed Towards Education (ABATE), state police said Sunday.
As for the protest, I think it's a good thing. I've commented about riding without a helmet before, but I really don't do it all that much - I prefer the added protection of a lid. I also wear my seatbelt when I'm riding in my truck, too - but not because it's the law but because I choose to do so. When I make the decision to ride my motorcycle, I do so with the full knowledge that it is more dangerous than riding in a cage.
I think that's the crux of the argument: Those that oppose helmet laws don't oppose them because they dispute the safety of wearing a helmet, they dispute the removal of choice. We're already making the conscious decision to engage in a risky venture in getting on two wheels in a world of distracted cagers - putting on a helmet to safeguard against a texting 20-something in an SUV is a lot like opting for a long-sleeved shirt over a tank top in Antarctica...
We're just asking for the freedom to make the choice on our own, rather than having Mother Nanny Gov. make it for us.
That is all.
10 comments:
I'll say what I've said other places about this incident:
The irony is somewhat lessened by the fact of all the motorcyclists who die every day with their government mandated and approved helmets firmly on their head.
Like you said, the protest is not about the safety issue. It's about the freedom issue. But people are too stupid to see that.
I'm torn on this one. I agree with you that it's not so much about safety as it is about freedom: but I also believe that if that's the case, then those who choose to ride without protective headgear should automatically forfeit the right to taxpayer-paid post-trauma health care for any injury to the head caused by an accident. If they choose to take the risk, they can also take the consequences.
Is that fair? Seems that way to me, but I've had all sorts of abuse from those who think I'm being mean. What say you?
"Of course, he might also have been a vegetable, but he'd be alive, right?"
Or from a million dollar wheel-chair after 8 hours in surgery and and 4 months in traction.
Yep Motorcycles are dangerous. Its why I have no interest in them (or convertibles for that matter) But who am I to say what others should or shouldn't do?
These laws are no different than any others. Busy-bodies who feign concern for the well-being of others, but really just get off on telling total strangers that they know better on how they should live their lives.
To all those busybodies out there: FUCK YOU!
Peter but then one begs the morality of the argument of biker who took a face plant who needed all the kings horses, and all the kings men, plus a million dollars, and a lifetime of extra medical care when a coffin would have been the end result.
Helmets likely cause MORE financial burden than they prevent.
I suspect that for the price of a helmet, a MSF training class might have been a good investment. I'm going to make some huge assumptions here:
1) Cruiser rider
2) Rear brake only ("fishtailed"
3) Single vehicle accident
I'm guessing he target-fixated.
It's possible that like many riders, he didn't put on many miles in a year. Like firearms, motorcycle skills are fungible.
Rolls Canardly
Peter said:
" . . . those who choose to ride without protective headgear should automatically forfeit the right to taxpayer-paid post-trauma health care for any injury to the head caused by an accident."
{EDITED}
" . . . nobody should have the right to taxpayer-paid post-trauma health care for any injury to the head caused by an accident, unless they contracted for health insurance -- such as a government empoyee."
Fixed it for you. {grin}
Seriously, seatbelt or helmet laws for sovereign adults are insulting, degrading, and oppressive.
Want to make a case for them for legal minors, on the grounds that minors don't get to make grown up risk assessents, that's why they are considered "minors"? Fine.
Disclaimer -- You'd be hard pressed to get me ON a bike in the first place (although I would be interested in having th skill set, "just 'cause", and if you DID see me on a motorcycle on a regular basis, I'd be in a full body skid suit; likewise, I wear my seatbelt. The Hell with the law that requires it -- I choose to do so, and have been wearing seatbelts since well before they made it he law.
Wow, don't know where to begin on this one. Guess I'll start by saying I've been riding motorcycles for the last 35 of my 47 yrs. I've had one very serious accident (no, it wasn't my fault). I was wearing a full-faced helmet. It probably saved me from some serious facial reconstructive surgery. The helmet also came within a fraction of an inch of putting me in a Stephen Hawking style wheelchair for the rest of my life. The EMTs and the emergency room staff were CERTAIN the helmet had broken my neck. My neck turned out to not be broken, though the helmet hit hard enough to chip a vertebrae in my neck.
I live in a state that allows me to choose if I want to wear a helmet or not, and generally I do, with the understanding that A: a full face helmet, while offering the most protection also severely limits your peripheral vision as well as your hearing. B: It also adds a lot of unnatural mass up above that rather fragile bone that connects your head to your body. Which leads to C: a helmet can either cause an accident, or cause more injury then the accident itself caused. You ever notice most motorcycle cops do not wear full face helmets?
If I'm riding in urban/suburban areas where any accident is most likely going to involve a car, I'll wear a helmet. If I'm riding down the highway where an accident most likely means faceplanting the highway, I wear a helmet (along with armoured clothing). If I'm taking a leisurely 25-35mph ride in the country, I probably wont wear my helmet. Every time you get on the bike you're taking a calculated risk, I'm glad those decisions are mine to make.
And for Peter: as you go sliding down that slippery slope, where would you like to draw the line?
(forgetting that I dont think anyone has a RIGHT to taxpayer funded healthcare)
If you eat a pizza, a steak or some Oreo cookies once in awhile do you forfeit? If you are overweight or a couch potato do you forfeit? If you drink beer, wine or soda do you forfeit? If you ski or play football do you forfeit? Almost anything can be unsafe or unhealthy, where would you draw that line? Would the person after you draw it in the same place or would they move it down the slope some more (but it's for the children!)?
Hi. New commenter here.
I'm torn, like Peter; there's a valid principle here. The money we spend cleaning up the messes made by people who know they won't have to clean up after themselves, is appalling. I'm all for helping people who are truly helpless (by circumstance, not choice,) but the government shouldn't be in the business of lessening the consequences of stupidity. Libertarians resent helmet and seatbelt laws because they don't think the government should be wasting resources protecting us from ourselves. So how is covering the cost of our bad choices any different?
That said, Mopar made an excellent point, based on experience, about the benefits of helmets. Perhaps government coverage should be eliminated, or at least limited for all motorcycle riders, regardless of helmet use. Even for the very best riders, it's a risky behavior and it is a choice. (I've only been on a bike a few times, and I loved it, but I personally don't think it's worth the risk, financial or otherwise.)
As a smoker, I expect my health insurance premiums to go up any day now; I don't look forward to it, but I understand that my stupidity raises costs for people who make better choices than I do. I have no right to expect "free" unlimited coverage from the government or anyone else. My conscience isn't comfortable with zero government health care, but I could live with severely limited government health care.
" . . . those who choose to ride without protective headgear should automatically forfeit the right to taxpayer-paid post-trauma health care for any injury to the head caused by an accident."
If you didn't have taxpayer paid health care you wouldn't even be in the position to propose limits on freedom in order to reduce costs for that healthcare.
That slope is more slippery than monkey snot on linoleum.
Seatbelts are not equivalent to helmets.
Seatbelts are part of an engineered system designed to keep the body in place so that other safety devices can do their jobs.
The modern automobile is designed to keep the passengers inside the reinforced structure, where the airbags, padded surfaces, seats and crush zones can absorb the impact energy and decelerate the bodies in motion safely.
These systems have been tested and refined over the years, with many changes being made as testing and post-accident investigation have shown where designs failed, including CAUSING injuries instead of preventing them. No such process has ever been undertaken for motorcycle safety equipment.
Most of the states with mandatory motorcycle helmet laws base their laws on FMVSS 218 which defines the manner in which the helmets are manufactured but does not specify any sort of performance standard.
Finally, most states have such poor data collection processes in motorcycle accident cases that it's virtually impossible to determine from accident reports whether helmets are clear factors in survivability. Major trauma to other parts of the body can be just as fatal as head injuries, but most accident reports do not allow for that distinction to be reported.
The emphasis should be on preventing the crash, rather than assuming that the rider is going to crash. I see it as being similar to telling my daughters to always carry condoms to prevent disease and pregnancy in case they are raped.
Rider education and driver education are better uses of the state's authority and my money.
I live in one of the few states without a mandatory helmet law and usually wear a helmet, but more to protect my head from flying debris, bugs and sunburn than thinking it's going to save my life in a crash.
Post a Comment