Tragedy mixed in with a great lesson...

Man dies due to not wearing a helmet, while riding in a anti-helmet law protest.

 

ironic.. I think your crazy not to wear a helmet but I understand the desire for a choice.

 

Try and think of all the people affected and the costs involved and I think it makes a case for the law. As much as I think that it should be our choice, when all the impacts are assessed, it probably can't be left to the individual.

You had police and ambulance vehicles and personel tied up. The traffic jam and the effects that had. The impact on relatives, friends, co-worker, employer, social activities he was involved with, by-standers, and witnesses cannot be truly evaluated.

If the only person who was going to be affected is the helmetless rider, it could be his choice. However the impact is far reaching both emotionally and financially. Both costs are staggering.

 

I always wear a helmet, and I don't eat at McDonald's either.

I honestly have problems reconciling my own abilities to make decent decisions and the freedoms I want with other's propensity to abuse their freedom and make really stupid decisions. Just because heart attacks kill hundreds of thousands of people per year doesn't mean that I don't want mayo on my burger once every 2 months.

The pleasure is immediate and internal, the costs occur much later, and generally affect others more than you.

This guy should have been wearing the proper gear...not just because he was on a motorcycle, but especially because he was on an UNFAMILIAR one!

I wish education was the solution to the problem, but people still start smoking cigarettes, with warnings right there on the package and PSA's all over the place.

I just don't know what to think!

 

The financial and emotional costs of the bad decision to not wear a helmet are staggering .... just like many other bad decisions millions of people make every day. Although I always ride with a helmet and think it is absolutely STUPID not to, I believe people should have the choice, but must also take the responsibility. IN my opinion, when you purchase insurance you should be able to get a discount if you select you will ALWAYS wear a helmet. If you selected you will ALWAYS wear a helmet but then have an accident without a helmet either you pay out of pocket or you do not get medical care.

 

A guy I used to work with is a vegetable from a low speed motorcycle accident.
He had a Harley bagger, and those harley types have to make sure you see their faces to see how cool they look. Anyways a car pulled out in front of him in an intersection with 4 way stop signs and they collide at about 5mph, he bounced off the hood and smacked his head on the pavement. PA repealed it's helmet law it I think that was a big mistake. If you can make a law to wear seat belts then you can enforce one for helmets. And it isn't about choice it is easy to forget that driving is a privilege not a right.
End rant. Happy 4th of July Everyone!

 

I would never ride without a full face helmet, so helmet laws don't impact me.

I rode when I was a kid, then quit for a long time. I didn't start riding again until after my children were grown. Personally, I don't think I'd ride if I had dependent children because they would suffer if I were severely injured or killed. A low prohibiting parents of minor children from riding wouldn't impact me.

My mother-in-law thinks I am needlessly risking her daughter's life every time we ride. My mother-in-law wouldn't suffer if motorcycles were banned, in fact her life would be improved.

The question is who gets to set the standard for when the potential "costs" outweigh your freedom.

 

as a Canadian (and i know several and my grandparents were born there), if you dont think that personal freedom is something YOURE up to living, fine, but dont dictate to ME whether or not my own life can be left up to me (the INDIVIDUAL, not the MASSES)...

you had the police and ambulance vehicles and personnel tied up. The traffic jam and the effects that had... What the hell has that got to do with whether he had a helmet on WHEN HE CRASHED (requiring those services) or not?! are you saying if he had a helmet on he wouldnt have locked the rear brake and high-sided (as it sounds as if he did)?

no, in a FREE state, the helmetless rider can wear or not wear a helmet. you want to live in a socialist nation where everyones actions must be balanced against everyone else, then fine. i prefer to live where i can be free to decide....

with that said, ive ridden with and without a helmet. i will wear a helmet 98% of the time should Michigan change their dictatorial law requiring me to wear one...

 

I think it's a good idea; having a Helmet Law. But, I think that there should be a more well-defined definition of what constitutes a Safety Helmet.

The Law's intent is to protect you head in the event of a spill or a collision.

Wearing a Plastic Yarmulke with an Elastic Band under ones chin should not satisfy the requirement intended to assure the rider has sufficient protection in the event of a crash.

 

We call them brain buckets. If you don't have any brains I guess you don't need a brain bucket.

Myself I will wear one. A helmet saved my hide during a crash riding motocross.

 

The government never says that you have to wear a seat belt or a helmet....they just say the vehicle can't be moving unless you do. The truth is, the state has a right to legislate such a thing...and any number of atrocities until the Supreme Court decides it violates the substantive due process clause of the 14th amendment.

From Wikipedia:

The Court usually looks first to see if there is a fundamental right, by examining if the right can be found deeply rooted in American history and traditions. Where the right is not a fundamental right, the court applies a rational basis test: if the violation of the right can be rationally related to a legitimate government purpose, then the law is held valid. If the court establishes that the right being violated is a fundamental right, it applies strict scrutiny. This test inquires into whether there is a compelling state interest being furthered by the violation of the right, and whether the law in question is narrowly tailored to address the state interest.

Driving and riding are by no means a right, and it seems to me preventing deaths on PUBLIC roads seems quite a legitimate government purpose.

Tongue-in-cheek: Maybe we should allow anybody do whatever they want...as long as they haven't bred yet!

 

Helmet, jacket, pants, boots, gloves..... there should be a law against the idiots only wearing shorts + sandals....

 

I saw this on CNN and thought about posting but didn't want to start a heated debate... but it is ironic.

And another point to ponder...

83 Harley,not his usual ride, rear wheel fishtailing???
I wonder if they have looked into Rear Brake Delamination???

Just a thought...