|
Post by tcrashfx on May 4, 2007 3:03:07 GMT -5
Friday, 05/04/07 Helmet fight pits freedom vs. safety Motorcycle bill makes it further than in years past
By LEE ANN O'NEAL Staff Writer State Rep. Joey Hensley recalled this week the motorcycle wreck in rural West Tennessee that left him hospitalized for a week with a broken arm and leg and forced him to leave college for a semester. He doesn't know whether the helmet he was wearing kept him from being hurt even more seriously when he was thrown from his bike in that 1975 crash. But that experience hasn't dampened his belief that motorcyclists — not the government — should decide whether helmets are needed. Hensley is sponsoring a bill that would lift the state's helmet law to allow riders 21 and older to ride without helmets, and his bill has made it further than similar measures in the past several years.
|
|
|
Post by voxpopuli on May 4, 2007 13:26:07 GMT -5
If motorcyclists agree to not use any government assistance for any medical related injuries caused by not wearing a helmet, I'm all for their helmet-free choice.
However, if you choose not to wear a helmet and end up a twisted wreck sucking down Medicaid and disability tax benefits, I have no sympathy for you.
I've been riding since I was nine years old and would no more not wear a helmet than walk around East Lake after dark wearing a KKK robe shouting that all darkies need to be lynched.
|
|
|
Post by stray on May 4, 2007 13:34:42 GMT -5
...because sometimes, people just don't want to hear the truth.
|
|
|
Post by tcrashfx on May 4, 2007 18:31:46 GMT -5
Oh, damn!
The SOMA ("Spew On Monitor Award") (East Lake Category) goes to that post.
|
|
|
Post by Justin Thyme on May 6, 2007 17:57:26 GMT -5
If motorcyclists agree to not use any government assistance for any medical related injuries caused by not wearing a helmet, I'm all for their helmet-free choice. Sure, but then I don't hear you asking that safety glasses be made mandatory for yard work except for people who agree to not use any government assitance for any eye injuries received.
|
|
Diremaker
Full Member
Karaoke King
Posts: 382
|
Post by Diremaker on May 7, 2007 2:29:35 GMT -5
I think it's simple. Create an injury by act of stupidity, you're on your on.
|
|
|
Post by Gary on May 7, 2007 7:19:18 GMT -5
I don't think your analogy holds up very well, Justin, when applied to risk-assesment. The risk of serious injury from a motorcycle accident where the rider was not wearing a helmet are much higher than that from using a lawn mower or weed eater.
|
|
|
Post by tcrashfx on May 7, 2007 8:30:16 GMT -5
Motorcycle helmet while riding motorcycle vs safety glasses while weed-eating.
Apples and oranges.
Really.
If we start failing to provide insurance coverage for the results of acts of stupidity, 95% of claims will be rejected.
At least my rates will go down!
|
|
|
Post by Fun Grrl From Mt Pilot on May 7, 2007 9:29:45 GMT -5
If a cyclist wrecks with out helmet the chances of the individual living to need government assistance will be low....even a low speed head smack on a car hood or pavement will do the job. I am all about reducing the amount of 'stupid' in the gene pool...go ahead and let em ride with out...
|
|
|
Post by gridbug on May 7, 2007 11:43:40 GMT -5
Like AIDS by careless sex or diabetes by bad dietary habits?
Whatever happened to making people wear helmets in cars? They would be much safer in the cause of an accident.
A helmet would not have saved him from the broken arm & leg, but maybe if he wore a helmet AND had to drive a car!
|
|
|
Post by frayne56 on May 7, 2007 14:04:21 GMT -5
Wearing of a helmet, be it on a motorcycle, bicycle or in a car should be a personal choice and not determined by government edict.
|
|
TNBear
Senior Forumite
Posts: 2,285
|
Post by TNBear on May 7, 2007 19:30:14 GMT -5
Unless a person signs off that he (she) alone will be personally responsible for all debts incurred if he (she) is brain injured while riding and proves financial responsibility, he (she) should damn well be required to wear a helmet. It's bad enough that my tax money goes to fund a war started by lying SOB's, I do NOT want it going to fund hospital care for IDIOTS.
|
|
|
Post by daworm on May 8, 2007 7:43:05 GMT -5
There's a simpler answer, and one that involves much more personal freedom. Do away with free and/or government subsidized health care. Then people can do what they want, and only they will be responsible for the results. No helmut, no seatbelt, no problem. Kill yourself if you want to, maim yourself horribly, just don't expect me to pay for it.
|
|
kroisis
Full Member
Do not feed the Trolls, for they are a loathsome lot...
Posts: 313
|
Post by kroisis on May 8, 2007 9:58:29 GMT -5
...maybe we could make a new law that says it's ok to ride w/o a helmet, but you have to pay a stupid tax to do it. Those electing to do so will have special license plates issued to identify them as good targets. The stupid tax would be in the form of mandatory $50K life insurance policies that would have to be presented to the courthouse and proven to be maintained in good order prior to release of the new plates each year. The beneficiary would have to be listed as "public education"... ...then we can all ride around town taking out helmet-less drivers in the name of education. It's still for the children, right?
|
|
|
Post by frayne56 on May 8, 2007 16:12:32 GMT -5
...maybe we could make a new law that says it's ok to ride w/o a helmet, but you have to pay a stupid tax to do it. Those electing to do so will have special license plates issued to identify them as good targets. The stupid tax would be in the form of mandatory $50K life insurance policies that would have to be presented to the courthouse and proven to be maintained in good order prior to release of the new plates each year. The beneficiary would have to be listed as "public education"... ...then we can all ride around town taking out helmet-less drivers in the name of education. It's still for the children, right? I'll bite. Make the same rules apply for all those smokers, tokers and midnight jokers, plus the fat people over indulging on sweets, and anyone participating at, at risk behaviors as well, bicycle riders, drinkers of demon rum, sodomites and the religious nut cases.
|
|
|
Post by Gary on May 8, 2007 16:15:20 GMT -5
I just want to point out the smokers and drinkers pay extra taxes on their choices. If non-helmet riders had to pay extra, it would be a nice way to offset things.
|
|
|
Post by tcrashfx on May 8, 2007 20:08:30 GMT -5
If they are stupid enough to ride a motor without a helmet, tricking them into paying exorbitant "stupid" taxes ought to be easy!
|
|
|
Post by Justin Thyme on May 8, 2007 22:25:01 GMT -5
I don't think your analogy holds up very well, Justin, when applied to risk-assesment. The risk of serious injury from a motorcycle accident where the rider was not wearing a helmet are much higher than that from using a lawn mower or weed eater. The risk of a serious eye injury from a lawn mower accident where the operator was not wearing safety glasses is just as high as the risk of serious injury from a motorcycle accident where the rider was not wearing a helmet. Now, the question is which accident is most prevalent. My money is on the lawn mower accident.
|
|
|
Post by Fun Grrl From Mt Pilot on May 8, 2007 22:47:02 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by tcrashfx on May 9, 2007 3:19:00 GMT -5
There is no such thing as a motorcycle accident!
It is now referred to as a "motorcycle crash".
There is a big difference between a crash and an accident or I would be taccidentfx.
|
|
|
Post by frayne56 on May 9, 2007 7:35:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by LimitedRecourse on May 9, 2007 14:34:04 GMT -5
I have to agree with worm...no free lunch (or medical care) would end the debate. You would then be free to eschew whatever safety precautions you feel you can afford. If you underestimate your cost (or overestimate your driving skills) your family picks up the slack. I believe it was once called "personal responsibility" if I remember correctly. Our media and government haven't mentioned the concept in so long, it's a little fuzzy...
|
|
|
Post by tcrashfx on May 9, 2007 18:50:16 GMT -5
Here are some crash reconstructions regarding MC crashes with helmet or no helmet. Look under the "Special Report #13" tab. There are some pretty good other studies in there also.
|
|
kroisis
Full Member
Do not feed the Trolls, for they are a loathsome lot...
Posts: 313
|
Post by kroisis on May 10, 2007 8:16:58 GMT -5
Go ahead...ride without a helmet to enjoy your "freedom"...
|
|
kroisis
Full Member
Do not feed the Trolls, for they are a loathsome lot...
Posts: 313
|
Post by kroisis on May 11, 2007 6:32:34 GMT -5
The scary thing is...I think this guy survived.
...but I bet he wasn't happy.
|
|
Sherry
Senior Member
Posts: 674
|
Post by Sherry on May 11, 2007 7:29:47 GMT -5
That picture is gross.
I've seen it before, but it was labeled as a shotgun wound.
|
|
halk3
Full Member
The Programmer
Posts: 186
|
Post by halk3 on May 11, 2007 8:16:22 GMT -5
Helmets are an important piece of safety gear, but so are proper shoes/boots and clothes. In early April I saw a driver drop his bike on Cherokee Blvd. It was a warm day and the guy was dressed for the lake. He was wearing shorts, a t shirt, and sandals, but he had on a helmet. He had pushed the bike into a parking lot and several cars had stopped when I got there. I could see a lot of road rash. About 45 minutes later when I passed by again He was sitting in the back of an ambulance and they were working on him.
Helmets are important, but proper clothing and footwear is important also, but you can't legislate common sense.
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on May 12, 2007 1:28:17 GMT -5
Safety gear is important. I made ESPN's crash of the week at Talladega, and I walked away from it without a scratch.
Oh, yeah, I made the crash of the week because I was the only guy in a group of about nine who stayed upright. Staying upright trumps safety gear.
Although, I did see a guy have a blowout on the back straight at Daytona, he hit the pavement at about 180 MPH, and his body bounced and rolled more than 900 feet, while getting hit by his bike a few times in the process. They black flagged the race and airlifted him to the hospital, where he received 46 stitches and nothing else but a lot of bruises. Safety equipment does work.
|
|
|
Post by tcrashfx on May 12, 2007 7:40:50 GMT -5
EL Gus? You got video of those crashes?
I gotta see 'em!
900 feet on the ground, without impacts with a wall (Or other opposing objects) would have been a minimum of 164.31 MPH.
(The impacts by other MCs going the same way weren't included as they are considered insignificant in a speed calculation!)
This guy must have slid most of the way as MCs drivers are trained to do. ALWAYS slide if you can. Tumbling is decelerating in two (2) dimensions; whereas sliding is decelerating in one (1) dimension. One dimension is a good thing.
I had seen that photo before and thought it was a shotgun wound too.
|
|
osrb
Senior Forumite
Semper Fi
Mostly Harmless
Posts: 3,150
|
Post by osrb on May 12, 2007 7:49:41 GMT -5
Then we need to stop funding ppl who OD, Drive Drunk, or any other stupid act. I bet the medical cost for these are a lot higher than ppl riding without helmets. I do ride and did ride in CA without a helmet before they took away our freedom. I carry insurance for just the reason if I do need it. I have a couple of scars from times I did not keep the rubber side down I do not know if wearing a helmet made the difference. To this day I do believe we should have the choice.
|
|