Man dies of head injury during helmet law protest

[Zola]

From a follow-up story in the Syracuse Post Standard following interviews with riders involved in the ABATE parade and state troopers at the scene.

The rider's bootlace caught in his chain. The rider hit the brakes causing him to fishtail. He highsided.

Be aware of not only what you put on your head but also what you put on your feet. I've been a rider since 1969 and will not not ride with people who do not gear up. If they don't care enough to protect their own bodies they certainly won't ride in a manner that will protect others.

[LazinCajun]

That's gotta be awkward.

[ungluck]

baaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahaha

[n4mwd]

Originally Posted by Reddoak

The funny thing is, pretty much everyone here arguing their point is also saying "I wear a helmet." It's not just funny, it's good, in my opinion.

I believe that the government that governs least, governs best (to paraphrase Thomas Jefferson.) I think we, as a society, have some expectation to care for those unable to care for themself, i.e. kid car seat laws are warranted. However, when it comes to seat belt laws and helmet laws, let adults make their own choice. After all, statistically speaking, you are likely safer taking your car without seatbelts than a bike wearing a helmet, and yet here we all are, riding anyways. I support the lack of legislation, and am actually pretty impressed by Florida's helmet law. If you are an adult, and have provisions to cover your health care expenses (insurance) than you can go helmet free, if you choose. You are required to wear protective eyewear, which is for the greater good of all, since I'm not in favor of blinded bikers slamming into my wife's car...

This moron who wrecked and died is ironic, possibly even funny to some. He's certainly no hero, he died while breaking a law in support of ignoring good judgment. Who knows what kind of loss he actually is, is he a father? A brother? A husband? A pillar of the community? I don't know, and that's not being covered by the press. All he is to most is the punchline of a funny joke. Let's let him be an example, one of many, why you should wear a helmet. Even if you do or don't have to.

I certainly don't need the government to tell me what to do, when it comes to my own safety. I'd even be willing to go on an anti-helmet law ride with these folks. And I would wear my helmet while I rode, too. I'm willing to bet they'd understand why. Even as I understand why they don't want these laws.

That's pretty much the way I see it too. The rider was a member of ABATE which I think I might try and join because they share similar views.

I found a little more information on the accident. Sources are claiming that it was indeed a freak single vehicle accident. Apparently, his boot laces got tangled in the chain, which caused him to panic and slam on the rear brakes resulting in a high side.

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.s..._during_h.html

Rathbun was not on Saturday’s ride, but she said she had talked to people who were. Rathbun and Richard Contos said the accident happened because Philip’s bootlaces got stuck in a chain.

The biker looked down to inspect the problem, looked up and saw traffic slowing and slammed on the brakes, Richard Contos said, repeating what state police told him. That sudden braking caused the motorcycle to fishtail and Phil Contos lost control, state police said Saturday.

Philip Contos - RIP.

[n4mwd]

Originally Posted by money

I'd like to disagree here. A helmet law is pretty easy to enforce because it's obvious when you're violating by not wearing one. I live in a state that does require helmets and I am not sure if I can recall ever seeing someone riding without a helmet.

They probably do get caught a lot - during the day. The helmet study that someone else posted has a cross section of several states - some with and some without helmet laws. In states that have helmet laws, there is still a significant number of people having wrecks without their helmet.

So basically, you might not see them, but they're out there.

[Jiggles]

Originally Posted by n4mwd

That's pretty much the way I see it too. The rider was a member of ABATE which I think I might try and join because they share similar views.

I found a little more information on the accident. Sources are claiming that it was indeed a freak single vehicle accident. Apparently, his boot laces got tangled in the chain, which caused him to panic and slam on the rear brakes resulting in a high side.

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.s..._during_h.html



Philip Contos - RIP.

Ok so we need to change the law to allow riders to ride with no helmets, however, it will now be illegal to ride with your shoes untied, or if your shoelaces are tied,they are not to exceed 4 inches of length.

[KJohnson21]

It sounds like the accident wouldn't have happened if the rider knew how to do an emergency stop.

[alex.s]

Originally Posted by KJohnson21

It sounds like the accident wouldn't have happened if the rider knew how to do an emergency stop.

i'm not sure why but for some reason i don't exactly expect anti-helmet law 'supporters' to be extremely skilled riders...

[n4mwd]

I've been trying to figure out how someone gets their boot laces stuck in the chain of a Harley. Sure, with a Ninja our feet are fairly close to the chain, but with a cruiser, aren't the feet positioned way out front? Because of the age of the Harley, I'll completely let it slide that they said "chain" and not "belt".

[Daanrademaker]

Originally Posted by n4mwd

Florida doesn't require helmets for motorcycle riders, but I wear one anyway.

However, I am TOTALLY AGAINST mandated personal safety laws. They are just plain wrong. Seat belt laws are wrong too. I know that seat belts and helmets save lives, but its a personal choice! Heck, they even have a helmet law down here for pedal bicycles and believe it or not, horses.

They have child safety seat laws down here that require kids to be tied down in the back seat. It didn't decrease child fatalities, but it did increase the number of people forgetting their kid was in the back seat and leaving him to roast to death in a hot car.

Where do these stupid mandated safety laws end?

You got to be kidding me, you really think more children die because their parents leave them in a hot car than children dying in a car crash? Thats completely ignorant. Sure safety is your personal choice but tying down your kids is not a choice its your duty as responsible parent. And how does a seat belt increase the rate of parents leaving their kids in the car?

[ally99]

Yeah, still waiting on him to give us a link to his source for that statistic.

[n4mwd]

Originally Posted by Daanrademaker

You got to be kidding me, you really think more children die because their parents leave them in a hot car than children dying in a car crash? Thats completely ignorant. Sure safety is your personal choice but tying down your kids is not a choice its your duty as responsible parent. And how does a seat belt increase the rate of parents leaving their kids in the car?

My point is that it should be the parents that decide how to raise their own children. Not the government. Responsible parents used child safety seats long before there was a law that mandated it. Forgetting that you have your kid in the back seat and leaving him to roast is nearly always fatal. Putting the kid in adult seat belts instead of a child safety seat is NOT always fatal even in a car accident.

http://www.ocala.com/article/2011061...it-the-mid-90s

In the past 13 years, 496 children have died nationwide from heat stroke suffered while in a vehicle — 56 in Florida. Half of these were children who were forgotten by a parent or other caregiver, and nearly 20 percent died when parents knowingly left their child in a vehicle. The rest died playing in an unattended vehicle.

[n4mwd]

[CThunder-blue]

Originally Posted by n4mwd

My point is that it should be the parents that decide how to raise their own children. Not the government. Responsible parents used child safety seats long before there was a law that mandated it. Forgetting that you have your kid in the back seat and leaving him to roast is nearly always fatal. Putting the kid in adult seat belts instead of a child safety seat is NOT always fatal even in a car accident.

http://www.ocala.com/article/2011061...it-the-mid-90s

You want a responsible parent to use a child seat, but you then say the same responsible parent wouldn't forget their child in the car. These are 2 unrelated things. You can't equate someone who leaves a child in the car with someone who doesn't use a car seat. What happens if you leave the kid strapped in the car seat inside the car? The kid will still die. Remembering your child is in the car has nothing to do with using a car seat. Sure, it does say you're a responsible person if you do both, but what happens if you use the car seat and still forget your child? The article you posted doesn't say if they were left in car seats, just that they were left. You are making a ton of assumptions. You made assumptions that some cager caused the motorcyclist to wreck when it turned out to be his own fault. You assume that responsible people are always going to be responsible 100% of the time. No one is perfect. Accidents happen. Children will continue to die because they're left in cars. However, parents can at least reduce the amount of deaths caused by not having them in secure car seats. You claim car seat laws caused the cost of car seats to rise. Where's your source? Are you sure it's not because parents just want to be responsible? The population of the US increases every year. With more demand, the cost goes up. There are lots of variables on why prices go up. Blaming it on one specific thing is ludicrous.

I was in a bad wreck when I was 17 and the seat belt saved my life. Seat belt laws save lives because there are many young drivers who may not be the most rational, experienced, mature, or responsible. However, if they know that not using a seat belt is a potential for getting a ticket, they'll more than likely use it. Seat belts aren't uncomfortable. These days, there's tons of adjustability in them. I hate lap belts because I don't feel secure using them. Seat belt laws or not, anyone who's in the car with me wears their seat belt before I put it in gear or we don't go anywhere.

You can choose to feel any way you like about the laws. The fact is, people who feel like you are the minority. A few bikers who ride in protest w/o helmets isn't going to get a law changed. If you really want to do something about it, talk to your congressman/woman or run for office yourself and change them.

[Liber]

On Topic: I don't really see anything stupid or funny about this guy dieing in this manner. This protest was about being able to, as a responsible adult, choose what risks and consequences you will accept for your actions. This guy accepted the risk and imho emphasizes the point of the protest.

[n4mwd]

Originally Posted by CThunder-blue

...Seat belt laws or not, anyone who's in the car with me wears their seat belt before I put it in gear or we don't go anywhere.

...You can choose to feel any way you like about the laws. The fact is, people who feel like you are the minority. A few bikers who ride in protest w/o helmets isn't going to get a law changed. If you really want to do something about it, talk to your congressman/woman or run for office yourself and change them.

Seat belt laws and helmet laws do save lives. Putting kids in car seats save lives. For the 50,000,000th time, I'm not disputing that. But likewise, banning motorcycles and cars would save even more lives. If you want the government to control every aspect of your life - move to China. I don't want the government telling me I have to wear a helmet even though I do anyway. Is that so hard to understand?

The second section is where you are very wrong. ABATE has been around for a while and they have many success stories regarding preserving biker rights. Florida used to be a helmet law state. Now it isn't thanks to ABATE and others. ABATE pushes legislation to ban biker profiling. Some states actually have "Biker checkpoints" that all bikers must stop and be inspected and searched, whereas cars pass freely by. Based on your comments, you are probably OK with that. <sarcasm>After all, bikers are all bad people.</sarcasm>

Lastly, I will admit that I was wrong in my accident analysis and that it does not appear that a car was involved. However, all the articles were basically the same and none said anything about shoelaces at the time. It still doesn't completely add up unless it was a really long shoelace. Oh yeah, lets pass a law against shoelaces. I hate those anyway.

[CThunder-blue]

Originally Posted by n4mwd

Seat belt laws and helmet laws do save lives. Putting kids in car seats save lives. For the 50,000,000th time, I'm not disputing that. But likewise, banning motorcycles and cars would save even more lives. If you want the government to control every aspect of your life - move to China. I don't want the government telling me I have to wear a helmet even though I do anyway. Is that so hard to understand?

The second section is where you are very wrong. ABATE has been around for a while and they have many success stories regarding preserving biker rights. Florida used to be a helmet law state. Now it isn't thanks to ABATE and others. ABATE pushes legislation to ban biker profiling. Some states actually have "Biker checkpoints" that all bikers must stop and be inspected and searched, whereas cars pass freely by. Based on your comments, you are probably OK with that. <sarcasm>After all, bikers are all bad people.</sarcasm>

It is kind of hard to understand. If you already do it, why does it bother you that it's required? You admit that helmet laws saves lives. Are you suggesting that you ascribe to Darwinism and you are ok with the less than responsible folk being killed? Not trying to offend you. I'm just trying to understand your point of view.

As far as the ABATE thing goes, that's good that they do push legislation. And yes, I'm ok with biker check points. I have nothing to hide and I don't see what the big deal is. It's the same thing when I cross into CA and they check my vehicle for contraband items. If they have check points in some of these places, it's probably due to enough bikers causing problems, selling drugs etc, that it would prompt someone to run these check points. We don't have any of these check points in CA as far as I know.

[n4mwd]

Originally Posted by CThunder-blue

It is kind of hard to understand. If you already do it, why does it bother you that it's required? You admit that helmet laws saves lives. Are you suggesting that you ascribe to Darwinism and you are ok with the less than responsible folk being killed? Not trying to offend you. I'm just trying to understand your point of view.

If the government made wearing helmets illegal, I would wear a helmet anyways. The point here is that just because the law doesn't affect you, doesn't make it right.

Originally Posted by Pastor Martin Niemöller

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

People who ride without helmets know the risks. Its theirs to take.
People who skydive know the risks. Its theirs to take.
etc.etc.

I'm going to back off on my child seat stance in that I can see how some people would view it was taking a risk on behalf of another person.

I support biker rights. That's my point of view. So as long as a biker is not endangering other people, I think he should be left alone within reason. Even if he wants to do something stupid like ride without his helmet. I think he should have that right.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by n4mwd

People who ride without helmets know the risks.

I'm not convinced this is true in all cases. There are people who truly believe that wearing helmets is more dangerous, due to field of view, not being able to hear traffic, helmets break necks, they might get helmet stuck in smaller spot a head can fit through, etc. People who believe this do not know the risks, they are simply wrong. People who know the risks and go forth anyhow are a different case.

Originally Posted by n4mwd

People who skydive know the risks.

I agree, all of the skydivers I've known (a champion one works for me) are incredibly cognizant of the risks they take, and are universally vigilant about preparation to minimize those risks.

[CThunder-blue]

Originally Posted by n4mwd

If the government made wearing helmets illegal, I would wear a helmet anyways. The point here is that just because the law doesn't affect you, doesn't make it right.

Yeah, but it doesn't make it wrong either. It's all personal opinion. There are very few things in this life that are really Right or Wrong. I would say, death, aging, and gravity are 3 of those inescapable facts of life. Most everything else falls in that gray area we call opinion.

[DaBlue1]

Originally Posted by n4mwd

...People who ride without helmets know the risks. Its theirs to take.
People who skydive know the risks. Its theirs to take.
etc.etc.

If the risk involves someones else being hurt physically, emotionally, psychologically or killed, is it still theirs to take?

[n4mwd]

Originally Posted by Alex

I'm not convinced this is true in all cases. There are people who truly believe that wearing helmets is more dangerous, due to field of view, not being able to hear traffic, helmets break necks, they might get helmet stuck in smaller spot a head can fit through, etc. People who believe this do not know the risks, they are simply wrong. People who know the risks and go forth anyhow are a different case.

Yes, those are really "reasons" for not wearing a helmet. Some of them may even be valid. But they still must understand that if their bare head smacks into a concrete curb and pops like a big zit that the outcome will not be good. Those people seem to believe that their risks are greater with than without a helmet.

I don't agree with most of their "reasons", but just like other people have different religions, I think its their right to believe how they want.

[n4mwd]

Originally Posted by DaBlue1

If the risk involves someones else being hurt physically, emotionally, psychologically or killed, is it still theirs to take?

Ummm, I'm going to say no. How is some other guy not wearing a helmet going to cause me to get killed or injured?

[TXJ]

I have a friend who caused a car collision that could have been avoided if he wore a helmet. A rock hit him in the head, he dumped his bike and the car behind him swerved to avoid causing a head on collision. 2 people in one car sustained injuries (swerved into a oncoming lane since he landed near the ditch), he was fine aside from a cut on his head and some rash on his hip. I was riding 2-3 cars back and saw him go down. Didn't know why until I saw a rock implanted in his forhead and he said something hit him in the face.

[DaBlue1]

Originally Posted by n4mwd

Ummm, I'm going to say no. How is some other guy not wearing a helmet going to cause me to get killed or injured?

The question was not about helmets but risk.

But about the helmet thing...
Guy rides with no helmet, rock flies up hits him head face (whatever), rider loses control slams in to you or same guy wearing no helmet protesting helmet laws, gets shoelace caught in his chain looses control, bike flies into a child. Anything can happen...right?

Whether people agree or not there are some family member(s) who will always be affected by losing a loved one to an head injury, motorcycle or otherwise, dead or survived.

[n4mwd]

Originally Posted by DaBlue1

The question was not about helmets but risk.

But about the helmet thing...
Guy rides with no helmet, rock flies up hits him head face (whatever), rider loses control slams in to you or same guy wearing no helmet protesting helmet laws, gets shoelace caught in his chain looses control, bike flies into a child. Anything can happen...right?

Whether people agree or not there are some family member(s) who will always be affected by losing a loved one to an head injury, motorcycle or otherwise, dead or survived.

I still don't understand. If the protester guy WAS wearing a helmet and his shoelaces tangled in the chain and he went cartwheeling into a bunch of kids at the school bus stop, what's the difference? How does the helmet change things for anyone but himself?

I'm just guessing, but are you saying that if this protester guy was a dad with a wife and minor children that they would suffer because he's not around to provide for them anymore? If so, I can see why that would be of concern, but in that case I would say that its a family decision. My nephew's wife made him sell his harley and quit riding when they had a bunch of kids. I don't agree obviously, but it was their decision to make.

[Jiggles]

Originally Posted by n4mwd

I still don't understand. If the protester guy WAS wearing a helmet and his shoelaces tangled in the chain and he went cartwheeling into a bunch of kids at the school bus stop, what's the difference? How does the helmet change things for anyone but himself?

I'm just guessing, but are you saying that if this protester guy was a dad with a wife and minor children that they would suffer because he's not around to provide for them anymore? If so, I can see why that would be of concern, but in that case I would say that its a family decision. My nephew's wife made him sell his harley and quit riding when they had a bunch of kids. I don't agree obviously, but it was their decision to make.

Someone has to clean his brains off the road.

[DaBlue1]

Originally Posted by n4mwd

...I still don't understand. If the protester guy WAS wearing a helmet and his shoelaces tangled in the chain and he went cartwheeling into a bunch of kids at the school bus stop, what's the difference? How does the helmet change things for anyone but himself?

Maybe...just maybe if the rider was an advocate for helmet laws, he would not have been in that situation protesting against it. But like you said, it was his decision to make.

[n4mwd]

Originally Posted by DaBlue1

Maybe...just maybe if the rider was an advocate for helmet laws, he would not have been in that situation protesting against it. But like you said, it was his decision to make.

Yeah, and another bit of irony is that ABATE encourages riders to wear helmets. Its just that they are against laws that force people to wear them.

Originally Posted by Abate Newsletter June 2011

You may know us as the motorcycle organization that got the helmet law repealed in Florida or from our motorcycle rights and safety rally's throughout the year.
...
WE ARE NOT ANTI-HELMET, WE ARE ANTI-HELMET LAW
One of the most popular misconceptions about ABATE is that we are anti-helmet. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are "anti-helmet law" if you chose to ride with or without a helmet it’s your choice, it is your right to decide whether wearing a helmet is right for you. ABATE is an organization fighting to protect your rights.

[ManyCavies]

Originally Posted by n4mwd

Yeah, and another bit of irony is that ABATE encourages riders to wear helmets. Its just that they are against laws that force people to wear them.

I think that depends on the ABATE leader in your area. I know that a comment from a higher up in my local chapter said that she didn't want to wear a helmet because she had an itch and it distracted her so much that she couldn't concentrate enough to ride

[KJohnson21]

Originally Posted by n4mwd

Yeah, and another bit of irony is that ABATE encourages riders to wear helmets. Its just that they are against laws that force people to wear them.

I disagree. I used to receive the official ABATE monthly publication and I do not remember EVER reading an article, an editorial or a member's letter that suggested that their members should wear a helmet. I must have missed that issue.

[KJohnson21]

Originally Posted by Liber

On Topic: ... This protest was about being able to, as a responsible adult, choose what risks and consequences you will accept for your actions. ...

I pretty sure that one of the reasons for helmet laws is that not all people that are technically "adults" are responsible, or will accept the consequences of their actions.

[Liber]

^that reasoning doesn't justify mandating anything.

With that logic, you are essentially saying that almost any kind of behavior is subject to regulation.

Removing freedom in an attempt to keep some people from making mistakes is an exercise in futility and only leads to society devoid of responsibility. People should be allowed to make dumb decisions.

As long as your actions don't infringe on the life, liberty and property of other individuals, I see no reason to (attempt to) modify behavior through legislation.

[n4mwd]

Originally Posted by KJohnson21

I pretty sure that one of the reasons for helmet laws is that not all people that are technically "adults" are responsible, or will accept the consequences of their actions.

I think not wearing a helmet is like smoking to an extent. Everyone who wasn't born in a cave knows most of the risks. People who smoke do so for a reason - even if the reason is lame. The same is true about people not wearing helmets.

The same argument for "irresponsible" adults can be applied to smokers.

In my case, even though we don't have a law here, I have to wear it anyway or else I'll get a face full of bugs and rocks. When I rode around the lake a few months ago, we had to stop and clean our visors due to the bugs caking up on it.

[KJohnson21]

Originally Posted by Liber

^that reasoning doesn't justify mandating anything.

With that logic, you are essentially saying that almost any kind of behavior is subject to regulation.

Removing freedom in an attempt to keep some people from making mistakes is an exercise in futility and only leads to society devoid of responsibility. People should be allowed to make dumb decisions.

As long as your actions don't infringe on the life, liberty and property of other individuals, I see no reason to (attempt to) modify behavior through legislation.

Yep, that justication explains one of the main reasons that the helmet laws exist. And as we all know, it can cost the taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars to care for one accident victim.

Originally Posted by n4mwd

I think not wearing a helmet is like smoking to an extent. Everyone who wasn't born in a cave knows most of the risks. People who smoke do so for a reason - even if the reason is lame. The same is true about people not wearing helmets.

The same argument for "irresponsible" adults can be applied to smokers.

The difference is the timing and magnitude. Accidents happen very quickly, in a single event. Often with an effect that lasts a life time, or ends it. It takes years for cigarettes to kill people. During those years of exposure the smoker can be educated and brought to an understanding of the effect to their health. Which is why safety labels are legally required on cigarette packaging.

I've never heard of a first time smoker that got killed, "just trying one out to see what it's like."

[n4mwd]

Originally Posted by KJohnson21

Yep, that justication explains one of the main reasons that the helmet laws exist. And as we all know, it can cost the taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars to care for one accident victim.

No, I don't know that. A few people here have said that, but where is the proof? Is there a study somewhere? Florida requires unhelmeted bikers to carry health insurance to cover their medical expenses in the event of a wreck. The tax payers are on the hook for nothing.

When FL dropped the helmet law, more people were killed, but there was no effect on taxpayers that I can tell.

Also, someone did post a government study showing that risk of riding a motorcycle is about the same as being a pedestrian. Should we have a helmet law for them? There is no doubt that it would save lives.

[Liber]

Originally Posted by KJohnson21

Yep, that justication explains one of the main reasons that the helmet laws exist. And as we all know, it can cost the taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars to care for one accident victim.

Are you serious? So, logically since riding is more dangerous than driving, riding should be illegal. Forget driving, we should all just use public transport. not safe enough? Ok let's mandate that no one can physically go to work and everything should be done from home over the internet.

Since investing in a start up company is more risky than investing in an established mega-corporation, we should either ban people from investing in risky businesses or AT LEAST tax them MORE for doing so . Especially, because when they lose that money, they are going to rely more on public services to make up the difference which we all pay for.

The mistakes of a few does not justify removing the rights and privelages of everyone else.

[KJohnson21]

Originally Posted by Liber

Are you serious? So, logically since riding is more dangerous than driving, riding should be illegal. Forget driving, we should all just use public transport. not safe enough? Ok let's mandate that no one can physically go to work and everything should be done from home over the internet.

Since investing in a start up company is more risky than investing in an established mega-corporation, we should either ban people from investing in risky businesses or AT LEAST tax them MORE for doing so . Especially, because when they lose that money, they are going to rely more on public services to make up the difference which we all pay for.

The mistakes of a few does not justify removing the rights and privelages of everyone else.

I didn't say that it was my justification. I was saying that it's one of the justifications being used, and is used frequently by "safety advocates" that are often trying to make everything that bothers them illegal.

[KJohnson21]

Originally Posted by n4mwd

No, I don't know that. A few people here have said that, but where is the proof? Is there a study somewhere? Florida requires unhelmeted bikers to carry health insurance to cover their medical expenses in the event of a wreck. The tax payers are on the hook for nothing.

When FL dropped the helmet law, more people were killed, but there was no effect on taxpayers that I can tell.

I'd said that, "it can cost", not, "it does cost'. Do you want proof that it has the possibility of costing the taxpayers money?

Like I said to Liber, this is the type of justification being used to get laws on the books. This is not my point of view.

Originally Posted by n4mwd

Also, someone did post a government study showing that risk of riding a motorcycle is about the same as being a pedestrian. Should we have a helmet law for them? There is no doubt that it would save lives.

I'm really curious to see that, do you have a link to it?

[Lt Tom]

Just hitting to all fields;

I have been handed ABATE brochures at dozens of shows and races over the years, and many of them do try to convince the reader that riding with a helmet is more dangerous than riding without one. Most of their arguements are based on helmets from the early '70s.

I always wear a helmet. I am generally against personal safety legislation. But the decision to wear or not wear a helmet needs to be an informed one, not based on nonsense like "a helmet will break your neck". I had a nephew ride up my driveway on a new Harley wearing one of those little salad bowl helmets. I asked him why he had bought that junk, and he said "This is the kind of helmet you're supposed to wear on this kind of bike." In the heat of the moment of buying the bike, he actually didn't stop to think that wearing a cereal bowl on your head won't save you from anything. It was not an informed decision.

I spent the first half of my riding career in California ('79-'96) and the second half in Georgia ('96 to today). Both are helmet law states. I have never seen a helmetless rider in either state. Ever. Regardless of how far out in the country, or the time of day. I know that must be hard for someone from a non-helmet law state to imagine.

No one has ever been able to show me any hard numbers on helmetless riders being a greater strain on taxpayers than helmeted ones. They are more likely to die in an accident, and dead people simply don't cost taxpayers as much. This is one of those cases where someone made something up, and if you repeat an untruth enough times, it becomes accepted as the truth.

Have Fun,
Java