Man dies of head injury during helmet law protest

[DEXSPEED]

http://news.yahoo.com/ny-motorcyclis...143217859.html

[SES2009]

I think this deserves a Darwin Award.

[Linuss]

Yet the story leaves out WHY he highsided... which is probably that a vehicle pulled out infront of him.

[Cazper]

ATGATT... just another good example of why to wear your gear... nuff said

[TXJ]

Wow. That's all I can say.

[sarapacman99]

just read this on yahoo too. that should encourage them to wear a helmet from now on.

[wtfh4xx]

If protesting helmet laws they should have worn ALL other gear except the helmet.

[money]

Oh, the irony.

Upstate NY motorcyclist dies after hitting head on pavement during protest against helmet laws

ONONDAGA, N.Y. — Police say a motorcyclist participating in a protest ride against helmet laws in upstate New York died after he flipped over the bike’s handlebars and hit his head on the pavement.

The accident happened Saturday afternoon in the town of Onondaga, in central New York near Syracuse.

State troopers tell The Post-Standard of Syracuse that 55-year-old Philip A. Contos of Parish, N.Y., was driving a 1983 Harley Davidson with a group of bikers who were protesting helmet laws by not wearing helmets.

Troopers say Contos hit his brakes and the motorcycle fishtailed. The bike spun out of control, and Contos toppled over the handlebars. He was pronounced dead at a hospital.

Troopers say Contos would have likely survived if he had been wearing a helmet.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...s=rss_national

[Snake]

That is why no matter what state I am in, helmet law or no helmet law I'm wearing my lid.

[Alex]

/threads merged

[wtfh4xx]

So dumb, just wear the f---ing lid.

[Live2ride]

I saw a teenager on a moped today and he had his helmet sitting on the top of his head with the chin strap on his forehead; it reminded me of this thread. I guess helmet law or not, its also how / where u have your helmet that counts.

This is a great example of irony.

[ally99]

A sad lesson to learn, but hopefully some of his buddies changed their view after this incident...one can always hope.

[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?

[Bosgarage57]

Hey D, I totally agree with everything you just said, but in TN, there is a helmet law. my quesion to you is, is your insurance high there becuase there is no helmet law than here where we have one? Thatd be my only sqwabble, having to pay more insurance because people dont wanna wear protection.

[Reddoak]

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?

I agree with you, right up until the child safety seat laws. How many kids get "roasted" compared to how many would die in a traffic collision without restraint? Not to mention, how many wrecks could be caused by some damn kid jumping around the car, distracting the driver from their texting or phone call? Personally, I think any adult stupid enough to not wear a helmet or seat belt shouldn't have to. But kids? They don't really have a choice.

Anyone stupid enough to forget their kid is in the car is going to get them killed one way or another...

In any case, I'm not sure where you got the idea that child safety seats don't save lives. I got the following information from the NHTSA, here: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/809762.PDF

Research on the effectiveness of child safety seats has found them to reduce
fatal injury by 71 percent for infants (less than 1 year old) and by 54 percent for
toddlers (1-4 years old) in passenger cars. For infants and toddlers in light trucks,
the corresponding reductions are 58 percent and 59 percent, respectively.
In 2003, there were 471 passenger vehicle occupant fatalities among children
under 5 years of age. Of those 471 fatalities, an estimated 167 (35 percent) were
totally unrestrained.

In 2003, an estimated 446 children
under age 5 were saved as a result of child restraint use.

Regarding heat stroke deaths in cars, facts were a little harder to find. I did find this article that states:

This horrific, yet extremely preventable tragedy happens far too often - an average of 38 deaths per year. In over half of the cases, these children are simply “forgotten” by a distracted driver when they arrive at their destination.

I'm not attacking you personally. But the facts I found indicate that you are mistaken. I'm not downplaying heat exhaustion, I'm just saying you're far more likely to lose a child in a car wreck with no safety seat than you are by forgetting about them in your car.

[xDxSx34]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/york-rider-...ry?id=13993417

A New York man died Sunday while participating in a ride with 550 other motorcyclists to protest the state's mandatory helmet law.

Police said Philip A. Contos, 55, hit his brakes and his motorcycle fishtailed. Contos was sent over the handlebars of his 1983 Harley Davidson and hit his head on the pavement.

He was pronounced dead at the hospital.

"The medical expert we discussed the case with who pronounced him deceased stated that he would've no doubt survived the accident had he been wearing a helmet," state Trooper Jack Keller told ABC News 9 in Syracuse.

The ride Sunday was organized by American Bikers Aimed Toward Education, known as ABATE, a group of motorcycling enthusiasts who lobby for motorcycle awareness and freedom.

The Onondaga chapter of ABATE has sponsored the helmet protest ride for the past 11 years every July 4 weekend.

"ABATE is very saddened and still shocked about the fact that we've lost another rider in Philip and that our hearts go out to him and our prayers as well," Syracuse chapter president Christinea Rathbun told ABC News 9.

New York is one of 20 states that requires motorcyclists to wear helmets.

Jim Hedlund of the Governors Highway Safety Association told the Associated Press that a helmet meeting federal standards reduces the chance of fatality in an accident by more than 40 percent.

Still, ABATE believes each motorcyclist should have a choice how they ride.

"Mandatory helmet laws do nothing to prevent accidents," it says on the ABATE of New York website. "The decision on when to wear a helmet while operating a motorcycle should remain with each responsible adult rider."

[Reddoak]

Already a thread for it: http://www.ninjette.org/forums/showthread.php?t=78267

[xDxSx34]

damn I did a quick search too. Close this one down then.

[Alex]

/merged

[n4mwd]

Originally Posted by Bosgarage57

Hey D, I totally agree with everything you just said, but in TN, there is a helmet law. my quesion to you is, is your insurance high there becuase there is no helmet law than here where we have one? Thatd be my only sqwabble, having to pay more insurance because people dont wanna wear protection.

Florida doesn't require insurance on motorcycles, but I have full coverage minus collision with Progressive for about $160 /yr. TN used to not require insurance on cars. When I took a job up there in the 80's, my car insurance was 1/4th what it was here. Lets face it, when the insurance companies have you over a barrel, there is no reason to give you reasonable rates.

Originally Posted by Reddoak

In any case, I'm not sure where you got the idea that child safety seats don't save lives. I got the following information from the NHTSA, here: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/809762.PDF

I'll accept your statistics, but looking at the chart, the number of child deaths are declining, but they aren't necessarily because of child safety seat laws. Other things such as safer cars with more and smarter air bags probably play a big role as well. They also show that kids with adult seat belts did better. Still there is no way to know for sure unless they looked at each accident and individually analyzed to determine if the seat would have helped or not.

But my point is not whether safety seats work, but rather should they be mandated. I'm saying that even something like a child safety seat should be a parent's choice, not the government's.

[ally99]

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?

Sure, I agree except to the point that taxpayers end up paying for much in the way of health costs and insurance from accidents involving those who exercised their "personal choices". Overall I do agree with you, however, I don't want my insurance premiums to exponentially augment due to dumb a$$e$ not protecting themselves and getting more seriously injured than they would have been had they used some common sense.
Kids? Different story. Don't agree at all with your view on child safety laws. They're there to protect the ones who know no better. Where is your source/link to back up your claim of, "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."? Kids are minors with very little say in their lives and are dependent upon their parents to do the right things for them. As a teacher, I see too many kids suffer from selfish, ignorant, or simply exhausted, overworked parents. The laws are there to protect the kids from their parents' neglect (intentional or not).
PS. Good for you having more common sense than many others by not needing a law to tell you to protect your head. If everyone had common sense, we wouldn't need laws to enforce the safety of our kids.

[n4mwd]

Originally Posted by Linuss

Yet the story leaves out WHY he highsided... which is probably that a vehicle pulled out infront of him.

Police said Philip A. Contos, 55, hit his brakes and his motorcycle fishtailed. Contos was sent over the handlebars of his 1983 Harley Davidson and hit his head on the pavement.

Notice how they blame the whole thing on the biker. I'm sure they are right in that a helmet would have saved his life, but a cager that properly yielded the right of way would have saved it too.

I have a really hard time believing that this was the biker's fault. In fact, I would be leaning toward murder by the cager because when there is a group of bikers, as loud as harley's are, its pretty hard to say that you didn't see them.

Because they didn't say, I have to assume that the cops just patted the cage driver on the back and said "Nice job" like they usually do. I found only one case where a cager actually got charged with vehicular homicide and the only reason for that is because the cager was drunk and ran over a cop before he hit the biker. There are probably more than one, but I only found one.

[ducducgooseit]

This is very ironical. Condolences to the rider's family and friends.

[n4mwd]

Originally Posted by ally99

... I don't want my insurance premiums to exponentially augment due to dumb a$$e$ not protecting themselves and getting more seriously injured than they would have been had they used some common sense.
Kids? Different story. Don't agree at all with your view on child safety laws. They're there to protect the ones who know no better. ...

I don't know if anybody mentioned this before, but FL does require bikers that ride without helmets to carry health insurance that will pay for medical care in the event of an accident. Also, guys under 21 still have to wear them regardless. So if a helmetless biker gets cut off by a cager and has his brains scattered across the interstate, its not likely to affect my taxes or insurance premiums.

Regarding the kid seats, those seats have been used by responsible parents long before it was mandated. The law simply made the price of the seats go up. Lack of common sense tends to run in families. Nobody likes to hear about a kid tragically dying, but its highly likely that a child of two irresponsible parents would grow up to be an irresponsible adult as well. Do we really need more irresponsible people driving cars?

Sorry for the above paragraph. I just couldn't figure out how to put it in a more tactful way and still say what I wanted to.

[NathanF]

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?

So, when the big accident comes, what about the firefighters, paramedics, etc.. who have to potentialy risk their lives dealing with accident victims who are more significantly more injured than would have been with proper safety gear?

What about the other party involved in an accident who may have to wait for care due to someone who chose to be more injured getting priority medical care due to triage?

What about the extra costs to the health care system, either for the uninsured, or those that are insured, but hit their limits, then have to file for bankruptcy?

What about all the people, children included, that might get the traumatic and emotionally injuring experience of seeing your head splattered on the ground as they drive by, when it could have been prevented?

What about the economic costs of closing down a highway to deal with a serious or fatal accident that might have been minor, or at least less serious enough to avoid shutting down a road?


I'm against nanny laws as much as the next guy, but you'd have to be a complete idiot to assume that helmet and seat belt laws are entirely a personal choice, with no effect on society around you.

When you enter onto PUBLIC roads, protected by PUBLIC police, firefighers, and EMTs, with fellow members of the PUBLIC flying by you at 65 mph, you surrender any and all rights and "personal choices" you may have had to being unsafe. If you don't like it, tough. Stay on private property, and get a tattoo on your face that says "Do not render medical assistance."

**I realize some of these arguments above can be used to justify the banning of motorcycles. I'm obviously not advocating for that. What I am saying is that the act of clicking a seatbelt or wearing a helmet is so unbelievably trivial that all the external factors above make the benefits of such laws mandating use vastly superior to the downside of the loss of freedom. In much the same way not having the freedom to mow your lawn at 3am in the morning is bested by the protection of having a neighbor keep you awake all night.

Banning motorcycles outright, however, crosses a line that banning lidless and beltless driving does not even approach. Life is risky, and that's no reason to sit at home afraid int he dark.

[Boywonder]

Originally Posted by n4mwd

I have a really hard time believing that this was the biker's fault. In fact, I would be leaning toward murder by the cager because when there is a group of bikers, as loud as harley's are, its pretty hard to say that you didn't see them.

Because they didn't say, I have to assume that the cops just patted the cage driver on the back and said "Nice job" like they usually do.

There is no mention of any cars in any of the news reports that I have read. It's pretty outlandish to assume 'murder by the cager' when there is no mention of one. For all we know it could have been this group of riders were all riding in tight formation (something I've seen HD riders do many times for some crazy reason) and someone inexperienced hit their brakes causing a chain reaction and the fatal accident.

Assuming a car was responsible and that the cops congratulated the cager for a successful kill is not really fair. Cagers are not always wrong and we as riders need to start taking responsibility for our own actions and the consequences.

[n4mwd]

Originally Posted by Boywonder

There is no mention of any cars in any of the news reports that I have read. It's pretty outlandish to assume 'murder by the cager' when there is no mention of one. For all we know it could have been this group of riders were all riding in tight formation (something I've seen HD riders do many times for some crazy reason) and someone inexperienced hit their brakes causing a chain reaction and the fatal accident.

Assuming a car was responsible and that the cops congratulated the cager for a successful kill is not really fair. Cagers are not always wrong and we as riders need to start taking responsibility for our own actions and the consequences.

It really didn't say it was another biker that caused it either. But the odds are that he hit a car in order to have enough force to fly over the handlebars.

For the past several months, I have been studying local biker fatalities. While bikers DO have single vehicle accidents, the fatal ones have so far always involved another vehicle and nearly all of those have been cars or trucks. I know of only one biker-biker fatality that was earlier this year in Miami. That one involved another biker that clipped the biker behind him instead of staying in formation. If I remember correctly, the biker that was killed died from being run over by subsequent bikers - not from flying over the handlebars.

Nathan: I disagree with pretty much all of your post to the point where I'm not even going to reply to it. I'll let someone else set you straight.

[Reddoak]

Originally Posted by n4mwd

It really didn't say it was another biker that caused it either. But the odds are that he hit a car in order to have enough force to fly over the handlebars.

For the past several months, I have been studying local biker fatalities. While bikers DO have single vehicle accidents, the fatal ones have so far always involved another vehicle and nearly all of those have been cars or trucks. I know of only one biker-biker fatality that was earlier this year in Miami. That one involved another biker that clipped the biker behind him instead of staying in formation. If I remember correctly, the biker that was killed died from being run over by subsequent bikers - not from flying over the handlebars.

Nathan: I disagree with pretty much all of your post to the point where I'm not even going to reply to it. I'll let someone else set you straight.

If there was a car involved, they likely would have mentioned it. They said he locked up his brakes and went over the handlebars. He probably got sideways and highsided when a tire caught. I've gone over the handlebars on a bicycle without hitting anything, it happens. My best guess (and this is just a guess) is that he was riding in a tight formation, and not paying attention to what was in front of him. He was probably looking at all the people looking at him, looked forward, saw a stopped bike (or bikes) and panicked, locking the rear brake.

The accident you discussed, where the biker died from injuries after being run over by other bike, he probably would have had a head injury if he had not had a helmet on. I bet you see a lot more accidents involving cars and trucks for two reasons:
1. There are more cars and trucks on the road than bikes.
2. Bikers tend to be more careful, because they tend to lose in traffic collisions. Even with other bikes.

Helmets don't protect you from cars, trees, or walls. They protect you from breaking your skull when you fall 5 feet off a bike onto a concrete or tarmac surface, then protect you from ripping your flesh off via roadrash. They also help from road debris like rocks, tire chunks, and as you most likely well know living in FL, insects of unusual size.

Article on CNN:

Contos hit his brakes, began fishtailing and lost control of his 1983 Harley Davidson. He shot over the handlebars, hit his head on the pavement and was taken to Upstate University Hospital in Syracuse, New York, where he was pronounced dead.

No mention of another vehicle.

[Boywonder]

D, you forgot to underline the part where I said, "For all we know".

I'm not going to respond any further to your posts because it seems safe to assume (as you seem to be doing a lot of assuming here) that you only see what you want to see and any further discussion just involves you speaking louder and therefore seemingly more self-logical.

BTW I'll set Nathan straight... by telling him he is correct in my opinion.

[ally99]

Originally Posted by n4mwd

I don't know if anybody mentioned this before, but FL does require bikers that ride without helmets to carry health insurance that will pay for medical care in the event of an accident. Also, guys under 21 still have to wear them regardless. So if a helmetless biker gets cut off by a cager and has his brains scattered across the interstate, its not likely to affect my taxes or insurance premiums.

Regarding the kid seats, those seats have been used by responsible parents long before it was mandated. The law simply made the price of the seats go up. Lack of common sense tends to run in families. Nobody likes to hear about a kid tragically dying, but its highly likely that a child of two irresponsible parents would grow up to be an irresponsible adult as well. Do we really need more irresponsible people driving cars?

Sorry for the above paragraph. I just couldn't figure out how to put it in a more tactful way and still say what I wanted to.

Point 1, legally we are ALL supposed to have vehicle insurance, but it doesn't stop the thousands who ride to work and hit people from behind daily without it. Someone has to pick up the loss to the insurance companies from those who choose not to follow "forced laws" such as that Florida insurance law you mentioned. So basically, yes, whether you know it or not, your vehicle AND health insurance premiums will increase over the years, particularly if you factor in other forced laws such as seat belt usage.
Point 2, Wow! Whew! You just took a load off my mind. See, all these years teaching elementary school, I teach kids as individuals, not by their parents or by my prediction of what kind of adult they will "likely" grow up to be! I teach very poor kids that they can reach their goals with hard work, but it would be so much easier to just tell them all they're going to grow up to be like their parents anyway, so forget all this school crap like how to read and add. Whew! You totally just made my job a million times easier. And you sound ignorant, close-minded, and stereotypical as well.

[n4mwd]

Originally Posted by Reddoak

If there was a car involved, they likely would have mentioned it. They said he locked up his brakes and went over the handlebars. He probably got sideways and highsided when a tire caught. I've gone over the handlebars on a bicycle without hitting anything, it happens. My best guess (and this is just a guess) is that he was riding in a tight formation, and not paying attention to what was in front of him. He was probably looking at all the people looking at him, looked forward, saw a stopped bike (or bikes) and panicked, locking the rear brake.

I suppose anything is possible. I think I read in one of the reports that they were in formation. However, if the riders in front stopped suddenly, because he's approaching from the rear, he can swerve and avoid them. Another bike going in the same direction isn't that hard to miss. I'm saying this under the assumption that the guy had more riding experience than I do and I know to swerve. (Its part of the MSF course.)

I have had cars pull in front of me and I chose to hit the brakes and then fishtailed because I didn't have enough front brakes. However, if brakes were the cause, I would think that too much front brake would be what would send him over the handlebars, not the rear. But the article definitely said "Fishtail" which is a sure sign of too much rear and not enough front brakes.

But if they were in formation, and a car suddenly pulls in front of them, the first biker has less time to react than the bikers that are behind him. There was also no mention of any other bikers going down or getting injured or killed. Presumably none of them were wearing helmets. Given the anti-biker tone of the article, I think they would definitely had mentioned that other bikers were injured or went down if they were.

The accident you discussed, where the biker died from injuries after being run over by other bike, he probably would have had a head injury if he had not had a helmet on. I bet you see a lot more accidents involving cars and trucks for two reasons:
1. There are more cars and trucks on the road than bikes.
2. Bikers tend to be more careful, because they tend to lose in traffic collisions. Even with other bikes.

Helmets don't protect you from cars, trees, or walls. They protect you from breaking your skull when you fall 5 feet off a bike onto a concrete or tarmac surface, then protect you from ripping your flesh off via roadrash. They also help from road debris like rocks, tire chunks, and as you most likely well know living in FL, insects of unusual size.

All of the car-bike fatalities I've studied involve a 4 or more wheeled vehicle misbehaving. It is either "bike blindness" or "biker rage". There is no way to prove which one most of the time. You probably saw the video of the redneck trying to run the bikers off the road because they passed him on a double yellow. That would be a good example of "biker rage". Whereas "biker blindness" is where they look right at you and then pull out anyway and then tell the cops they didn't see you. The bike-bike accident in miami falls into the "sh!t happens" category and is probably related to following too closely.

[NathanF]

Originally Posted by n4mwd

Nathan: I disagree with pretty much all of your post to the point where I'm not even going to reply to it. I'll let someone else set you straight.

And nothing of value was lost.

I'm glad the majority of US states are more enlightened than "I me mine" folks like yourself. I'm sure the firefighters and EMTs responsible for cleaning up after the foolishly selfish are particularly appreciative.

In the mean time, I'm going to move next door to you and exercise my right to mow my lawns at 3am in the morning. After all, this is America, and you wouldn't want to infringe on my freedom would you? Oh wait, what's that? You think lawn mowing at 3am isn't important enough to justify ruining your freedom to sleep at a reasonable time?

I gotta stop feeding the trolls!

[n4mwd]

Originally Posted by Boywonder

BTW I'll set Nathan straight... by telling him he is correct in my opinion.

Well he's not. As was mentioned before, a helmet protects the head ONLY. A helmet isn't some miracle device that prevents bikers from being injured or killed. In an accident, if a helmet would have saved a life, then not having it would have resulted in death. Dead people don't have big medical bills. In this case, the guy was dead when he got to the hospital. I can assure you that the medical bills weren't that much.

As in the case of triage, dead people don't rank very high on the triage scale. As far as the EMTs, they come out whether you have a helmet or not.

I suppose its possible that someone could have a severe head injury and survive (I haven't heard of any MC accidents like that), but those cases are rare. Can you name a specific case where a biker without a helmet had severe head injuries and survived? I can't.

Sorry but the argument that helmet laws lower insurance rates and taxes is beyond ridiculous.

Originally Posted by ally99

Point 1, legally we are ALL supposed to have vehicle insurance, ...
Point 2, ... I teach very poor kids that they can reach their goals with hard work, ...

1. MC insurance is NOT legally required in FL. My MC insurance rates are quite low IMHO. And this is a state that doesn't require helmets for those over 21. If you apply for regular health insurance here, they ask if you have certain diseases and conditions and whether or not you smoke. I've never seen one ask if I ride a motorcycle without a helmet.

2. You are the only one here that equated poor kids with irresponsible ones. Regarding irresponsibility and lack of common sense, genetics can be a b!itch sometimes.

[NathanF]

Originally Posted by n4mwd

Well he's not. As was mentioned before, a helmet protects the head ONLY. A helmet isn't some miracle device that prevents bikers from being injured or killed. In an accident, if a helmet would have saved a life, then not having it would have resulted in death. Dead people don't have big medical bills.

So, in your mind, there is either "smashed head / instant death" and "no head injury / all good" with nothing in between? In reality, there are about 100 shades of gray in between, where a helmet would have radically decreased injury and saved in extraction time (the time it takes to get you to the hospital, the road cleaned up, and traffic flowing again) without death being the only helmet-less option.

Originally Posted by n4mwd

In this case, the guy was dead when he got to the hospital. I can assure you that the medical bills weren't that much.

...because cleaning up a dead body off the highway is free. The accident investigators, DOT responders, coroners, etc.. all are volunteers. As are the potentially hundreds of people waiting in traffic for the road to be reopened.

Originally Posted by n4mwd

As in the case of triage, dead people don't rank very high on the triage scale. As far as the EMTs, they come out whether you have a helmet or not.

...because EMTs materialize out of thin air, and there are always enough to handle the number of people at an accident scene. Please.

You obviously don't have the faintest bit of experience within the medical profession, crash scene management, or the hidden costs of...well, everything. Your claims are becoming more and more ludicrous by the post, and it's clear you are unwilling and unable to logically consider the actual, real world ramifications and repercussions of riding without a lid or seat belt and getting in a crash.

[n4mwd]

Originally Posted by NathanF

You obviously don't have the faintest bit of experience within the medical profession, crash scene management, or the hidden costs of...well, everything. Your claims are becoming more and more ludicrous by the post, and it's clear you are unwilling and unable to logically consider the actual, real world ramifications and repercussions of riding without a lid or seat belt and getting in a crash.

Well dude, there's where you're wrong. I do happen to be a currently licensed medical professional. So I know what I'm talking about from the medical side.

Its sad but true that bad motorcycle accidents do occur sometimes. The ones who have the biggest bills are generally the ones that are in the hospital the longest. That is to say, the ones with broken bones, spinal cord injuries and severe road rash. None of which can be prevented with a helmet.

I want to stress that I am not advocating riding without a helmet, I am simply saying that I don't like mandated personal safety laws.

I have no clue how you have equated mowing your yard with MC accidents.

As far as cleaning up dead motorists, if there is an autopsy, the coroner does it. If not, the undertaker does. As far as removing them from the scene, they are far easier to remove than live injured people because EMT's don't have to worry about making an injury worse. And they are NOT dealt with until all the live people are treated first.

And its also very rare for a driver in a car-bike accident to have any kind of severe injuries. In most cases, its the rider that takes the brunt of it.

Again, the EMT's come whether you have a helmet or not. It costs the taxpayers no more or less. If there is no call at all, the EMT still gets paid the same. They don't work on commission.

[Cuongism]

Unhelmeted riders had worse outcomes, including higher rate of severe disability (16% vs. 10%, p < 0.001), more days in the hospital (7 vs. 6, p < 0.001) and intensive care unit (2 vs. 1, p < 0.001), incurred higher hospital charges ($44,744 vs. $31,369, p < 0.001), and had higher mortality (6% vs. 2%, p < 0.001).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19782501

[n4mwd]

Originally Posted by Cuongism

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19782501

That was an interesting summary. However, they only consider those bikers that actually made it to the hospital and they don't seem to differentiate the results from the states that had helmet laws and those that didn't. Having a helmet law doesn't mean that all riders actually wear them.

The Glasgow Coma Scale is a scale that measures a person's depth into a coma. To put things into perspective, a normal, healthy person has a score of 15 and it gets lower as they get worse. There isn't that big of a difference between 13 and 14 as both would indicate a groggy and possibly disoriented person that is still able to have a limited conversation.

If Nathan wakes me up in the middle of the night with his lawnmower, I would probably rank a 13 or 14 myself. So a rank like that does not guarantee a brain injury.

I have personally not seen an unhelmeted biker survive a severe head injury. Apparently the people who did that study have a broader scope to deal with.

[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.

[money]

Originally Posted by n4mwd

Having a helmet law doesn't mean that all riders actually wear them.

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.