A Bad Case of Irony

[ScionDriver]

A man died in a single-motorcycle accident because he wasn't wearing a helmet because he was protesting mandatory helmet laws.

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.

State police say evidence at the scene plus information from the attending medical expert indicated Contos would have survived had he been wearing a helmet as required by state law.

Asked about the apparent irony of Contos' death, the statewide president of ABATE, Thomas Alton, said, "We are riding at an increased risk and accept that. ... This individual was a seasoned rider, not a newbie. He made an adult decision. A full decision to ride in the manner he rode in."

Bareheaded motorcyclist dies in helmet protest - CNN.com

It's never funny when someone dies but when they bring it on themselves or generally do something worthy of a Darwin Award, it's hard to have sympathy. That being said I still send condolences to the family.

Still this will only help the cause of the supporters of mandatory helmet laws.

[pimento]

I'm in two minds about this.. on one hand I think anyone riding without a helmet is an idiot, but on the other it's their own personal choice. I do think that any costs involved with head injuries should be covered by the rider if there's no helmet though. Ditto for pushbikes - helmets on them is mandatory here too.

[Badsight]

helmets for pushbikes is craaazy

i dont know why people like to ride motorcycles without them tho - its simply not comfortable

[crisis]

helmets for pushbikes is craaazy

i dont know why people like to ride motorcycles without them tho - its simply not comfortable

I once saw a kid (around 19 or so) ride off a pathway into the side of a car which would have been doing around 40ks. The impact was side on so nowhere near the speed of the car. His head hit the top of the A pillar leaving a dent around 6 inches round and about an inch or so deep. He was flipped into the air and spun over the top of the car and landed behind it on the road. His head hit the road as he landed horizontally. I called the ambulance. He never got up. I was contacted a few times in later years by insurance companies and he ended up in a hospital for the severely brain injured. I would expect he never got out. The accident seemed very minor but the consequences were disastrous.

I was ambivalent towards bike helmets until then but I insist on my kids wearing them and also wear one myself out of choice. It is easy to say its “my choice” but just how sensible is a choice to risk death or severe disability because of stubbornness?

People on motorcycles similarly. I mean they must truly believe they will never come off because although that belief itself is stupid, the belief that they do not need at least that level of protection if they do is insane.

[henk4]

Three years ago I suffered a concussion (and a broken collarbone) when I fell with my bicycle. Now I am wearing a helmet all time (I already did when riding in the mountains, but there are few in Holland).

I think I am not far off the truth when suggesting that this individual was not only not wearing a crash helmet, but also drove in a T-shirt and jeans. The use of protective (leather) clothes is still not mandatory, but should be made so as the impact of crash can be greatly reduced. These people may think they have a free choice, but at the end of the day it is the society that will bear all the additional medical costs that results from this "freedom of choice' ideology.

[Savageduck]

I am a firm believer in the use of helmets.
My test of a Bell Star came in 1979 when a Mini of all cars turned in front of me while I was riding my Yamaha XS750 (triple). I tried to turn with him to lessen the impact, but still hit his fender, and then flew some 20-30ft down the sidewalk, making initial contact with my helmet and shoulder.
The result was a broken left arm, massive bruising down my left side, and no head injury. I examined the Bell Star which just looked to have a paint scuff on the side. I removed the liner and at the scruff mark the shell had been ground so thin it was like looking through translucent onion skin. I believe that helmet saved me from from serious head injury, if not my life.
The bike was turned into a ball of scrap metal.

[ScionDriver]

I think people who make a big deal about mandatory helmet laws and say that it infringes on their freedom or civil rights or whatever are missing the point. If you truly believe that the government has nothing better to do than to rain on your helmetless parade you don't understand. It's for not only your well-being but also for societies as well, as Henk points out, it will cost everyone more in medical costs to make up for one person and in this country, if you're uninsured not only are you screwed but if they save your life your costing everyone else as well.

[crisis]

I think people who make a big deal about mandatory helmet laws and say that it infringes on their freedom or civil rights or whatever are missing the point. If you truly believe that the government has nothing better to do than to rain on your helmetless parade you don't understand. It's for not only your well-being but also for societies as well, as Henk points out, it will cost everyone more in medical costs to make up for one person and in this country, if you're uninsured not only are you screwed but if they save your life your costing everyone else as well.

The freedom thing is a joke. There is no freedom when to comes to using the roads. We are limited to the type of cars, their condition, the speed, the side of the road we can use, the amount of alcohol we have drunk before we drive, our age, we are stopped by lights and signs. To cry out that having to wear a helmet infringes on some kind of perceived freedom ignores all of those.

[csl177]

Spot on, crisis. But logic escapes the majority of Daytona and Sturgis types... a speech like that in a bar would guarantee an asswhoopin'.

In the USA, these people flock to Tea Party rallies because of other twisted ideas regarding their "freedom".

[Kitdy]

I have much less of a problem with intelligent "conservatism" (or whatever you want to call it) than the drivel that Fox peddles.

I read The Economist fairly often, and even if one disagrees with their POV, at least they raise valid criticisms of current political and economic systems.

The Tea Party is not a movement that I see as having an intellectual basis - it seems to me that it is fueled by dissatisfaction and some LCD propaganda.

[csl177]

That's sort of my point, Kitdy... there is no intellectual basis to oppose helmet laws as subverting personal freedom. Ignoring valid rationale is the entire underlying motivational force that sustains a witless culture happily exploited for their economic and political support.

BTW, I subscribe to the Economist and rarely disagree with their editorial POV.

[henk4]

That's sort of my point, Kitdy... there is no intellectual basis to oppose helmet laws as subverting personal freedom. Ignoring valid rationale is the entire underlying motivational force that sustains a witless culture happily exploited for their economic and political support.

BTW, I subscribe to the Economist and rarely disagree with their editorial POV.

The intellectual basis is: "No one will tell me what I have to do, and certainly not the (federal) government"
This basis of course is greatly at odds with the cry for more severe punishment of criminals and alleged criminals.

[Kitdy]

The intellectual basis is: "No one will tell me what I have to do, and certainly not the (federal) government"
This basis of course is greatly at odds with the cry for more severe punishment of criminals and alleged criminals.

Or the fact that many drugs are illegal, or homosexuals cannot marry or...

Basically, it is a libertarian movement that is fully hypocritical -freedom is only invoked when it benefits one's own motives.

Kinda like the fact that nothing is said about the direct wealth redistribution (Socialistic? No!) that takes place in the US in the form of farm subsidies.

[crisis]

Or the fact that many drugs are illegal, or homosexuals cannot marry or...

Basically, it is a libertarian movement that is fully hypocritical -freedom is only invoked when it benefits one's own motives.

Yep, a demented kind of idealism.

[crisis]

Spot on, crisis. But logic escapes the majority of Daytona and Sturgis types... a speech like that in a bar would guarantee an asswhoopin'.

ha ha, Their freedom to not wear helmets but no one elses freedom to have a different opinion.