Aftermath of a motorcycle fatality... get low

[Efergoh]

Florida REVOKED on the HELMET LAW for motorbike riders :shock: ?!?!?!!?
That is about the silliest thing I have ever heard any state do!

It is a personal freedom thing. the right to choose. I'd never ride sans helmet either, bit I support the right of those who choose not to wear one to make the choice. Yep, deaths will rise as a result, but that is one of the consequences of our actions and decisions.

It is a shame, but the man made a choice when he got on the bike without a helmet, and he made a choice when he applied more throttle than was needed. I think speed was more of an issue than the helmet here. It doesn't much matter what you're wearing, if you hit something @ 85MPH you ain't gonna be recognizable afterwards. Humans weren't made to bounce.

Those photos would be excellent fodder for for a few bike safety campaigns. :thumbup:

 

[chops]

It is a personal freedom thing. the right to choose. I'd never ride sans helmet either, bit I support the right of those who choose not to wear one to make the choice.

Hate to bring up an old thread, but this give me a chance to say something.

Unfortunately, I live in Florida. When I heard that the helmet law was revoked, I thought that was the dumbest thing ever. Think about this for a second...

It's the LAW to wear your seatbelt. Seatbelts are in vehicles with four or more wheels, some sort of frame around you, doors, usually a roof and usually more than two airbags. If you are caught without your seatbelt on, you get a ticket!

So to recap, while driving/riding in a vehicle that offers a lot more protection than a bike, it's the LAW to where a seatbelt, but while driving/riding a bike with a helmet being the ONLY protection you have, you don't have to wear it.

What in the world is the point in all that mess?!?! :banghead:

It's stuff like this and screwing up the presidential votes that makes me embarrassed to tell people I live in Florida. Thank goodness I was at least born and lived until I was 5 in Connecticut. :er:

 

[Alpha]

The point of seatbelt and helmet laws is not to protect people from themselves, it's a liability measure for other drivers. If I hit someone, or someone hits me, and a death results, then somebody is looking at a vehicular manslaughter charge.

 

[The_Traveler]

It is a personal freedom thing. the right to choose. I'd never ride sans helmet either, bit I support the right of those who choose not to wear one to make the choice. Yep, deaths will rise as a result, but that is one of the consequences of our actions and decisions.

I have mixed feelings about this law. On one hand I support the no-helmet rule as a prime example of Darwin's Law. On the other, I think the law doesn't go far enough. It should allow, perhaps even require, that helmetless motorcyclists go at least 80 mph on any public road so that the public will be relieved of the burden of supporting their care if they don't kill themselves but only end up crippled and/or paralyzed.

So I suggest a No Helmet Law with No Speed Limit amendment.

More on this Personal freedoms thing. I am also considering a "Walking Around Nude in Public is a Personal Freedom" plank as part of my presidential campaign platform.

 

[chops]

The point of seatbelt and helmet laws is not to protect people from themselves, it's a liability measure for other drivers.

Yeah, I'm sure the whole idea behind seatbelts, helmets, airbags, ABS brakes, reinforced door beams, roll bars, etc, etc are all to protect the "other" guy from a lawsuit.

Not for one second would someone think that all of those safety devices were there to protect themselves in the case of an accident. :raisedbrow:

I'm sorry man, but what in the world were you thinking when you wrote that?! :scratch:

 

[Alpha]

You've obviously never read any political philosophy. Except for those who favor the minimalist and ultra-minimalist state models (philosophically speaking), the consensus among political philosophers regarding these sorts of free will questions (from Locke onward) is a utilitarian one. That is to say that the restriction of individual freedom is permissible when that freedom poses a greater risk to another individual than the benefits of the freedom itself. The helmet law is an oft-cited example of this in modern literature. In the law's eyes, the helmet law is one of liability, not one of protecting an individual from his or her self. This extends somewhat to seatbelt laws. But the other things that you mentioned are entirely different, as the law does make requirements of them; that is, there are no laws preventing you from driving a car without airbags, anti-lock brakes, etc.

So my question is what were you thinking? Do your homework next time.

 

[chops]

You've obviously never read any political philosophy. Except for those who favor the minimalist and ultra-minimalist state models (philosophically speaking), the consensus among political philosophers regarding these sorts of free will questions (from Locke onward) is a utilitarian one. That is to say that the restriction of individual freedom is permissible when that freedom poses a greater risk to another individual than the benefits of the freedom itself. The helmet law is an oft-cited example of this in modern literature. In the law's eyes, the helmet law is one of liability, not one of protecting an individual from his or her self. This extends somewhat to seatbelt laws. But the other things that you mentioned are entirely different, as the law does make requirements of them; that is, there are no laws preventing you from driving a car without airbags, anti-lock brakes, etc.

So my question is what were you thinking? Do your homework next time.

"You've obviously never read any political philosophy."

Darn straight I haven't, and I won't either. For one thing, politics sucks, and I would never waste my time having anything to do with it. Just my 2 cents, so don't flame me.

And I've done all the homework I need to to live me life, thank you very much.

But on with the law thing... I wasn't going on saying that you were wrong about those laws or what they mean and stand for. I guess I worded it wrong.

What I'm getting at is that ultimately, they make it a law to wear a seatbelt, or else you get ticketed. Why do they not do that for wearing a helmet? Just because bikers think helmets are unfashionable? So what?!

Of course, freedom of choice is a good thing, but some things should be mandatory, wearing a helmet being one of them, just like wearing cloths in public is obvioulsly mandatory. Heck, IIRC, in most states, if you're under 18 years of age and ride a bicycle, it's the LAW to wear a helmet. Personally, I think it should the law no matter what age you are.

Does it matter if you are 15 or 25, fall off of your bicycle and crack your skull on the street?! No, it doesn't. A cracked skull is a cracked skull no matter how old you are. Of course, that is a very loose law since I always see kids riding around with no helmets at all.

Anyway, see what I'm trying to say?

 

[Rayna']

what is the object next to the shoe?

 

[Funky]

jeezus people why cant we just get along. this is an extreamly sad thing but in reality it comes down to the riders stupidity. and err the whole darwinian law thing...well this doesnt have much to do with anything he said, just kinda throwing that out there.

 

[JimmyJaceyMom]

Well I think the photos are interesting and sad because we know what happened. I remmeber how crazy it was when the news broke in to tell us that Pittsburgh's quarterbac, Ben Roethlesburger had wrecked his bike just a few streets away from me. I was like Then when they said he wasnt wearing a helmet I was like . Life is too precious for that and it's a shame that the driver of that bike's family had to go through what they did I'm sure.

 

[Mitica100]

Well, let me start by saying that I absolutely like the 1st shot, it sends a good message. I live in Arizona, which like Florida, does not have a mandatory helmet law. I ride a Harley and I have a full face helmet. I wear it but not always. When I ride in town I usually put a doo-rag (skull cap) and goggles. I've been riding some 30+ years ago for 6 years and only last year I started riding again. To the one that said it's a fashion to not ride with a helmet on, you are only half correct. Many of us riders don't consider not wearing a helmet a statement of fashion, just that is a lot more comfortable without it. You hear, see and smell what's surrounding you. It's a certain kind of freedom, if you may. Now, all that being said, if I ride on a freeway, helmet is the only way I will go. I consider myself a safe and precautious rider (I took a riding course with motorcycle cops last year, for safety reasons) and I see many stupid riders out there, helmet or not, doing totally unsafe things on the road. Yeah, the helmet gives you a chance to survive but stupidity voids that. Just my two cents for the day...

To the first poster, congrats for the shots!

 

[CBRfanatic]

Ugh being a rider myself and have been in a pretty bad accident it sends chills down my spine... RIP to the rider

same here, lady in a suv made a left in front of me, long story short, she rolled over my chest, 6 broken ribs, and a ride in a helicopter, a ton of morphine too:thumbup:

 

[wesd]

Yes in Florida if you carry $10,000 in personal liability insurance and you're older than 18 you can ride without a helmet. I always get a chuckle when I read the quotes from our lawmakers who are VERY surprised motorcycle deaths have gone up so much since the law was changed.

Gee who would evry thought people not wearing halmets would cause motercycle accedents.
Regardless weather its legal or not you really should wear one, like I even need to say this. As a rider myself I must say not only wear a halmet wear a good one that means FULL FACE /W VISOR, and STRAP IT ON. ALso dress apropriatly t shirt, and shorts arn't proper rideing cloths, and offer no skid protection. No motercycle is safe but you really need to be useing your brain do reduce your injuries durring an accedent.
Wes

 

[wesd]

Here is the HJC halmet I own, it is a full face halmet. I dont mean to be hijacking this thread, but while we are looking at the after math of of a crash (RIP) where the rider was not wearing one I thought it would be aprpriate.

Wes

 

[newrmdmike]

the town i grew up in had tons of motorcycle fatalities. i've personally seen two. both were wearing helmets, one guys crashed through a fence and lost his head, so the helmet didn't help him.

the other guy i was friends with his brother, and he was wearing a helmet, but got clipped by a speeding car and it sent him into incoming traffic . . . again, the helmet didn't do him any good.

helmets are great on dirtbikes bikes and motocycles, but once you put other cars into the equation its your cautiousness that saves you a lot of the time. But look at motorcycle racing, tons of people would be dead if they didn't have their helmets