Man dies protesting helmet law

[Brandon237]

How ironic, and Darwin award anyone? I mean really...

Wearing your helmet on a motor-bike should be common damn sense, protesting against common sense shows an incredible lack there-of. It is sad, but he asked for, with a big red banner above his bike and an arrow to show the heavens his exposed head.

 

[Fleischer]

To everyone who has stated that seatbelts/helmets should be an individuals desicion I say nay. Firstly most western nations have socialised healthcare and the US is heading that way as well so you are socially obligated to decrease the cost of potential injuries to yourself.(I work in a hospital in the UK and hve experience in the hospital's mortuary as well)

I'm 95 percent with you, my amphibian friend. While the US hasn't implemented nationalized healthcare, my blood boils over how people not wearing helmets on motorcycles, ATVs and such affects people who currently buy the health insurance. The difference between an accident with or without a helmet is a a possible bump or concussion as opposed to HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS of medical bills. Whomever also has the same insurance as the injured person stands to have their premiums raised or their benefits reduced due to the exuberant costs of treatment. I will be heartless and say if someone suffers traumatic injuries due to not wearing a helmet on a motorcycle or such, they should be liable for the entirety of their medical fees, even if it takes them the rest of their life to pay them off.

I've worked in a high school focused upon students with strong special needs. One of the students was tooling around with some ATVs. He wasn't wearing a helmet. He got distracted while driving and slammed his head into a tree. The next cost? He spent over a year in a hospital repeatedly dying and being brought back to life, weeks in a coma and oodles of time relearning how to eat, walk, dress himself, etc. Such a fucking waste of a young boys life - years of his youth that he will never get back. :\

 

[Fleischer]

Even in the US emergency rooms cannot turn away retards...

Please don't use the term "retard" as an insult.

Even in the US emergency rooms cannot turn away retards that have done their utmost best to naturally de-select themselves from the gene pool by not wearing helmets, seat belts and whatever other safety paraphernalia they should have been using. The hospital has to care for these goons until they are fit enough to be discharged. Now I could be wrong there. Maybe the US health system will wheel a cripple out onto the curb, dump them there on the pavement before wheeling the empty wheelchair back inside the hospital. I don't know.

By law, hospitals are required to stabilize people with severe or traumatic injuries; however under most circumstances I am aware of, the hospital can, and will, deny follow up care and therapy to patients who are unable to pay. They just might send a person out in a wheelchair. The beauty of the system is that person will probably end up coming back to the hospital numerous times for "emergency medical treatment," costing more money in the long run than treating the person. It's a lot of facepalmery and multitudes of people getting boned.

What I do know is that considering the potential for both brain and spinal damage in these cases, if they can't pay for the care in advance then chances are nobody is going to get paid for the care that these guys receive. If anyone picks up the tab it will probably be the government, so that would mean that if you advocate the freedom for people to choose to wear helmets or seat belts then your paying tax dollars so a total imbecile has the freedom to potentially cause themselves grievous injuries.

Actually, small hospitals are the ones who directly pick up the tab if the person is not medically insured. Local and state government *may* be required to help pay the tab, but that doesn't always happen. The effect has been many small hospitals closing down, or being bought by large hospital administration corporations.

 

[Fleischer]

Also, no, I don't care if you're retarded...

Stop using retard as an insult. kthanksbai

 

[blankedboy]

Welp, that's stupid. Nothing wrong with helmet laws, if anything this just helps enforce them more. Go protest something that'll actually help, like gay rights in countries like Singapore or Ethiopia.

 

[Fasckira]

I think wearing helmets should be optional _but_ people should still wear them. Its common sense to wear them to keep your head safe but I dislike rules that enforce things like this. As someone said above, if you have an accident and you're not wearing a helmet then its your own fault and you're not hurting anyone else.

Things like this should remain a judgement call on behalf of the biker. In this instance its just worked out a tad ironic that someone who supports this idea so strongly has died like this.

 

[Soxafloppin]

God dam, if the Crash didn't kill him, the Irony would have finished him off.

 

[mirasiel]

It should be optional by law to wear the helmet and mandatory by common bloody sense, the same as wearing your leathers.

Seatbelt laws are slightly different as you *can* be a hazard to others if you're not buckled in and crash.

Of course if you do come off your ride whilst not wearing a helmet I imagine that the US healthcare/insurance business will ass fuck you hard.

 

[C95J]

Well I know the guy died but, I just feel no sympathy for him at all.

 

[razer17]

Reminds me of how the owner Segway died on a Segway. It's tragic, but ironic, so it all balances out.

The owner of Segway is still alive and kicking at 60 years old...

This guy was an idiot. Helmets and seatbelts are mandatory for a reason. And they clearly do need to be mandatory because of idiots like this.

I support his cause. Unlike DWI laws, the only person that you are endangering by not wearing a helmet while riding a motorcycle is yourself.

It's not just about the person riding the bike though, is it? Wearing a helmet also protects those who might have an accident with the motorcycle rider. If you have a collision, whether or not it's your fault, and you happen to kill that rider because he didn't have protective gear, your going to feel guilty, or at the very least some trauma. So helmets don't just protect the wearer.

 

[William MacKay]

and this is why doctors call them donorcycles.

 

[socialmenace42]

Well, it's certainly Darwin award material, though I do feel for the guy. Sure, it's not a death i would wish upon anyone, but it just illustrated perfectly why you should wear a helmet. As a motorcyclist, it's just about the only protection you have in most cases.

 

[Biodeamon]

more proof that death has a sadistic sense of humor.

irrrrrooonnny.

 

[Flutterguy]

This is simply natural selection at work.

 

[ImprovizoR]

Oh the irony. I LOVE IT!

 

[SouthpawFencer]

It's not just about the person riding the bike though, is it? Wearing a helmet also protects those who might have an accident with the motorcycle rider. If you have a collision, whether or not it's your fault, and you happen to kill that rider because he didn't have protective gear, your going to feel guilty, or at the very least some trauma. So helmets don't just protect the wearer.

Using that train of logic, you could justify outlawing motorcycles entirely, because they're statistically more likely to result in a fatality to the person riding one if there's a collision,no matter who's at fault. Hell, you could outlaw pedestrians crossing any street that didn't feature an elevated walkway with that logic. You could also outlaw any remotely dangerous hobby on the grounds of the trauma it would cause your friends and family if said hobby were to kill you.

How about we just make the ambulance crew give the driver a cut from the cyclist's wallet if the driver isn't at fault?

 

[N3vans]

Even as as biker myself I've got sympathy for the man's family and friends but not so much for him. It's always horrid when someone gets killed through biking but protesting against helmets is just plain idiotic. In the UK wearing a helmet is mandatory and I've got absolutely no problem with that at all, they serve a very important purpose as proved by this. It's daft how some Americans see any attempt to make something mandatory by law a clearly massive breach of their human rights and the government abusing power etc etc. Sometimes laws are put in place to genuinely benefit the people (massive shock, I know).

 

[Togs]

Its either choice of being literally dead or a paraplegic (i.e. effectively dead).
Not exactly a diffcult choice.