aaaaand this is why i wear a helmet.

black sunshine · Post by **black sunshine** » Mon Jul 04, 2011 3:33 pm

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/0 ... 89427.html

throw that in your song, Alanis . . .

pugbuddy · Post by **pugbuddy** » Mon Jul 04, 2011 4:11 pm

As one of my friend's commented: "And the gene pool wins again".

Never like to see someone die though.

chub1965 · Post by **chub1965** » Mon Jul 04, 2011 5:20 pm

sad he had to die,hopefully other protest riders will take it as a wake up call.

Raiderfn31 · Post by **Raiderfn31** » Mon Jul 04, 2011 9:30 pm

And the band played on

gr8dog · Post by **gr8dog** » Tue Jul 05, 2011 2:05 am

Irony! Sad story though.

jasondavis48108 · Post by **jasondavis48108** » Tue Jul 05, 2011 3:23 am

I have to say that the last part of this story really irritated me. "he probably would have survived if he was wearing his helmet" yeah, you flip over your handle bars and land on your head at 55mph, I don't want to survive that, not particularly found of the puff and blow wheelchairs.

pugbuddy · Post by **pugbuddy** » Tue Jul 05, 2011 3:43 am

jasondavis48108 wrote:I have to say that the last part of this story really irritated me. "he probably would have survived if he was wearing his helmet" yeah, you flip over your handle bars and land on your head at 55mph, I don't want to survive that, not particularly found of the puff and blow wheelchairs.

I always find comments such as "I don't want to survive that" to be ridiculous. First, there's no guarantee that the accident would have left him wheelchair bound. We tend to think that it result in something horrible given the speed and other circumstances, but people have suffered through worse things and come out better than ok.

Second, while I understand that we all dislike the idea of being limited or injured in any way, we all naturally want to survive. Ideally without limitation, but people who do get injured typically learn how to continue on regardless. To actually be "irritated" that it was pointed out in the story that he would have survived if he had the sense to take one of the most basic precautions is just bizarre IMHO.

jasondavis48108 · Post by **jasondavis48108** » Tue Jul 05, 2011 12:27 pm

pugbuddy wrote:
jasondavis48108 wrote:I have to say that the last part of this story really irritated me. "he probably would have survived if he was wearing his helmet" yeah, you flip over your handle bars and land on your head at 55mph, I don't want to survive that, not particularly found of the puff and blow wheelchairs.
I always find comments such as "I don't want to survive that" to be ridiculous. First, there's no guarantee that the accident would have left him wheelchair bound. We tend to think that it result in something horrible given the speed and other circumstances, but people have suffered through worse things and come out better than ok.

Second, while I understand that we all dislike the idea of being limited or injured in any way, we all naturally want to survive. Ideally without limitation, but people who do get injured typically learn how to continue on regardless. To actually be "irritated" that it was pointed out in the story that he would have survived if he had the sense to take one of the most basic precautions is just bizarre IMHO.

Well this is certainly not the first time that someone has found what I say bizarre. I where a FF helmet because I tend to ride at slower speeds and a helmet does wonderful things for you at those speeds. I have also know a few bikers who where wearing helmets who got totally f*cked while wearing a helmet and would have and should have died. Instead they had their minds, lives, and any sense of independence taken from them. They can't ride anymore, nor can they hold an adult conversation. Now their wives get to take care of a toddler for the rest of their lives and society gets to flip the bill for their medical expenses.

All I'm say'n is that it irritates me that folks try to pretend that helmets make us death-proof from all but the most absolutely worse high speed accidents and that's just not the case. What helmets do well is keeping us fairly safe at low speeds and saving our noodle if we slide along the road and our heads are bouncing on the pavement. Doing a nose dive over your handlebars onto pavement with a helmet would probably end in a broken neck and brain damage and I would not want to live like that myself. Maybe it's bizarre but imho just don't believe in the need to preserve life at all costs.

KRUSTYburger · Post by **KRUSTYburger** » Tue Jul 05, 2011 12:32 pm

Goes to show you that people will do what they want, regardless of what's good for them.

Howardr · Post by **Howardr** » Tue Jul 05, 2011 2:10 pm

Quite a few of my biker friends, that ride sans helmet, cite the reason as some "study" (which I have never seen) done quite few years ago, that indicated the people who wear helmets are much more likely to end up a quadriplegic. Presumably, the person would likely have died, otherwise. Most of these guys say "I'd rather be dead than a quad."

This line of reasoning makes a certain degree of sense, initially. It would make even more sense if death and "quad" were the only two options. However, there are also the slower speed options to consider. Those where, without a helmet, you die and with a helmet you are completely injured.

I just thought I would point out that some folks who choose to ride without a helmet, actually have a "reason" for doing so. It's not just the coolness factor or whatever.

Just sayin'

Howard

ps - I do fide it a little weird that in states like mine, the state doesn't require you to wear a helmet, but they DO require seat belts.

CWO4GUNNER · Post by **CWO4GUNNER** » Tue Jul 05, 2011 2:48 pm

So many lives are lost each year with vehicles accidents in the forefront, followed by irresponsible eating habits leading to obesity disease, and then there gun accidents. Until the governments finally intervenes and goes house to house to control the lives of these constitutionalists fanatics, none of us will be truly safe and under control. Thank goodness the green moment will finally do away with these wasteful practices. We all need to fall in line with one goal and one mindset!

TVB · Post by **TVB** » Tue Jul 05, 2011 4:01 pm

Howardr wrote:ps - I do fide it a little weird that in states like mine, the state doesn't require you to wear a helmet, but they DO require seat belts.

Without taking a position on either question, the inconsistency of such situations is what baffles me. It all comes down to politics, not principles or logic.

desmolicious · Post by **desmolicious** » Tue Jul 05, 2011 4:01 pm

jasondavis48108 wrote:[Doing a nose dive over your handlebars onto pavement with a helmet would probably end in a broken neck and brain damage and I would not want to live like that myself. Maybe it's bizarre but imho just don't believe in the need to preserve life at all costs.

I did that. And here I am.

The numbers of people more harmed by wearing a helmet compared to those saved are infinitesimally small.

Yet that one instance when a helmet did not help is forever chosen...

Here's a clue. Professional riders (racers or moto cops) all wear helmets. Whether on dirt or road.
And they crash a lot. Some land directly on their heads.
Funny how they never mention how helmets can injure them...

TVB · Post by **TVB** » Tue Jul 05, 2011 4:51 pm

jasondavis48108 wrote:Maybe it's bizarre but imho just don't believe in the need to preserve life at all costs.

I don't find that bizarre at all. There are circumstances in which I would prefer not to be kept alive. But I'm not sure that rigging one's level of risk to come out either acceptably OK or dead - but nowhere in between - is an effective approach.

A better plan is to have documents written up expressing your wishes in the event you are unable to make decisions for yourself, and authorizing your family (or whomever you designate) to do whatever you would want them to do (or to use their best judgment if it isn't spelled out), to the extent that the law allows them to. And note: this isn't just for saying "pull the plug on me"; it's also for saying "keep me comfortable, even if it shortens my life", or specifying what kind of treatments you approve of, or even "do whatever you can to keep me alive" if that's your wish.

The terms for these are "Advance Health Care Directive" and "Durable Power of Attorney". You don't need to pay a lawyer to prepare them for you, but it's probably a good idea to talk with one to make sure they're done right. Start by talking with your doctor if you're not sure how to go about it. The brain trauma experienced by my boyfriend many years ago (aneurysm, not accident-related), and his subsequent incapacitation made the need for these (which he didn't have) very clear to me.

basil46 · Post by **basil46** » Tue Jul 05, 2011 4:59 pm

I read that article yesterday. what a ironic story.
I wear my helmet no matter what. Leave egosim at home.

ksalen · Post by **ksalen** » Tue Jul 05, 2011 5:23 pm

So many assumptions.

Most importantly to a pedant like me, to my knowledge not one of Alannis' examples was in fact irony. This bothers me to this day.

But on point, someone above assumed the the rider was riding at 55 MPH. The "55" in the article referred to his age, not his speed. We don't know how fast he was traveling.

Next, Jason said he might not want to survive a 55-MPH crash, which remark likely assumed that the speed of the crash corresponds exactly to the resulting severity of the injury. With respect to head injuries, it doesn't *, which is the scary thing about cycle/bike accidents: the severity of the resulting injuries (except road rash, or if you slide into an object) corresponds only to your height above the ground, which is relatively independent of speed. Thus, a 5-MPH crash to a helmetless rider can be as severe as a 40-MPH crash. Yes, in this case the rider went "over the handlebar". But that only means the rider had to be 3-4 feet above the ground when he left his seat.

Assuming the quote "Troopers say Contos would have likely survived if he had been wearing a helmet" was an offhand, uninformed remark? Maybe the Trooper has seen enough accidents to get a feel for when a motorcyclist should be in an ambulance versus a hearse, or maybe the paramedic saw a bashed-in skull and made that determination. Even the libertarian in me tends to trust the Trooper on this one.

All in all, very sad. Definitely not a bad time to bring up the must-read article at:

http://www.motorcyclistonline.com/gearb ... index.html

* "In spite of what one might assume, the speed at which an accident starts does not necessarily correlate to the impact the head—or helmet—will have to absorb in a crash. That is, according to the Hurt Report and the similar Thailand study, going faster when you fall off does not typically result in your helmet taking a harder hit.

How can this be? Because the vast majority of head impacts occur when the rider falls off his bike and simply hits his head on the flat road surface. The biggest impact in a given crash will typically happen on that first contact, and the energy is proportional to the height from which the rider falls—not his forward speed at the time. A big highside may give a rider some extra altitude, but rarely higher than 8 feet. A high-speed crash may involve a lot of sliding along the ground, but this is not particularly challenging to a helmeted head because all modern full-face helmets do an excellent job of protecting you from abrasion."

Read more: http://www.motorcyclistonline.com/gearb ... z1RFfLrbKo

Post by **ericalm** » Tue Jul 05, 2011 6:02 pm

Most of what's called irony these days is not actually irony.

This one resembles irony but it's not. I even called it wrong at first but my English major wife (and Gawker) set me straight.

irony: (2) a state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects and is often amusing as a result

The outcome here was certainly not contrary to what was expected. This is more along the lines of poetic justice (the fact of experiencing a fitting or deserved retribution for one's actions), though that implies he was asking for it.

So , ironic: Guy is riding in a "helmets save lives" rally. He crashes, dies from head injury.

Not ironic: what happened to this guy, mustaches and wearing clothes because you know they're ugly, most of what people call "irony."

jasondavis48108 · Post by **jasondavis48108** » Tue Jul 05, 2011 6:03 pm

desmolicious wrote:
jasondavis48108 wrote:[Doing a nose dive over your handlebars onto pavement with a helmet would probably end in a broken neck and brain damage and I would not want to live like that myself. Maybe it's bizarre but imho just don't believe in the need to preserve life at all costs.
I did that. And here I am.

The numbers of people more harmed by wearing a helmet compared to those saved are infinitesimally small.

Yet that one instance when a helmet did not help is forever chosen...

Here's a clue. Professional riders (racers or moto cops) all wear helmets. Whether on dirt or road.
And they crash a lot. Some land directly on their heads.
Funny how they never mention how helmets can injure them...

I completely agree with you hence my personal choice to ride ATGATT. I am simply sympathetic to those who choose to not wear all the gear including the helmet. I felt like folks calling a fellow riders death ironic to be disrespectful and so felt the need to voice a different point of view. This was a fellow rider who made a choice about gear and died in a wreck.It is sad, not ironic.

I was also simply drawing attention to the fact that I often hear the line "he would have lived if he had been wearing a helmet", and I felt the need to express the idea that living means different things to different folks. If I can't move my arms or legs, that's not living. I'm not saying that every head first landing ends in either death or total paralysis and brain damage but seeing as no state has a euthanasia law that I'm aware of I can see why some folks choose not to wear a helmet. I myself will continue to side with the stats and wear my full face.

ksalen · Post by **ksalen** » Tue Jul 05, 2011 6:09 pm

ericalm wrote: So , ironic: Guy is riding in a "helmets save lives" rally. He crashes, dies from head injury...

...caused by his helmet.

Skootz Kabootz · Post by **Skootz Kabootz** » Tue Jul 05, 2011 6:13 pm

ksalen wrote:
ericalm wrote: So , ironic: Guy is riding in a "helmets save lives" rally. He crashes, dies from head injury...
...caused by his helmet.

No... caused by his choice not to wear a helmet in the protest ride.

Post by **ericalm** » Tue Jul 05, 2011 6:16 pm

I always hate to hear about a rider fatality.

At the same time, when the fatality is due to their own decisions, I cannot muster any sympathy for the rider (their family, others involved, maybe). As I've posted elsewhere in the forum regarding this and similar incidents: We assume the risks of riding and the decisions that come with them. As such we have to accept the consequences of our decisions.

ksalen wrote:
ericalm wrote: So , ironic: Guy is riding in a "helmets save lives" rally. He crashes, dies from head injury...
...caused by his helmet.

Right!

ksalen · Post by **ksalen** » Tue Jul 05, 2011 6:18 pm

Skootz Kabootz wrote:
ksalen wrote:
ericalm wrote: So , ironic: Guy is riding in a "helmets save lives" rally. He crashes, dies from head injury...
...caused by his helmet.
No... caused by his choice not to wear a helmet in the protest ride.

No, that would pretty much be the opposite of irony, since it would be pretty much what one would expect, given the premise that "helmets save lives".

Post by **ericalm** » Tue Jul 05, 2011 6:19 pm

Skootz Kabootz wrote:
ksalen wrote:
ericalm wrote: So , ironic: Guy is riding in a "helmets save lives" rally. He crashes, dies from head injury...
...caused by his helmet.
No... caused by his choice not to wear a helmet in the protest ride.

Nope. The death would still be the expected outcome, not contrary to it.

Are you responding and not reading everything you're responding to again?

Skootz Kabootz · Post by **Skootz Kabootz** » Tue Jul 05, 2011 6:20 pm

ericalm wrote:
Skootz Kabootz wrote:
ksalen wrote: ...caused by his helmet.
No... caused by his choice not to wear a helmet in the protest ride.
Nope. The death would still be the expected outcome, not contrary to it.

Are you responding and not reading everything you're responding to again?

I just read the article. Said he was not wearing a helmet.

Post by **ericalm** » Tue Jul 05, 2011 6:21 pm

Skootz Kabootz wrote:
ericalm wrote:
Skootz Kabootz wrote: No... caused by his choice not to wear a helmet in the protest ride.
Nope. The death would still be the expected outcome, not contrary to it.

Are you responding and not reading everything you're responding to again?
I just read the article. Said he was not wearing a helmet.

Read the THREAD. I was giving an example of what would be ironic because what happened to this guy in the story is not irony.

jasondavis48108 · Post by **jasondavis48108** » Tue Jul 05, 2011 6:23 pm

ericalm wrote:I always hate to hear about a rider fatality.

At the same time, when the fatality is due to their own decisions, I cannot muster any sympathy for the rider (their family, others involved, maybe). As I've posted elsewhere in the forum regarding this and similar incidents: We assume the risks of riding and the decisions that come with them. As such we have to accept the consequences of our decisions.

ksalen wrote:
ericalm wrote: So , ironic: Guy is riding in a "helmets save lives" rally. He crashes, dies from head injury...
...caused by his helmet.
Right!

then it seems to me that all rider fatalities are unworthy of sympathy. At least the ones that could have been prevented if they had been driving a car with airbags while wearing their seat belts. I've certainly been told before that riding is dangerous and stupid and that if I get hurt or killed I'll have no one to blame but myself. There's truth in that for sure, no matter what gear we choose to wear, riding is more dangerous than driving. That being said I'll always have sympathy for a rider who dies. If for nothing else then the fact that they can no longer ride, that makes me sad just thinking about it.

Skootz Kabootz · Post by **Skootz Kabootz** » Tue Jul 05, 2011 6:30 pm

ericalm wrote:
Skootz Kabootz wrote:
ericalm wrote: Nope. The death would still be the expected outcome, not contrary to it.

Are you responding and not reading everything you're responding to again?
I just read the article. Said he was not wearing a helmet.
Read the THREAD. I was giving an example of what would be ironic because what happened to this guy in the story is not irony.

Oh, uh, ya. I blame it on weak coffee. OK, move along. Nothing to see here... how ironic.

BuddyRaton · Post by **BuddyRaton** » Tue Jul 05, 2011 6:40 pm

WHY RED IS RED!

Syd · Post by **Syd** » Tue Jul 05, 2011 7:19 pm

This is awesome! A grammar war! :Yeah!:

ksalen · Post by **ksalen** » Tue Jul 05, 2011 7:22 pm

No.
A usage war.

Post by **ericalm** » Tue Jul 05, 2011 8:02 pm

ksalen wrote:No.
A usage war.

Whatever. It's better than yet another helmet use or gear debate.

It's very difficult to change minds about gear use. What's most effective: hard facts and personal experience. Everything else is mostly just spinning our individual and collective wheels. We all do it; we'll all keep doing it. So it goes.

jasondavis48108 · Post by **jasondavis48108** » Tue Jul 05, 2011 8:30 pm

ericalm wrote:
ksalen wrote:No.
A usage war.
Whatever. It's better than yet another helmet use or gear debate.

so so true

so how do you pronounce tomato?

devojones · Post by **devojones** » Tue Jul 05, 2011 8:52 pm

jasondavis48108 wrote:
ericalm wrote:
ksalen wrote:No.
A usage war.
Whatever. It's better than yet another helmet use or gear debate.

so so true

so how do you pronounce tomato?

potato

jasondavis48108 · Post by **jasondavis48108** » Tue Jul 05, 2011 9:17 pm

devojones wrote:
jasondavis48108 wrote:
ericalm wrote: Whatever. It's better than yet another helmet use or gear debate.

so so true

so how do you pronounce tomato?
potato

So the p is silent and the o makes that ta sound right

Dooglas · Post by **Dooglas** » Tue Jul 05, 2011 9:36 pm

Perhaps we should nominate Mr. Contos for a Darwin Award. I'd say he has a very good chance of winning.

http://www.darwinawards.com/

BuddyRaton · Post by **BuddyRaton** » Tue Jul 05, 2011 9:40 pm

ericalm wrote:
ksalen wrote:No.
A usage war.
Whatever. It's better than yet another helmet use or gear debate.

It's very difficult to change minds about gear use. What's most effective: hard facts and personal experience. Everything else is mostly just spinning our individual and collective wheels. We all do it; we'll all keep doing it. So it goes.

I know many will disagree with my gear usage but I truly don't care what others think....how I spin my wheels is my business. I don't need self appointed gear police telling me what I can and can not do!

My choice of gear depends on various factors...weather and road conditions, riding partners, am I going to be racing someone, am I just out for a casual ride.

Some advocate all the gear all the time...however I have found this to be impractical. Sometimes I only use part of all the gear and I rarely...if ever use all the gear at any given moment.

As I said...I don't care what anyone else does...BUT I AM going to tell you what is most effective for me, some hard facts I have learend and my personal experience.

First of off....All The Gear All The Time is a concept that I just can not comprehend, think about it...there is just no possible rational argument for ATGATT! Why not? Read on and you will understand

I generally start out in first gear...this I follow with a pass through neutral to second followed by a shift to third and...only when conditions allow go into fourth.

As mentioned above I don't believe in ATGATT..the closest I have come is hitting that strange spot between second and third that is kinda..but not really...like a really bad second neutral...more like two of the gear with none of the power (TOTGWNOTP)

I have been known to practice unconventional gear usage.

I have reved the malossi 166 kit very high, leaned WAY over the headset and launched in second gear when smoking someone off the line thus preventing spinning my wheels however risking the wheelie, which if properly controlled reduces friction and increases acceleration. Many may consider this improper gear usage but it is my business and no one elses!

At times my gear usage walks the edge of abuse.

I have also thrown gear usage over the edge by cruising in fourth gear...pulling the clutch...increasing the PRMs to stupid levels...going DOWN a gear to third (imagine that!) and dumping the clutch thus lifting the front wheel at speed.

I believe that installing a custom extended cruciform to engage all the gear all the time (ATGATT) would only lead to bad things and make a really loud...however short lived...explosion of parts thust rendering all the gear all over the place (ATGAOTP). A situation I choose not to engage in (get it.....gear....engage...nevermind...) no matter what the gear police insist on.

Ride safe...have fun and choose your gear wisely!

Post by **ericalm** » Tue Jul 05, 2011 9:45 pm

No one's telling anyone what to wear. I'm just saying that it's a well-worn topic on the forums and usually a rather pointless one. We're discussing this in three different threads on MB now. Everyone chimes in with, "well, I do this," declaring their position and what they do. But those statements do little to sway or influence others the way that personal experience or less heavy-handed approaches will.

jasondavis48108 · Post by **jasondavis48108** » Tue Jul 05, 2011 9:48 pm

BuddyRaton wrote:
ericalm wrote:
ksalen wrote:No.
A usage war.
Whatever. It's better than yet another helmet use or gear debate.

It's very difficult to change minds about gear use. What's most effective: hard facts and personal experience. Everything else is mostly just spinning our individual and collective wheels. We all do it; we'll all keep doing it. So it goes.
I know many will disagree with my gear usage but I truly don't care what others think....how I spin my wheels is my business. I don't need self appointed gear police telling me what I can and can not do!

My choice of gear depends on various factors...weather and road conditions, riding partners, am I going to be racing someone, am I just out for a casual ride.

Some advocate all the gear all the time...however I have found this to be impractical. Sometimes I only use part of all the gear and I rarely...if ever use all the gear at any given moment.

As I said...I don't care what anyone else does...BUT I AM going to tell you what is most effective for me, some hard facts I have learend and my personal experience.

First of off....All The Gear All The Time is a concept that I just can not comprehend, think about it...there is just no possible rational argument for ATGATT! Why not? Read on and you will understand

I generally start out in first gear...this I follow with a pass through neutral to second followed by a shift to third and...only when conditions allow go into fourth.

As mentioned above I don't believe in ATGATT..the closest I have come is hitting that strange spot between second and third that is kinda..but not really...like a really bad second neutral...more like two of the gear with none of the power (TOTGWNOTP)

I have been known to practice unconventional gear usage.

I have reved the malossi 166 kit very high, leaned WAY over the headset and launched in second gear when smoking someone off the line thus preventing spinning my wheels however risking the wheelie, which if properly controlled reduces friction and increases acceleration. Many may consider this improper gear usage but it is my business and no one elses!

At times my gear usage walks the edge of abuse.

I have also thrown gear usage over the edge by cruising in fourth gear...pulling the clutch...increasing the PRMs to stupid levels...going DOWN a gear to third (imagine that!) and dumping the clutch thus lifting the front wheel at speed.

I believe that installing a custom extended cruciform to engage all the gear all the time (ATGATT) would only lead to bad things and make a really loud...however short lived...explosion of parts thust rendering all the gear all over the place (ATGAOTP). A situation I choose not to engage in (get it.....gear....engage...nevermind...) no matter what the gear police insist on.

Ride safe...have fun and choose your gear wisely!

that was f*ck'n awesome

izark47 · Post by **izark47** » Tue Jul 05, 2011 9:49 pm

Personally I wear a helmet because it makes me feel safer. However, I feel the government has no responsibility, nor right to tell me i have to wear one, Same thing for the seat belt laws, car and bike inspections. it is just a way for the government to extract more money from us than we give in taxes, and we as people need to stop the robbery or our rights.

boredgamelad · Post by **boredgamelad** » Tue Jul 05, 2011 9:51 pm

Well done, BuddyRaton. That was fantastic.

bluebuddygirl · Post by **bluebuddygirl** » Tue Jul 05, 2011 10:29 pm

I saw this article a few days back and almost posted it, but stopped myself exactly because of the comments that I knew would come. I think this is sad and a wake up call that horrible accidents can happen anytime, and that is why you need to consider what you wear and how you prepare.

This guy was trying to prove a point, and in doing so I am sure that he was being cautious, and yet this still happened. It is tragic and sad, and I see no humor in it.

Be careful out there people. You are all valuable, ATGATT or NOT.

TVB · Post by **TVB** » Tue Jul 05, 2011 10:55 pm

ericalm wrote:Most of what's called irony these days is not actually irony.

Is that ironic?

I'm pretty pedantic about the proper meaning of words, but... the ship has sailed on "irony"; it has more than one meaning these days.

charlie55 · Post by **charlie55** » Tue Jul 05, 2011 11:18 pm

TVB wrote:
ericalm wrote:Most of what's called irony these days is not actually irony.
Is that ironic?

I'm pretty pedantic about the proper meaning of words, but... the ship has sailed on "irony"; it has more than one meaning these days.

True. I use it as an adjective, as in "steel is more irony than copper".

Additionally, "ironic" serves as a noun to provide a name for the crud that accumulates in a steam iron when you don't use distilled water.

JHScoot · Post by **JHScoot** » Tue Jul 05, 2011 11:26 pm

i think it is smart to wear a helmet and more dangerous then not to leave it at home as you could injure your head if you fall on it

i hope its ok to say that

Tenchi · Post by **Tenchi** » Wed Jul 06, 2011 12:31 am

Flew off the cycle, slid 150 feet over gravel, managed to take a quarter-sized chunk out of the back of my full-faced helmet. Lived to tell about it. Rode home. End of discussion. Ride how you like, it's your life. But you might want to consider the alternative. I'm 56 in a week. Would have missed those last eleven years with my wife and kids. Not lecturing....just glad things worked out the way they did. Got one through college and out on her own...the boy, well, we're working on it. Glad my wife didn't have to deal with it without me.

Syd · Post by **Syd** » Wed Jul 06, 2011 7:15 am

charlie55 wrote:steel is more irony than copper...

jprestonian · Post by **jprestonian** » Wed Jul 06, 2011 9:07 am

izark47 wrote:Personally I wear a helmet because it makes me feel safer. However, I feel the government has no responsibility, nor right to tell me i have to wear one, Same thing for the seat belt laws, car and bike inspections. it is just a way for the government to extract more money from us than we give in taxes, and we as people need to stop the robbery or our rights.

OFFS. Go Galt already -- I'll take up a collection for your one-way ticket to Somalia.
.

jasondavis48108 · Post by **jasondavis48108** » Wed Jul 06, 2011 4:50 pm

jprestonian wrote:
izark47 wrote:Personally I wear a helmet because it makes me feel safer. However, I feel the government has no responsibility, nor right to tell me i have to wear one, Same thing for the seat belt laws, car and bike inspections. it is just a way for the government to extract more money from us than we give in taxes, and we as people need to stop the robbery or our rights.
OFFS. Go Galt already -- I'll take up a collection for your one-way ticket to Somalia.
.

I think there is room in the middle between the government making laws based on the fact that politicians are in bed with the insurance companies and Somalian pirate law.

beastmaster · Post by **beastmaster** » Thu Jul 07, 2011 9:47 am

Top Gear Vietnam Special, great episode , even better helmets

BootScootin'FireFighter · Thu Jul 07, 2011 10:49 pm

pugbuddy wrote:
jasondavis48108 wrote:I have to say that the last part of this story really irritated me. "he probably would have survived if he was wearing his helmet" yeah, you flip over your handle bars and land on your head at 55mph, I don't want to survive that, not particularly found of the puff and blow wheelchairs.
I always find comments such as "I don't want to survive that" to be ridiculous. First, there's no guarantee that the accident would have left him wheelchair bound. We tend to think that it result in something horrible given the speed and other circumstances, but people have suffered through worse things and come out better than ok.

Second, while I understand that we all dislike the idea of being limited or injured in any way, we all naturally want to survive. Ideally without limitation, but people who do get injured typically learn how to continue on regardless. To actually be "irritated" that it was pointed out in the story that he would have survived if he had the sense to take one of the most basic precautions is just bizarre IMHO.

As an example, a friend of mine used to ride sport bikes like a lunatic. He overshot a curve at almost 95mph, ended up in the woods. Fractured both tib-fibs, a humerus, a sternum, several ribs and at least 1 collar bone. Road rash scars all over his arms and legs. Nobody saw his wreck, but a bystander found skidmarks and pieces of bike over an hour later and called it in. Airlifted to the trauma center, several days in ICU, the whole 9. He was 19 years old, and now he's fully recovered, a stellar athlete, and a career firefighter. BTW, he was wearing shorts, a t-shirt, sneakers, and a FF helmet.

Modern Buddy

aaaaand this is why i wear a helmet.

aaaaand this is why i wear a helmet.

First hand rendevous with asphalt...