Plan B Forum

Helmetless Motorcyclist Dies Protesting Helmet Laws

Published: 7/03 1:28 pm

Onondaga, N.Y. (AP) - Police say a motorcyclist, riding to protest helmet laws in upstate New York, died after he pitched over the handlebars and hit his head on the pavement.

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

full story

It's nature's way,
it's natures way

Best way to thin the flock is ask for volunteers.


yrs,
rubato

Why did he want the ability to ride helmet less? Did he want a quicker death if he came off?

The Hen wrote:Why did he want the ability to ride helmet less? Did he want a quicker death if he came off?

He wanted to exercise his unalienable right to be stupid. He succeeded and also gave us an example of the consequence of his actions.

Having yer head in contact with the pavement certainly detracts from yer butt passing over it at just 18"...

In that case, what a heart-warming story.

I hope some good comes of it to others that may have similar thoughts.

In my recent contretemps with a taxi; my first point of contact with the car bonnet was my (helmeted) head, my second point of contact with the road was again, my head.

If I had not been wearing the helmet I may now be a drooling vegetable.

Not that you lot would notice any difference....

Wouldn't notice? More like: "Gob's more coherent than usual... must've had a violent head injury."

I hope the pavement and the bonnet of the taxi are ok.

From a public safety standpoint, a fair case could be made that motorcyclists should be FORBIDDEN to wear helmets.

The idea being that without that protection, they will be more careful or there will be fewer riders?

I think we hashed this one out some time ago. The right to not have to wear the helmet fails when the public picks up the cost of medical care when the accident causes slightly less damage than what happened to the rider in the story.

I belive it's the old "limits peripheral vision" argument.

Living up to the New Hampshire state motto.

Long Run wrote:The right to not have to wear the helmet fails when the public picks up the cost of medical care when the accident causes slightly less damage than what happened to the rider in the story.

Or when a stone flicked off the road by a car tire or a discarded cigarette butt hits him in the head and causes him to crash and involve other drivers in an accident.

There is actually a very good argument based on self-expression that helmets cannot be required. To varying degrees helmets all obscure the face, and the face is the center of self-expression.

I don't agree that this argument should prevail.

yrs,
rubato

As the expression in question would be one of pure terror as the rider approaches serious injury or death I don't believe that the 'self-expression' argument should hold any weight whatsoever,

But then again you are not intelligent enough that someone who was would care what you thought.

yrs,
rubato

Oh my.

I think I'll retreat into my little corner and sob quietly to myself. How can I possibly match your intellectual wit... almost Swiftian as it was in it's rapier-like sublety.

Long Run wrote:The idea being that without that protection, they will be more careful or there will be fewer riders?

Not at all. In a wreck, a motorcyclist will usually become a projectile. A rider with a helmet can do considerably more damage to whatever he/she hits than a rider without one.

Crackpot wrote:I belive it's the old "limits peripheral vision" argument.

There's that--and they also greatly limit hearing--but not all. My uncle wears a helmet that gives no peripheral vision or hearing problems...it's a skullcap helmet with no visor (he wears goggles) and does not cover his ears.