It Ain't the Speed That Kills You
It's the sudden stop. Or "terminal deceleration" as cops playfully describe it.
- A 28-year-old motorcyclist going a "high rate of speed" struck a concrete median and went airborne, killing himself early Wednesday on the Stevenson Expressway. The biker was not wearing a helmet.
Watch for the helmet advocates to use this as another example in the constant battle to "nanny state" motorcyclists into knowing what's best for them. Our opinion has always been "Do what you like with motorcycles, but don't expect us to pick up the medical bills if you screw up." A helmet wouldn't have done anything for this guy except saved his face some bruising.
posted by SCC at 8:31 AM
16 Comments:
If you consider wearing a helmet on a motorcyle being part of a NANNY State, you can applied the same thoughts to wearing seat belts in a car
These Crotchrockets riders as a group are a hazard. I ride a HD and going 80 is about as fast as I feel in control and thats only in very light traffic, on a highway where lane changes aren't required. If you want to ride the ragged edge go to a track.
Whille working in 003 years ago,I did quite a few traffic crash reports w/injuries involving motorcycles. Most of them on south Lake Shore Dr.A helmet would've saved a lot of those riders a few injuries.It might have even saved the life of one or two. The common denominator in most of these accidents the rider was young,reckless,inexperinced,and in most cases not liscensed to operate a motorcycle.Some accidents the rider was driving appropriately but was struck by a motorist in a car following too close. After seeing so many motorcycle injuries I personally have no wish to ride one.But if I was inclined to do so,I'd make a helmet part of my wardrobe.
How about requiring anyone with a motorcycle license to become an automatic organ donor...just a thought.
That's why they call them "organ donor machines". Not bad considering the waiting list for organs can be up to 5 years.
If you want to make a helmet part of your wardrobe, you should do so. It's your choice and a good one. I've been riding for 20 years and I've come to believe that the only thing a helmet does is cut down on my hearing and vision a little bit. Driving in this city, I believe that it's up to the biker to pay attention too the drivers around them, because people in cars seem to think a force field envelops them and there is no need to pay attention to anyone else on the road. given that, I think a helmet cuts down on my ability to see and hear as well as I could. Driving on the highway, let's face it, the only difference between helmet/no helmet is open casket/closed casket, so what's the point?
Hey SCC!
Maybe you can post a thread for this, or just have anyone reply here.
Was anyone at 26th and california today in judge Dernbach's courtroom (#600) when a guy on trial for murder attempted to escape when he lost some motions? Apparently two detectives on the case from Area 2 had to intervene when the bad guy punched a female deputy.
"A helmet wouldn't have done anything for this guy except saved his face some bruising."
Live fast, die young, leave a good looking corpse.
When I used to freefall in the Army we called it Traumatic Deceleration Syndrome.
One fool looses control of his bike and splats himself onto a wall. No big deal. One less fool that we have to deal with. He obviously was out of his league when he got on his bike that night.
The same can be said about the guy who gets in his little Honda Buzzabout puts on his seatbelt and does the same stupid shit! The difference in the 2 drivers is that one stayed with his vehicle while the other landed a lot farther away.
"A model of individual risk management postulates that every individual is comfortable with a certain level of risk and aims to balance the rewards of risk-taking against perceived hazards. When a safety device is introduced that leads to a perception of lessened risk, the rewards of risk-taking become more attractive and engender a compensatory increase in risk-taking (risk compensation), which may bring accident rates back to their original level, or may produce a rearrangement of hazard with the new risk being transferred to others (risk displacement)."
For you less educated the example would be "I'll wear a condom and go screw that rancid crack smoking hoozle down the block. Whereas, before condom use, I wouldn't have screwed her with Flavor Flav's dick."
Better yet just read for yourself
http://www.bikersrights.com/statistics/goldstein/goldstein.html
Anonymous said...
If you consider wearing a helmet on a motorcyle being part of a NANNY State, you can applied the same thoughts to wearing seat belts in a car
8/16/2006 11:15:40 AM
I do if you are old enough to remember seatbelts laws were "only gonig to be just until airbag technology comes on line" really !!!and "we will never make it a primary reason for a traffic stop it can only be a secondary violation" the insurance industry saves alot of money with the seatbalt laws. Give the government an inch it will take everything. Now the seatbelt is just another moneymaker.
To 2:25 poster:
Heard as he was being led back to the lock-up in Judge Dernbach's room (#600) a goof on trial for homicide punched the male deputy. The female deputy just stood by and did nothing.
Two detectives from 620 (Maas and Madden) were in jury room for the case, heard commition, and came out as guy was about to make a break for it. After a fight the murderer was subdued.
If you consider wearing a helmet on a motorcyle being part of a NANNY State, you can applied the same thoughts to wearing seat belts in a car
8/16/2006 11:15:40 AM
And I do.
ABATE! nuff said.
Let those who ride decide!
<< Home