Anti Helmet Protest Irony

BennyC

BennyC

BennyC

Soldato
Joined
25 Sep 2006
Posts
14,421
Speaks for it's self really!

A motorcyclist protesting helmet laws lost control of his motorcycle during his protest ride on July 2, and died after hitting his head on the pavement in upstate New York.

State troopers say that 55-year-old Philip A. Contos of Parish was riding with a group of bikers who were rallying against helmet laws by not wearing helmets.

Contos’ motorcycle fishtailed after he braked, causing him to lose control and fall over the handlebars, according to troopers.

He was taken to a hospital, where he was pronounced dead.

Troopers say that Contos would have probably survived had he been wearing a helmet.
Click to expand...

Sauce:
http://www.longislandpress.com/2011...tor-dies-from-head-injury-not-wearing-helmet/

I don't see the appeal of riding without one and taking hundreds of bugs in the face? A fly hit me in the throat at 80mph the other day and that wasn't eaxctly painless!
 
stupid american does stupid thing and gets killed.... as long as they are not accidently (or on purpose) killing civilians or our troops they can carry on!
 
It's not so much a stand against the helmet but a stand against a law that removes freedom of choice. Motorcycle protection is a thriving business in the States.

Many Americans will see this man as a Martyr to freedom.

Personal risk is for the individual to decide upon and no one else. Be that what you wear on a motorcycle, the fact you wish ride a motorcycle or even go swimming in the sea, ect, ect.
 
I don't really get the irony.
It's not like he was campaigning for helmets and died with out one. He died doing something he enjoyed and was fully aware of the risks. No different to extreme sport or a load of other situations.

How can you not see the appeal of riding without a helmet?
The freedom of riding without protective gear is huge, especially on like a cruiser doing slow mph.
 
AcidHell2 said:
How can you not see the appeal of riding without a helmet?
The freedom of riding without protective gear is huge, especially on like a cruiser doing slow mph.
Click to expand...

I can't see the appeal at all, it's only going to take a bit of gravel thrown up by a truck and you could get a pretty serious injury. Flies, bees, wasps, beetles etc. in my teeth and up my nose also don't really appeal.

Riding a bike is already a risky activity; why would you want to deliberately worsen those risks?
 
I wouldn't personally ever ride a bike without a helmet, but I'd be in favour of free choice.

I don't like the idea of the state saying what risks you can and can't take - what if they decided it was too risky to ride a bike at all compared to driving a car?
 
People don't see risk in the same way.

I don't get how you can't see the lure. Just look at cycling and how most people hate helmets and only wear them for the safety aspect.
 
Dogbreath said:
I can't see the appeal at all, it's only going to take a bit of gravel thrown up by a truck and you could get a pretty serious injury. Flies, bees, wasps, beetles etc. in my teeth and up my nose also don't really appeal.

Riding a bike is already a risky activity; why would you want to deliberately worsen those risks?
Click to expand...

Exactly me view.

Seat belts & airbags save lives just as helmets do.
 
Those going on about freedom of choice clearly are a touch on the selfish side. You don't think for one second the costs (monetary, yes, but others too) associated with someone's head splattered all over a road - things people will never forget, could haunt them - especially if you caused it. It's much like many train drivers are on depressants (know two myself), as when people throw themselves in front, they get lovely blood splatters up the front of the train and such, plus the guilt factor. It's not a massive ask, especially since you can get half-helmets anyway, which are essentially no more than a hat - and it's still legal.

This is no different to those who refused to wear seatbelts when they were made law. It's not 'the nanny state', but simply trying to protect others as well.

What a pillock.
 
And you don't think that asking others to give up an unalienable right because some people can't cope with the reality of life and death isn't selfish?

Life is messy and death is often more so, those who can't cope with this fact should shut themselves away and let the rest of us live our lives.
 
gee3000 said:
Freedom of choice should rule over everything so long as your choice doesn't harm other people.
Click to expand...

Well, when the result is:

Ambulance called out.
Road closes
Money spent on treatment and drugs

Oh...you could have a wife and children, now they have no father and as a result their main source of income is stopped. They get evicted and starts living in a rougher part of town, kids start hang out with bad crowd and get into more trouble than previously...etc etc.

(ok, the last part is a bit extreme, but to say it doesn't harm other people is very selfish)
 
Marvin said:
Those going on about freedom of choice clearly are a touch on the selfish side. .
Click to expand...

And how about all the riders who don't wear full leathers with joint and back protectors. Leaving people to wash their skin of the road and wipe their bum for the rest of their lives.
How far do you take it? Personally I couldn't care either way ban or no ban.
 
I don't get the whole "It's my right not to wear a helmet" thing. Never have done. :confused:

For certain people common sense takes a back seat when it comes to being the champion of a cause just for the sheer hell of it.

I'd rather not have a cloud of midges up my nose, in my eyes and all over my bonce when I'm charging down the roads at high speed. And as for binning it into a hedge without a skid lid or protective gear on?. Don't get me started.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom