Anti-motorbike helmet protestor hits head, dies

Im all up for stupid americans ending there life out of there own stupidty but when they have to have brain surgery for the accident, its only going to be the hospital/govement that pays. So taking money away from places that need the money.

german forklift video is amazing, i wont hear a bad word against it!
 
clade said:
Im all up for stupid americans ending there life out of there own stupidty but when they have to have brain surgery for the accident, its only going to be the hospital/govement that pays.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't medical insurance cover that in the US and not the hospital/government?
 
moss said:
Wouldn't medical insurance cover that in the US and not the hospital/government?
Click to expand...

I was thing more about when they dont have medical cover. As I understand it the hospitals are still obliged to keep the person alive.

Its the main reason why I wouldnt want no bike hat option over here.
 
* Cost of getting emergency vehicles to accident to remove body etc
* Cost of counselling to family members etc

And that's just off the top of my head, not to mention the psychological damage to witnesses, driver, family etc.

Why people think that this doesn't affect other people is beyond me...
 
starfighter said:
I don't see why it is funny. They simply want the choice, if someone wants to kill themselves why not, no one else gets hurt.

Same with seatbels, why should it be the law? speed up evolution. :p


I suppose there is the financial aspect of cleanining up all the brains and looking after kids left behind.
Click to expand...

As has been pointed out other people DO get hurt when people don't wear helmets.

What if hypothetically, a person riding a motorbike, isn't wearing a helmet, and collides with a car or another vehicle through their own idiocy, and dies or is seriously injured.

The driver of the other vehicle would be mortified, they've been involved in a traffic collision that has taken the life of another human being or causes serious injury.

Now they know it was the fault of the biker, but say a few weeks later the police come back and inform the other driver.

"It's not your fault sir/mam, BUT if the other person had worn a helmet, they would have survived".

I can imagine some throughts of irrational guilt running through the drivers mind.

"But they hit my car..and died"....."But they didn't wear a helmet, it's not my fault"....

"But they would have lived if they had worn a helmet, and colliding with MY car wouldn't have caused this".

It might not leave them physically harmed, but it could lead to psychological harm in the other driver.

Not to mention the time and resources it would take to tidy up a fatality or treat an irresponsible biker for injuries sustained through stupidity.

I think the Emergency Services might have more important stiuations to deal with, than having to deal with an accident caused by an idiot that might have been avoided.

What if the Police/Fire Services/Paramedics were tied up with a fatality when they could have been responding to a stabbing? Or a house fire? Or someone who had a heart attack?

The consequences reach farther than one careless biker being injured or killed from a lack of head protection.

The same argument could be said for seatbelts, driving while tired, driving under the influence...I'm sure the list goes on.

Their is a responsibility to prevent stupidity, when it's possible.

Just my thoughts.
 
Last edited:
Wej said:
* Cost of getting emergency vehicles to accident to remove body etc
* Cost of counselling to family members etc

And that's just off the top of my head, not to mention the psychological damage to witnesses, driver, family etc.

Why people think that this doesn't affect other people is beyond me...
Click to expand...

It doesn't affect any one, to any more extent than many many many other things. Again I don't see how it's ironic.
Do you think full leathers with back and joint protectors should be mandatory, after all the ambulance, rehabilitation, counselling etc. Or maybe just ban motorbikes. How about extreme sports or even just cycling?

Where's the line? Or is the line, like I expect. That the line is what has been engraved into us over many years. Helmet or seatbelt and not a lot else.
 
Motorcyclists die in accidents every day whether they are wearing helmets or not. He wasn't arguing that helmets were not safer just that he should have the freedom to choose whether he wants to wear one or not. From a logical perspective anyone who rides a motorbike is an 'idiot' because helmet or not cars are much safer, those are the risks a person takes to do what they enjoy and the government should not be able to dictate whether they can do it as long as they are not putting other peoples lives in danger.
 
Last edited:
AcidHell2 said:
It doesn't affect any one, to any more extent than many many many other things. Again I don't see how it's ironic.
Do you think full leathers with back and joint protectors should be mandatory, after all the ambulance, rehabilitation, counselling etc. Or maybe just ban motorbikes. How about extreme sports or even just cycling?

Where's the line? Or is the line, like I expect. That the line is what has been engraved into us over many years. Helmet or seatbelt and not a lot else.
Click to expand...

Not sure I understand your point. Here's another example... many people think (as I do) that if someone chooses to smoke they shouldn't receive medical care, or at least should have to pay additional for the care they receive. Ditto drinking heavily. They *choose* to do it, knowing the risks. Someone who rides a motorbike (or bicycle) without a helmet *chooses* to do it, knowing the risk. That's fine, but why should I pay for it if they get in an accident.

The line has be drawn by legislation based on research on likelihoods of fatal accidents with and without helmets. If people want to argue that that's unfair then ok, but currently that's the law. I don't think it's funny that this bloke died, but I think it's ironic and moreover I think he was an idiot. But I think anyone on roads without a seatbelt/helmet is an idiot...
 
Wej said:
Not sure I understand your point. Here's another example... many people think (as I do) that if someone chooses to smoke they shouldn't receive medical care, or at least should have to pay additional for the care they receive. Ditto drinking heavily. They *choose* to do it, knowing the risks. Someone who rides a motorbike (or bicycle) without a helmet *chooses* to do it, knowing the risk. That's fine, but why should I pay for it if they get in an accident.

The line has be drawn by legislation based on research on likelihoods of fatal accidents with and without helmets. If people want to argue that that's unfair then ok, but currently that's the law. I don't think it's funny that this bloke died, but I think it's ironic and moreover I think he was an idiot. But I think anyone on roads without a seatbelt/helmet is an idiot...
Click to expand...

If you are going to base it on research it has to be done across the bored.
I hope sporting injuries aren't. Going to be paid by the tax payer in your world as well. Knee injuries that require operations are extremely common.

Fatal accidents will cost far less than non fatal accidents.
 
i have had a few bike accidents, if i was not wearing a helmet, i would be dead or suffered seriously injured.

wearing a helmet will not always save you, but it seriously increases your chances of avoiding fatal injuries compared to riding without a helmet.

some people do not think about consiquences, so making it a law to wear a helmet would help save that ignorant bunch of people
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom