Anti-motorbike helmet protestor hits head, dies

SkeeterUK said:
Haha dozy sod.

Should be law to have/wear one, those that dont wana wear one just wana look cool and if they die its their own fault.
Click to expand...

He knew the risks and accepted them, so yes it was his fault and he accepted it. He died doing something he enjoyed, fully aware of the risks.

Why should it be law? Where does your risk lie.
To save typing it out again.

AcidHell2 said:
I actually think this is a very important debate. Not for helmets per say. But because it can be used. For most aspects of live.
Where should the limits lie between personal freedom vs personal risk, should we start banning many many other things as the risks are similar to not wearing a helmet and we've banned that.
Click to expand...

Take Tombstoning for example (jump of cliffs into water) should this be banned as the risk is high? Why is that legal but you have to wear a bike helmet?
 
Last edited:
AcidHell2 said:
You don't have to ride. At high speed or in busy places. In parts of the country/world there are big empty roads with. Beautiful views and you can just cruise.

I think most people would wear a helmet. It doesn't mean it should be impose onto others.
Most people would find skydiving, tomb stoning, or 1001 other things to risky. But many people still do it.

I actually think this is a very important debate. Not for helmets per say. But because it can be used. For most aspects of live.
Where should the limits lie between personal freedom vs personal risk, should we start banning many many other things as the risks are similar to not wearing a helmet and we've banned that.
Click to expand...


I understand what you mean regarding the wider realm of personal freedoms.

Surely it also affects non-bike riders though - a car driver, for instance could clip the back of a bike being ridden by a helmetless driver, sending him to the floor and killing him due a a bump on the head. It's possible that the rider would have survived had a helmet been worn. Should the car driver face harsher penalties for the rider's decision not to wear a helmet?

Not trying to stoke the fire, just a different perspective :)
 
I don't see that as affecting the car driver. The car driver can hit a helmeted rider and kill them. The risk is almost if not entirely on themselves.
Unless we are going to ban anything that can lead to deaths so not to affect other people/emergency services.
 
AcidHell2 said:
I don't see that as affecting the car driver. The car driver can hit a helmeted rider and kill them. The risk is almost if not entirely on themselves.
Unless we are going to ban anything that can lead to deaths so not to affect other people/emergency services.
Click to expand...



My example was for a helmetless rider though. Of course, road accidents kill many riders with helmets. How about the situations where a helmet could save a life?
 
FARGO said:
My example was for a helmetless rider though. Of course, road accidents kill many riders with helmets. How about the situations where a helmet could save a life?
Click to expand...

What I was trying to say is people can kill other people. So if your going to go down the route of someone dying is a direct affect on others, that opens up a hole can of worms. If you then try applying that everywhere. So a helemetless death is no different to others involved as helmeted riders and shouldn't be used as a reason.

Riders know the risk, they didn't use a helmet and died.
 
all the people you see wearing shorts and a tee shirt riding motorbikes.... they are the ones who will not wear a helmet if the laws did not exist, and they would not take any less risk for it.

deaths and serious injuries would rise exponentially
 
AcidHell2 said:
What I was trying to say is people can kill other people. So if your going to go down the route of someone dying is a direct affect on others, that opens up a hole can of worms. If you then try applying that everywhere. So a helemetless death is no different to others involved as helmeted riders and shouldn't be used as a reason.

Riders know the risk, they didn't use a helmet and died.
Click to expand...


Sorry, I'm typing on the fly and don't think I articulated my self well. I meant from the point of view for the driver of the car in the example.

What would you suggest in that example as a punishment for the driver if it was made clear that had he hit a helmeted rider, he/she would have lived and it would have been a non-fatal road accident, an insurance claim at most.

Would you suggest the charge be different or the same? I'd feel awful if I killed someone who wasn't wearing a helmet which could have saved their life.
 
Why does he actually not want to wear a helmet though? To feel the wind between his ears? Not really sure why you'd want to do it, but then I never understand those people who don't wear seatbelts either.

I think it comes down to a case of being reasonable; reasonably looking after yourself to not disproportionately and adversely affect others.

Just wear a helmet, yo? :p
 
FARGO said:
What would you suggest in that example as a punishment for the driver if it was made clear that had he hit a helmeted rider, he/she would have lived and it would have been a non-fatal road accident, an insurance claim at most.
Click to expand...

Why would they be punished? Either they were breaking laws in which case they would be dealt with as they are now, or no laws being broken and no punishment at all.
Just because someone dies, doesn't mean you need punishment, that's not how law works.
The only questionable bit would be a handful of laws like causing death by dangerous driving. But then you could say the same for someone not wearing leathers with a back protector, being killed. That happens now.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom