Geta loada this wanka

[pritch]

http://www.ama-cycle.org/news/2005/dickerson.asp

You may feel moved to send him a short email :-)

[Eurodave]

I sent him a cheery reply, NOT!!! :angry2:

[riffer]

I think he's got a point.

He's referring to motorcyclists who refuse to wear a helmet.

[BNZ]

I think he's got a point.

Whats your email?

So car drivers who dont wear seat belts should no longer receieve medical care in a crash? I think anyone who gets on a bike without a helmet is a complete fucking moron but I couldnt care if it was osama fucking bin laden, they still deserve medical care in an accident! :angry2:

[FzerozeroT]

I actually think he's spot on. If you read all the links the comments were made in response to a law change which makes helmets optional in one of the states. Having dealt with some 'victims' of riding without a helmet all I can say is Fuckin' Ay!

P.S. I have to stop hitting reply and then cruising off to browse other windows :P

[**R1**]

Whats your email?

So car drivers who dont wear seat belts should no longer receieve medical care in a crash? I think anyone who gets on a bike without a helmet is a complete fucking moron but I couldnt care if it was osama fucking bin laden, they still deserve medical care in an accident! :angry2:
YUP:niceone:

[Lou Girardin]

He's aptly named.
But if this did become law, I'd hope it would be extended to all other darwinian pursuits.

[Paul in NZ]

Well as an article is was a huge success. It has provoked a lot of activity and since stuff like..

“If only lawmakers had thought to add a requirement that all helmet-less cyclists agree to donate their organs. And why not require donorcyclists to sign papers declining extraordinary lifesaving measures, so that deserving organ recipients aren't kept waiting unnecessarily?”

Is designed to do so, I salute his writing ability...

Problem is, while I see his point, I cannot agree. We can pass laws, police these laws and we can educate but we still need to show compassion. Life is not full of black and white situations and I don't want doctors in pressure situations making those kinds of decisions..

'No helmet? Right! Harvest this sucker... "

" But doctor, his passenger removed his helmet to administer CPR."

" Oh bugger... Um.. Nurse... Can you remember where this bit goes?"

Dunno. Helmet laws in the USA are pretty friggin mad..

Paul N

[speedpro]

I sent a note of encouragement, no point in only sending emails to people you "disagree" with.

[bugjuice]

kinda split on that. If you ride without a helmet, then you're asking trouble anyway. Chances are if you aren't wearing a helmet, then the jandels, shorts and singlet aren't going to save much of you in a crash anyway. So what is the chance of survival? Probably not a lot, or, a fuk load of ops for the rest of your life.
If you are wearing a helmet, granted, a lot of people are still dumb-fuk-enuff to wear jandels, shorts n singlets etc, same thing applies as above, it's still going to hurt.
But more so (I hope) that those wearing helmets, and want to survive with their organs intact, will be wearing the appropriate safety gear.

In short, I vaguely know what I mean, I hope you do to. Just wear the friggen helmet.

[Krusti]

I love helmets....people can't see how UGLY I am
:killingme :msn-wink: :killingme

[MSTRS]

I sent him this - Why stop at leaving injured bikers to die. Make it all crash victims, as they have 'proved' that they are not up to task of controlling their vehicle and therefore must be sub-standard humans. A lot like reporters really.

[James Deuce]

I don't actually agree with organ donation, or transplants, so I guess it stops right there for me.

[Skunk]

Don't know about you guys but I read the original story at Detroit Free Press (http://www.freep.com/news/metro/dickerson21e_20050321.htm) and got a different view of what he was saying to that of the AMA... :confused:
Another 'bite sized snippet' of the whole story...

[pyrocam]

Don't know about you guys but I read the original story at Detroit Free Press (http://www.freep.com/news/metro/dickerson21e_20050321.htm) and got a different view of what he was saying to that of the AMA... :confused:
Another 'bite sized snippet' of the whole story...

I feel kinda stink now that I sent my internet wrath to that guy before getting the full story. :brick:

well I suppose thats what the internet is all about. scathing flame-mails sent from under-informed people with too much time. :sweatdrop

at least I used the polite insult method instead of fuxkors yuo teh suxor and r dumb!!!111

[Wolf]

I sent:

I heard your stance on how motorcyclists should be mandatory organ donors and should not be given life-saving measures if involved in a nasty accident.

I think the same could be applied to people of sub-normal intellect - those who are basically so stupid that they are a waste of oxygen - but wait...

That'd be you!

Grow a brain-cell, Brian Dickheadson.

While I feel it's bloody crazy not to be wearing a helmet (didn't always feel that way when I was young and foolish) deeming tham to have no rights to medical assistance and decreeing that their organs can be harvested (in contravention of US law which prohibits the unconsentual harvesting of organs) is a tad on the extreme side - and singling out motorcyclists who ride without helmets (what about cagers without seatbelts, anyone exceeding the speed limit, those drunk in charge of a vehicle etc etc) is bigotry plain and simple.

S'pose I should be sympathetic to him, really, he was pimple-faced and too prone to hallitosis and embarrassing rashes as a teen and so wasn't cool enough to ride a bike and now he's twisted up with jealousy and hatred for all those cool dudes who do ride bikes, kinda tragic really - we should send him flowers.

[Skunk]

I sent:

I heard your stance on how motorcyclists should be mandatory organ donors and should not be given life-saving measures if involved in a nasty accident.

I think the same could be applied to people of sub-normal intellect - those who are basically so stupid that they are a waste of oxygen - but wait...

That'd be you!

Grow a brain-cell, Brian Dickheadson.

While I feel it's bloody crazy not to be wearing a helmet (didn't always feel that way when I was young and foolish) deeming tham to have no rights to medical assistance and decreeing that their organs can be harvested (in contravention of US law which prohibits the unconsentual harvesting of organs) is a tad on the extreme side - and singling out motorcyclists who ride without helmets (what about cagers without seatbelts, anyone exceeding the speed limit, those drunk in charge of a vehicle etc etc) is bigotry plain and simple.

S'pose I should be sympathetic to him, really, he was pimple-faced and too prone to hallitosis and embarrassing rashes as a teen and so wasn't cool enough to ride a bike and now he's twisted up with jealousy and hatred for all those cool dudes who do ride bikes, kinda tragic really - we should send him flowers.Pity you didn't read his story instaed of the AMA story eh? :whistle:

[Ixion]

Pity you didn't read his story instaed of the AMA story eh? :whistle:

No harm. The message is still good. Do not meddle in the affairs of bikers for they are savage and quick to anger.

[Paul in NZ]

I feel kinda stink now that I sent my internet wrath to that guy before getting the full story. :brick:

well I suppose thats what the internet is all about. scathing flame-mails sent from under-informed people with too much time. :sweatdrop

at least I used the polite insult method instead of fuxkors yuo teh suxor and r dumb!!!111

Well you could always applogise?

just a thought....

[Paul in NZ]

I don't actually agree with organ donation, or transplants, so I guess it stops right there for me.

Spoken like a man with all his functions intact...

[2_SL0]

Don't know about you guys but I read the original story at Detroit Free Press (http://www.freep.com/news/metro/dickerson21e_20050321.htm) and got a different view of what he was saying to that of the AMA... :confused:
Another 'bite sized snippet' of the whole story...

I agree its been taken out of context.

[madboy]

I read the AMA story - Brian is a completely idiot.

Then I read Brian's column... ummm, I agree with him. What he's saying is that if you choose to ride without a helmet then you should be a compulsory organ donor and denied lifesavings medical treatment. Well - I'd be pretty damned unimpressed if my hard earned taxes were paying for some oxygen thief who banged up his bike without a helmet and scrambled his eggs!!

[pyrocam]

Well you could always applogise?

just a thought....


'apologise?' what is 'apologise?' sorry I dont speak german :P

nah once I sent it and read through the other stuff I decided it was still in relevancy. chances are he doesnt read them anyway as he would have heaps of pissed of bikers emailing him.

[Wolf]

Pity you didn't read his story instaed of the AMA story eh? :whistle:
Did read his full column afterwards.

While I agree that riding without a helmet is boneheaded (pun intended, not necessarily successful), and I agree that those who ride without helmets for no good reason are asking for trouble, I still disagree with his sensationalist approach to the subject (comparisons with Kevorkian etc) and his automatic assumption that there is going to be a massive increase in people riding around without helmets, having accidents and costing their taxpayers money.

1) The bikers have to decide to take "advantage" of the law change - if they made helmets voluntary here tomorrow, I would still wear one under most circumstances because I am mindful that my head is not armoured. I feel kinda naked without full protective gear these days. I'd bet (judging by the posts here) a lot of people here would feel the same way and I suspect a lot of those in America would agree. I don't think he'd be seeing the streets suddenly flooded with bare-headed bikers.

2) They've got to have an accident. Not wearing a helmet does not make them any more or less prone to accidents than anyone else. Admittedly they'd be at greater risk of injury in an accident than anyone who is wearing a helmet - but they've got to come off first.

3) His column notes that the Senate also voted that every biker - not just those who are not wearing a helmet - must have medical insurance, so they're paying for their own medical bills anyway. And if I were a money grubbing scum sucking insurance company (Oops, sorry - an intelligent company hoping to off-set reasonably expected losses) I would make sure that the bikers who choose to ride without helmets would be paying a damn-sight bigger premium than those who wear helmets.

So my assessment still stands - he needs to grow a brain cell.

[inlinefour]

I'm going to air my opinion. Be as it may be different to some others.

I think that helmet laws are a great thing. As a trainee RN I have got to see many motorbike accident victims. Yes those who ride without a helmet are putting themselves at risk, but lests face it. Its exactly the same as cagers who drive without a seat belt.
Now ask yourself this. Do you ever do any dangerous activity that increases your chances of being seriously injured? I do, its called sports and often my everyday life can result in being in hazerdous situations and then there it the topic of my work, dealing with acutely psychotic people at times.
For someone else to state that anyone indulging in a dangerous activity should not be given the opportunity of medical care is farking pathetic and those individuals should have a good look at themselves. At the end of the day Brian Dickerson is probably just some 2nd rate columnist who was worried about his job. So he started this shite to save his job. Hell the wanker might as well run for NZ Government as this sort of bullshit is common place there...

Right, I've going to air my opinion. Be as it may be different to some others.
I'm happy for people to disagree with my views but have to ask, whats next apartite(sp)?

[Motu]

2) They've got to have an accident. Not wearing a helmet does not make them any more or less prone to accidents than anyone else. Admittedly they'd be at greater risk of injury in an accident than anyone who is wearing a helmet - but they've got to come off first.
.

Those foaming at the mouth types who say anyone not wearing a helmet is going to be killed in the worst possible way and is mentaly impared don't get this little statement,it's all in the hands of the rider.90% of those on this site have never ridden legaly without a helmet - I spent the 3 most stupid years of my life on a motorcycle not wearing a helmet - bugger,and I'm still here! Of course I always wear one now,and shit,I'm STILL here!

[Wolf]

Now ask yourself this. Do you ever do any dangerous activity that increases your chances of being seriously injured? I do, its called sports
Yeah. I've done less damage to myself arsing off my bike than I've noted in rugby players - but then again, I was wearing armour and I only hit the tarmac at 50-100km/h, whereas they don't wear armour and hit/got hit by fuck-knows-what.


then there it the topic of my work, dealing with acutely psychotic people at times.

Since when have you dealt with me?

[inlinefour]

Yeah. I've done less damage to myself arsing off my bike than I've noted in rugby players - but then again, I was wearing armour and I only hit the tarmac at 50-100km/h, whereas they don't wear armour and hit/got hit by fuck-knows-what.


Since when have you dealt with me?

Do you need dealing with? I'm sure they will look after you well up there in Hamilton(PT) :msn-wink:

[Ixion]

Those foaming at the mouth types who say anyone not wearing a helmet is going to be killed in the worst possible way and is mentaly impared don't get this little statement,it's all in the hands of the rider.90% of those on this site have never ridden legaly without a helmet - I spent the 3 most stupid years of my life on a motorcycle not wearing a helmet - bugger,and I'm still here! Of course I always wear one now,and shit,I'm STILL here!

I have always worn a helmet, including a number of years before they become a legal requirement. But I knew a lot of guys who didn't (most didn't). Never knew anyone injured as a result. (Actually, never had a biking mate who was seriously injured at all)

Don't really agree with the compulsion thing. 'Cos I'm a coward and don't like the idea of getting hurt if I can reduce the risk without a negative side, I will. So always wear helmet, gear, seatbelts. But it should be up to each person to decide, and not wearing a helmet doesn't mean you're as good as dead.

I suspect too many bikers place too much trust in their gear and figure that they can bin it and get away with it. All the helmets and gear in the world won't save you if things go seriously pear shaped. May help, but if you come off at speed it's all in the luck of the biker gods and whatever providence looks after idiots (like me)

[SlashWylde]

Well, I see it as a bit tongue-in-cheek, the guy's just being a bit sensationalistic and in doing so has attracted a lot of attention (international even) to the issue. This is the essence of sucessful journalism.

For what it's worth I aggree with the thrust of the article but not with the jibe that donorcyclists should sign papers declining extraordinary lifesaving measures.

On a related note, I've been dowloading and watching episodes of "The Great Biker Build-Off" lately (got 12 episodes now :2thumbsup ) and half the time these jokers featured in the shows aren't wearing a lid. Thus I find it monumentally sad that the legendary Indian Larry should die performing a stunt whilst taking part in a show all about motorcycles, which has made no moves to promote the wearing of helmets even in helmet optional states.

Don't get me wrong I'm not blaming anyone for his untimely demise buy maybe just maybe if helmet laws were universal in the states, Larry would still be with us. Just a thought...

[Coyote]

I love helmets....people can't see how UGLY I am
:killingme :msn-wink: :killingme
..Always look on the bright side of life... :whistle:

[pritch]

Never knew anyone injured as a result. (Actually, never had a biking mate who was seriously injured at all)


Once upon a time we only wore a helmet if we were going on a journey to somewhere dangerous. (Like Auckland)

I can think of several aquaintances who died as a direct result of the lack of head protection.

The first was a new motorcyclist who bought a brand new Triumph T100, (it was purple and silver with a half skirt for the historans...) His riding skills were umm underdeveloped(?) but he had one good trick. He could ride standing on the seat with his arms out to the side. Apparently he was doing this on one of our city streets when the front wheel hit a stone which resulted in him headbutting a telegraph pole. Those jarrah poles weren't called hardwood in jest.

The other was a more serious minded guy, he had a new white AJS 650. He even wore a helmet when almost nobody else did. He was, however, some kind of a senior scout and on this ocasion, on his way home from Scouts, he was wearing his beret. They found him and a cat dead in the street and the assumption was that he lost control trying to avoid the cat.

There was another but that probably involved a water buffalo.
(Don't feel bad if you're wearing one of the suits made from buffalo, they've taken out their share of motor bike riders...)

Previously, I wore cheap helmets or none at all. I didn't wear gloves and suffered no damage (except maybe the arthritis:-) and I never had any more protection in my clothing than a leather jacket or the odd strategically placed double layer of waxed cotton.

Now I feel somewhat exposed if I haven't got gloves, my Scherbertin or my Shoei, and my CE approved armoured jacket at least. I guess it's all about risk assessment really.

But then, as someone else said, in this country it's common to meet smokers who worry about terrorism...

[Biff]

I don't actually agree with organ donation, or transplants, so I guess it stops right there for me.

Really? I've never heard anyone say that before, and mean it, apart from a Jehova Witness.
Why Jim? Is it a religious belief?

[James Deuce]

Really? I've never heard anyone say that before, and mean it, apart from a Jehova Witness.
Why Jim? Is it a religious belief?

No. The technology doesn't work. It is a cruel torture. For every success story you hear there are 5 that didn't last very long, and the reality is that you will find yourself in a spiral of increasing frequency of requiring yet another transplant.

However I support utterly the idea of grafted organs reproduced from your own DNA and grown in a pig. The rejection drama doesn't happen with your own DNA. Animal rights activists have completely stuffed this project though, just as it was showing signs of success.

[Redstar]

Im a doner on my licence and they can have my parts so if I ever lose it someone gain but I have to confess..

Cornia. blurred
Liver. Barely functional
Kidneys Supriseingly working
lungs ditto
Hair not of use
Bone Marrow showing signs of degeneration
pepuatory Gland Exhausted
Heart Wrecking only parts available
Penis in fine condition (low mileage)
Brain Hardly used mint condition

[murhf3]

:killingme he.d make a great passenger on the back of my old zx12r,especially when I.am on one wheel :Punk:

[Skunk]

Im a doner on my licence and they can have my parts so if I ever lose it someone gain but I have to confess..

Cornia. blurred
Liver. Barely functional
Kidneys Supriseingly working
lungs ditto
Hair not of use
Bone Marrow showing signs of degeneration
pepuatory Gland Exhausted
Heart Wrecking only parts available
Penis in fine condition (low mileage)
Brain Hardly used mint condition :killingme
Hang on - sounds a lot like me... :confused:

[StoneChucker]

I sort of agree with you re: the organ donation. Once you have received say a heart, you're on immunosupressive drugs for the rest of your life, and there's always the risk of rejection, leaving you with the constant feeling of playing russian roulette.

However, if I had someone I loved (partner for example), I would give it a go. Even if it only gave me 5, 2 or even 1 more year of life, that would be one more year spent with someone special. Life is so fricken short it's scary. I don't know why, but I've been thinking about that in very recent months/years.

This is another topic completely, but I can't understand how parents of a certain religion can stand next to their sick child, and say "no, we don't give permission for a blood transfusion". A simple procedure that when required, will save the childs life. It makes me endlessly happy when the hospital administration then takes away parental rights from the parents, and gives the transfusion under their own authority.

The parents should be done for failing to provide the neccessities of life.

[James Deuce]

However, if I had someone I loved (partner for example), I would give it a go. Even if it only gave me 5, 2 or even 1 more year of life, that would be one more year spent with someone special. Life is so fricken short it's scary. I don't know why, but I've been thinking about that in very recent months/years.



That's one of the reasons I don't like this technology. It is entirely selfish for EVERYONE involved. Every time you have a General Anaesthetic you have an 8% chance of just dropping dead right there. The chances of dying during a transplant procedure are much higher, and all the family are made aware of this prior to surgery. So you have the worry of the surgery, the grief of dying on the table, and the grief of a premature death a few years up the track, or you refuse the transplant, die at your alloted time, and let your family and friends move on.

It's all about, "I don't want to die now", and "I don't want him/her to die." It's also about the transplant surgeon increasing their stats of successful transplant procedure; "I'm the man - I just popped a baboon heart into a 50 year old male's chest - and it works! I'm the man." If you think these guys/gals aren't like that, then think again. There are 2 doctors I've met in my entire life who cared more about the patient than the procedure, and neither of them practice now. One's a gardener, and the other has a bar. They reckon they provide more emotional satisfaction for people that way.

For some reason we've become hung up on the "right to life" at all costs and by all means, instead of accepting that death is a natural part of life. I defintely think that, as is usual with the medical profession, the ethics of transplant technology have yet to meet the reality of the situation that technology creates for the people left caring and living with the recipients.