Biker dies in no helmet protest

[gwigs]

http://news.yahoo.com/ny-motorcyclist-dies-ride-protesting-helmet-law-143217859.html

Dunb:facepalm:

[davereid]

It always amazes me when bikers "face palm" about other bikers deciding to ride without a helmet.

Thats how car drivers react too, when hearing that I choose to ride a motorcycle.

The facts are simple.

The DUMB decision is choosing to ride a motorcycle. Thats the one that makes you up to 22 times more likely to die on the roads than a Volvo driver.

The helmet ? Facts are not so clear there. It certainly helps with abrasion type injuries, but its much harder to prove effectiveness against brain injury. The likely out come is around a decrease of around 0.3 -0.5 in head injuries of all types.

And many studies implicate the extra weight of the helmet, and its diameter with an increase in spinal injuries.

The NZ data is very interesting.

242085

Use the data provided to tell me which year NZ got helmets.

If you cant tell, theres another way. Google spinal injuries, and use that table. Or go to Burwood spinal unit and meet the bikers.

There is NO DOUBT that helmets save lives. But its not a binary. Its not a choice between (a) alive and well, or (b) dead.

Its often a choice between (a) alive and very very disabled or (b) dead.

My advice ?

Ride carefully. Dont count on the helmet.

And support the choice of those who choose to possibly double their risk on the road, by not wearing a helmet.
As in a minute I'm about to choose to be 22 times more likely to die on the roads, as I exercise MY free choice to ride my motorcycle.

[gwigs]

I dont give a fuck if someone chooses not to wear a helmet or any protective clothing for that matter...their choice...still fucking dumb though..:facepalm:

[pzkpfw]

Just gotta be amazed at the low incident rate on the BIK(E)OI. We did well.

[Milts]

Thats how car drivers react too, when hearing that I choose to ride a motorcycle.

The helmet ? Facts are not so clear there. It certainly helps with abrasion type injuries, but its much harder to prove effectiveness against brain injury. The likely out come is around a decrease of around 0.3 -0.5 in head injuries of all types.

And many studies implicate the extra weight of the helmet, and its diameter with an increase in spinal injuries.

While you have a point on the 'freedom of choice' aspect, it is a slippery slope. The same free choice argument could be applied to an individual's right to take crack cocaine, even if we know they are likely to become addicted and ruin their lives/family relationship for their addiction. A balance must be struck and IMO the 'helmet choice' falls somewhere near the tipping point.

As for your comments re actual safety, they are plain inaccurate. If you hit something hard enough to cause serious brain damage through a good helmet, you are lucky to survive anyway - often you'll be dead from neck or other injuries. However many impacts which wouldn't kill you but cause severe brain damage without a helmet could cause next to no injury with.

The Cochrane Collaboration is an organisation which attempts to sum up the best available medical evidence on a given topic. It is often seen as the international 'gold standard' for medical evidence. The New Zealand government subscribes to it on our behalf, so that individuals can view accurate medical information. This is their conclusion having examined over 60 studies on helmet effectiveness:



Motorcyclists are at high risk in traffic crashes, particularly for head injury. A review of studies concluded that helmets reduce the risk of head injury by around 69% and death by around 42%. There is, so far, insufficient evidence to compare the effectiveness of different types of helmet. Some studies have suggested that helmets may protect against facial injury and that they have no effect on neck injury, but more research is required for a conclusive answer. The review supports the view that helmet use should be actively encouraged worldwide for rider safety.

Full research available here:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/o/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/CD004333/pdf_fs.html
Summary here:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/o/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/CD004333/frame.html

[awayatc]

slippery slope indeed........if we draw a line, where do we draw it?

Smoking/fast foods/ lack of excercise/alcohol/rugby/horse eventing/cars/ motorbikes........... etc.
take your pick,
make a law,
on to the next item in the list.........

Numbers can prove anything you want them to prove

[Milts]

slippery slope indeed........if we draw a line, where do we draw it?

Smoking/fast foods/ lack of excercise/alcohol/rugby/horse eventing/cars/ motorbikes........... etc.
take your pick,
make a law,
on to the next item in the list.........

Numbers can prove anything you want them to prove

Cochrane ask independant volunteer reviewers to examine ALL published research on the topic worldwide, decide which are accurate and which are biased, and then synthasise the information from the most accurate results. You really don't get less biased information. About the only people who disagree are homeopaths, because all the cochrane findings say that giving people an unmeasurably small amount of a commonplace substance doesn't cure disease (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMGIbOGu8q0)...

[Voltaire]

I don't remember the time when helmets were optional but now I wear a helmet skiing I look at the non helmet wearers and think they are taking a risk....where as 2 years ago I did the same.....just an observation:facepalm::innocent:

Did 500 k's yesterday and found car drivers were very well behaved.....that was until I got on the Southern Motorway..... way more 22 times less safe than a Volvo..

[slofox]

I doubt Mr Contos did much to help the protest's credibility, eh...

[shrub]

The DUMB decision is choosing to ride a motorcycle. Thats the one that makes you up to 22 times more likely to die on the roads than a Volvo driver....

There is NO DOUBT that helmets save lives. But its not a binary. Its not a choice between (a) alive and well, or (b) dead.

Its often a choice between (a) alive and very very disabled or (b) dead.

My advice ?

Ride carefully. Dont count on the helmet.

And support the choice of those who choose to possibly double their risk on the road, by not wearing a helmet.
As in a minute I'm about to choose to be 22 times more likely to die on the roads, as I exercise MY free choice to ride my motorcycle.

The smart thing to do is to lock yourself in a concrete bunker and if you need to leave home do so in a Mack Truck. But what if there is an earthquake? Or Al Qaeda drop in?

Life is full of risks, know them and manage them, don't fear them.

[davebullet]

Sure, if you have a head on with another vehicle with a combined collision speed of 200kph, it won't matter. However I think below a certain impact speed the helmet must make a huge difference, especially for myself with the bulk of riding being commuting.

[Shaun]

Any one NOT wearing a helmet and a FULL FACE one is Fuk witt

[Sable]

I have one thing to say. LOL

[Usarka]

I don't see the problem, he took the risk and (unfortunately for him) it eventuated.

And it didn't cost the taxpayer as much as it could have if he was injured.

Risk is a fact of life, let people take some.

[imdying]

I don't see the problem, he took the risk and (unfortunately for him) it eventuated.

And it didn't cost the taxpayer as much as it could have if he was injured.

Risk is a fact of life, let people take some.I agree with all of this :yes:

[Oakie]

Just spent a week riding around Rarotonga without a helmet. Only going at about 40kph most of the time but still felt a bit vulnerable ... oddly, as much from the chance of a coconut falling on me while I rode. It happened to a nephew of someone we were talking to over there just the week before. Cost him 5 stitches and a night in hospital.

[Blackbird]

The DUMB decision is choosing to ride a motorcycle. Thats the one that makes you up to 22 times more likely to die on the roads than a Volvo driver.



Sorry Dave, that's a poor argument. There's risk in most activities. The trick is to manage the risk. The dumbest decision is probably failing to periodically re-skill or upskill in terms of roadcraft to help manage that risk. Guess that probably applies to over 90% of the people on KB.

[Usarka]

Sorry Dave, that's a poor argument. There's risk in most activities. The trick is to manage the risk.

I'd put it to you that all other factors being equal (including training and skill) that you are at more risk on a bike. So his argument is valid.

Managing risk isn't an absolute, that's why it's called risk.

What you would deem to be an acceptable risk for almost anything is probably different to what I would deem to be acceptable. Every one is different. Lots of people do think bikes are unacceptably risky, so what makes them wrong and you right? Answer = personal choice.

[Big Dave]

So his argument is valid.

Yep - motorcycling is dangerous no matter what you wear or how you ride. Just the degrees vary.

[Scuba_Steve]

Yep - motorcycling is dangerous no matter what you wear or how you ride. Just the degrees vary.

got that right!

Remember helmets won't protect you from the cheese grater

[jaffaonajappa]

I agree with all of this :yes:

Thats to be expected from a brainless fucker.

Carry On.

[scumdog]

Any one NOT wearing a helmet and a FULL FACE one is Fuk witt

Troll...:rolleyes:

[matdaymon]

I think it deserves the :facepalm: just because at the time he was on a PROTEST RIDE AGAINST WEARING A HELMET. Obviously won't be doing his cause any favors...

[Motu]

How many of you have crashed with and without a helmet to compare the results?...??

I rode as a teenager before helmets were compulsory,crash several times,and was once run down from behind and pushed for nearly a Km before I jumped clear. I am still here with no head injuries.

Now,tell me your experiences - did you die without a helmet?

[thepom]

"
Thats the one that makes you up to 22 times more likely to die on the roads than a Volvo driver."



Where do you get your stats from ?

[Usarka]

"
Thats the one that makes you up to 22 times more likely to die on the roads than a Volvo driver."



Where do you get your stats from ?

I think he was trying to make a point, not be statistically accurate.

[ducatilover]

Now,tell me your experiences - did you die without a helmet?

Twice now actually. Once was probably because I was doing 105.

[Big Dave]

I think he was trying to make a point, not be statistically accurate.

So suddenly he's ACC.

[rastuscat]

The NZ data is very interesting.

No it's not.

Harumph.

[rastuscat]

I was killed in a crash because I wasn't wearing a helmet.

I got reincarnated, but suffer from exaggeration and telling lies.

That's why I'm on KB.:shutup:

[Big Dave]

Told you 5 billion times not to exaggerate.

[FJRider]

Getting back to the subject of this thread ... the biker who died ...

The report said the bike "fishtailed" when he braked ... BACK brake only ... maybe ...???

No helmet will help much ... if you haven't got any ability to ride properly ...

An avoidable accident ... ???

[Kickaha]

did you die without a helmet?

No, but I got a $50 ticket for not wearing it, bastards

[Milts]

How many of you have crashed with and without a helmet to compare the results?...??

How many who hit their head in a crash without a helmet are here to post the result?

[YellowDog]

My observation would be that on each and every occasion that I have come off a bike, I have not ever hit my helmet. It would appear that my instinctive reaction is to protect my already protected head and not to save other less well protected areas.

Sorry to hear about the potentially avoidable death. A Darwin Award contender if ever I heard of one.

[jazfender]

If the guy died with the argument that it's an infringement on civil liberties and that the individual should be in control of the risks he takes, then the argument still stands.

If his argument was that helmets don't make much of a difference to the risk...then he's fucking stupid really.

[Motu]

How many who hit their head in a crash without a helmet are here to post the result?

Me.

Also,all my helmets that I've crashed with on the road have no marks on them.

[Shaun]

Troll...:rolleyes:


Sorry for having an opinion and being a member of the same web site as you:scooter:

[FJRider]

If the guy died with the argument that it's an infringement on civil liberties and that the individual should be in control of the risks he takes, then the argument still stands.

If his argument was that helmets don't make much of a difference to the risk...then he's fucking stupid really.

But he wasn't in control ...

he not only increased the risk due to his fuck-wit rider skills ...

he increased his chances of getting hurt in an "off" ...

should he have one ...

and ...

supprise ... supprise ...

he did have one ...

[Berg]

Looking at the damage to my helmet from my crash last year, I was lucky to be wearing a good one. The internal foam was crushed and the case cracked.
Yes, I did serious damage to my neck but without the helmet I believe my skull would have been mushed.

[jazfender]

But he wasn't in control ...

he not only increased the risk due to his fuck-wit rider skills ...

he increased his chances of getting hurt in an "off" ...



Yah he increased the risk on his terms. So he was in control.

[Kickaha]

Looking at the damage to my helmet from my crash last year, I was lucky to be wearing a good one. The internal foam was crushed and the case cracked.
Yes, I did serious damage to my neck but without the helmet I believe my skull would have been mushed.

I've had three helmets like that through racing and I've yet to even have a concussion

[FJRider]

Yah he increased the risk on his terms. So he was in control.

Just a pity he couldn't keep control of his bike ...

[Usarka]

I've had three helmets like that through racing and I've yet to even have a concussion

There may be evidence to the contrary :whistle:

[jazfender]

Just a pity he couldn't keep control of his bike ...

I wasn't talking about bike control, I was talking about risk control.

[shrub]

How many who hit their head in a crash without a helmet are here to post the result?

Me. When I was 22 I often rode without a lid - let those who ride decide etc, and FTW, FTP and suchlike testosterone fuelled finger raising mindlessness. I had a very nice chopped CB750 that I had spent a hell of a lot of time and money on, and was at the Waihi Beach pub one night drinking tequila when someone said he knew where there was a party where there were nurses. So I set off looking for said party and the guy following me watched me miss a corner at around the ton and slam into an (er, this is where all shreds of cool evaporate) outside toilet.

I wasn't expected to make it to hospital alive, I had a fractured skull, broken back and more, but I survived. I was in hospital for 2 months and have lost those months and the month or so before the crash. Paradoxically it was the fractured skull that saved my life becuse it gave my brain room to swell and bleed etc.

[FJRider]

I wasn't talking about bike control, I was talking about risk control.

I wonder if HE counted his lack of rider skills as one of the risks he was taking ...

knowing ALL the risks seems to help with risk control ... not knowing the risks ... how can you be "in control"

[jazfender]

I wonder if HE counted his lack of rider skills as one of the risks he was taking ...

knowing ALL the risks seems to help with risk control ... not knowing the risks ... how can you be "in control"

Who says he didn't know "all the risks"?

Besides, you can't quantify that, so it's a moot point.

I mean if you're going to be a bitch, you might be hit by space junk from a satellite when you're out riding. Evasive fucking manoeuvre that one.

[Spearfish]

I don't think it matters what some stats say about helmets contribution to safety, or if helmets save lives, or if its full or open face, a German bellend, even a rag.
The bit that total undermines the protest was falling off and hitting his head killing himself and any protest msg. It just reinforces the fact that not only are bikers around 22 times more likely to die in a crash they are 22 times more likely to be farken stupid.
A protest like that isn't talking to other bikers its talking to legislating non bikers so you cant change someone's opinion of you by reinforcing it.

[jazfender]

The bit that total undermines the protest was falling off and hitting his head killing himself and any protest msg. It just reinforces the fact that not only are bikers around 22 times more likely to die in a crash they are 22 times more likely to be farken stupid.

What?

It only undermines it because he wasn't wearing a helmet and died. If he had worn a helmet and died it wouldn't be as bad for the protest.

[Spearfish]

What?

It only undermines it because he wasn't wearing a helmet and died. If he had worn a helmet and died it wouldn't be as bad for the protest.

Yep.

Because his audience couldn't say I told you so.

[davereid]

As for your comments re actual safety, they are plain inaccurate.

I did take the time to publish actual statistics.

While the Cochrane study tells us that we would expect a 42% decrease in deaths due to helmets, in fact the 5-year reality was an increase from 43 deaths before the introduction of helmets, to 130 after.

The Cochrane study claims to be valid. Maybe it is. I don't really care, as in fact I am likely to die of heart disease, suicide, prostate cancer, jealous husband or angry wife, way more than from a motorcycle crash.

The fact remains.

For no reason other than pleasure, I put myself at risk, every time I hop on a motorcycle.

I intend to keep doing it, until eventually Mr. Cochrane, or someone else equally interested in improving my quality of life stops me.

So, on a quiet summers evening I may take my Harley for a ride.

Some days, I may even add a bit of pleasure by doing it helmet-less.

Its actually quite enjoyable, and horror of horrors I do quite frequently on the quiet rural roads I live on.

I enjoy the smells, the sights and the sounds of our beautiful country, and do it, debate-ably at more risk than you, but IMHO I live more richly as a result.

Then, I may go home, , cook a cholesterol loaded steak on my BBQ, and ruin my liver with a tipple or more two than ALACs 1.35 standard drinks and enjoy unprotected sex.

Please, live your life with care.

I enjoy mine, I love its taste and texture, and don't wish it to end prematurely.

But please, don't take pleasure from my life, so that I may be safer, and your wallet heavier.

[Berries]

Just spent a week riding around Rarotonga without a helmet. Only going at about 40kph most of the time but still felt a bit vulnerable ... oddly, as much from the chance of a coconut falling on me while I rode.
Come on mods - you going to allow racist comments like that ?

[Kickaha]

Its actually quite enjoyable, and horror of horrors I do quite frequently on the quiet rural roads I live on.

I actually find it fucking uncomfortable at any speed over about 20-30kmh

Your eyes water, bugs hitting you fucking hurt etc etc

[bogan]

I actually find it fucking uncomfortable at any speed over about 20-30kmh

Your eyes water, bugs hitting you fucking hurt etc etc

same here, I always thought that was why farm quads only go approximately that fast :sunny:

[Old Steve]

I actually find it fucking uncomfortable at any speed over about 20-30kmh

Your eyes water, bugs hitting you fucking hurt etc etc

He's riding a Harley, he probably can't get up to that speed before it breaks down

(Tongue very much in cheek!!!)

[Milts]

I did take the time to publish actual statistics.

While the Cochrane study tells us that we would expect a 42% decrease in deaths due to helmets, in fact the 5-year reality was an increase from 43 deaths before the introduction of helmets, to 130 after.

The Cochrane study claims to be valid. Maybe it is. I don't really care, as in fact I am likely to die of heart disease, suicide, prostate cancer, jealous husband or angry wife, way more than from a motorcycle crash.

The fact remains.

For no reason other than pleasure, I put myself at risk, every time I hop on a motorcycle.

I intend to keep doing it, until eventually Mr. Cochrane, or someone else equally interested in improving my quality of life stops me.

So, on a quiet summers evening I may take my Harley for a ride.

Some days, I may even add a bit of pleasure by doing it helmet-less.

Its actually quite enjoyable, and horror of horrors I do quite frequently on the quiet rural roads I live on.

I enjoy the smells, the sights and the sounds of our beautiful country, and do it, debate-ably at more risk than you, but IMHO I live more richly as a result.

Then, I may go home, , cook a cholesterol loaded steak on my BBQ, and ruin my liver with a tipple or more two than ALACs 1.35 standard drinks and enjoy unprotected sex.

Please, live your life with care.

I enjoy mine, I love its taste and texture, and don't wish it to end prematurely.

But please, don't take pleasure from my life, so that I may be safer, and your wallet heavier.

Cochrane do not have a political agenda, or intend to 'take away the pleasure of your life' by, eg, forcing you to ride with a helmet. They just meticulously provide evidence of what the results of an intervention are, one way or the other.

I do support your right to choose. I just think the 'evidence' you presented to support your view was entirely innaccurate. For example the statistics make no mention of the nubmers of riders in any given year, the number of kilometers travelled in any given year, changes to speed limits, road surfaces, increases in the speed of new motorcycles, or control for any one of hundreds of other factors. The numbers from the Cochrane review do, and each reviewer takes years (literally) to ensure the information is as accurate and objective as possible. That's all I'm saying.

EDIT: and impying cochrane aim to make any financial gain from such a study is again about as uninformed as it is possible to be.

[Matariki]

It makes me shudder every time I see someone riding without protective gear.
I know in my recent crash I probably would of died If it weren't for my helmet. In fact I suffered no head injuries at all, I wasn't even knocked out. If you don't want to a wear a helmet then thats your choice, but I know it isn't mine.
Motorcycling is fun, why should wearing a helmet yet alone protective gear change that? If anything it shows that you are aware of the dangers, and by riding safely you are respecting them. :yes:

Be a smart representative of riding, it will probably save your life.

[Bob]

A bareheaded biker, taking part in an anti-helmet law rally, has died from head injuries received when he lost control of his vehicle. The rider struck his head on the pavement, during the rally in central New York State – one of the 20 US states that has a mandatory helmet law. State troopers said that the victim, 55 year old Philip Contos, would “most likely have survived” if he had been wearing a helmet.

Jim Hedlund, of the Governors Highway Safety Association, said that wearing a helmet reduces the wearer’s chance of being killed by more than 40%.

[ducatilover]

But you look tough without riding gear :yes:

[PrincessBandit]

We rode in Raro without helmets and it was rather pleasant except for the occasional bug in the face and in the evening when it got cooler. We weren't exactly hooning around the island though.

Only time i've ever been a little law breaker on the helmet front was when I shifted my bike about 50 metres down the road on the Maraetai beach front. Very pleasant that was too. Again though, it was at a very sedate pace.

My crash a couple of years ago made me value my helmet though - pretty serious road rash along the shell makes me wonder if I blacked out momentarily as I don't remember hitting the motorway at all. It seemed like only a brief instance though that I was getting to my feet with the only sign of damage being to my upper torso. Didn't even think about a head injury! Until I saw the state of my helmet that is, and after that I've never entertained serious thoughts of riding without a lid.

[jonbuoy]

It always amazes me when bikers "face palm" about other bikers deciding to ride without a helmet.

Thats how car drivers react too, when hearing that I choose to ride a motorcycle.

The facts are simple.

The DUMB decision is choosing to ride a motorcycle. Thats the one that makes you up to 22 times more likely to die on the roads than a Volvo driver.

The helmet ? Facts are not so clear there. It certainly helps with abrasion type injuries, but its much harder to prove effectiveness against brain injury. The likely out come is around a decrease of around 0.3 -0.5 in head injuries of all types.

And many studies implicate the extra weight of the helmet, and its diameter with an increase in spinal injuries.

The NZ data is very interesting.

242085

Use the data provided to tell me which year NZ got helmets.

If you cant tell, theres another way. Google spinal injuries, and use that table. Or go to Burwood spinal unit and meet the bikers.

There is NO DOUBT that helmets save lives. But its not a binary. Its not a choice between (a) alive and well, or (b) dead.

Its often a choice between (a) alive and very very disabled or (b) dead.

My advice ?

Ride carefully. Dont count on the helmet.

And support the choice of those who choose to possibly double their risk on the road, by not wearing a helmet.
As in a minute I'm about to choose to be 22 times more likely to die on the roads, as I exercise MY free choice to ride my motorcycle.

I don´t understand your point - 1973 compulsory introduction of helmets (106 killed) figures didn´t go that high again until 1981. The population, number of cars and bikes on the road and performance of bikes had both increased in those 8 years.

[FJRider]

I don´t understand your point - 1973 compulsory introduction of helmets (106 killed) figures didn´t go that high again until 1981. The population, number of cars and bikes on the road and performance of bikes had both increased in those 8 years.

So we can expect an annual increase of deaths on the road ... of car drivers .... due to the increase of cars on the road ???

What you are saying ... is the NZ goverment knew what was best for motorcyclists ... and proved it ... ???

[jonbuoy]

So we can expect an annual increase of deaths on the road ... of car drivers .... due to the increase of cars on the road ???

What you are saying ... is the NZ goverment knew what was best for motorcyclists ... and proved it ... ???

Not really but I think it stands to reason the more vehicles on the road the more accidents there will be. If the number of motorcyclist doubled in NZ the accident rate would also go up - maybe not double. I would say its been proved time and time again helmets save lives - I had a fairly nasty crash myself and had a grazed helmet and visor from a tar seal road. If it wasn´t for the helmet I would have lost part of my face, enough evidence for me anyway. Everyone else is free to do their own crash testing on closed roads. :shutup:

[davereid]

For example the statistics make no mention of the nubmers of riders in any given year, the number of kilometers travelled in any given year, changes to speed limits, road surfaces, increases in the speed of new motorcycles, or control for any one of hundreds of other factors.

Im not slinging off at Cochrane, or anyone else for that matter. My intention was simply to show that there are a wide range of contributing factors to the road toll.

But it remains my contention that money is the major reason for safety imposed on others against their will.

Inevitably if pressed, those advocating rules to protect me from myself will eventually mention the cost of my "foolish" behavior.

Perfect grounds to ban the motorcycle really.

[Parlane]

Already posted at :

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/139615-Biker-dies-in-no-helmet-protest

[slofox]

When I first started riding bikes I was not compelled to wear a helmet if travelling at less than 30 miles per hour (50k these days but I'm sure you all know that...:whistle:).

Me ole Mum had a fit when she heard I'd bought a bike and insisted I get a helmet - in fact she dragged me into town and paid for it herself.

That afternoon, back in my university town, I took the new helmet out for a test ride on me trusty old Ariel.

Lo and behold, your typical SMIDSY event occurred. I went over the bars and landed smack on my head on the road. Gouged shit out of the new helmet. It would have been my head gouged without said helmet. As it was I was uninjured - headwise anyway.

I've never ridden without a helmet since nor will I. Even if the compulsion was removed.

[Big Dave]

But it remains my contention that money is the major reason for safety imposed on others against their will.


And the gene that makes some people choose to be social workers.

[Old Steve]

Thats the one that makes you up to 22 times more likely to die on the roads than a Volvo driver.

But I'm more than 22 times LESS likely to die of boredom than the Volvo driver! Doesn't that even things up?

:yes:

[Edbear]

Im not slinging off at Cochrane, or anyone else for that matter. My intention was simply to show that there are a wide range of contributing factors to the road toll.

But it remains my contention that money is the major reason for safety imposed on others against their will.

Inevitably if pressed, those advocating rules to protect me from myself will eventually mention the cost of my "foolish" behavior.

Perfect grounds to ban the motorcycle really.

It's all about balancing freedom and responsibility. Spend time with the Ambo's and Police attending accidents, spend time in CCU and Triage and after six months, see if you feel the same way.

Killing yourself costs - not killing yourself, but becoming disabled, especially with a head injury costs a lot more for a lot longer and places inordinate stress on those who have to care for you for the rest of your life. Fact, is, helmets, and seatbelts along with other safety features like ABS and air-bags, save not just lives, a lot of serious injuries.

If I'd been driving a vehicle with traction control, for example I would not have crashed and broken my back, costing the country literally 100's of 1,000's of dollars over the past 14mths. As slofox says, above, he wouldn't be without a helmet because he knows from personal experience why they are necessary.

[Bob]

Already posted at :

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/139615-Biker-dies-in-no-helmet-protest

I don't get the fascination on this forum, where everyone feels the need to check every post to see if it is already somewhere else and announce it. Personally, I don't have the time to trawl the whole of KB to see if someone else has posted something, somewhere else.

If I didn't see it there, then nor will someone else. I've posted this on the news forum, as it is a news item. It isn't a contest, and if someone else spotted it then well done them, good to see other people posting items of interest.

But seriously, this 'post stalking' really bewilders me.

I shall now get off of my soap box!:blink:

[YellowDog]

Hey Bob, the last thread turned to custard pretty quickly.

Your new one may have the opportunity of being a little more constructive.

Sad news for the friends and family of the guy dying. Being a news article, there may or may not be a shred of truth in it.

It would appear that the very right this guy was campaigning for, prevented him from living longer than he did. Potentially a serious contender for this year's Darwin award.

[Parlane]

I don't get the fascination on this forum, where everyone feels the need to check every post to see if it is already somewhere else and announce it. Personally, I don't have the time to trawl the whole of KB to see if someone else has posted something, somewhere else.

If I didn't see it there, then nor will someone else. I've posted this on the news forum, as it is a news item. It isn't a contest, and if someone else spotted it then well done them, good to see other people posting items of interest.

But seriously, this 'post stalking' really bewilders me.

I shall now get off of my soap box!:blink:

Obviously I read your post after I had already been following the other thread! And some mod merged the threads, so it made my comment look rather out of place :D

[swbarnett]

There is only one inalianable truth when it comes to personal safety:

NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO EVEN TRY AND SAVE ME FROM MYSELF WITHOUT MY CONSENT!

My helmet may save my life. This is part of why I wear one*. However, I don't care one hoot what increases or decreases my safety when it comes to justifying a legal imposition on my freedom.

I think my sig. says it all...

*It is more important to me that if keeps the rain out.

[swbarnett]

Yep - motorcycling is dangerous no matter what you wear or how you ride. Just the degrees vary.
I'm afraid I have to differ on this. As my sig. says: "Motorcycling is not inherently dangerous. It is, however, EXTREMELY unforgiving of inattention, ignorance, incompetence and stupidity!"

[thecharmed01]

I think it deserves the :facepalm: just because at the time he was on a PROTEST RIDE AGAINST WEARING A HELMET. Obviously won't be doing his cause any favors...


I have to agree.. I'm afraid while it's sad he lost his life, one can't help but note the irony of the situation.
Would have been a whole lot less fuss if he'd not been on a ride protesting helmets!
:facepalm:

[swbarnett]

Would have been a whole lot less fuss if he'd not been on a ride protesting helmets!
:facepalm:
According to the article he was protesting helmet laws, not helmets.

[Big Dave]

"Motorcycling is not inherently dangerous

Good luck with that. Sincerely.

[thecharmed01]

According to the article he was protesting helmet laws, not helmets.

Potato potahto.... he wasn't wearing a helmet, at a protest concerning helmets.
You can be as pedantic as you like, but it's still just as ironic. If not more so.

[gammaguy]

he who lives by the dumb shall die by the dumb

or something like that

[ducatilover]

he who lives by the dumb shall die by the dumb

or something like that

A fool and his money shall soon be....what c*nt stole my wallet?

[xclued]

So stupid... So sad. :facepalm:

[Berries]

We rode in Raro without helmets and it was rather pleasant except for the occasional bug in the face and in the evening when it got cooler.
Did the same. To cut a long story short I ended up spending a few hours at the Police station on a Saturday night. Was out the back having a smoke and looking at the sheer number of smashed up scooters that had smashed up tourists on them. Talking to the cops I wouldn't be surprised if one day they change the helmet rule for visitors.

[Yossarian]

Funny as fuck...reminds me of living in Howick and seeing lads in their jandals and wifebeaters on R1's in the middle of summer. You reap what you sow, freedom of speech? meh... a bit of common fucking sense I'd say.

[jazfender]

Let whether one chooses to wear a helmet be the measure of your opinions, not whether one chooses to abide by the law.

With the current laws, it's not about him being stupid for not wearing a helmet, it's the principle that the law does not allow him that choice.

[Banditbandit]

Let whether one chooses to wear a helmet be the measure of your opinions, not whether one chooses to abide by the law.

With the current laws, it's not about him being stupid for not wearing a helmet, it's the principle that the law does not allow him that choice.

Hmmm ... maybe ... Way back I objected to being forced to wear a helmet .... (owned and rode bikes before I owned a helmet) ... now I wouldn't get on a bike without ATGATT ...

But freedom of choice as a principle here? There are many freedoms are forced to give up because of the law .. such as the freedom to kill people ... freedom to take drugs ... (Yeah - unless we can get away with it) ...

Where do we draw the line? That will always be as question for debate - and rightly so ..

Helmets have saved my life twice .. a good full face meant I walked away instead of being carried away .... Without a compulsory helmet law I would be DEAD ... so I agree that freedom of choice is important .. but so is stopping stupidity and saving lives ...

[oneofsix]

Hmmm ... maybe ... Way back I objected to being forced to wear a helmet .... (owned and rode bikes before I owned a helmet) ... now I wouldn't get on a bike without ATGATT ...

But freedom of choice as a principle here? There are many freedoms are forced to give up because of the law .. such as the freedom to kill people ... freedom to take drugs ... (Yeah - unless we can get away with it) ...

Where do we draw the line? That will always be as question for debate - and rightly so ..

:shit: Banditbandit you must go way back if you rode before helmet were law :innocent:

Where to draw the line? I would like to have as; you are free to do what you like as long as it doesn't affect someone else. Yeah but who decides when you are affecting someone else? If you ride with out a helmet and die as a result your riding wasn't affecting anyone but you but the consequences did. If blanket man was allowed to dress according to his expressed believes who does it affect and why is he not allowed to? We draw the line often based on popular opinion.

[Banditbandit]

:shit: Banditbandit you must go way back if you rode before helmet were law :innocent:



Yeah .. something like that. I was riding a mate's bike around Remuera the day helmets became compulsory - without a helmet ... (It was a mate's bike because I didn't live in Orc-land .. and didn't have my bike with me ...) .. sorry I'm old ...

[oneofsix]

Yeah .. something like that. I was riding a mate's bike around Remuera the day helmets became compulsory - without a helmet ... (It was a mate's bike because I didn't live in Orc-land .. and didn't have my bike with me ...) .. sorry I'm old ...

never be sorry on KB. I can remember the law coming in but weren't yet old enough to be riding. Guess me calling you old is the pot calling the kettle black

[Edbear]

Hmmm ... maybe ... Way back I objected to being forced to wear a helmet .... (owned and rode bikes before I owned a helmet) ... now I wouldn't get on a bike without ATGATT ...

But freedom of choice as a principle here? There are many freedoms are forced to give up because of the law .. such as the freedom to kill people ... freedom to take drugs ... (Yeah - unless we can get away with it) ...

Where do we draw the line? That will always be as question for debate - and rightly so ..

Helmets have saved my life twice .. a good full face meant I walked away instead of being carried away .... Without a compulsory helmet law I would be DEAD ... so I agree that freedom of choice is important .. but so is stopping stupidity and saving lives ...

"You must spread..." Well put!


:shit: Banditbandit you must go way back if you rode before helmet were law :innocent:

Where to draw the line? I would like to have as; you are free to do what you like as long as it doesn't affect someone else. Yeah but who decides when you are affecting someone else? If you ride with out a helmet and die as a result your riding wasn't affecting anyone but you but the consequences did. If blanket man was allowed to dress according to his expressed believes who does it affect and why is he not allowed to? We draw the line often based on popular opinion.

"Popular opinion", or generallly agreed what is the best overall balance of freedom and responsibility? Certainly, death and injury affects others, so to claim one is not infringing the rights of others is only true if you have no consequences for anyone else. In a society, that is not true of any activity, or at least most activities.

[jazfender]

Certainly, death and injury affects others, so to claim one is not infringing the rights of others is only true if you have no consequences for anyone else. In a society, that is not true of any activity, or at least most activities.

I agree that freedom should accompany responsibility. I don't, however, think that should fall on the state to control except where individuals are in a position that they unable to look after themselves.

[Banditbandit]

I agree that freedom should accompany responsibility. I don't, however, think that should fall on the state to control except where individuals are in a position that they unable to look after themselves.

Mate - every time a rider dies in a road accident ACC pay out to the family ... something over $5,000. That's money coming out of OUR levies ... every death on the roads directly affects ME

(So wear your fucking helmets and DON'T ARGUE ...)

[gunnyrob]

Just gotta be amazed at the low incident rate on the BIK(E)OI. We did well.

That's because I gave everyone a farken excellent brief at Sanson and told them not to fark up for everyone!

Let's face it, danger is nature's way of eliminating stupid people.

[jazfender]

Mate - every time a rider dies in a road accident ACC pay out to the family ... something over $5,000. That's money coming out of OUR levies ... every death on the roads directly affects ME

(So wear your fucking helmets and DON'T ARGUE ...)

Yeah, people wear helmets to please ACC. Get real.

I wear a helmet and would regardless of whether it's compulsory or not.

[Banditbandit]

Yeah, people wear helmets to please ACC. Get real.

I wear a helmet and would regardless of whether it's compulsory or not.

NO!!! Wear you fucking helemts to please ME .. because then MY levy might go down ... (and yours)

(fuckwits on NZ roads are still dying because they are not wearing helemts ... )

[jazfender]

NO!!! Wear you fucking helemts to please ME .. because then MY levy might go down ... (and yours)

That is so not the issue here.

[Kickaha]

(fuckwits on NZ roads are still dying because they are not wearing helemts ... )

Really? how many people died on NZ roads as a direct result of not wearing helmets in the last 12 months?

[Voltaire]

I thought people die on NZ roads because they are in a metal box, or on a motor with wheels that relys on humans to operate.
Take away motor vehicles and out roads will be much safer....:innocent:

[Kickaha]

I can't remember when helmets weren't compulsory but I can remember when it was possible to get a exemption from wearing them on medical grounds

Those old Triumph twins must have vibrated like a bastard because most of there riders seemed to suffer from headaches caused by it and be able to get an exemption

[swbarnett]

NO!!! Wear you fucking helemts to please ME .. because then MY levy might go down ... (and yours)
You do know the best way to lower the ACC levy don't you? DON'T RIDE!

I don't hear you advocating that. If you're willing to put your own life at risk and ride one of these "death traps" (as a lot of people call them) then why are you so troubled because someone may chooses to do it helmetless ?

[Banditbandit]

I agree that freedom should accompany responsibility. I don't, however, think that should fall on the state to control except where individuals are in a position that they unable to look after themselves.


It is so much the point. You seem to be advocating freedom of choice - and then saying that responsible riders will wear helemts. And that people should be allowed to act as they want so long as they don't affect other people. I used to agree with you. I changed my mind.

It's true that responsible riders will wear helmets, but there are people out there who will ride without helmets if they have the choice. I expect a lot of my old friends would. Hell, if I stayed riding with the 1%ers I almost certainly would not wear one, apart from for comfort reasons on cold wet days or long distance. (I'd probably be riding a Harley and never have dumped Hondas at speed.)

And then some of them would die because they had accidents when they were not wearing helmets. Each bike accident costs this country a MINIMUM of $10,000, (amulbance costs, coroner's costs, police costs, ACC costs) with the average cost being around $18,000 per accident. And costs for one accident can exceed $1million - depedng on injuries and ongoing medical bills.

So if we save three bike accidents that's saving a figure of around $54,000. That's the cost of an extra teacher somewhere in the country, an extra police officer - One more person in work and not on the dole. It is also the cost of several necessary operations which we can't afford to have done right now. The cost of medication to keep someone alive.

So every accident affects ALL of us ... and this is where your position falls over. Giving people freedom of choice will affect us all and cost the country what we can't afford.


Really? how many people died on NZ roads as a direct result of not wearing helmets in the last 12 months?

No idea. There are the occassional idiots who get killed on bikes because they are not wearing helmets - it happens. That's why I am opposed to removing the compulsory helmet laws.


You do know the best way to lower the ACC levy don't you? DON'T RIDE!

I don't hear you advocating that. If you're willing to put your own life at risk and ride one of these "death traps" (as a lot of people call them) then why are you so troubled because someone may chooses to do it helmetless ?

Because their death will affect us all. Fuck - I've ridden helmetless. I owned bikes before I owned a helmet ... and I certainly objected to being forced to wear one on the grounds of "personal freedom". But wearing a helmet has saved my life at least twice. Practical experience tells me they work. And they save us money that would come from our ACC levy and taxes.

Fuck - I'm sick of this arguement. Helmets work and save us money - Freedom of Choice is a non-arguement.

[Spearfish]

That's because I gave everyone a farken excellent brief at Sanson and told them not to fark up for everyone!

Let's face it, danger is nature's way of eliminating stupid people.

Pity the msg faded with the event but the ACC levy stayed and the ammo ACC used as reasons why ACC is higher came flooding back, unfortunately.

ACC for bikes has become a lot like ncea is for kids at school.
farken complicated,
expensive to admin,
and the kids are being graded ALL the time not just the test at the end of year in fifth form (old school cert)....or bikers equivalent, bikoi.
Controversial enough that some prefer to use an alternative.

Would be good if credits could be given, then its fairer and freedom is as deep as your pockets should there be consequences.

[davereid]

If the question is :

"What is the safest way to ride a motorcycle", then the answer is likely to be "with a helmet on".

And as long as that remains the question, we will remain able to ride, albiet wearing a helmet.

But IMHO we must defend the right of people to choose risk, for no reason other than pleasure.

If we accept that only the safest option is acceptable we take the risk that the safety nazis will ask a different question.

They may ask "whats the safest way of getting from point A to Point B"

And then, we will all get a bus pass, as motorcycling will be indefensible.

[Spearfish]

I believe growing the numbers of capable riders will ensure a strong bike presence on nz roads unfortunately turning the tide needs more than just fuel price hikes to nudge those who start and end a sentence with "I would love to ride, always wanted to...BUT you know, temp citizen, organ donation, I think bikes are to powerful for me...on it goes"
From that you can either say they don't have what it takes anyway or motorbicycling has some problems.
What those problems could be is an endless debate in itself

[jazfender]

So every accident affects ALL of us ... and this is where your position falls over. Giving people freedom of choice will affect us all and cost the country what we can't afford.

I don't accept that we cannot afford that as a society.

For one, giving people the choice will not result in some kind of dramatic increase in accidents. Wearing a helmet while riding is only less dangerous in the sense that it offers protection from the elements.

Yes, the tiny minority of motorcyclists that are in accidents have an increased risk of being seriously injured or killed and yes that may increase costs.

Taking away the liberty of choice here is a bandaid solution. The real reason costs are rising is due to greater number of road users, in my opinion. That's the issue to be dealt with, not the choice when it comes to personal safety.

Helmets do not prevent accidents. Helmets deal with the consequences of accidents. A better solution is to limit or stop them happening in the first place.




No idea. There are the occassional idiots who get killed on bikes because they are not wearing helmets - it happens. That's why I am opposed to removing the compulsory helmet laws.

No, they get killed because they were in an accident in the first place.


If the question is :

"What is the safest way to ride a motorcycle", then the answer is likely to be "with a helmet on".

I don't believe wearing a helmet has anything to do with riding safely.

[FJRider]

I don't accept that we cannot afford that as a society.

Freedom to choose in a society ... is one thing we all hold dear ... But such freedoms in a society ... come with obligations to that society. If such freedoms of choice can/will result in a cost to that society ... can then perhaps, such costs be passed on to those that "took a risk" ... and was hurt.
Taking reasonable steps to either prevent, or at least minimise injurys ... would result in less cost to society than allowing those that chose to ride their motorcycle in shorts/T shirt/no helmet.


For one, giving people the choice will not result in some kind of dramatic increase in accidents. Wearing a helmet while riding is only less dangerous in the sense that it offers protection from the elements.

Dramatic increase ... ??? maybe ... maybe not. Darwin had a theory on that ...
I never noticed the tar-seal getting any softer over the years ... and if at walking pace, I fell off my bike ... I am sure it would hurt if I hit my head on said tar-seal. Add another 50-100 km/hr to the equation ... and ... if you can still (in all honesty) tell me, the chance of my injuries wont increase ... with the speed ... at the time of my accident, and explain HOW this would be so ... I could ... would support your arguement ...
Funny how you say "protection from the elements" ... as in all too many accidents ... the "elements" are the primary factor in those "accidents" ...
QUITE funny actually ...


Yes, the tiny minority of motorcyclists that are in accidents have an increased risk of being seriously injured or killed and yes that may increase costs.

EVERY motorcyclist has a risk of being seriously injured or killed in an accident ... some die at speeds, that some push-bikes exceed ... easily.
MAY increase costs ... ??? ... :killingme


Taking away the liberty of choice here is a bandaid solution. The real reason costs are rising is due to greater number of road users, in my opinion. That's the issue to be dealt with, not the choice when it comes to personal safety.

Even bandaids cost money ... and with the increase or road users ... extra cost. The "bandaid solution" is only an option those in authority can take. I fear those authorities may do more, in the interests of our "personal safety" than has been suggested so far ...
ACC may change their policys to ensure that those that did not take reasonable steps to ensure their personable safety ... be denied ACC payouts after an injury accident ... be it on a motorcycle, or bicycle ...

or anywhere ...

anytime ...


Helmets do not prevent accidents. Helmets deal with the consequences of accidents. A better solution is to limit or stop them happening in the first place.

Now that is just STUPID statement ...

Helmets reduce the consequences of accidents ...

Accident according to Wikipedia ...

An accident is a specific, unpredictable, unusual and unintended external action which occurs in a particular time and place, with no apparent and deliberate cause but with marked effects. It implies a generally negative outcome which may have been avoided or prevented had circumstances leading up to the accident been recognized, and acted upon, prior to its occurrence.


No, they get killed because they were in an accident in the first place.

Supprisingly enough ... some accidents ARE survivable ... and appropriate safety gear may ensure ... that not every accident is fatal ...



I don't believe wearing a helmet has anything to do with riding safely.

TRUE ENOUGH ... I have seen some riding WITH helmets ... riding like total fuckwits ...

[jazfender]

If such freedoms of choice can/will result in a cost to that society ... can then perhaps, such costs be passed on to those that "took a risk" ... and was hurt.

I am absolutely all for that. Weren't wearing a helmet? Pay more if you crash.


Dramatic increase ... ??? maybe ... maybe not. Darwin had a theory on that ...
I never noticed the tar-seal getting any softer over the years ... and if at walking pace, I fell off my bike ... I am sure it would hurt if I hit my head on said tar-seal. Add another 50-100 km/hr to the equation ... and ... if you can still (in all honesty) tell me, the chance of my injuries wont increase ... with the speed ... at the time of my accident, and explain HOW this would be so ... I could ... would support your arguement ...
Funny how you say "protection from the elements" ... as in all too many accidents ... the "elements" are the primary factor in those "accidents" ...
QUITE funny actually ...

I am talking about the cause of accidents, not the result of accidents. When I say "elements" I am referring to the wind, rain and other things which may impair vision but are not the primary reason for wearing a helmet.

As an aside, how cool would it be to have a tar-seal that softens at an impact point? Get the material scientists onto that shit.



Now that is just STUPID statement ...

Helmets reduce the consequences of accidents ...


Yes. And..?



Supprisingly enough ... some accidents ARE survivable ... and appropriate safety gear may ensure ... that not every accident is fatal ...


Yes. That is the accepted risk of not wearing a helmet.

[FJRider]

I am absolutely all for that. Weren't wearing a helmet? Pay more if you crash.

I AGREE ... :yes:




I am talking about the cause of accidents, not the result of accidents. When I say "elements" I am referring to the wind, rain and other things which may impair vision but are not the primary reason for wearing a helmet.

Supprisingly ... those "elements" ARE the cause of many accidents .. or a least one factor in them ... and funnily enough .... they often appear in the middle of a ride ...

Even with the realitive accuracy of weather prediction nowdays ... many still get caught out. Another risk ... ???? ... or too lazy to be just not checking the latest forecast ... ???


As an aside, how cool would it be to have a tar-seal that softens at an impact point? Get the material scientists onto that shit.

ACC levies may be a little lower ... :innocent:


Yes. And..?

Motorcycling is a gamble that you either wont get hurt ... or wont get hurt badly. If the thought that you MAY die ... was taken seriously by motorcyclists ... they would never get on one.

The common thought ... it wont happen to me ... prevails ...




Yes. That is the accepted risk of not wearing a helmet.

Not a risk I accept.

Those that DO accept that risk ... not only endanger themselves ... they endanger every other road user they encounter on the road. Regardless if they had no intention to endanger anybody ...

Risks YOU accept ... I MAY NOT ... and I object to risks YOU dismiss .. one's I take seriously ... and ... as such ... see YOU as possibly endangering ME ..

If free choice is your aim ... I am happy with that ...

But I do not want the same end result as the biker in the original post of this thread ...

[swbarnett]

Because their death will affect us all.
Where do you draw the line? Why not ban bikes entirely?


But wearing a helmet has saved my life at least twice. Practical experience tells me they work.
This is not in dispute. Given the choice I would still wear one.


Fuck - I'm sick of this arguement. Helmets work and save us money - Freedom of Choice is a non-arguement.
So you would remove all freedom of choice if it made us all rich? You would be happy being told where to go on holiday or that you're not allowed a holiday just because it meant the nation's bank balance was higher as a result?

You, sir, have your head firmly planted in the ground.

[Banditbandit]

So you would remove all freedom of choice if it made us all rich? You would be happy being told where to go on holiday or that you're not allowed a holiday just because it meant the nation's bank balance was higher as a result?

You, sir, have your head firmly planted in the ground.

Not at all. (to the first sentence - the second one may well be true ... who knows)

There's always going to be healthy debate about where to draw such lines - and I would draw a line well before way way before being told where to take holidays ... in gfact well before removing all freedoms if it made us rich ... people have a right to be poor ...

[swbarnett]

Freedom to choose in a society ... is one thing we all hold dear ... But such freedoms in a society ... come with obligations to that society. If such freedoms of choice can/will result in a cost to that society ...
ALL individual freedoms result in a cost to society. Wopuld you remove them all?

[swbarnett]

Not at all.
How is being told where to go on holiday any different to being told to wear a helmet when you don't want to?


There's always going to be healthy debate about where to draw such lines - and I would draw a line well before way way before being told where to take holidays ...
I draw the line at anything that only has a direct cost to the individual making the choice. An emotional or monetary cost to society as a result of an accident is an indirect cost.

[Banditbandit]

I draw the line at anything that only has a direct cost to the individual making the choice. An emotional or monetary cost to society as a result of an accident is an indirect cost.

So wold you say that the cost against our taxes of our police force is an indirect cost? An indirect cost of crime? Individiauls make a choice to commit crimes - by your logic the cost of catching and punishing them is an indirect cost ... in the same way the costs of medical attention for a biker who has an accident is an indirect cost ...

That seems to me to be an unsustainable and indefenceable position.

[Scuba_Steve]

So wold you say that the cost against our taxes of our police force is an indirect cost? An indirect cost of crime? Individiauls make a choice to commit crimes - by your logic the cost of catching and punishing them is an indirect cost ... in the same way the costs of medical attention for a biker who has an accident is an indirect cost ...

That seems to me to be an unsustainable and indefenceable position.

See I think thats going slightly "straw-man" there, as the police are here for the sole purpose of preventing crime & catching criminals, whereas the "medical attention" is not solely there for a biker who has an accident, it is there for everyone becuase everyone needs it at sometime of another. Thus we have direct, cops are there because of criminals & indirect, bikers get saved because the "medical attention" exists

or maybee its just me who see's it that way???

[Katman]

If the thought that you MAY die ... was taken seriously by motorcyclists ... they would never get on one.


Every day of the four years I spent couriering I knew that if I didn't have my shit together I could well be coming home in a box.

It sure gave me plenty of incentive to sort my shit out.

[Banditbandit]

See I think thats going slightly "straw-man" there, as the police are here for the sole purpose of preventing crime & catching criminals, whereas the "medical attention" is not solely there for a biker who has an accident, it is there for everyone becuase everyone needs it at sometime of another.

That is true - but it comes at a cost, and each event has a cost - if wee can mitigate the costs of emergency treatmetn by wearing helmets tat money is available for people who need attentionbecause they are sick ..



Thus we have direct, cops are there because of criminals & indirect, bikers get saved because the "medical attention" exists

or maybee its just me who see's it that way???

It's true that medical attention would exist, but it's not a bottomless pool of dollars - look at the people needing medicine we can't afford - because the money is being spent on other things ...

[Banditbandit]

This is not in dispute. Given the choice I would still wear one.




Given a choice some people wouldn't

[bsasuper]

It always amazes me when bikers "face palm" about other bikers deciding to ride without a helmet.

Thats how car drivers react too, when hearing that I choose to ride a motorcycle.

The facts are simple.

The DUMB decision is choosing to ride a motorcycle. Thats the one that makes you up to 22 times more likely to die on the roads than a Volvo driver.

The helmet ? Facts are not so clear there. It certainly helps with abrasion type injuries, but its much harder to prove effectiveness against brain injury. The likely out come is around a decrease of around 0.3 -0.5 in head injuries of all types.

And many studies implicate the extra weight of the helmet, and its diameter with an increase in spinal injuries.

The NZ data is very interesting.

242085

Use the data provided to tell me which year NZ got helmets.

If you cant tell, theres another way. Google spinal injuries, and use that table. Or go to Burwood spinal unit and meet the bikers.

There is NO DOUBT that helmets save lives. But its not a binary. Its not a choice between (a) alive and well, or (b) dead.

Its often a choice between (a) alive and very very disabled or (b) dead.

My advice ?

Ride carefully. Dont count on the helmet.

And support the choice of those who choose to possibly double their risk on the road, by not wearing a helmet.
As in a minute I'm about to choose to be 22 times more likely to die on the roads, as I exercise MY free choice to ride my motorcycle.

You can come up with all the stats you want (what do you do for a job? I bet its one that dosnt involve getting ya hands dirty), there are two points that stats can't count.
1. Pea brains ride motorcycles too

2.Car drivers( and that includes your 22 whatever volvo drivers) that are not paying attention when driving a car and hit a motorcycle.

[jazfender]

Given a choice some people wouldn't

Yes, that is the nature of choice. You're getting it now.



Supprisingly ... those "elements" ARE the cause of many accidents .. or a least one factor in them ... and funnily enough .... they often appear in the middle of a ride ...

Weak though, they are not the primary reason helmets are compulsory.



Motorcycling is a gamble that you either wont get hurt ... or wont get hurt badly. If the thought that you MAY die ... was taken seriously by motorcyclists ... they would never get on one.

If by seriously you mean unrealistically. It's the same thing as deciding to leave bed in the morning, there's a risk (sure, lower...) that you will get hurt doing something.



Not a risk I accept.

Those that DO accept that risk ... not only endanger themselves ... they endanger every other road user they encounter on the road. Regardless if they had no intention to endanger anybody ...

That's fine, and you should be able to decide that it isn't a risk you would take, not have someone decide for you. I personally do not accept the risk of not wearing a helmet either.



Risks YOU accept ... I MAY NOT ... and I object to risks YOU dismiss .. one's I take seriously ... and ... as such ... see YOU as possibly endangering ME ..

I find it difficult for a supporting argument to be that other people not wearing helmets endangers you.



If free choice is your aim ... I am happy with that ...

But I do not want the same end result as the biker in the original post of this thread ...

We have similar views towards the risks associated with not wearing a helmet. I just want to be able to make the choice.

[swbarnett]

So wold you say that the cost against our taxes of our police force is an indirect cost? An indirect cost of crime? Individiauls make a choice to commit crimes - by your logic the cost of catching and punishing them is an indirect cost ... in the same way the costs of medical attention for a biker who has an accident is an indirect cost ...
Fair question.

Yes, the cost of a police force is an indirect cost.

However, most crime - theft, murder, rape etc. - has a very direct cost on the victims of that crime. Whereas the choice of personal safety in any endevour, not just motorcycling, has no direct cost on anybody but the individual making the choice, only an indirect one.

[swbarnett]

I find it difficult for a supporting argument to be that other people not wearing helmets endangers you.

Indeed, so do I.

A legal compulsion is appropriate only where it can be shown that an individual's choice results in an immediate danger to someone else.

[Katman]

A legal compulsion is appropriate only where it can be shown that an individual's choice results in an immediate danger to someone else.

And a moral compulsion is appropriate when an individual's choice results in an impingement on the rights of others.

[FJRider]

And a moral compulsion is appropriate when an individual's choice results in an impingement on the rights of others.

But what if my rights .... are more important than yours ... ??? :drinknsin

[DMNTD]

But what if my rights .... are more important than yours ... ??? :drinknsin

Surely that would simply make them wrongs :eek:

[FJRider]

Surely that would simply make them wrongs :eek:

ME ... wrong ... surely not ... :confused:

[gwigs]

Back in the days before helmet laws.:corn:

[swbarnett]

And a moral compulsion is appropriate when an individual's choice results in an impingement on the rights of others.
Indeed.

And not wearing a helmet (or wearing one for that matter) does not impinge on anyone elses rights.

[Katman]

Indeed.

And not wearing a helmet (or wearing one for that matter) does not impinge on anyone elses rights.

The results of it do though.

[FJRider]

The results of it do though.

My visor has three scratches in it from stone impacts ... if it wasn't being worn ... :eek: :doh:

[swbarnett]

The results of it do though.
I'm afraid not. A squashed head as the result of an impact without a helmet does not take away anyone's rights. Any would-be rescuers still have the right to leave the rider's battered body to the buzzards.

And as for the ACC cost argument: As a society we have chosen to embrace a no-fault system. As a result, it is within the principles of ACC to ride without a helmet (or anything else).

[Katman]

I'm afraid not. A squashed head as the result of an impact without a helmet does not take away anyone's rights.

Certainly does if the government says it does.

[swbarnett]

Certainly does if the government says it does.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Please elaborate.

[FJRider]

I'm afraid not. A squashed head as the result of an impact without a helmet does not take away anyone's rights. Any would-be rescuers still have the right to leave the rider's battered body to the buzzards.

Leaving the scene of an accident without acertaining injury / assisting those injured is ...
Well at least drag it off the road ... so all the blood doesnt splattered over passing cars ... (it's a barstard to get off when it dries)


And as for the ACC cost argument: As a society we have chosen to embrace a no-fault system. As a result, it is within the principles of ACC to ride without a helmet (or anything else).

Well ... the deceased rider would claim no fault ... if they were alive ... and you cant sue a deceased person for damages though ...

[davereid]

As a result, it is within the principles of ACC to ride without a helmet (or anything else).

Herein lies the problem.

Caring people noticed that in some parts of the world, the injured, sick or disabled sat outside the railway station on a blanket, hoping for scraps from passer-bys.

So we created a system, that looks after the injured, sick or disabled. Funded by tax, everyone was "in" even if they did not want to be.

For the good of society.

Trouble is, the same caring people, (and some who were taxed but not so caring), then noticed an awful lot of their taxes being spent caring for people, who had deliberately chosen to do dangerous things.

So, they decided to ban just the most dangerous thing.

Trouble is, once banned, it wasn't the most dangerous thing any more. Something else was.

So, they banned that too.

In the public good of course !

[FJRider]

Herein lies the problem.

In the beginning ... the NZ goverment created ACC.

On the 2nd day ... they saw that it was good, and provided more money.

On the 3rd day, they saw themselves helping ALL that needed help, and that it was good.

On the 4th day, they thought it was so good, they could help those who couldn't be helped ... but hey ... they had plenty of money ... and it was good.

On the 5th day, they ran out of money and created bigger levys to cover the shortfall... and it was good (for them)

On the 6th day, with so much money in the coffers, they sold ACC as a going concern... and it was good (for them)

On the 7th day God (I mean the NZ goverment) rested.





In the public good of course !

[jonbuoy]

Riding without a helmet would be something you might do at 17/18 when you don´t know any better. If there was no law to force people into wearing one some of those might not make it to an age where they do know better.

[swbarnett]

So, they decided to ban just the most dangerous thing.
Too true, but even this is against the principle of ACC.

[swbarnett]

Leaving the scene of an accident without acertaining injury / assisting those injured is ...
Another law I'm not too keen on. While I would hope any reasonable person would render assistance, I don't think it's right to force them to under law.


Well ... the deceased rider would claim no fault ... if they were alive ...
It's not a matter of whether the rider is actually at fault or not (for the accident or for increased injury), just that under the principles of ACC we don't care when dishing out money for recovery and rehabilitation.


and you cant sue a deceased person for damages though ...
You can sue the deceased's estate.

[scumdog]

Another law I'm not too keen on. While I would hope any reasonable person would render assistance, I don't think it's right to force them to under law.
.

So, it would be OK with you if somebody crashed into another vehicle and shot the gap without checking to see if they'd injured anybody etc it'd be alright for them to get off scot-free, no penalty?

[swbarnett]

So, it would be OK with you if somebody crashed into another vehicle and shot the gap without checking to see if they'd injured anybody etc it'd be alright for them to get off scot-free, no penalty?
It seems if I may have misunderstood. I thought this was talking about the law that compells an innocent bystander to assist. From your question it seems clear that it is actually about hit and run. In which case I totally agree with you.