Super Bowl champion quarterback knocked off his 'busa

[Calo]

PITTSBURGH (AP) -- Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger broke his jaw and nose in a motorcycle crash Monday, but doctors said they had successfully treated his multiple facial fractures after hours of surgery.

Roethlisberger, the youngest quarterback to lead a team to the Super Bowl championship, was taken to Pittsburgh's Mercy Hospital, where he underwent seven hours of surgery after the late morning accident.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/football/nfl/06/12/bc.fbn.apnewsalert.ap/index.html?section=cnn_topstories :shit:

[chanceyy]

was not wearing a helmet .. even after his coach advised him too ... also showed a clip on tv where he is stating he would wear a helmet if it was law

[Brett]

What dumb ass rides without a helmet??? It isn't like a gn250 either, its a busa which makes me think the guy liked his speed (both types) in large doses. He got off lightly if that is all that happened to him.

[Big Dave]

What dumb ass rides without a helmet??? It isn't like a gn250 either, its a busa which makes me think the guy liked his speed (both types) in large doses. He got off lightly if that is all that happened to him.

Yes - bad choice - but at lest he is allowed to make it.

[imdying]

Yes - bad choice - but at lest he is allowed to make it.Yes, but this only highlights why he shouldn't be allowed to make it.

[ogr1]

A real "touchdown" then :shutup:

[DemonWolf]

Well he was bloody lucky.. considering how smashed up his Busa was....

[pritch]

What dumb ass rides without a helmet???

In countries where the nanny state doesn't try to remove all personal choices some people may choose to wear helmets, or not. They may choose to wear them some times and not others. Of course they have to live with the consequences of their decisions. That's how it used to be here once.

It strikes me as sad that a couple of the posts to this thread indicate that we now have at least one generation that expect all decisions to be made for them by the Government.

[placidfemme]

Wow his bike is munted....

*doesn't understand the no helmet thing*

[Lou Girardin]

He needs a law to make him protect himself?
I bet he did college on a sports scholarship, he wouldn't have the brains to do it on IQ.

[imdying]

He needs a law to make him protect himself?Only from himself. We on the other hand need a law to protect us from him... because I know who'd be paying for his surgery in NZ, and it sure ain't him...

[Str8 Jacket]

Anyone else find it ironic that those players wear a helmet while playing on the field but he gets on one of the fastest bikes ever made and doesnt wear one? Not that im judging anyone...

[Lou Girardin]

Only from himself. We on the other hand need a law to protect us from him... because I know who'd be paying for his surgery in NZ, and it sure ain't him...

When sports people forego ACC, I'll agree with you.

[Swoop]

When sports people forego ACC, I'll agree with you.
Like Mark Inglis who climbed Mt Everest recently, knew the risks, got frostbite and came back to NZ to have priority surgery at the taxpayers expense.
No insurance cover???

[Toast]

When sports people forego ACC, I'll agree with you.

The citizens' participation in sports is at least are arguably good for the country...socially at least, and from stopping the rising porker syndrome in this country (very much debatable from a higher level perspective of health though)...

Being a dip and not wearing a helmet doesn't seem to benefit anyone though...

[imdying]

Like Mark Inglis who climbed Mt Everest recently, knew the risks, got frostbite and came back to NZ to have priority surgery at the taxpayers expense.
No insurance cover???Yes exactly... no ACC for him. He's a fricken retard that out of anyone in the world should know better. Dumb fucks like him should carry the can for themselves. (I'm assuming that in fact ACC did pay for his latest amputations?)

[Lou Girardin]

Being a dip and not wearing a helmet doesn't seem to benefit anyone though...

Apart from those who believe adults should make their own decisions, not made for them by sheltered academics living in Governmental cocoons in Wellington.

[onearmedbandit]

How about this then. Now most of the people here talking 'individual-choice' are experienced riders, some with many miles and years under their belts. Shit some of these guys might not have had an 'off' for many years as well. So from their perspective, I can see why they feel that way.

But stop to think of other riders for a minute, especially those who are maybe considering their first bike. Now as we all know, image is a part of motorcycling. Whether you want one or not, you've got one. So young newbie wanting to look as cool as possible, takes advantage of the no hemlet law and rides the streets for the first time. Ever. I'm not saying he's destined to come off, but his chances are higher than most. I not arguing that this is the sole reason we should have helmet laws, but I feel it is an important one.

New riders and those with little experience are the ones we need to be thinking of here, not only ourselves.

[Toast]

Apart from those who believe adults should make their own decisions, not made for them by sheltered academics living in Governmental cocoons in Wellington.

But the issue here is not merely about him being able to make decisions that affect only him, it's about the fact that his decision not to wear a helmet costs the rest of us financially, in ACC...and is that fair?

The difference in arguments here is similar to the different sides during debate about the no smoking in public bars law...smokers claimed that it was merely the government infringing on their personal freedoms...which is bullshit. They can kill themselves with ciggies, but their decision to smoke costs me, in terms of my health, so it's not merely about them being able to make decisions for themselves.

Back to the helmet case...

In a country like the US though, where there's no ACC act or equivalent (to my knowledge), give the freedom to be a dickhead, since that soft little head is unlikely to cause me more harm than a helmeted one.

[pritch]

it's about the fact that his decision not to wear a helmet costs the rest of us financially, in ACC...and is that fair?

Compared to what we used to have, it most certainly is. We used to have to sue somebody, to do that successfully you needed to prove blame. If the Police were to busy to attend the accident you were shit out of luck right there. (That happened to my brother.)

If you had an accident at work you had to sue your employer to get compensation. Since we tend to get exactly the justice we can afford this didn't always end well.

ACC was supposed to be a no fault, no liability, system. If a guy broke his leg jumping over a prison wall he got ACC. That's OK, that's a small price to pay.

Over the years ACC has been watered down and the "social contract" the populace entrered into when they gave up the right to sue has been corrupted. As corrupted as it has become though, ACC is still just possibly more fair than what existed previously.

I would suspect, however, that all prudent travellers would have insurance. Unless we *know* that Ingles didn't have insurance we can't even comment.

[Colapop]

Seven hours in surgery.... 1/2 hour to fix the injuries, 6 1/2 hours plastic surgery to save the face sponsors want!

[Lou Girardin]

So the pro-helmet law brigade would be happy to see bikes banned?
They also are a great cost to the tax-payer.
Be careful what you wish for.