Biker dies in no helmet protest

[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 ... ??? ...

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 ...

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 ...

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.

Attachment 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.