Man dies protesting helmet law

[Lilani]

Yes.

I always wear a seatbelt, and I'd choose to do so even if I wasn't required to by law (just like I wouldn't shoot heroin or smoke a joint even if drugs were legalized), but I really don't think that it's the government's place to protect us from our own reckless behavior.

Requiring children to be belted is a different matter, since it's not a child's fault if their parents are morons and aren't doing this regardless of existing law.

I'd also be more militant about this sort of thing if hospitals didn't have to treat these people and swallow the cost of the patient can't, or won't, pay. I'm a big believer in personal freedoms (disclaimer: YOUR right to swing your fist ends at the tip of your NEIGHBOR'S nose), but I also believe that people need to take responsibility for their own actions.

I feel like the seatbelt laws are more or less in place to set a common standard for vehicle safety--a clear example for the public. Believe it or not, there are some people out there who actually believe that they have better chances without the seatbelt than with it. They believe, to the core, that everyone would be better off without seatbelts. When those people have children, and it comes time for them to get out of that carseat, what is to keep them from instilling that same sentiment in their children?

Well, nothing. However, knowing that they could get pulled over for not having their seatbelt on could make them reconsider how they act upon that sentiment. Think about it: driving without a seatbelt alone is enough to get pulled over and a ticket. But, so what? Those people don't care about those sorts of tickets. But what they DO care about is getting arrested for child endangerment and neglect. See? They may believe that everyone in their car is safer without seatbelts, but when going without a seatbelt could lead to that sort of arrest, that changes things a bit.

I don't see it as a law to prevent people from being stupid. I see it as a law that keeps the stupidity from spreading so quickly. So, if the seatbelt laws make it so that even just one child gets buckled up a little more often, wouldn't you say it's worth it? And if it's not, just think about all the revenue police departments pull in with those tickets. We could always use a little more money these days. Just don't be stupid, and those tickets will never cost you a dime. And you have the satisfaction of knowing that all over the country, there are actually people who are having to reach into their own wallets to pay for their stupidity! How often do you get to see that happen?

 

[The Lugz]

the whole two wheels issue seems to be a common theme on escapist,
let's start with pedal cycles:
thing is, you need a full face downhill safety mask and leathers or full body armour to 'seriously' have enough protection on a bicycle, and that just isn't happening for weight, heat and mobility issues
( it would be highly uncomfortable and undesirable to ride a bicycle like that, and you would go so slow you would be a road hazard or risk suffering heat stroke, and that can be just as deadly as getting hit. )
people pretend the little crown helmets will save your life but in allot of cases where it would be absorbing enough impact to save your life ( at speeds exceeding 30 mph ) it would be just as likely to snap your neck by adding leverage to your cervical vertebrae
they are however great if you fall off or cycle into a wall
and if you actually look at the comments and disclaimers by 'safety experts' they claim that crashes happen at low speeds so the equipment is designed for it,
in laymen's terms they don't work that well if something is steaming for your head
get yourself something like this:
http://www.specialized.com/gb/gb/bc/SBCEqProduct.jsp?spid=47087&menuItemId=10832&eid=4952

or do not expect to survive a head impact with anything on 4 wheels
what's the difference? this style of helmet is specifically designed to protect you from having your nose implanted in your frontal lobe, and massively reduces neck related trauma by protecting lower down the skull and thus reducing the leverage on your neck

now, for motorcycles and anything with an engine that weighs more than you do in a circumstance like this, you really have no excuse you wont die of heatstroke in leathers and a helmet with a powered vehicle, and you look pretty slick.
if you own an open top car and flip the thing then nothing is going to save you.. rest in pieces

armour is a good idea, but people aren't so smart so what can you do ?

I feel sorry for the guy and his family for epic failing at proving a point
let's hope his death will save many others, that would be a good legacy to leave behind i guess.

 

[SillyBear]

I'm sure he was well aware of the risks when he protested wearing a helmet, sadly be paid for it.

By the way, the amount of people on here misinterpreting natural selection is pretty worrying to me.

 

[AMX58]

Dude WTF yeah ok why in the blue hell would do that

 

[bulbasaur765]

Sad story, but I doubt anything will change because of it.

 

[fulano]

That man was a Grade-A dummy. Through and through. May his sad misfortune serve as a cautionary tale to all bikers and wanna-be bikers out there: Wear a Fucking Helmet.

 

[DustyDrB]

Well, I still agree with his opinion. Not wearing a helmet puts no one but the nonwearer at risk. I don't see why it should be enforced through law.

Wear a helmet and wear your seatbelt. But you should be wearing them because it's common sense and not because its a law.

 

[Booze Zombie]

That is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard and somehow, I am not surprised.

 

[thedeathscythe]

Reminds me of how the owner Segway died on a Segway. It's tragic, but ironic, so it all balances out.

The owner of Segway is still alive and kicking at 60 years old...

Nope, he is dead [http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/09/segway-death/]. You may be thinking of the creator, as I don't think Jimi Heselden created it, but instead owned the company.

 

[CleverCover]

First thought: LOL!11!!! MORON WINZ DARWIN AWARD!!!111
Second thought: There's a reason those laws are there and he proved it.
Third thought: Now, because he didn't wear a helmet, his family is affected because HE'S DEAD.

Your protest screwed over no one but your family.

 

[razer17]

Reminds me of how the owner Segway died on a Segway. It's tragic, but ironic, so it all balances out.

The owner of Segway is still alive and kicking at 60 years old...

Nope, he is dead [http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/09/segway-death/]. You may be thinking of the creator, as I don't think Jimi Heselden created it, but instead owned the company.

Ah, my mistake then. How does one kill themselves on a Segway? They go like 2 mile an hour, you think you'd be able to see a cliff.

 

[thedeathscythe]

Reminds me of how the owner Segway died on a Segway. It's tragic, but ironic, so it all balances out.

The owner of Segway is still alive and kicking at 60 years old...

Nope, he is dead [http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/09/segway-death/]. You may be thinking of the creator, as I don't think Jimi Heselden created it, but instead owned the company.

Ah, my mistake then. How does one kill themselves on a Segway? They go like 2 mile an hour, you think you'd be able to see a cliff.

I don't even know, I think when the battery starts to die, it goes all ape-shit because it stops being able to balance them or something. And he's a bigger guy, so it probably needed a bit of extra juice to do it. And he was on the side of a cliff, so it probably wasn't a good time for it to die. Even then, you should know the intricacies of the device the company you own produces.

 

[Tourmeta]

That's a blow to the protest! Shouldn't be a law though, people can choose to risk their lives if they wish.

 

[Frostbyte666]

It's very simple on a motorbike you wear a helmet and you damn well better wear the rest of the stuff to. These idiots seem to forget that you don't have to cause the accident to be seriously injured in 1, hell I get annoyed when i see bikers going around without wearing any protective gear except helmets, I just think ok if you come off you'll put your hands in front of you to protect yourself and reduce said appendages to red smears on the tarmac. Also yes I am a biker and always wear protective gear no matter how hot it gets because I've come off a few times due to others mistakes.

 

[twistedmic]

This has probably already been said, I'm too lazy to read through every message, but his death showed exactly why they have helmet laws in the first place: To try and save lives.
Helmet laws are like the motorcycle equivalent of seat belt laws for cars.

 

[Nudu]

Well every human life is protected by law and you can spout all that bullshit about ?freedom? all you want but even freedom has limits and this is one of them.

And the line is drawn at cheetos! Those a terrible for you.

I have a very clear-cut line between security and freedom: Harming others is not okay, what you do to your own body is your business.

And this sort of thing doesn?t harm others? What about this man?s friends and family? Don?t they matter? Why should others grieve because someone valued a childish interpretation of freedom more than their own lives?

Like the freedom to eat cheetos? That could kill you. Had he died from an obesity-related cause his family would be grieving as well.

 

[SouthpawFencer]

So, if the seatbelt laws make it so that even just one child gets buckled up a little more often, wouldn't you say it's worth it?

No. Because you can use "if it just saves a SINGLE life, it's worth this small loss of personal freedom argument" to bring back alcohol prohibition (less children will be abused by drunken parents), reducing the speed limit to 30 MPH (50 KPH for you civilized folks who actually use the metric system), and host of other laws that infringe on personal freedoms or are flat-out ridiculous (the insanely low speed limit isn't really a infringement on personal freedom as much as it is just a really stupid idea).

The argument "this helps to prevent children from picking up stupid habits from their parents" can also be used to justify all SORTS of infringements of individual rights. California recently decided that it was necessary to protect children from parents who were too stupid to keep track of what video games their kids were playing, for example. The Supreme Court of the United States disagreed. Well, seven of them did, anyway.

And if it's not, just think about all the revenue police departments pull in with those tickets. We could always use a little more money these days. Just don't be stupid, and those tickets will never cost you a dime. And you have the satisfaction of knowing that all over the country, there are actually people who are having to reach into their own wallets to pay for their stupidity! How often do you get to see that happen?

Using laws to generate revenues distorts incentives for the law enforcement. It's generally a HORRIBLE idea, because the police than have an incentive to focus on violations of the law that generate the most money rather than the ones that pose the greatest threat to the general public. We run into this all the time with red-light cameras. When the cameras don't produce the revenue that the companies promise, townships often reduce the amount of time that the light is yellow, even though this leads to MORE accidents. Police should be incentivized, as much as possible, to arrest people who violate the rights of others (muggers, rapists, murderers, etc). Asset forfeiture are another example: police focused more on dope growers, and had less manpower to utilize on dealing with violent offenses.

 

[CrazyGirl17]

...Here's your sign.

Seriously, that's a pretty stupid thing to do. Hopefully, people will learn from this...

 

[Nudu]

Well every human life is protected by law and you can spout all that bullshit about ?freedom? all you want but even freedom has limits and this is one of them.

And the line is drawn at cheetos! Those a terrible for you.

I have a very clear-cut line between security and freedom: Harming others is not okay, what you do to your own body is your business.

And this sort of thing doesn?t harm others? What about this man?s friends and family? Don?t they matter? Why should others grieve because someone valued a childish interpretation of freedom more than their own lives?

Like the freedom to eat cheetos? That could kill you. Had he died from an obesity-related cause his family would be grieving as well.

Yes but at least in the scenario his family and friends could try to get him to eat healthier.

And wear a helmet when he's riding his motorcycle.

 

[Febel]

AHHHHHAAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH....HA...hehe... Whooo This made my day, thanks. All that aside I'm all for no helmet laws, freedom to choose how safe you want to be etc.