NY motorcyclist dies on ride protesting helmet law

So... Did they continue to protest after that or did they realize how stupid a no helmet law is?
Even if I lived in a state where wearing a helmet is not mandatory, I would still rock a full-face lid.
The idea of gear is for protection if/when something goes horribly wrong.
I can't see how this is going to help their case.
 
sad that it happened to anyone. . .

. . .but like they say "some people have to learn the hard way"
helmet might not help in every situation, but pretty clear that it wouldn't have hurt in this one. . .almost like someone up there thought "wouldn't this be darkly humourous. . ."
 
I think it's a protest against government control more than anything else. Some of these guys were probably riding before these type of regs. were put in place and to them might be sacrilegious. IDK, I'd like to not have to ride with one on sometimes but couldn't imagine ridin life without one.
 
Those of us that have been in an accident know better ;)
 
So... Did they continue to protest after that or did they realize how stupid a no helmet law is?
Even if I lived in a state where wearing a helmet is not mandatory, I would still rock a full-face lid.
The idea of gear is for protection if/when something goes horribly wrong.
I can't see how this is going to help their case.

+1!

Full face lids look bad *** too!
 
"Troopers say Contos hit his brakes and the motorcycle fishtailed. The bike spun out of control, and Contos toppled over the handlebars."

sounds like he highsided. to fly over the bars he would need to endo his bike. usually the head is the 1st to hit the ground after the shoulder/back. if he had a helmet he would've survived most likely.
 
Even with that, I'm still against helmet laws.. Just another thing that the government has to put its nose in.. Helmet laws or no helmet laws, I'd still wear one, but it's my choice
 
And I'd rather not have my tax dime spent unnecessarily on first aid, hospitalization, autopsies, the burial and family care of the victim, paying the tax money he/she used to contribute, etc...

Sometimes people need saving from themselves? Either way, even if it's an individual's choice, it's society's cost.
 
And I'd rather not have my tax dime spent unnecessarily on first aid, hospitalization, autopsies, the burial and family care of the victim, paying the tax money he/she used to contribute, etc...

Sometimes people need saving from themselves? Either way, even if it's an individual's choice, it's society's cost.

In that case we have to raise the level of taxation on fast food, booze and sweets.. Then we have to forbid any remotely dangerous sports, such as boxing, MMA, rock-climbing, skydiving etc etc etc.. Better yet, let's all wrap ourselves in bubble-wrap :cool:
 
Even with that, I'm still against helmet laws.. Just another thing that the government has to put its nose in.. Helmet laws or no helmet laws, I'd still wear one, but it's my choice

even with that, i'm still against speed limit laws and drunk driving laws. just another thing that the government has to put its nose in.. speeding/drunk driving laws or no laws, i won't go 100kph thru a school zone at 3:15pm impaired, but it's my choice.
 
Last edited:
In that case we have to raise the level of taxation on fast food, booze and sweets.. Then we have to forbid any remotely dangerous sports, such as boxing, MMA, rock-climbing, skydiving etc etc etc.. Better yet, let's all wrap ourselves in bubble-wrap :cool:

+1 to this
 
In that case we have to raise the level of taxation on fast food, booze and sweets.. Then we have to forbid any remotely dangerous sports, such as boxing, MMA, rock-climbing, skydiving etc etc etc.. Better yet, let's all wrap ourselves in bubble-wrap :cool:

Intelligent people already avoid these activities :)

Most of these things are regulated to some degree, or at the very least have some awareness or tax - insurance for skydiving, federated rules for boxing, nutrition info for fast food, and heavy tax and/or macabre advertising for booze and smokes.

I just wish there was a way for me to avoid paying for, or otherwise be inconvenienced by, someone else's poor decision. And riding without a lid is very obviously a poor decision.
 
Last edited:
And I'd rather not have my tax dime spent unnecessarily on first aid, hospitalization, autopsies, the burial and family care of the victim, paying the tax money he/she used to contribute, etc...

Sometimes people need saving from themselves? Either way, even if it's an individual's choice, it's society's cost.


I'm kinda on your side with this. But I'd just propose that perhaps even though a helmet would have saved this individuals life, theres no telling the extent of his injuries and if they would be permanent. Thereby requiring your tax dollars to aid him for the rest of his life. Just a thought... although thinking again this was in new york so your tax dollars wouldn't have been affected I suspect.
 
Full gear wouldn't hurt his odds against injury :p

I see your point too. It depends on the circumstance, but it's possible the individual could work again even if they were paraplegic or quadriplegic. The poor guy could still provide for his dependents, offer something to society, etc.

Unfortunately, med costs are growing, and in last year's insurance reform a large portion were shifted to motorcyclists rather than 'person at fault' in collisions. As a result, even with a clean record, my insurance was jacked by 40%.
 
even with that, i'm still against speed limit laws and drunk driving laws. just another thing that the government has to put its nose in.. speeding/drunk driving laws or no laws, i won't go 100kph thru a school zone at 3:15pm impaired, but it's my choice.

A drunk driver is likely to cause severe injury/damage to others. Speeding laws aren't as essential---some years ago there were states in the US that didn't have speed limits (Montana was one). The speed limits were eventually enacted, but as far as I know it was forced upon by the federal government. Speeding through a school zone that was indeed unsafe could he dealt with by "careless" or "dangerous" driving laws.
 
So... Did they continue to protest after that or did they realize how stupid a no helmet law is?
Well, a spokeperson was interviewed afterwards and essentially said that the rider died standing up for what he loved and believed in. I guess in that case all should be considered good, right?
 
Well, a spokeperson was interviewed afterwards and essentially said that the rider died standing up for what he loved and believed in. I guess in that case all should be considered good, right?

lol man what a way to go.
 

Back
Top Bottom