Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 homicidal_squirrel Jul 03, 2011 11:03:41	news.yahoo.com/ny-motorcyclist-dies-ride...
#2 Duskweaver Jul 03, 2011 11:11:53	Darwin award. Best example I've seen so far this year.
#3 Klirshon Jul 03, 2011 12:01:02	The article does not specify if the motorcyclist had offspring. I desire to know the condition of the motorcycle. The editor should have mentioned that detail.
#4 Escef Jul 03, 2011 12:01:31	Das awesome-sauce, ja.
#5 bone_naga Jul 03, 2011 13:17:37	I think this is a prime example of why we should not have certain laws (helmets, lifejackets, seatbelts) (except for children). Let the idiots weed themselves out of the gene pool.
#6 ViolenceJack Jul 03, 2011 13:37:49	I was on the phone to a ladyfriend of mine many moons ago, and she suddenly said, "Hang on, noise outside the window." Keep in mind, this was late. Like, 1 or 2 in the morning. Next phrase: "Oh, God. I'll call you back." No call. Next day she called and apologized for keeping me worrying... there had been a motorcycle accident outside her place. Being a good young lady trained well in first aid, she had gone out there and helped the situation until a nurse took over first aid duties and she began directing traffic. Cue drunk driver almost hitting my friend, and running over the motorcyclist:s head.  My friend visited him in hospital a few times, but he died a few weeks later. I dunno what my point is, I'm drunk. I guess that if you have a helmet, you have a fighting chance. No helmet? It may not even be your stupidity that kills you. There are plenty of morons on the road. Just not me, when I've had a couple too many drinks. Or any drinks.
#7 bone_naga Jul 03, 2011 13:40:59	Whether the accident is your fault or someone else's, not wearing a basic safety device like a helmet or seatbelt falls squarely in the realm of your own stupidity.
#8 Cpt_Micha Jul 03, 2011 20:45:57	I'm a believer in helmet laws, not for one's own sake, but the sake of everyone else involved and the families of the riders. But then I'm a rider. My dad is a rider. I've had the agony of seeing my dad laying in a ditch on the side of the road when I was a child, due to cold weather and slick conditions. I was and still am glad, he's a helmet and leather wearer.
#9 iqwinn Jul 03, 2011 21:10:21	Ironic and tragic. Helmets, leathers, and (for cars) seat belts are very good ideas.  Should they be mandatory?  NO.  Your life belongs to you, and your safety is YOUR responsibility.  The state has no business forcing you to wear these things.  If you're so stupid that you'll ride without at least a brain bucket on your head, you deserve whatever happens to you. Here in Idaho, I've seen guys riding motorcycles wearing flip-flops and croc shoes.  Those are Darwin award candidates, for sure.
#10 bone_naga Jul 03, 2011 21:13:26	But then I'm a rider. My dad is a rider. I've had the agony of seeing my dad laying in a ditch on the side of the road when I was a child, due to cold weather and slick conditions. I was and still am glad, he's a helmet and leather wearer. Good on him. He recognized the value of his life and took measures to protect it. I would much rather have more people like him on the road (or living in general) but I don't have any particular desire to force basic safety measures on those that don't care enough about their own lives or the effects of their decisions on their families.
#11 draco1119 Jul 04, 2011 0:12:39	I've always thought it odd that CA's "driving while texting" law was so damned toothless.  It's stupid that I can be pulled over for not wearing a seatbelt (and only a danger to myself), but they have to catch me doing something else before they can give me a ticket for texting behind the wheel (which is a danger to everyone on the road near me).  It's ridiculous that they can't pull me over JUST for texting, they have to have something else to pull me over for.
#12 bone_naga Jul 04, 2011 1:00:42	I've always thought it odd that CA's "driving while texting" law was so damned toothless.  It's stupid that I can be pulled over for not wearing a seatbelt (and only a danger to myself), but they have to catch me doing something else before they can give me a ticket for texting behind the wheel (which is a danger to everyone on the road near me).  It's ridiculous that they can't pull me over JUST for texting, they have to have something else to pull me over for. Exactly. Let people kill themselves if they want, but stuff that endangers everyone else needs to be cracked down on. When I was at Ft Riley someone's wife was killed by a soldier that was texting and driving. The post responded with a policy that anyone caught texting and driving would immediately have their driving privileges on post revoked (for a year I think, it was a while back), get fined, and military would possibly face UCMJ action. It didn't last, I guess someone decided that was a bit much, but I didn't argue with it. That could be my family that got mowed down by some moron.
#13 Escef Jul 04, 2011 1:15:53	Exactly. Let people kill themselves if they want, but stuff that endangers everyone else needs to be cracked down on. When I was at Ft Riley someone's wife was killed by a soldier that was texting and driving. The post responded with a policy that anyone caught texting and driving would immediately have their driving privileges on post revoked (for a year I think, it was a while back), get fined, and military would possibly face UCMJ action. It didn't last, I guess someone decided that was a bit much, but I didn't argue with it. That could be my family that got mowed down by some moron. Ok, so driving and texting is ok, but walking and using a cell isn't? Yup, that's the Army for ya'.
#14 Qube Jul 04, 2011 6:08:00	Ironic and tragic. Helmets, leathers, and (for cars) seat belts are very good ideas.  Should they be mandatory?  NO.  Your life belongs to you, and your safety is YOUR responsibility.  The state has no business forcing you to wear these things. doesn't a lethal accident cost more then a non-lethal one? (the fact that there is no invistigation needed if both parties agree who of the two is at fault; perhaps the timespan that piece of road needs to be closed (trafic jams) ...)
#15 ADHadh Jul 04, 2011 7:18:33	Not to mention high fatality rat in road accidents is not the best way to advertise one's country...
#16 jetshield Jul 04, 2011 7:52:44	They always talk about fatality rates when they make seatbelt/helmet laws, but I wonder if the real reasons have more to do with the survivors that get messed up so bad they can't work and collect disability.
#17 capitan_estaban Jul 04, 2011 9:21:20	I've always thought it odd that CA's "driving while texting" law was so damned toothless.  It's stupid that I can be pulled over for not wearing a seatbelt (and only a danger to myself), but they have to catch me doing something else before they can give me a ticket for texting behind the wheel (which is a danger to everyone on the road near me).  It's ridiculous that they can't pull me over JUST for texting, they have to have something else to pull me over for. Except, that they don't need to catch you doing something else. www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc23123_5.... (Emergency Vehicle operators are exempt, who'd a thunk!) April was Distracted Driving Awareness month (aka Revenue Creation Month). If it isn't illegal to hold a banana up to my ear and have a conversation with someone within my vehicle, why is talking on a cell phone illegal?
#18 pluisjen Jul 04, 2011 9:25:59	If it isn't illegal to hold a banana up to my ear and have a conversation with someone within my vehicle, why is talking on a cell phone illegal? Because people are ****es who spend more time paying attention to their phone then they do to the road. I'm pretty sure that you'd be pulled over if you're talking to the person next to you while staring them straight in the eyes all the time.
#19 bone_naga Jul 04, 2011 9:34:19	If it isn't illegal to hold a banana up to my ear and have a conversation with someone within my vehicle, why is talking on a cell phone illegal?  If holding a banana to your ear was a widespread trend and people doing so were often found to be distracted, violating traffic laws, and/or creating unsafe conditions for other drivers, then that would probably be illegal too.
#20 capitan_estaban Jul 04, 2011 10:47:01	Which is why we don't need a specific law to ban that behavior (holding a banana up to your ear), since distracted driving laws can be enforced if you drive distracted while holding a banana up to your head. (It should also be noted that in most states, you need not be committing another crime to be pulled over for texting while driving) Most states already have distracted driving laws. We waste tax dollars on trying to prevent a problem that doesn't really exist. (ban on teen texting/cell phone use) The CHPs own study didn't show a need for hands free devices, and subsequent studies have shown no decrease in accidents (or cellphone use)
#21 Maxperson Jul 04, 2011 11:09:58	I'm a believer in helmet laws, not for one's own sake, but the sake of everyone else involved and the families of the riders. I don't believe in helmet laws.  Were I ever to ride a bike, I would wear a helmet because they are safer, but to require someone else to wear one is more "big brother" crap.  We don't pass laws preventing people from climbing mountains and getting themselves killed, so why do we try with motorcycles?  When an adult gets onto a motocycle, we have no right to force him to wear a helmet for added safety, nor is the feelings of his family enough to overcome his right to do as he wishes and take the risks that he wishes.  If he does not wear a helmet, no one else is put in any extra danger, so he is only making the decision for himself. But then I'm a rider. My dad is a rider. I've had the agony of seeing my dad laying in a ditch on the side of the road when I was a child, due to cold weather and slick conditions. I was and still am glad, he's a helmet and leather wearer. That's great that he chose to wear one, but your emotions don't outweigh an adult's right to decide to do something dangerous or not.  If other people's feelings DID trump your right, then you shouldn't be allowed to bungee jump, mountain climb, join any of the armed forces, drive, or any other action that has danger involved with it.  The ONLY reason that I am okay with seatbelt laws is that someone not wearing a seatbelt can bounce around inside the car injuring others OR be ejected from the car much easier and potentially injure someone.  With a motorcycle, a helmet does not prevent injury to others in any way.
#22 Cpt_Micha Jul 04, 2011 11:12:46	Not just for the rider, and his family but also anyone involved with the accident has to be taken into account max. How would you feel if you splattered some idiot that wasn't wearing his helmet? Or worse, how would you feel up against manslaughter charges for hitting a rider and being at fault for it? It covers more than just the rider, but everyone else too. It also helps keep insurance premiums for Other Riders down to have helmet laws in place because of the greatly reduced injury and death rates of wearing them vs not. From a legality standpoint Helmet laws are beneficial to more than just the Rider.
#23 capitan_estaban Jul 04, 2011 11:15:04	The ONLY reason that I am okay with seatbelt laws is that someone not wearing a seatbelt can bounce around inside the car injuring others OR be ejected from the car much easier and potentially injure someone. I find it amusing that we mandate seatbelt use, but school buses are exempt (or Grayhound busses for that matter)?
#24 homicidal_squirrel Jul 04, 2011 11:15:23	Helmet laws are pointless when you consider that there are states where you don't need to have insurance to drive a motorcycle if you have paid off the motorcycle.
#25 pluisjen Jul 04, 2011 11:16:25	Which is why we don't need a specific law to ban that behavior (holding a banana up to your ear), since distracted driving laws can be enforced if you drive distracted while holding a banana up to your head. "But I wasn't distracted, I was paying attention"
#26 LMTRK Jul 04, 2011 11:16:45	I was walking into town yesterday (on my way to catch my bus to the FLGS for a Pauper tournament) when I saw a dad teaching his daughter to ride her bike. She was wearing a helmet... but he wasnt. Im not sure what sort of message he was trying to send with that. :/ ~ Tim
#27 pluisjen Jul 04, 2011 11:20:21	Im not sure what sort of message he was trying to send with that. :/ "I'm far less likely to fall off my bike and hurt myself, so wear a helmet until you learn to bike" most likely.
#28 jetshield Jul 04, 2011 11:24:44	I saw a guy the other day riding a bike (as in bicycle) no-handed while holding a baby (maybe a year old) on his lap. On a busy street. Neither of them had helmets. Of course, that's a bit off topic. I appologize. As for helmet laws, I don't care if you wear one while riding, as long as any injuries you sustain don't cost me anything. If I have to pay for your care or survival after the accident (through taxes), I damn well want you wearing safety gear.
#29 capitan_estaban Jul 04, 2011 11:27:16	How would you feel if you splattered some idiot that wasn't wearing his helmet? I would sleep fine at night. It also helps keep insurance premiums for Other Riders down to have helmet laws in place because of the greatly reduced injury and death rates of wearing them vs not. From a legality standpoint Helmet laws are beneficial to more than just the Rider. So, you would be against giving drivers licenses to illegal aliens, right? Since from a legality standpoint, it would be beneficial
#30 Maxperson Jul 04, 2011 11:29:24	Not just for the rider, and his family but also anyone involved with the accident has to be taken into account max. How would you feel if you splattered some idiot that wasn't wearing his helmet? Or worse, how would you feel up against manslaughter charges for hitting a rider and being at fault for it? It covers more than just the rider, but everyone else too. It also helps keep insurance premiums for Other Riders down to have helmet laws in place because of the greatly reduced injury and death rates of wearing them vs not. From a legality standpoint Helmet laws are beneficial to more than just the Rider. The family just is not relevant to whether someone is allowed to live his life the way he wishes.  Insurance premiums would still be lower for those who CHOSE to wear helmets.  My feelings on splattering someone are also not relevant.  If they were, there would be no motorcycles at all.  Given the size of cars vs motorcycles, even with a helmet they are death traps, so if peoples' feelings at the death of a motorcycle rider were relevant, then motorcycles themselves would be banned. As for manslaughter charges.  Instead of legislating helmet laws.  Legislate no manslaughter charges when you kill a helmetless biker unless grossly negligent (drunk, having sex while driving etc.)  Or, you know, drive carefully. ;)
#31 homicidal_squirrel Jul 04, 2011 11:36:11	Given the size of cars vs motorcycles, even with a helmet they are death traps, so if peoples' feelings at the death of a motorcycle rider were relevant, then motorcycles themselves would be banned. Funny that you mention that. When I used to work as a fire rescue dispatcher, I would get at least 1 call for some guy on a motorcycle who had been hit by a car or been in some type of accident. They usually didn't make it. A few did, but in any case, after every call I had to dispatch another unit to go wash down the street because of all the blood that was left at the scene. Yeah, helmets may prevent some head injuries, but the rest of your body is going to be mangled pretty badly.
#32 Cpt_Micha Jul 04, 2011 11:40:40	It mostly depends on how the car hits the biker. If the biker gets caught between bike and car, you're going to need a hose almost gauranteed. If it causes the rider to high side, there's a much greater chance of survival.
#33 homicidal_squirrel Jul 04, 2011 11:43:33	It mostly depends on how the car hits the biker. If the biker gets caught between bike and car, you're going to need a hose almost gauranteed. If it causes the rider to high side, there's a much greater chance of survival. Probably true. I met a guy who went over the top of his motorcycle... well almost. He had his leg pinned between his bike and the guard rail of a highway. His leg stayed. He didn't.
#34 Cpt_Micha Jul 04, 2011 11:45:53	If you ever get the chance and take proper motorcycle crashes, they almost always teach you to jump off the bike if it looks like you are going to end up in an accident, for precisely that reason. The really good courses even teach you what to look out for, and how to jump off.
#35 Minus_Prime Jul 04, 2011 11:49:39	www.cracked.com/funny-429-motorcycle-saf... www.cracked.com/article_19217_6-things-n...
#36 iqwinn Jul 04, 2011 11:57:41	Driving while on a cellphone/texting are not in the same category as riding a motorcycle without a helmet.  One is a decision to put yourself at risk (motorcycle/helmet), and the other is just plain stupid, as it distracts you from the important job of keeping your attention on the road.  I don't text at all, and when I'm behind the wheel, I have an earbud attached to my phone, so that if I ever get a call from the wife, I can just open my phone, hit the button, and then put my phone back in my pocket. As a store clerk, I can also tell you that it is very annoying when I'm trying to ring up a customer's purchases while he/she is on their cellphone, chatting it up with someone.  I try to be polite about it, but some of them will give me a nasty look when I need their payment, as if I'm inconveniencing them from their all-important, worlds-shattering call.
#37 Cpt_Micha Jul 04, 2011 12:10:04	www.cracked.com/blog/5-bizarre-pitfalls-... #1 on this list is so true that it's saddening to put it mildly. As is #2.
#38 ADHadh Jul 04, 2011 12:50:10	About the "Penis Size Indicator" from Cracked: bikes have to be loud because, as the other article reminds, they're nigh invisible on the road. Or drivers tend to overlook them for some reason.
#39 Escef Jul 04, 2011 14:02:29	About the "Penis Size Indicator" from Cracked: bikes have to be loud because, as the other article reminds, they're nigh invisible on the road. Or drivers tend to overlook them for some reason. Loud tailpipes save lives.
#40 LFK Jul 05, 2011 0:34:10	About the "Penis Size Indicator" from Cracked: bikes have to be loud because, as the other article reminds, they're nigh invisible on the road. Or drivers tend to overlook them for some reason. The problem is that it sends the noise in the wrong direction.  Just this weekend I was cut off by a motorcyclist (passed over a double-yellow line on a rainy day in the forrested mountains... you go man!) that I did not hear until he passed me. Driving behind him, on the other hand, was unbearably loud.