Yet another reminder why we wear helmets (as if we needed one)

[fizzle]

Before ripping on Ben Roethlisberger (the QB for the Pittsburgh Steelers) for allowing his bare face to touch pavement (or handlebars or automobiles) while riding a motorcycle, let me say.....I'm glad it wasn't worse, it looks like he has a very high chance of full recovery and hopefully taking snaps this season.

See story

(From SI.com) Reportedly, Roethlisberger wasn't wearing his helmet. Asked (prior to his accident) why he does not wear a helmet while riding, Roethlisberger's response was "....I'm not really a risk-taker. I'm pretty conservative and laid back, but the big thing is to just be careful. I'll just continue to be careful. .....we always ride in a group of people, and I think it makes it even more safe."

That is usually the tragic assumption that most "invencible" people make, especially when on a motorcycle is that they control 100% of the variables that determine whether the shiny side stays up or goes down. Now Ben (hopefully) knows that he has no control over the oncoming driver's (apparent) failure to yield prior to making a left hand turn.

The motorcycle that Roethlisberger was reportedly driving was a Suzuki Hayabusa, claimed to be the fastest "stock" bike made. Since when does a "conservative" "laid back" person ride a Hayabusa without a helmet?

Reality sucks. But we all must accept it one way or another. Reality on a motorcycle means you could have a get-off that is due to someone else's mistake rather than your own. While showing off your mug, experiencing the "freedom" of wind blowing your hair while riding your insanely fast crotch rocket is "cool", drinking lunch through a straw for 6 weeks has got to be "uncool", especially since it was likely avoidable had you been wearing a full-face helmet. So Ben, recover quickly, grow up, and remember your not in high school any more. Making money and winning super bowls are more important that looking "cool".

 

[2stroke]

Well said.
How about all the misinformed comments made in the media about how dangerous motorcycle riding is and all that. I heard one reporter spouting off for almost three minutes about the accident, without mentioning the fact that had he been wearing a helmet he'd be ALOT better off.

And, my better half is giving me ALL kinds of grief about my street bike now. THANKS BEN! JEEEZ.

 

[BSWIFT]

Based on the injuries that were sustained, I would suspect that HAD this famous QB been wearing a full faced helmet he would have broken his neck. Had he been wearing a open face helmet, the injuries would likely have been the same with an addition but minor neck injury to boot. Terry Bradshaw shot his mouth off on HOW DANGEROUS motorcycles are and this guys SHOULDN'T have been doing it because he is so important. Bullsheite!
Dress for what you are doing when riding. The most important thing to have on is your brain without, the brain bucket is empty anyway. The next thing is eye protection because if you can't see, well, you'll probably hit the car that doesn't see you. Before you flame me, remember, I dress the part for what I'm doing whether I'm riding or working. If someone as famous as this QB can't enjoy his motorcycle than what should he do, stay in a rubber room?

 

[romping_bronco]

First of all I think riding street bikes are dangerous. I tell all of friends who ever want to buy a bike, that they are puting their life at risk. Now I've personally owned three street bikes and I love riding. When I ride a street bike or dirt bike I always wear a helmet. A helmet will save your life more times then not wearing a helmet. Now here are my pet peeves - The helmet law - I can't stand that law because it is clearly an example of the insurance companies lobbying for the law to reduce the cost of insurance claims involving motorcycles (A fatality claim costs the insurance companies lots of money) Second I can't stand when a father and his son go riding and the son is wearing a helmet but the father is not (that's setting a bad example) That's my two cents!

 

[fizzle]

Based on the injuries that were sustained, I would suspect that HAD this famous QB been wearing a full faced helmet he would have broken his neck. Had he been wearing a open face helmet, the injuries would likely have been the same with an addition but minor neck injury to boot.

Honestly, I'm not following this logic. Don't wear a helmet so you don't break your neck? How does wearing a helmet make you neck more susceptable to injury? Would the hemet not (as it is designed to) absorb energy from the impact, keeping both neck and jaw from having to absorb the impact? Please explain. In my very short career as a dirt rider, I have come up short on doubles, smashed my face hard into handlebars and the ground, I KNOW that had I not been wearing a full face helmet, I would have broken my jaw or skull.....and my neck is not broken.

If someone as famous as this QB can't enjoy his motorcycle than what should he do, stay in a rubber room?

I definitely don't think so. I agree with you about Bradshaw too. There is no reason why anyone can't enjoy riding a motorcycle. My point is, those who do enjoy riding motorcycles should accept the responsibility associated with it. No matter how smart or how cautious you are, you are very likely to have a get-off that you cannot predict, and is out of your control. So, if you choose this wonderful sport/hobby/way of life, it is your responsibility to PROTECT YOURSELF. Don't burden your loved ones or your work mates just because you, for whatever BS reason, did not protect yourself, and now you are hurt more than you would have been had you protected yourself.

Motorcycles aren't dangerous. They are like a lot of pursuits, where the consequences of poor judgement (whether it be the oncoming car not taking the time to look for a motorcycle or the rider of the motocycle not feeling the need to protect himself) are very severe. Unfortunately, with examples like Ben around, people tend to assume they are dangerous.

 

[CaptainObvious]

Based on the injuries that were sustained, I would suspect that HAD this famous QB been wearing a full faced helmet he would have broken his neck.

Brian, I must respectfully disagree with that statement. Where is the empirical evidence to support this assertion? Helmets do not break necks. This claim is the mantra of the anti-helmet-law types and it get perpetuated without question.

What I find ironic is that I’m sure Mr. Roethlisberger would never consider walking onto a football field without a helmet, yet he chose to not wear a helmet while riding one of the fastest production motorcycles on the planet.

 

[MrLuckey]

I agree with you about Bradshaw too. There is no reason why anyone can't enjoy riding a motorcycle.

Actually there is, most high profile NFL players have things written in their contract that prevents them from doing 'dangerous activities', many even have motorcycles listed specifically. Bens contract did not specifically list riding but if the team really wants they can most likely regain some of his multi-million dollar signing bonus.

This is not even mentioning the fact that Ben doesn't have a license to ride a motorcycle and the fact that in order to ride without a helmet in PA that you must have either had a license for two years or have completed a safety course.

Kellen Winslow Jr. missed an entire year for a bike accident last year or the year before.

Brian, you're kidding about the helmet and broken neck right?

 

[FruDaddy]

I've been glancing through this stuff, and saw a pic of the bike on tv the other day.
If I understand correctly, this is a wealthy adult that enjoyed riding a motorcycle and chose to ride without a helmet. Realizing that he is a football player, I can understand that he may not be very bright. Nonetheless, this was a personal decision made by an adult, who was aware of the risk. If he were indeed unlicensed, he should be cited accordingly. The comment earlier that it is our responsibility to protect ourselves seems dangerously near the belief that it is the governments responsibility to pass legislation that requires us to protect ourselves. I feel that helmet, seatbelt, and airbag laws should not exist, as these are decisions that we, as citizens, should be allowed to make for ourselves. Then, when a catastrophy occurs, we must take responsibility for the choices that we make.

 

[biglou]

Then, when a catastrophy occurs, we must take responsibility for the choices that we make.

Not bloody likely these days...

 

[CaptainObvious]

The comment earlier that it is our responsibility to protect ourselves seems dangerously near the belief that it is the governments responsibility to pass legislation that requires us to protect ourselves.

I just re-read all of the above posts. None of them suggest that legislation is needed, or wanted.

Personally, I feel that those who choose not to wear a helmet are providing validation of Darwin’s theory.

I’ll pass on a saying we use in aviation that relates to pilots landing with their gear in the retracted position:

“There are those who have, and those that are going to”

The same applies to motorcycle accidents. If you think you simply can’t or won’t ever have an accident on a motorcycle, you are not aware of your own mortality.

 

[fizzle]

I feel that helmet, seatbelt, and airbag laws should not exist, as these are decisions that we, as citizens, should be allowed to make for ourselves. Then, when a catastrophy occurs, we must take responsibility for the choices that we make.

I agree with you 100% if this statement was made 50 years ago.

Not bloody likely these days...

I won't hold my breath for Roethlisberger and others that choose not to protect themselves to offer to pay their medical bills out of their own pockets, and reimburse their employers for lost productivity. Like it or not, many people nowadays are "victims" and not accountable for their actions, and these people, whether a majority or a minority tend to set restraints on the way the rest of us have to live our lives.

As a consequence to Roethlisberger's decision to not protect himself, how many future professional athletes will be contractually denied the ability to even ride a motorcycle, helmet or no?

How much more am I paying in insurance premiums or medicare tax, from either lawsuits or medical bills of riders who choose not to protect themselves?

No, I am not advocating legislation. I am advocating responsibility to make legislation unnecessary.

 

[FruDaddy]

If I am involved in an accident on my cruiser, I would expect the party at fault to assume the liability, and expense, for whatever damage that they cause. This liability should be assumed regardless of what safety equipment i would have chosen to wear or not to wear.
This could be compared with any party responsible for an accident, if you are lucky enough to total a 1984 Chevette, you are out $20, but if you total a new Mercedes, you are out of luck. Also, whenever you are found responsible for an accident, whether you bend the fender a little, or total the car, you are responsible for damages.
Some cars are safer than others in an accident, we learn this through crash testing, but should we be penalized if we are driving the less expensive car that isn't quite as safe, even if the accident isn't our fault? If that is the case, we shouldn't even be allowed to ride a motorcycle on the street due to the increased risk of bodily harm in the event of an accident.
I am not saying that people shouldn't wear a helmet, I am saying that it should be a choice. My wife totalled a bike a few years back, and she would not have fared as well as she did, were it not for the KBC full face helmet she was wearing (it was pretty banged up). Now she even makes sure to wear boots, long pants, and a jacket whenever she rides.

 

[fizzle]

I am not saying that people shouldn't wear a helmet, I am saying that it should be a choice.

That's fair enough. I don't like legislation guiding my life either.

I (obviously) have very passionate opinions about wearing helmets while motorcycling. I think it is so sad when people are avoidably injured because they weren't wearing a helmet. To me (excuse the pun), it's a "no brainer".

Helmets are an obviously very touchy topic, especially when in the past, there has been legislation involved. I doubt my own feelings will change on this matter, but it is very interesting to discuss with others...THANKS!

 

[robwbright]

As a consequence to Roethlisberger's decision to not protect himself, how many future professional athletes will be contractually denied the ability to even ride a motorcycle, helmet or no?

I dislike the helmet laws and the seat belt laws because they legislate against personal choice - along with the fact that the choice not to wear one has not injured any other person. If there is no injury to another person, then there should be no criminal penalty imposed.

i.e. "With all [our] blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow citizens--a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits . . ." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801. ME 3:320

Thus, I fully support Ben's right to make the decision not to wear a helmet - even if it's not perhaps the wisest choice.

However, if I had a job making $10 million a year which required me to be in top physical condition - and that contract was not guaranteed - I highly doubt I'd be racing MX on the weekends.

I'm not going to feel sorry for someone in ANY job who is required by that job to do or not do certain things in their personal life. Neither Ben nor Michael Jordan nor any other person in this country is forced work any particular job - they choose to accept the job offer - even if the offer is at Wal Mart.

If any of those pro athletes wants to give up their job and paycheck to me, I'd be more than willing to give up motorcycle riding for 5 years for half a million dollars a month.

 

[robwbright]

If I am involved in an accident on my cruiser, I would expect the party at fault to assume the liability, and expense, for whatever damage that they cause.

Doesn't that usually happen - whether by the person's choice or by judgment of the Court?

Many times the problem is the insurance company refusing to honor the contract - not so much the person trying to weasel out of responsibility - but the companies (especially Allstate and Nationwide, to name two of the worst offenders) just won't pay on many claims - espcially large ones.

My office has had a judgment of $233,000.00 since March, 2005 against the Defendant in a car accident - we haven't seen a penny from Allsnake yet. The woman had $83,000.00 in medical bills resulting from a knee replacement, and their offer prior to trial was only $12,000.00. Had they offered $60,000.00, we probably would have settled.

 

[KDXDan]

I'm really getting sick and tired of everyone bashing Ben because he didn't have a helmet on. I think we as riders are missing the boat. And that is another person in a car, who isn't paying attention to the laws walks away from almost killing someone on a motorcyle without even a fine. Its assumed that because someone is on a motorcycle that they assume the risk and that just doesn't sit well. Ask yourself this, what costs more, leaving the meter expire in your parking place or running someone over on a motorcycle? How can we continue to let people walk away from these "accidents" without even the smallest fine? :debil: :debil: :debil: :bang:

 

[FruDaddy]

Rob and KDXDan, I think we are on the same page here, and the passage Rob has quoted was just to illustrate exactly where I'm coming from with my opinions, for those who might not get it otherwise.

 

[MrLuckey]

Seems like somewhere in the excitement Rob and a few others lost sight of the fact that he was illegally operating a motorcycle WITHOUT a license and therefore was lawfully bound to wear a helmet (since he did not have the exemptions). Trust me folks this is tough on me (bigtime Steelers fan) but not only did he break two laws but he broke his contract (The Steelers won't push it though).

A rather newbie in the NFL world, wildly successful to this point, looking to make hundreds of millions if his career last 15 years.......

but you're right - it's his choice - except for the two violations of the LAW and his violating his contract.

Brian - I am still hoping you are joking about the helmet and broken neck thing!

 

[squeaky]

but you're right - it's his choice - except for the two violations of the LAW and his violating his contract.

Great point, Eddie!

Here's what I don't understand about all of this. WHY IS EVERYONE GETTING SO BENT OUT OF SHAPE ABOUT THIS? :bang: Okay, so he's a big time football player...what if he were just some Joe off of the street? Would you all be sitting here right now debating whether or not he should've been wearing a helmet and what would have happened to him had he been wearing a helmet? Probably not...

So, here's what I propose....instead of the debates and arguments and nonsense about who was right and who was wrong and why he should have versus should not have been wearing a helmet...Why don't we all just think good thoughts and put Ben in our thoughts and/or prayers and hope he recovers fully?!

 

[Thump]

Seems like somewhere in the excitement Rob and a few others lost sight of the fact that he was illegally operating a motorcycle WITHOUT a license and therefore was lawfully bound to wear a helmet (since he did not have the exemptions)... but not only did he break two laws but he broke his contract

That is some hardcore logic dripping with sarcasm.

Well said Eddie :cool:

 

[BSWIFT]

;)

Based on the injuries that were sustained, I would suspect ...... Before you flame me, remember, I dress the part for what I'm doing whether I'm riding or working.

Full face helmets by design are made to protect your jaw and face from impact, no question there, right? I will try to locate the medical report that I read that came to the conclusion that, in certain circumstances, a full face helmet would protect the face and jaw but would cause significant neck injury. The report cited many different occurances and the most severe injuries were broken necks. Less serious injuries to the neck were also sustained while the riders face and jaw were spared minor abrasions. The report concluded that due to the location of the chin guard, the impact would be directed straight backward with out the neck tilting, causing a shearing motion opposed to a whiplash type motion. The report said that it was NOT telling people to stop wearing full face helmets but that in certain collisions, a half helmet was better overall because the neck would not receive the shearing motion of the impact. It has been 8-9 months since I read the report and I will try to find it and pass the info to everyone.
I quoted myself in this reply for several reasons. 1st, I used the word "suspect" using the report that I read as a basis for my OPINION. Secondly, I do wear a helmet and support everyone's right to NOT wear a helmet if they are legal to do so. Finally, I'm highly irritated by the media and celebs proclaiming the highest danger to riding motorcycles because a wealthy FOOTBALL player didn't ride within the law or appropriately enough to avoid the collision. And if you ask if I'm serious about my comments, yup, I am. I am in no way telling anyone NOT to wear a helmet no more than I am telling people to NOT wear a seatbelt while in the car or pickup(that's for you, Pred). ;)
Last nite, locally, there were three motorcycle accidents. All the riders were wearing helmets and all lived, thus far. All three accidents were the riders fault, no autos envolved. As offroad riders, we all accept the added risk rather racing or trail riding and we all know that it is not IF but WHEN we will crash. The bottom line is, adults have the legal right is some states to NOT wear a helmet. The AMA spends lots of money to HELP these adults KEEP that right and I SUSPECT it is more money than they spend to keep offroad riding areas open OR getting dirtbike exhausts quieter. :moon:

 

[FruDaddy]

Seems like somewhere in the excitement Rob and a few others lost sight of the fact that he was illegally operating a motorcycle WITHOUT a license...not only did he break two laws but he broke his contract (The Steelers won't push it though).

If I am in the mix, please note that I said to write the ticket for riding without a license. Also, I could care less about the football contract, if he was dumb enough to sign it, the courts will work it out. The only football game I ever watch is the super bowl, and that's only for the commercials, so I don't care about his jock status.

 

[BSWIFT]

The only football game I ever watch is the super bowl, and that's only for the commercials, so I don't care about his jock status.

:nod:

 

[MrLuckey]

The only football game I ever watch is the super bowl, and that's only for the commercials, so I don't care about his jock status.

I'll try to spell this out more clearly since you don't appear to understand. I don't care about his jock status either. The point is that he signed a contract with his employer. That contract prohibits him from participating in dangerous activities. Last year he was warned by his employer that riding a streetbike without a helmet was considered a dangerous activity.

:bang:

 

[robwbright]

From:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/tennant/tennant11.html

(Note: The article also discusses "Geno's Steaks" in Philly - you know, the one that won't take orders unless you order in English. . .)

Whose Property Is It Anyway?
by Michael Tennant

" . . . This entire debate comes down to one simple question: Who owns the body of any given motorcycle rider? In other words, whose property is, e.g., Ben Roethlisberger’s body? The obvious answer is: Ben Roethlisberger. Therefore, the only person who has the right to determine whether Roethlisberger wears a helmet while cycling is Roethlisberger himself. Those who agree with Cigna and Honsberger, however, obviously believe that Roethlisberger’s body is actually the property of the state of Pennsylvania, for only if one believes that the state owns Roethlisberger’s body can one conclude that the state has the right to dictate to him what risks he may or may not take with his person.

It’s simply a matter of private property. Either Big Ben’s body belongs to him, in which case he can do what he wants with it, or it belongs to the state, in which case the legislature can dictate to him all kinds of things he may or may not do with it. There’s no middle ground.

(There will be those who object that the risks a motorcyclist takes with his body are indeed the concern of the state because, if that cyclist is injured and cannot pay for his health care, the cost will fall on the rest of us via state medical assistance. As Walter Williams is fond of saying, this is a problem of too much socialism – itself a violation of property rights – not of too much freedom.) . . ."