Motorcyclist crashes in helmet law protest, dies

[RandomGuy]

You guessed it. He died because he wasn't wearing his helmet.

Add this to the "not helping your cause" files.


NEW YORK (Reuters) - A bare-headed motorcyclist riding in protest of New York state's helmet law crashed, struck his head on the roadway and died from his injuries, state police said on Sunday.

Philip Contos, 55, was riding among a large group of motorcyclists staging an organized protest ride in western New York near Syracuse against the state law requiring all motorcyclists to wear helmets.

The Parish, New York, resident crashed on Saturday on Route 11 in Onondaga, New York, and was pronounced dead later at a local hospital, state Trooper Robert Jureller said.

"The doctor felt that the death could have been prevented if he simply had been wearing a helmet," Jureller said. "He hit the brakes, lost control, was ejected and struck his head on the road. He suffered a skull fracture."


I try not to be a jerk about people's deaths, but I have absolutely no pity for him. This guy was a fucking idiot, and if you chose not to wear a helmet, you are a fucking idiot too. No "buts", no excuses.

If you don't wear a helmet, and get in a wreck, don't come to me expecting any sympathy for your brain damage. I would be all for forced euthanasia for anybody in such a case if they became a nursing-home bound vegetable. That should be the social contract for your right to be a fucking idiot. "Sure you can be a fucking idiot, but you give up any expectation of help if it goes badly, and we will not pay the cost of keeping your brain dead ass alive to live out your body's natural lifespan."

[I. Hustle]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_gTJMEP-c2fo/Sd3fvk04LwI/AAAAAAAALMo/PRQVue6h5mk/s400/funny-helmet-police.jpg

[Fpoonsie]

I try not to be a jerk about people's deaths, but I have absolutely no pity for him or his family.

I missed the part in the article where it said his family was in full support of his dumbass protest.

[RandomGuy]

I missed the part in the article where it said his family was in full support of his dumbass protest.

Point taken. :toast

[silverblk mystix]

Saw this a coupla days ago...

still waiting for the riders who hate the helmet laws to comment...

[MannyIsGod]

Helmet laws are unnecessary. If someone wants to ride without a helmet, let them. Its not my brain thats going all over the pavement.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Whoops

[MannyIsGod]

BTW, RG, who's asking for your sympathy?

[Wild Cobra]

Darwin has a point, doesn't he? Why do we try to protect such people when they just contaminate the gene pool?

[Wild Cobra's Surgeon]

Why do we try to protect such people when they just contaminate the gene pool?

I see you're back on your eugenics crusade. Fight the good fight, brother:toast

[spurs_fan_in_exile]

The irony's so thick you could protect your skull with it.

[Dex]

Irony strikes again.

[benefactor]

Helmet laws are unnecessary. If someone wants to ride without a helmet, let them. Its not my brain thats going all over the pavement.
By that reasoning, seat belt laws are unnecessary too.

[Phenomanul]

Helmet laws are unnecessary. If someone wants to ride without a helmet, let them. Its not my brain thats going all over the pavement.

It could be the difference between some 'other' driver being charged with wreckless manslaughter or wreckless driving...

I guess the 'wreckless' driver doesn't need anyone's sympathy either, but I'm sure there are occasions where it's the motorcyclist who is 'at fault', and provokes the accident and yet the 'other' guy also gets charged... under that context I'm sure no one here is willing to go to prison for something that could have been prevented by use of a helmet...

Of course the implied context is probably not as extreme...

[Wild Cobra]

Are you saying you want the government to protect people from their own stupidity?

[Phenomanul]

Are you saying you want the government to protect people from their own stupidity?

No... but I certainly don't want to be the guy who has a legitimate accident and end up being charged with manslaughter simply because the motorcyclist was stupid enough not to want to protect himself...

[vato loco]

:lmao

wat a dumbass

[benefactor]

Are you saying you want the government to protect people from their own stupidity?
Are they not already doing it with seat belt laws?

[coyotes_geek]

No... but I certainly don't want to be the guy who has a legitimate accident and end up being charged with manslaughter simply because the motorcyclist was stupid enough not to want to protect himself...

Should you somehow happen to find yourself in that situation, that's an excellent point for your lawyer to bring up. In the mean time, there's no need to restrict someone else's freedom to be a dumbass solely over your paranoia.

[Wild Cobra]

No... but I certainly don't want to be the guy who has a legitimate accident and end up being charged with manslaughter simply because the motorcyclist was stupid enough not to want to protect himself...
Then mount a camera in your car. I did. Caught an accident that happened in front of me one day.

[Phenomanul]

Should you somehow happen to find yourself in that situation, that's an excellent point for your lawyer to bring up. In the mean time, there's no need to restrict someone else's freedom to be a dumbass solely over your paranoia.

It's not paranoia when something similar has happened to one of your friends...

[Phenomanul]

Then mount a camera in your car. I did.

So now their stupidity comes with a price tag for the rest of us?

Maybe you can buy me a vehicular camera, I'll PM the P.O. Box address... :lol

[coyotes_geek]

Are they not already doing it with seat belt laws?

They are. I'm okay with letting adults decide whether or not they want to wear their seatbelt.

[Wild Cobra]

It's not paranoia when something similar has happened to one of your friends...
It happens anyway. Someone doesn't need to die and the cost can extensive from medical and legal bills. A car is a lethal weapon, even when other cars are involved.

You know the system isn't flawless, so protect yourself. Don't go all authoritarian of others because of your fears.

[Bill_Brasky]

If drivers have seat belt laws I don't see why bikers get so much sand in their vaginas about helmet laws. Though I don't really care about either law, I would wear my seat belt/helmet regardless of what the law is...

[cheguevara]

A person without a seatbelt is a potential projectile that could kill someone. On the other hand a biker without a helmet is just a damn retard that will probably die sooner or later anyway.

[coyotes_geek]

It's not paranoia when something similar has happened to one of your friends...

Actually it is. A random, freak occurance happened to someone you know and now you're certain it will happen to you.

[Phenomanul]

Actually it is. A random, freak occurance happened to someone you know and now you're certain it will happen to you.

Certain? Oh that's laughable... I try and drive carefully and fully conscientious of others around me... paranoia would imply that this scenario is something I think about every time I sit behind the wheel... and I most certainly don't...

If anything I was mostly annoyed at the lack of common-sense practicality employed by the judge in my friend's case... not the law itself.

Also... 'freak occurence' implies lack of frequency... car/motorcycle crashes that end up badly for the motorcyclist and a legal headache for the car driver are an everyday occurence...

[MannyIsGod]

By that reasoning, seat belt laws are unnecessary too.

Yes, they are. Except in the case of children because they lack the capacity to make that choice for themselves.

[MannyIsGod]

It could be the difference between some 'other' driver being charged with wreckless manslaughter or wreckless driving...

I guess the 'wreckless' driver doesn't need anyone's sympathy either, but I'm sure there are occasions where it's the motorcyclist who is 'at fault', and provokes the accident and yet the 'other' guy also gets charged... under that context I'm sure no one here is willing to go to prison for something that could have been prevented by use of a helmet...

Of course the implied context is probably not as extreme...

What? Helmet laws are preventing people who break laws from going to prison? I can't even follow this mess of broken logic and I'm not trying to insult you. If someone breaks the laws, they assume liability for the results of said action. Whether or not a victim is wearing a helmet is completely irrelevant.

[MannyIsGod]

No... but I certainly don't want to be the guy who has a legitimate accident and end up being charged with manslaughter simply because the motorcyclist was stupid enough not to want to protect himself...

:lmao @ "legitimate accident". I have no clue what you're talking about. If your beef is with the legal system overreacting because someone died in an accident then it still has nothing to do with helmets. Furthermore, If there is reason to charge someone with wreckless driving then perhaps they shouldn't have driven wrecklessly? I'm so confused by your arguments here.

[MannyIsGod]

It's not paranoia when something similar has happened to one of your friends...

Yeah, I have a friend who got struck by lightning so its not paranoia for me to be advocating a lightning rod be placed ever 10 feet EVERYWHERE. Seriously, no paranoia at all.

[Phenomanul]

Dude... Take chill pill... I'm not advocating the need for the law or even taking the other side...

Geeesh....You all certainly have a way of over-reacting to comments...

P.S. Hopefully you're never involved in an accident... One in which the authorities place the onus on you to prove it was not out of 'negligence', or 'recklessness'... Our word alone doesn't seem to be enough these days....

[MannyIsGod]

Explain to me how I'm overreacting by responding to your posts. What is it with people who come to a discussion forum, post something, then think someone is over reacting when they respond to whats been posted? You guys are odd as shit sometimes.

Sounds like your friend didn't have a very good lawyer or actually drove wrecklessly. I don't drive wrecklessly or drunk so I'm pretty sure I don't have much to worry about. And no, someone's word alone isn't enough to prove innocence if their is proof against them. Has nothing to do with helmet laws at all. This is just one of the most illogical arguments you've ever posted.

[Blake]

A person without a seatbelt is a potential projectile

That.......but don't see any good reasons for a helmet law.

[coyotes_geek]

Certain? Oh that's laughable... I try and drive carefully and fully conscientious of others around me... paranoia would imply that this scenario is something I think about every time I sit behind the wheel... and I most certainly don't...

Fair point. In hindsight, probably shouldn't have used "certain" in my response. Poor choice of words on my part.


If anything I was mostly annoyed at the lack of common-sense practicality employed by the judge in my friend's case... not the law itself.

Also... 'freak occurence' implies lack of frequency... car/motorcycle crashes that end up badly for the motorcyclist and a legal headache for the car driver are an everyday occurence...

A car/motorcycle accident is going to be a legal headache for the car driver regardless of whether or not the cyclist was wearing a helmet.

Sorry for your friend, but if all it took to deny someone a particular freedom was to find a situation where someone got stuck in a bad spot, we wouldn't have any freedoms at all.

[Phenomanul]

Explain to me how I'm overreacting by responding to your posts. What is it with people who come to a discussion forum, post something, then think someone is over reacting when they respond to whats been posted? You guys are odd as shit sometimes.

Sounds like your friend didn't have a very good lawyer or actually drove wrecklessly. I don't drive wrecklessly or drunk so I'm pretty sure I don't have much to worry about. And no, someone's word alone isn't enough to prove innocence if their is proof against them. Has nothing to do with helmet laws at all. This is just one of the most illogical arguments you've ever posted.

I take it you've never had a blowout...
or had a deer jump across the road just as you're passing...
or had an object from another vehicle impact your own (making you flinch)...
or hit a patch of 'black ice'...
or had to overreact to some idiot driver doing something completely unexpected (like cutting across your lane to make an exit).

not all car accidents are cell-phone/distraction/alcohol/sleepiness related.

Hence they're not all associated with recklessness or negligence...

BTW the lawyer argued that point endlessly to no avail... the problem was the judge's opinion on the matter would not be swayed (after all someone had died)...

My only comment in this thread was mentioning (based on my experience with this particular scenario) that it all could've been prevented had the motorcyclist cared enough to protect himself. Nothing wrong with that logic. Only your insistence that this argument somehow reflects on me or my supposed 'paranoias'... again Car/Motorcycle accidents are an everyday occurrence...

[MannyIsGod]

Take a Chill Pill!

[MannyIsGod]

Helmet laws in no way shape or form prevent bad actions by our judicial system. There's just no point to be made there that helps your case. I've had accidents in the past but I've never been prosecuted for reckless driving because I'm not a reckless driver. There's physical evidence that can prove things either way and I don't know the specifics of your friends case but perhaps - just perhaps - the jury or judge came to the decision because your friend drove recklessly. Have you considered that?

[Wild Cobra]

Helmet laws in no way shape or form prevent bad actions by our judicial system.

No shit.

I just finished watching a good movie called Justice (http://movies.netflix.com/WiSearch?v1=Justice&oq=justified&ac_posn=9). Different in theme, but bad judges are bad judges, no matter how you slice it.

[AmericanPsycho]

I've always worn a helmet when I ride. Just makes common sense.

[Phenomanul]

Helmet laws in no way shape or form prevent bad actions by our judicial system. There's just no point to be made there that helps your case. I've had accidents in the past but I've never been prosecuted for reckless driving because I'm not a reckless driver. There's physical evidence that can prove things either way and I don't know the specifics of your friends case but perhaps - just perhaps - the jury or judge came to the decision because your friend drove recklessly. Have you considered that?

Just circumstancial bias because it 'fit the bill' for people in his age group...

Because it happened on the weekend, after midnight, and he was driving home from the "Pool Joint"... On top of that the police didn't administer a breathalizer test until several hours after the fact... (which came back negative as did the bloodwork conducted several hours later), and since the police never administered a field sobriety test the judge and jury assumed and decided to fill in the gaps.

I wasn't there but I could vouch for the fact that he was simply there playing pool (a passion of his since childhood). The guy, doesn't consume alcohol, period... of course no one believed him because the mother of the victim pandered to the emotional side of the jury (obviously she was emotionally distraught... and understandedly so)... Still, there was no proof my friend was drinking and everyone assumed as much despite the lack of evidence.

All that nightmare would have turned out differently if the motorcyclist had simply worn a helmet.

[DMC]

Did he get a ticket?

[MannyIsGod]

Did he appeal?

Also, it would have turned out differently if he hadn't driven. If he had stopped for gas. If he would have stayed a bit longer. If he would have gone home a bit early. Etc Etc.

Focusing in on the helmet is ridiculous. You're not looking at this situation rationally at all but rather emotionally because it has to do with your friend and you feel he was wronged (although you weren't there). His lawyer really had to have been really terrible if they got him on some kind of DWI trumped up charge if there was no physical evidence of intoxication.

I find it very hard to believe that with semi competent representation you would ever be convicted of driving while intoxicated without all of the items you mentioned. It doesn't add up at all.

[MannyIsGod]

Did he get a ticket?

I LOLed.

[Wild Cobra]

All that nightmare would have turned out differently if the motorcyclist had simply worn a helmet.
If I read this right, the accident was his fault. Right?

What were the possible injuries if he had a helmet on anyway? Could he have broken his neck instead, ruining your friend financially?

It's a fine line between improper use of a lethal weapon, and accidentally killing with it from the improper use. A car is a lethal weapon.

If he was in fact reckless... I have little sympathy for him. Someone else shouldn't have to restrict their freedoms in order to bubble-wrap them against others. Many motorcyclists hate helmets for the reason they cant tell what direction sounds are coming from. They consider the helmet a greater risk to safety than wearing one. I wonder how many bikers in an accident could have avoided that accident if they could have heard their surroundings better.

[cantthinkofanything]

Just circumstancial bias because it 'fit the bill' for people in his age group...

Because it happened on the weekend, after midnight, and he was driving home from the "Pool Joint"... On top of that the police didn't administer a breathalizer test until several hours after the fact... (which came back negative as did the bloodwork conducted several hours later), and since the police never administered a field sobriety test the judge and jury assumed and decided to fill in the gaps.

I wasn't there but I could vouch for the fact that he was simply there playing pool (a passion of his since childhood). The guy, doesn't consume alcohol, period... of course no one believed him because the mother of the victim pandered to the emotional side of the jury (obviously she was emotionally distraught... and understandedly so)... Still, there was no proof my friend was drinking and everyone assumed as much despite the lack of evidence.


Oh yeah. The motorcycle riding, pool playing, non-drinker that hangs out at the bar until after midnight. I know that guy.

[Wild Cobra]

No... but I certainly don't want to be the guy who has a legitimate accident and end up being charged with manslaughter simply because the motorcyclist was stupid enough not to want to protect himself...
What is this "legitimate accident" your friend had? Was he by chance following too close for the conditions, or was it something else?

[Wild Cobra]

So now their stupidity comes with a price tag for the rest of us?

Maybe you can buy me a vehicular camera, I'll PM the P.O. Box address... :lol
I use my old cell phone. Clip it on the dash and record as I'm driving. Being a mobile windows phone, it works without the sim card. Can't call no one, but the camera works just fine. the memory card is easily moved to the computer, and I can even connect via USB connection if I want.

[Wild Cobra]

My only comment in this thread was mentioning (based on my experience with this particular scenario) that it all could've been prevented had the motorcyclist cared enough to protect himself. Nothing wrong with that logic. Only your insistence that this argument somehow reflects on me or my supposed 'paranoias'... again Car/Motorcycle accidents are an everyday occurrence...
How would the motorcyclist wearing the helmet have prevented it?

Now I know that's not what you mean, but this is very relevant. A force enough to kill him may have crippled him for life instead. A person can get sued even harder from a person alive rather than dead.

[coyotes_geek]

Just circumstancial bias because it 'fit the bill' for people in his age group...

Because it happened on the weekend, after midnight, and he was driving home from the "Pool Joint"... On top of that the police didn't administer a breathalizer test until several hours after the fact... (which came back negative as did the bloodwork conducted several hours later), and since the police never administered a field sobriety test the judge and jury assumed and decided to fill in the gaps.

I wasn't there but I could vouch for the fact that he was simply there playing pool (a passion of his since childhood). The guy, doesn't consume alcohol, period... of course no one believed him because the mother of the victim pandered to the emotional side of the jury (obviously she was emotionally distraught... and understandedly so)... Still, there was no proof my friend was drinking and everyone assumed as much despite the lack of evidence.

So did they get him on DWI or on vehicular manslaughter? I can't see how it could have been DWI if there wasn't a field sobriety test and he passed blood & breathalyzer. If it's vehicular manslaughter, then that's a crime you can commit drunk or sober, so it doesn't matter whether he was drunk or not.


All that nightmare would have turned out differently if the motorcyclist had simply worn a helmet.

Differently as in instead of getting charged with veh. manslaughter he gets charged with veh. assault? Or differently as in he doesn't get charged at all? If there was enough there to file manslaughter charges it seems like a reach to think that they wouldn't have gone after him on a different charge had the guy been wearing a helmet and survived.

[ALVAREZ6]

Helmet laws are unnecessary. If someone wants to ride without a helmet, let them. Its not my brain thats going all over the pavement.

:tu


Also, people who ride motorcycles often are certainly aware of the dangers they face every single crazy ass time hopping on. I wouldn't trust people enough as I'm zipping around on my bike to avoid doing stupid things behind the wheel, because in many cases it would be who pays the price with my life. Any small lapse in concentration, any time a car driver is not fully alert of his surroundings (which is clearly often for most drivers), motorcyclists are in danger. Any stupid ass mistake, whether it's the driver or other drivers, could easily result in death on a bike.

The world is in no need of population, clearly it could use a large decrease, so deaths like these don't discourage/down me. At least that ex-biker isn't a vegetable in a wheelchair for the rest of his life, requiring millions of dollars in healthcare that he may or may not be able to pay. TBH, fuck helmets.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Helmet laws are unnecessary. If someone wants to ride without a helmet, let them. Its not my brain thats going all over the pavement.

That.

I think the seat belt law is mainly for the youngins. No sense in making a law that is aged based to require who should wear a seat belt or not. And I know there are aged based laws regarding alcohol and smoking but you're not eating or smoking your seat belt.

[cantthinkofanything]

That.

I think the seat belt law is mainly for the youngins. No sense in making a law that is aged based to require who should wear a seat belt or not. And I know there are aged based laws regarding alcohol and smoking but you're not eating or smoking your seat belt.

Not that I condone it but I remember going on long trips with my parents when I was little and laying above the backseat under the window.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Not that I condone it but I remember going on long trips with my parents when I was little and laying above the backseat under the window.

:lol me too. My Mom hated that. My Dad would just laugh at her

[MannyIsGod]

Best place to sleep, IMO.

[4>0rings]

At least he died looking cool!

[Phenomanul]

:lol you all are as judgemental as the jury that "hung him out to dry"...

Yes, he did appeal... and won (after inclusion of a polygraph test was accepted as evidence... a test the first judge didn't even want to administer)...

Of course that won't recover the year and a half he spent in jail waiting for the appeal to be processed... BTW Manny, the same lawyer saw him through the second trial as well... You all are acting as if our judicial system was impervious to bias and wrongful accusation... :lol

Remember this is South Texas where most judges have been desensitized to the less mundane activities in light of the drug war that has crept into the area...

Geesh... all this because I said that 'accidentally' running over a motorcyclist could turn up bad for the driver... overreaction? :lol

[Wild Cobra]

:lol you all are as judgemental as the jury that "hung him out to dry"...

Yes, he did appeal... and won (after inclusion of a polygraph test was accepted as evidence... a test the first judge didn't even want to administer)...

Of course that won't recover the year and a half he spent in jail waiting for the appeal to be processed... BTW Manny, the same lawyer saw him through the second trial as well... You all are acting as if our judicial system was impervious to bias and wrongful accusation... :lol

Remember this is South Texas where most judges have been desensitized to the less mundane activities in light of the drug war that has crept into the area...

Geesh... all this because I said that 'accidentally' running over a motorcyclist could turn up bad for the driver... overreaction? :lol
Most so-called accidents are preventable.

What are the details of the accident?

[MannyIsGod]

:lol you all are as judgemental as the jury that "hung him out to dry"...

Yes, he did appeal... and won (after inclusion of a polygraph test was accepted as evidence... a test the first judge didn't even want to administer)...

Of course that won't recover the year and a half he spent in jail waiting for the appeal to be processed... BTW Manny, the same lawyer saw him through the second trial as well... You all are acting as if our judicial system was impervious to bias and wrongful accusation... :lol

Remember this is South Texas where most judges have been desensitized to the less mundane activities in light of the drug war that has crept into the area...

Geesh... all this because I said that 'accidentally' running over a motorcyclist could turn up bad for the driver... overreaction? :lol

Question: Why do you keep saying there is an overreaction? Do you want no one to respond to your posts? I mean seriously, I addressed this above but this is some of the oddest shit ever. When you are talking face to face with someone, and they respond to a statement that you made, do you all of a sudden freak out and ask them why they're over reacting?

Anyway, I'm going to go ahead and go on the record and say that it sucks that your friend lost that time and of course the judicial system fucks up. No one here ever said it didn't but you kept providing incomplete information and you expect everyone to somehow know what happened. Your communication in this thread has been emotional and piss poor, to be quite honest.

Yeah - it turned out bad for the driver but accidents usually do in some way shape or form. Your example is an extreme is by no means the norm. I really have no reason to suspect that judicial competence would somehow magically increase through the required use of helmets.

I don't think anyone has overreacted in any way to what you have posted in your thread. Your basic line of logic has been that helmets should be worn because your friend went to jail wrongfully for a period of time. That just isn't logical at all.

[silverblk mystix]

Hate to make light of a serious subject....but this song here cranked up all the way...
makes me want to ride WITHOUT a helmet....

NfbBw-YMBeQ

[Blake]

:lol you all are as judgemental as the jury that "hung him out to dry"...

Yes, he did appeal... and won (after inclusion of a polygraph test was accepted as evidence... a test the first judge didn't even want to administer)...

Of course that won't recover the year and a half he spent in jail waiting for the appeal to be processed... BTW Manny, the same lawyer saw him through the second trial as well... You all are acting as if our judicial system was impervious to bias and wrongful accusation... :lol

Remember this is South Texas where most judges have been desensitized to the less mundane activities in light of the drug war that has crept into the area...

Geesh... all this because I said that 'accidentally' running over a motorcyclist could turn up bad for the driver... overreaction? :lol

lol hung him out to dry

so you're judging the jury yourself based on some rather fuzzy details.

you still haven't stated what he was charged with.

[Wild Cobra]

lol hung him out to dry

so you're judging the jury yourself based on some rather fuzzy details.

you still haven't stated what he was charged with.
I'm beginning to think his friend, is him, and embarrassed to tell us the details.

[Booharv]

I got a motorcycle (Yamaha FZR 600) when I was in college because the law in florida was that if you wore a helmet you didn't have to have insurance. Saved me a shitload of money what with gas and no car insurance. Combine that with the fact that I was able to rent my own place for $250 a month (a run down mobile home, but still) and myself and my gf at the time could live on next to nothing. Even got a Pell Grant and some food stamps so I was making due on like $600 a month.

A couple of guys I knew would just not wear a helmet even if they didn't have insurance and just say they lost it or whatever when they were pulled over iirc.

[Booharv]

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6027/5912695012_06c0dc2982_b.jpg

:cry best years of my life :cry

[Blake]

I'm beginning to think his friend, is him, and embarrassed to tell us the details.

I'm thinking he heard bits and pieces of his friend's case and is simply talking out of his ass.

[silverblk mystix]

I'm thinking he heard bits and pieces of his friend's case and is simply talking out of his ass.

Blake,

ever since that chick you had...or maybe still have...got some extracurricular schlong...

you have been a pretty uptight asshole...almost Cumdumpster-like a-hole...

or maybe you ARE Cumdumpster.

[Blake]

Blake,

ever since that chick you had...or maybe still have...got some extracurricular schlong...

you have been a pretty uptight asshole...almost Cumdumpster-like a-hole...

or maybe you ARE Cumdumpster.

the irony in this post is rather thick. Maybe you should just unclench your cheeks and vent it out in your attention whoring "I'm w@sted" thread.

lol pretty uptight asshole

[Bill_Brasky]

:lol you all are as judgemental as the jury that "hung him out to dry"...

Yes, he did appeal... and won (after inclusion of a polygraph test was accepted as evidence... a test the first judge didn't even want to administer)...

Of course that won't recover the year and a half he spent in jail waiting for the appeal to be processed... BTW Manny, the same lawyer saw him through the second trial as well... You all are acting as if our judicial system was impervious to bias and wrongful accusation... :lol

Remember this is South Texas where most judges have been desensitized to the less mundane activities in light of the drug war that has crept into the area...

Geesh... all this because I said that 'accidentally' running over a motorcyclist could turn up bad for the driver... overreaction? :lol


There was a young(16 year old) girl hit and killed by a driver while crossing a very busy highway at night in Round Rock a few years ago and it would have been easy to charge the driver based on emotions/how young the girl was, but they didn't.....they don't just hand those kinds of charges out like candy....sucks what happened to your friend but they had to have had SOMETHING on him to charge him like that....legitimate accidents happen all the time, and the police understand that more than anybody.

[cantthinkofanything]

I got a motorcycle (Yamaha FZR 600) when I was in college because the law in florida was that if you wore a helmet you didn't have to have insurance. Saved me a shitload of money what with gas and no car insurance. Combine that with the fact that I was able to rent my own place for $250 a month (a run down mobile home, but still) and myself and my gf at the time could live on next to nothing. Even got a Pell Grant and some food stamps so I was making due on like $600 a month.

A couple of guys I knew would just not wear a helmet even if they didn't have insurance and just say they lost it or whatever when they were pulled over iirc.

There's a girl in your sig under the "butts" category but she's facing forward and you really can't see her butt at all. WTF.

[mingus]

it's not my place to tell another guy that he has to wear a helmet while on a cycle. if the guys chooses not to, then that is his choice. it's not affecting me.

now the other month i did see a guy riding with his teenage daughter behind him and she was not wearing a helmet also. i got a problem with that. got to be at least 18 to make that choice, she looked 14, 15 or so.

[DMC]

it's not my place to tell another guy that he has to wear a helmet while on a cycle. if the guys chooses not to, then that is his choice. it's not affecting me.

now the other month i did see a guy riding with his teenage daughter behind him and she was not wearing a helmet also. i got a problem with that. got to be at least 18 to make that choice, she looked 14, 15 or so.

How do you know it was his daughter and not his gf?

[mrsmaalox]

Helmet laws don't have anything to do with the government wanting to take away our personal freedoms or with anyone being concerned about our personal safety; they have to do with insurance companies not wanting to pay for the injuries sustained and taxpayers not wanting to be stuck with the tab.

[DMC]

It would be cheaper to not have helmets. Dead people don't have high hospital bills. Life insurance, sure. Helmets won't stop you from dying. They will make you more identifiable however.

[Phenomanul]

There was a young(16 year old) girl hit and killed by a driver while crossing a very busy highway at night in Round Rock a few years ago and it would have been easy to charge the driver based on emotions/how young the girl was, but they didn't.....they don't just hand those kinds of charges out like candy....sucks what happened to your friend but they had to have had SOMETHING on him to charge him like that....legitimate accidents happen all the time, and the police understand that more than anybody.

Which is why my friend was able to win his appeal... the second judge was more understanding (and the lie detector test was admitted as evidence in the second trial on account of the accident not having any witnesses... the test helped him confirm his statement that he hadn't been drinking or speeding the night of the accident). Like I said, the first trial had the stench of a mis-trial from the get-go...

I called up my friend in light of all the hell I'm getting here (curiously enough, he's living in NY these days...) I didn't want to bring up the subject (still a touchy subject for him), but he clarified the fact that the officer thought he was drunk simply because he had vomited and had problems standing up (again, despite no formal field sobriety test being administered)... This he said stemmed from the fact that he was pretty shaken up (emotionally) about the whole incident... he couldn't breathe, he couldn't speak or even think properly... I mean, he had just seen another guy's brains splattered all over the asphalt... an image which I'm sure would cause others here to throw up as well...


Question: Why do you keep saying there is an overreaction? Do you want no one to respond to your posts? I mean seriously, I addressed this above but this is some of the oddest shit ever. When you are talking face to face with someone, and they respond to a statement that you made, do you all of a sudden freak out and ask them why they're over reacting?

Anyway, I'm going to go ahead and go on the record and say that it sucks that your friend lost that time and of course the judicial system fucks up. No one here ever said it didn't but you kept providing incomplete information and you expect everyone to somehow know what happened. Your communication in this thread has been emotional and piss poor, to be quite honest.

Yeah - it turned out bad for the driver but accidents usually do in some way shape or form. Your example is an extreme is by no means the norm. I really have no reason to suspect that judicial competence would somehow magically increase through the required use of helmets.

I don't think anyone has overreacted in any way to what you have posted in your thread. Your basic line of logic has been that helmets should be worn because your friend went to jail wrongfully for a period of time. That just isn't logical at all.


Overraction Manny? Yes, you make it sound like an inquisition... Now I'm supposed to provide you all the details of an incident such as this one as the proper preface to a comment that "perhaps a motorcyclist's death can cause more of a legal headache than anyone would want?" Ummm yeah... I didn't get your memo requesting that context specifity for anything we post in the forum...

I know you enjoy arguing for argument's sake, but seriously dude...? My first post was just a comment... I wasn't advocating the need for a helmet law any more than arguing against one... the context of my friend's case, while certainly a data point in my opinion, was only brought out because someone assumed my comment was born out of (far-fetched) paranoia... When I said it had a basis, most everyone on here started assuming (again) that 'if my friend had been convicted that obviously he was in the wrong'... and somehow I was left having to explain the whole incident from scratch...

The problem is not that I don't expect others to disagree with a comment (someone out will always disagree about anything and everything)... the problem is that the initial rebuttals never asked for clarification of any sort; instead they lashed out with unnecessary mockery...

whatever.. :wakeup

[ALVAREZ6]

Helmet laws don't have anything to do with the government wanting to take away our personal freedoms or with anyone being concerned about our personal safety; they have to do with insurance companies not wanting to pay for the injuries sustained and taxpayers not wanting to be stuck with the tab.

Injuries = more costly with helmet use on motorcycles IMO...

helmet accident: fractured bones throughout body, internal damage, potential facial injuries if helmet only covers head, large medical bill$

non-helmet accident: death

[SnakeBoy]

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6027/5912695012_06c0dc2982_b.jpg

:cry best years of my life :cry

That is sad.

[Wild Cobra]

You still didn't tell us how the accident happened.

Your same concerns happen with car and bicycle accidents all the time.

[SnakeBoy]

.

[SnakeBoy]

.

[Isitjustme?]

^Gr8 posts bro.

[SnakeBoy]

^Gr8 posts bro.

Yeah maybe just a bit too much on second thought. Should have just said riding a motorcycle is dangerous with or without a helmet.

[ShoogarBear]

Helmet laws don't have anything to do with the government wanting to take away our personal freedoms or with anyone being concerned about our personal safety; they have to do with insurance companies not wanting to pay for the injuries sustained and taxpayers not wanting to be stuck with the tab.

Exactly right.


Injuries = more costly with helmet use on motorcycles IMO...

helmet accident: fractured bones throughout body, internal damage, potential facial injuries if helmet only covers head, large medical bill$

non-helmet accident: death

Not true. And there's data to prove it: http://www.neuroskills.com/pr-motorcyclehelmet.shtml

The only potential benefit: if the cyclist was an organ donor.

[mrsmaalox]

Injuries = more costly with helmet use on motorcycles IMO...

helmet accident: fractured bones throughout body, internal damage, potential facial injuries if helmet only covers head, large medical bill$

non-helmet accident: death

Well I agree that it would seem that way, but just like wearing a helmet does not guarantee no injuries, not wearing a helmet does not guarantee death either; most of the time the injuries are exactly as you listed above plus head/brain trauma.

[ALVAREZ6]

Oh stop it with your facts and research. Let natural selection play its role.

[Blake]

Which is why my friend was able to win his appeal... the second judge was more understanding (and the lie detector test was admitted as evidence in the second trial on account of the accident not having any witnesses... the test helped him confirm his statement that he hadn't been drinking or speeding the night of the accident). Like I said, the first trial had the stench of a mis-trial from the get-go...

I called up my friend in light of all the hell I'm getting here (curiously enough, he's living in NY these days...) I didn't want to bring up the subject (still a touchy subject for him), but he clarified the fact that the officer thought he was drunk simply because he had vomited and had problems standing up (again, despite no formal field sobriety test being administered)... This he said stemmed from the fact that he was pretty shaken up (emotionally) about the whole incident... he couldn't breathe, he couldn't speak or even think properly... I mean, he had just seen another guy's brains splattered all over the asphalt... an image which I'm sure would cause others here to throw up as well...




Overraction Manny? Yes, you make it sound like an inquisition... Now I'm supposed to provide you all the details of an incident such as this one as the proper preface to a comment that "perhaps a motorcyclist's death can cause more of a legal headache than anyone would want?" Ummm yeah... I didn't get your memo requesting that context specifity for anything we post in the forum...

I know you enjoy arguing for argument's sake, but seriously dude...? My first post was just a comment... I wasn't advocating the need for a helmet law any more than arguing against one... the context of my friend's case, while certainly a data point in my opinion, was only brought out because someone assumed my comment was born out of (far-fetched) paranoia... When I said it had a basis, most everyone on here started assuming (again) that 'if my friend had been convicted that obviously he was in the wrong'... and somehow I was left having to explain the whole incident from scratch...

The problem is not that I don't expect others to disagree with a comment (someone out will always disagree about anything and everything)... the problem is that the initial rebuttals never asked for clarification of any sort; instead they lashed out with unnecessary mockery...

whatever.. :wakeup

not sure I've ever seen another poster on such a consistent basis use so many words yet not say anything.

[ididnotnothat]

If you really think about it you'd think there wouldn't be any reason to need a helmet law. Hit your head against a rock without a helmet and then with one on. Issue solved as far as I'm concerned.

[Phenomanul]

not sure I've ever seen another poster on such a consistent basis use so many words yet not say anything.

Not everyone here is as stupid as you...

or as bitter...
or as unrelentingly spiteful...

Ahora si, corto y al punto... ¿Comprendes eso? :rolleyes

[ALVAREZ6]

not sure I've ever seen another poster on such a consistent basis use so many words yet not say anything.

Too lazy to read it, but this caught my eye:


Which is why my friend was able to win his appeal... the second judge was more understanding (and the lie detector test was admitted as evidence in the second trial on account of the accident not having any witnesses... the test helped him confirm his statement that he hadn't been drinking or speeding the night of the accident). Like I said, the first trial had the stench of a mis-trial from the get-go...

I called up my friend in light of all the hell I'm getting here (curiously enough, he's living in NY these days...) I didn't want to bring up the subject (still a touchy subject for him), but he clarified the fact that the officer thought he was drunk simply because he had vomited and had problems standing up (again, despite no formal field sobriety test being administered)... This he said stemmed from the fact that he was pretty shaken up (emotionally) about the whole incident... he couldn't breathe, he couldn't speak or even think properly... I mean, he had just seen another guy's brains splattered all over the asphalt...an image which I'm sure would cause others here to throw up as well...




Overraction Manny? Yes, you make it sound like an inquisition...Now I'm supposed to provide you all the details of an incident such as this one as the proper preface to a comment that "perhaps a motorcyclist's death can cause more of a legal headache than anyone would want?" Ummm yeah... I didn't get your memo requesting that context specifity for anything we post in the forum...

I know you enjoy arguing for argument's sake, but seriously dude...? My first post was just a comment... I wasn't advocating the need for a helmet law any more than arguing against one... the context of my friend's case, while certainly a data point in my opinion, was only brought out because someone assumed my comment was born out of (far-fetched) paranoia... When I said it had a basis, most everyone on here started assuming (again) that 'if my friend had been convicted that obviously he was in the wrong'... and somehow I was left having to explain the whole incident from scratch...

The problem is not that I don't expect others to disagree with a comment (someone out will always disagree about anything and everything)... the problem is that the initial rebuttals never asked for clarification of any sort; instead they lashed out with unnecessary mockery...

whatever.. :wakeup

[silverblk mystix]

Not everyone here is as stupid as you...

or as bitter...
or as unrelentingly spiteful...

Ahora si, corto y al punto... ¿Comprendes eso? :rolleyes

Someone else noticed this.

Hey, Blake....go and get you some already.

[Blake]

Not everyone here is as stupid as you...

or as bitter...
or as unrelentingly spiteful...

Ahora si, corto y al punto... ¿Comprendes eso? :rolleyes

I'll ask the non-bitter, non-spiteful question yet again:

What exactly was your friend charged with?

It's ok to say "I'd rather not talk about it."

That would be better than a page long post discussing how your friend is sad and you think he got screwed.

[Blake]

Someone else noticed this.

Hey, Blake....go and get you some already.

Someone else is butthurt about silly messageboard postings.

lol uptight asshole

[RandomGuy]

Exactly right.



Not true. And there's data to prove it: http://www.neuroskills.com/pr-motorcyclehelmet.shtml

The only potential benefit: if the cyclist was an organ donor.

ER nurses have a nickname for Motorcycles:

Donorcycles

[ManuBalboa]

I want to start riding and will probably not wear a helmet on most short trips and I am Natural Selections biggest proponent. I'd take riding happy and dieing over going for a baseball and falling to my death tbh.

[Booharv]

I want to start riding and will probably not wear a helmet on most short trips and I am Natural Selections biggest proponent. I'd take riding happy and dieing over going for a baseball and falling to my death tbh.

If you haven't ridden before start with a bike with an easy learning curve. Mine was a real pain to learn and I found out that the bike would have been better for a real advanced rider. Like the throttle was so tight that if you barely turned it the bike would jump out and changing gears required real precision timing. Also, get a sport bike people who drive harleys in movies are cool IRL only dirtbags and posers drive harleys. :toast

[Booharv]

That is sad.

Great trolling.

But seriously, I'm only like 24 so when I get married and have kids will be better honestly. I live in a better home in a nice neighborhood now, But I worked like 15 hours a week then, scheduled all my classes on tue and thur and had summers off so we could basically chill out like all the time and what with pell grant $, $ from our parents, and food stamps etc we got by fine. The summers were awesome. I would love to be one of those douches who changes careers five times and goes back to college just for that reason, but unfortunately I like the job I have a lot now :lol

[Prime1]

Darwin has a point, doesn't he? Why do we try to protect such people when they just contaminate the gene pool?

Everything is politics with this guy.

[Wild Cobra]

I still want to know the nature of Phenomanul friend's accident.

How did it happen, who was at fault, etc.

Was he following too close or poll positioning by chance?