Reply With Quote
Actually it is. A random, freak occurance happened to someone you know and now you're certain it will happen to you.
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 re that will probably die sooner or later anyway.
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...
Yes, they are. Except in the case of children because they lack the capacity to make that choice for themselves.
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.
@ "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.
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.
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....
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 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.
That.......but don't see any good reasons for a helmet law.
Fair point. In hindsight, probably shouldn't have used "certain" in my response. Poor choice of words on my part.
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.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...
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.
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...
Take a Chill Pill!
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?
No .
I just finished watching a good movie called Justice. Different in theme, but bad judges are bad judges, no matter how you slice it.
I've always worn a helmet when I ride. Just makes common sense.
Just cir stancial 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.
Did he get a ticket?
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.
I LOLed.
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.
Oh yeah. The motorcycle riding, pool playing, non-drinker that hangs out at the bar until after midnight. I know that guy.
What is this "legitimate accident" your friend had? Was he by chance following too close for the conditions, or was it something else?
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.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...
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
