Helmetless Motorcyclist Killed While Riding To Overturn Helmet Law

[Chalupa]

Freedom or free dumb?

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2011/07/parish_man_protesting_motorcyc.html

Parish man, protesting motorcycle helmet laws, dies from head injury, troopers say

Published: Saturday, July 02, 2011, 7:14 PM Updated: Saturday, July 02, 2011, 7:33 PM

John Mariani / The Post-Standard By John Mariani / The Post-Standard

Town of Onondaga, NY – A Parish man who was participating in a motorcycle helmet protest ride was killed this afternoon when he went over the handlebars of his motorcycle and injured his head on the pavement, state police said.

Philip A. Contos, 55, of 45 East St., Parish, was not wearing a helmet while driving a 1983 Harley Davidson motorcycle south on Route 11 in Onondaga with a large group of other motorcyclists, troopers said.

About 1:30 p.m., troopers said, Contos hit his brakes, the motorcycle fishtailed and went out of control and Contos went over the handlebars.

Contos was taken to Upstate University Hospital where he was pronounced dead, troopers said.

Evidence at the scene and information from the attending physician indicate Contos would have survived if he had been wearing a Department of Transportation approved helmet, troopers said.

The protest in which Contos was riding was organized by American Bikers Aimed Towards Education, Trooper Jack Keller said.

© 2011 syracuse.com. All rights reserved.

[Big Beat Steve]

Falls a bit short of making him a candidarte for the Darwin Award, but anyway ...

[Dan Gould]

Its tragic yet deliciously ironic.

Personally I find helmet laws a great symbol of the nanny state, as the risk is entirely the rider's, no one else is at risk but himself, and its no business of any state whether a motorcyclist wants to risk smashing his head on the concrete.

You're stupid if you don't wear a helmet but you're also free to be stupid.

That's a bedrock principle of the USA and this is a fine reminder on its 235th birthday.

[Man with the Golden Arm]

yeah too bad for that - considering that a great percentage of helmet-less riders lack substantial insurance I wonder who then picks up the tab(?) rather than let the freedom rider bleed out on the street.

[Shawn]

When I was about 12 years old a guy wiped out on a high powered street bike in front of our house, he died in our front yard. I've never even thought about not wearing a helmet since that happened. You only need to see brains outside a skull 1 time for the point to get across.

[papsrus]

Florida does not require motorcycle riders to wear helmets, yet the laws do require people in cars to wear seat belts. I'm not against wearing seat belts. I always wear one. But the incongruity of these laws is a little curious.

[Shawn]

Florida does not require motorcycle riders to wear helmets, yet the laws do require people in cars to wear seat belts. I'm not against wearing seat belts. I always wear one. But the incongruity of these laws is a little curious.

agreed

[alankin]

Its tragic yet deliciously ironic.

Personally I find helmet laws a great symbol of the nanny state, as the risk is entirely the rider's, no one else is at risk but himself, and its no business of any state whether a motorcyclist wants to risk smashing his head on the concrete.

You're stupid if you don't wear a helmet but you're also free to be stupid.

That's a bedrock principle of the USA and this is a fine reminder on its 235th birthday.

That's fine except that my taxes will likely pay for the rider's hospital stay and nursing care.

(If he survives.)

[Jazzmoose]

When I was about 12 years old a guy wiped out on a high powered street bike in front of our house, he died in our front yard. I've never even thought about not wearing a helmet since that happened. You only need to see brains outside a skull 1 time for the point to get across.

The look of my helmet after I went down in a corner was enough to convince me. That could have been my face...

[BruceH]

This headline was from The Onion, right?

[PHILLYQ]

This headline was from The Onion, right?

No, this one really did happen, i saw the story in a couple of legit(tabloid though) newspapers but it sure sounds like an Onion headline.

[mattes]

Are there any experiments testing the interactions of motorcycles and drivers? I think the result would be something to the effect that even the best drivers have trouble seeing and judging motorcycles.

[BERIGAN]

Are there any experiments testing the interactions of motorcycles and drivers? I think the result would be something to the effect that even the best drivers have trouble seeing and judging motorcycles.

Especially when one is driving in and around L.A. you would think 3-4 riders would be killed on the freeways each week.

[T.D.]

Its tragic yet deliciously ironic.

Personally I find helmet laws a great symbol of the nanny state, as the risk is entirely the rider's, no one else is at risk but himself, and its no business of any state whether a motorcyclist wants to risk smashing his head on the concrete.

You're stupid if you don't wear a helmet but you're also free to be stupid.

That's a bedrock principle of the USA and this is a fine reminder on its 235th birthday.

Utter bullshit. Taxpayer winds up paying for ambulances and medical care for the helmetless crashers. Typical neocon garbage.

[Dan Gould]

Its tragic yet deliciously ironic.

Personally I find helmet laws a great symbol of the nanny state, as the risk is entirely the rider's, no one else is at risk but himself, and its no business of any state whether a motorcyclist wants to risk smashing his head on the concrete.

You're stupid if you don't wear a helmet but you're also free to be stupid.

That's a bedrock principle of the USA and this is a fine reminder on its 235th birthday.

Utter bullshit. Taxpayer winds up paying for ambulances and medical care for the helmetless crashers. Typical neocon garbage.

Hmmm ... pretty sure the ambulance comes regardless, so that's a sunk cost, helmet or no.

And on what basis do you claim that the taxpayer pays for medical care of helmetless crashers? Is there some proof that the people who don't wear helmets also have insufficient insurance, or no insurance? Citation, please.

And furthermore, what are the survival rates of helmetted and helmet-less motorcyclists who crash? Helmets save lives presumably, but they're not perfect systems of head-protection and I have no doubt whatsoever that helmets cost taxpayers more because they keep people with still-critical injuries alive, resulting in the creation of more profoundly disabled former riders draining medical resources.

Dead riders don't cost the taxpayer anything.

Typical and predictable leftwing crap.

[JSngry]

Is the argument being made that taxpaying motorcycle riders buy insurance at rates with the cost of claims paid out to injuries to helmet-less riders not factored in?

If that's actually what's happening, them actuaries are being negligent to their employers. Fire 'em!

Edited July 7, 2011 by JSngry

[papsrus]

Its tragic yet deliciously ironic.

Personally I find helmet laws a great symbol of the nanny state, as the risk is entirely the rider's, no one else is at risk but himself, and its no business of any state whether a motorcyclist wants to risk smashing his head on the concrete.

You're stupid if you don't wear a helmet but you're also free to be stupid.

That's a bedrock principle of the USA and this is a fine reminder on its 235th birthday.

Utter bullshit. Taxpayer winds up paying for ambulances and medical care for the helmetless crashers. Typical neocon garbage.

Hmmm ... pretty sure the ambulance comes regardless, so that's a sunk cost, helmet or no.

And on what basis do you claim that the taxpayer pays for medical care of helmetless crashers? Is there some proof that the people who don't wear helmets also have insufficient insurance, or no insurance? Citation, please.

And furthermore, what are the survival rates of helmetted and helmet-less motorcyclists who crash? Helmets save lives presumably, but they're not perfect systems of head-protection and I have no doubt whatsoever that helmets cost taxpayers more because they keep people with still-critical injuries alive, resulting in the creation of more profoundly disabled former riders draining medical resources.

Dead riders don't cost the taxpayer anything.

Typical and predictable leftwing crap.

If you google "motorcycle injuries" there's a PDF (not sure how to link it but it's the second item listed when I searched) of a research paper that goes into great detail about the costs of treating motorcycle accident injuries in 2000 vs. the cost of treating injuries from motor vehicle accidents (car accidents).

I didn't read through the whole thing, it's pretty long, and I don't think they break it down for helmet vs. no helmet. However, one thing that jumped out at me was that public funds paid for 26.1 percent of motor vehicle crash injuries and 19.5 percent of motor cycle injury costs.

The length of hospital stay is almost identical when comparing motorcycle vs. motor vehicle injuries: An average of 23.8 days for all motorcycle injuries vs. 23.9 days for all motor vehicle injuries.

Overall, of course, the costs for care from motor vehicle accidents far outweighs the costs for care of motorcycle accident victims, simply because there are more of them.

A cursory look at this study indicates that the costs of treatment seem to be a non-factor in the issue of helmet laws.

But I still don't see why helmet laws are framed in terms of personal freedom while seat belt laws are not.

[alankin]

I found an older study of medical costs for helmeted vs. non-helmeted riders. The conclusion was that not wearing a helmet has an average increase of 60% in hospital cost. There weren't many more fatalities, but the injuries were much more severe. This is the opposite of what Dan projected.

Motorcycle helmet use and injury outcome and hospitalization costs from crashes in Washington State.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1380358/

Am J Public Health. 1996 January; 86(1): 41–45.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES. The incidence, type, severity, and costs of crash-related injuries requiring hospitalization or resulting in death were compared for helmeted and unhelmeted motorcyclists. METHODS. This was a retrospective cohort study of injured motorcyclists in Washington State in 1989. Motorcycle crash data were linked to statewide hospitalization and death data. RESULTS. The 2090 crashes included in this study resulted in 409 hospitalizations (20%) and 59 fatalities (28%). Although unhelmeted motorcyclists were only slightly more likely to be hospitalized overall, they were more severely injured, nearly three times more likely to have been head injured, and nearly four times more likely to have been severely or critically head injured than helmeted riders. Unhelmeted riders were also more likely to be readmitted to a hospital for follow-up treatment and to die from their injuries. The average hospital stay for unhelmeted motorcyclists was longer, and cost more per case; the cost of hospitalization for unhelmeted motorcyclists was 60% more overall ($3.5 vs $2.2 million). CONCLUSIONS. Helmet use is strongly associated with reduced probability and severity of injury, reduced economic impact, and a reduction in motorcyclist deaths.

[Dan Gould]

OK but it still shows nothing about any association between riding without a helmet and being un-insured or under-insured.

[jazzbo]

I ride both with and without a helmet, and have been in accidents both with and without a helmet (the worse accident of the two, that required hospitalization, was with a helmet--a broken arm dangerously close to the wrist).

I was insured both times, both with auto and health insurance. Both times the driver at fault's insurance (which was not me and mine) paid all costs.

Yeah I know I should have a helmet on all the time. I rode for years without a helmet, not one single accident. Most of the time now I wear a helmet. It's hard when it's 100 degrees and over 100 as it's been about 30 days straight now! I rode motorcycles since 1977 with a break between 1990 and 2007, and for all but three of those years the motorcycle was my only vehicle. So many many hours and miles.

Edited July 7, 2011 by jazzbo

[JSngry]

OK but it still shows nothing about any association between riding without a helmet and being un-insured or under-insured.

But is it not reasonably safe to assume that most riders who buy insurance are also taxpayers?

I'm just saying that even if the additional cost of non-helmeted injuries are only borne by theose who buy the insurance, it's still then (mostly) taxpayers paying the extra expense. And if they - the affected taxpayers - don't feel justified in bearing that burden, what is their recourse other than through legislation, besides doing a Wardell Gray on every uninsured rider they see?

I'm certainly sympathetic to the public safety vs individual liberty argument, and see merit in both sides. That, and many issues like it, are all part of living in a society that simultaneously allows individual free though and collective decision making, dynamics with the potential for conflict always present. Considering the alternatives, it's a conflict I'm happy living with.

I'd think the sane thing to do would be to put these issues to a vote & let the chips fall where they may, knowing full well that if they fall unexpectedly and/or unpleasantly, there's always a chance for another vote to be had.

[Dan Gould]

OK but it still shows nothing about any association between riding without a helmet and being un-insured or under-insured.

But is it not reasonably safe to assume that most riders who buy insurance are also taxpayers?

I'm just saying that even if the additional cost of non-helmeted injuries are only borne by theose who buy the insurance, it's still then (mostly) taxpayers paying the extra expense. And if they - the affected taxpayers - don't feel justified in bearing that burden, what is their recourse other than through legislation, besides doing a Wardell Gray on every uninsured rider they see?

There is a population of motorcycle riders who have accidents resulting in injuries requiring medical care. Some of those riders wear helmets and some do not. Some have insurance for medical expenses, some don't.

For those who are uninsured or under-insured, there is cost-shifting toward others when they require medical care. Without evidence that those who refuse to wear helmets also make up a disproportionate share of those without sufficient insurance, there is no support for TD's statement that

Taxpayer winds up paying for ambulances and medical care for the helmetless crashers.

Let alone his gratuitous and utterly non-sequitur put-down

Typical neocon garbage.

[JSngry]

Well, let's say that existing helmet laws were put to the vote and passed, to remain on the books. Would that be the triumph of the nanny state, or would that be the voice of the people being heard? Or, like most elections, would it merely represent superior marketing to the ambivalent by the winning side?

What I'm really asking is this - when duly elected representatives enact laws and are not removed from office for passing those laws, how much can you blame the nanny state, how much do you blame the voters, and how much do you accept that those who oppose the laws are currently not dealing from a position of strength in terms of popular and/or economic support, in which case they should attempt to mobilize the electorate to support their position?

If what's left of the nanny state is allowed to survive through the actions of duly elected representatives, that's the "will of the people" in action, right?

[JSngry]

For those who are uninsured or under-insured, there is cost-shifting toward others when they require medical care.

The cost is shifted towards who? Non-taxpayers?

I mean, I get the argument that there may not be an impact to the "general taxpaying public". We can contrast and compare statistics and actuarial tables and underwriting guidelines to ferret out that one, or at least attempt to.

What I'm not buying is that "taxpayers" of one stripe or another totally escape the impact (no pun intended), not unless buying motorcycle insurance exempts you from paying taxes, or vice-versa.

[Dan Gould]

Well, let's say that existing helmet laws were put to the vote and passed, to remain on the books. Would that be the triumph of the nanny state, or would that be the voice of the people being heard? Or, like most elections, would it merely represent superior marketing to the ambivalent by the winning side?

What I'm really asking is this - when duly elected representatives enact laws and are not removed from office for passing those laws, how much can you blame the nanny state, how much do you blame the voters, and how much do you accept that those who oppose the laws are currently not dealing from a position of strength in terms of popular and/or economic support, in which case they should attempt to mobilize the electorate to support their position?

If what's left of the nanny state is allowed to survive through the actions of duly elected representatives, that's the "will of the people" in action, right?

Its the Nanny-State instinct of a particular breed of politician that will always endure. The fact is that its very rare that an elected representative gets removed due to a specific vote, so there is no feedback loop and there really can't be any conclusion of general approval by the population.

I would say that if Nanny-State laws were put to a referendum and approved by the voters, then its democracy in action and not busy-body politicians trying to enforce their vision of "proper behavior". But I don't know of any case where nanny-state laws got that kind of treatment.

For those who are uninsured or under-insured, there is cost-shifting toward others when they require medical care.

The cost is shifted towards who? Non-taxpayers?

I mean, I get the argument that there may not be an impact to the "general taxpaying public". We can contrast and compare statistics and actuarial tables and underwriting guidelines to ferret out that one, or at least attempt to.

What I'm not buying is that "taxpayers" of one stripe or another totally escape the impact (no pun intended), not unless buying motorcycle insurance exempts you from paying taxes, or vice-versa.

Costs are shifted to a lot of different people. It can be shifted to taxpayers if the helmetless end up on disability for the rest of their lives. On the other hand, crash victims can end up at private or parochial hospitals where they get their treatment covered out of the charitable care budget. Taxpayers aren't paying for that.

I didn't mean to imply that taxpayers don't get stuck with some of the cost-shifting - only that there is no reason to assume that the helmetless injured cost more to taxpayers than the helmeted. Even if the costs are higher as the earlier study indicated, there's no evidence that the helmetless are disproportionaly under or uninsured.

That's where TD goes completely off the rails.

Edited July 7, 2011 by Dan Gould