Ironic isn't it? The very thing he was protesting could have saved his life. Prays for his family.

 

In my Dec 2010 crash, my helmut sustained major dammages. From where my right eyebrow would have been all the way to the top of my head was scuffed deeply. Where my chin would have been was also smashed and scuffed. Across what would have been my temple area is a 1/2 inch RED streak, the same color of the Pickup truck I ran into.

My helmut gave up its life to save mine! This I am sure.


RIP rider, but his family will suffer for a long time over his actions. I do not want my family to go through that. ATGATT.

 

So much for the No Helmet Law <<<

 

NY motorcyclist dies on ride protesting helmet law

APAP – Sun, Jul 3, 2011

ONONDAGA, N.Y. (AP) — Police say a motorcyclist participating in a protest ride against helmet laws in upstate New York died after he flipped over the bike's handlebars and hit his head on the pavement.

The accident happened Saturday afternoon in the town of Onondaga, in central New York near Syracuse.

State troopers tell The Post-Standard of Syracuse that 55-year-old Philip A. Contos of Parish, N.Y., was driving a 1983 Harley Davidson with a group of bikers who were protesting helmet laws by not wearing helmets.

Troopers say Contos hit his brakes and the motorcycle fishtailed. The bike spun out of control, and Contos toppled over the handlebars. He was pronounced dead at a hospital.

Troopers say Contos would have likely survived if he had been wearing a helmet.

___

Information from: The Post-Standard, http://www.syracuse.com

 

Re: NY motorcyclist dies on ride protesting helmet law

Wow, talk about irony! Our state of Kansas doesn't required us to wear a helmet but I've always worn one from day one. Every rider should wear one unless what they have for brains isn't important. JC

 

Re: NY motorcyclist dies on ride protesting helmet law

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=53297 .

 

IMO: Good riddance.

 

IMO: Good riddance.

Pretty harsh considering you just have a safety equipment disagreement with him. I would go on but it's best I don't. Hope you have a very happy holiday.

 

This can be framed many different ways and maybe even escalate to a flame war over opinions. One aspect holds true. The choice to wear a helmet or not comes down to taking responsibility. For yourself, your family, for your loved ones. If they are held in low enough regard that this is an acceptable risk to you, then great. My heart goes out to the family and friends of Mr. Contos. His choice had a devastating but brief impact on his life. It will have a lifelong impact on everyone connected to him that survived his passing.
It may be judged selfish, foolish, or Darwinism at work. Others may disagreed and fly their "right to choose" flag. Choose wisely.

 

IMO: Good riddance.

It's sad that you feel that way. i also know folks who were wearing helmets and died? Is it good riddance to them to?

 

Who here hasn't exercised their right to choose the level of safety they are comfortable with? I hope we all realize we are sacrificing safety to some degree for the pleasure and economy of riding over locking ourselves in a cage. That doesn't make us insensitive to our family, does it? It is a matter we each have to live with and I don't feel comfortable saying what is right for another any more than I would like hearing someone say I shouldn't ride because it is too dangerous compared to a car. It is almost like some think because others make different choices than they make on that safety / enjoyment scale, they are lesser beings because of it.

For the record I live in a state where it is my choice what to wear when riding and I have not gone without a helmet in the 26 years I have been riding. It's the right choice for me, maybe not everyone else.

 

Pretty harsh considering you just have a safety equipment disagreement with him.

It's obviously not that simple. This guy was willing to break the law in order to participate in a demonstration against a proven safety device. On top of that, the side he was demonstrating for suffered a serious PR set back, so his death only further proves the need for helmets. FAIL

i also know folks who were wearing helmets and died? Is it good riddance to them to?

In this context, this doesn't make any sense.

I see they've updated the article. Looks like ABS would have helped him maintain control.
http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/ ... ing_h.html

 

And if he would have been wearing a rocket assist ejection seat lined with goose down he'd still be alive today. :roll: You can IF this all you like, Colchicine. IF helmet, IF ABS, IF not distracted... Just go right on ahead and IF it all the way to the point where you have to ask yourself: "IF I need all this safety gear and technology assist, why don't I just get a car?"

I'd never not wear a helmet myself but I don't want anyone telling me to. And, I will fight to the bitter end for the no-helmet guys right to peacably demonstrate against it (after citations are issued).

And if this guy survived but was a veggie - no health care. If you insist on being a big boy and make big boy decisions, you live with the consequences.

I find this story highly ironic but the real tragedy here is that the ABATE guys still don't get it. Lesson NOT learned.

FYI -I am ATGATT

 

Pretty harsh considering you just have a safety equipment disagreement with him.

It's obviously not that simple. This guy was willing to break the law in order to participate in a demonstration against a proven safety device. ...

I look at it as a little more than a simple safety equipment disagreement.

If his desire to break the law only affected him, great. However, it left a family without a husband, and without a father. Who is providing for them now? IMHO, he was looking at only his desires...and not those of others around him.

How many times does the government...you and I...end up paying for someone's choice to break the law like this? For their right to be a "rebel" as the article put it? Medical bills? Welfare? So there's obviously a lot more consequences involved than just a simple safety equipment disagreement. (I see a lot of men in the jail and prison who also exercised their right to be a rebel and disregard the law.)

If he had been breaking the law and exercising his right to chose by popping wheelies — or cutting in and out of traffic at 100 mph — what would be the response then? Would we still staunchly defend his right to be a rebel? Because in those rider's minds, they aren't hurting anyone but possibly themselves. And they don't plan on getting hurt...so what's the big deal they would say?

Life is sacred. I don't rejoice in this guy loosing his life. But I also won't celebrate his right to break the law, or hold him up as an example of something good or right.

Chris

 

I guess this argument falls into the zone with the guy who passes you at 15 miles an hour over the speed limit and you say I hope he wraps himself around the next electric pole. I may even think that initially when I see someone with such a disregard for safety, but if I went past an accident where that happened, I wouldn't be telling all my friends and people I work with that it was good and he got what was coming to him.

It's only a news story folks, we know less about this guy than you know about me or anyone else who has posted more than a paragraph on here.

If any of his friends or relatives happen to read such a forum and they see someone make a comment where someone says "IMO: Good riddance", I suspect they might not be too happy with the class of the statement either. Hell, we don't even know the guy, maybe he also rides in toys for tots and takes part in other charity causes. This could be the one bad call for his rights (yes, helmets or no helmets is a valid debate point), but that was the point I was making; If you don't know more about someone than a blurb in a very brief news article, it's a bit harsh to state that it's good that someone is dead. We who ride motorcycles should all know that, since we aren't taking part in the most safe of endeavors no matter how we dress.

Keep the rubber side down ride safe this weekend and always. Everyone have a great Independence day.

 

Let's all remember that a person died! Maybe doing something stupid or illegal. But, a person died. It's still sad. John Donne summed it up well.... "No man is an island...."

Too often today, it seems, people are willing to forget that those they might disagree with are living, breathing people just like ourselves. Let's all try to add a bit to improving civility today that is so lacking by remembering that others live, hope, love, and are part of these United States that was founded on July 4th to promote the common good.

 

IMO: Good riddance.

I may not have said it in quite that way, but I fully understand your feeling. The guy definitely deserves to be nominated for the Darwin Award!

 

Life is sacred. I don't rejoice in this guy loosing his life. But I also won't celebrate his right to break the law, or hold him up as an example of something good or right.

I think everyone agrees on the felony offenses being moral absolutes of "bad". There are may things that people DO disagree on that are made into public law and become misdemeanors. I have no problem with someone exercising civil disobedience, paying the fine and demonstrating peacefully. It's one thing that makes our nation great. We don't throw everyone who disagrees with the government and commits a misdemeanor in the Gulag.

I think the speeder analogy is incorrect. That guy could hit and hurt a stranger.

I understand his family is hurt by this, but let's also not impose on the guy OUR decisions for HIS family. He's a big boy.

I follow the law very closely to the letter, but that is years of military and strict childhood that made me that way. I don't like that people go around breaking and severely bending the laws any more than the rest of you, but I don't want more laws...

Instead of creating laws to make a guy wear a helmet to protect us from paying a fool's medical care, how about NOT paying for their medical care. I'm for that.

 

Instead of creating laws to make a guy wear a helmet to protect us from paying a fool's medical care, how about NOT paying for their medical care. I'm for that.

BINGO! I agree with that. I would have a huge list of gov't entitlements him and his family would be excluded from in such a situation. No taxpayer money should be used. Anyone that wants to ride helmetless would be required to annually sign a form listing all the exclusions as an acknowledgement. You could take it one step further and have the spouse and dependents sign it, too, since THEY are the ones to be left on their own and THEY should be aware of the motorcyclist's decision.

And rustynail, I KNEW you'd like the ABS comment.

If any of his friends or relatives happen to read such a forum and they see someone make a comment where someone says "IMO: Good riddance", I suspect they might not be too happy with the class of the statement either.

There wasn't any reasonable expectation that his friends or family would ever be visiting this site to read my comment, so why should I base anything I do on such remote possibilities? I know enough about this guy from the article to form a fair assessment of him. He was an idiot.

Honestly, I know that my "IMO" was harsh, and it was partially truth and partially to stimulate the discussion. I also happened to be in a bad mood when I posted that so who knows why I felt the need to stimulate another helmet debate on here. :scratch: :withstupid: But the poor rebuttals to my post have forced me not only defend it, but also start believing it.
I don't care if you don't like wearing helmets, or the gov't telling you to wear a helmet, but you better have your act together if you are demonstrating against the law by not wearing one. That was the basis of my original comment, that it happened during the demonstration.

 

Who here hasn't exercised their right to choose the level of safety they are comfortable with? I hope we all realize we are sacrificing safety to some degree for the pleasure and economy of riding over locking ourselves in a cage. That doesn't make us insensitive to our family, does it? It is a matter we each have to live with and I don't feel comfortable saying what is right for another any more than I would like hearing someone say I shouldn't ride because it is too dangerous compared to a car. It is almost like some think because others make different choices than they make on that safety / enjoyment scale, they are lesser beings because of it.

For the record I live in a state where it is my choice what to wear when riding and I have not gone without a helmet in the 26 years I have been riding. It's the right choice for me, maybe not everyone else.

IMO, Steven has the appropriate perspective on wearing a helmet or not. I have herniated discs in my neck (C2/C3) and as much as I'd like to wear a helmet I choose not to because the weight of the helmet causes additional pain. The surgeons I spoke with said there's a 50/50 chance that surgery would repair the problem. They only guaranteed that my range-of-motion of turning my head would be restricted from fusing the discs together. Luckily helmets are not required here in Minnesota or I would probably not be riding. Every time I ride I'm fully aware of a possible head injury or death if I crash, but it's a risk I'm willing to take. Btw, I've discovered over the years that there are many other motorcyclists out there with similar neck issues that choose to ride without a helmet. I'd like to offer my condolences to Mr. Contos' family.

 

BINGO! I agree with that. I would have a huge list of gov't entitlements him and his family would be excluded from in such a situation. No taxpayer money should be used. Anyone that wants to ride helmetless would be required to annually sign a form listing all the exclusions as an acknowledgement. You could take it one step further and have the spouse and dependents sign it, too, since THEY are the ones to be left on their own and THEY should be aware of the motorcyclist's decision.<<<SNIP>>>

All it would take is put a statement on the operators license, "Use of ALL Approved personel safety equipment is highly recomended during motorcycle use. Operator and all riders are solely responsable for thier own actions in the use or lack of use of all recommend safety equipment. Failure to use propper recommended safety equipment, the operator and all riders forfett all claims to any taxpayer based paid medical support and will not ......."

You would be required to sign that statment before obtaining your operators license. But this would open up a can of worms we really do not want opened. Your insurance company could now say "You were not wearing a approved pair of gloves and when you crashed ......".

 

Since this is a helmet specific thread, and not necessarily ATGATT, the statement should be limited to just helmets. Although I perfectly understand the logic.

 

Everyone who ride accepts a certain amount of inherent risk. It is only within this context that the conversation over helmet use can take place. The risk riders are exposed to are numerous, some beyond our direct control and many that we can influence. The risk is ever present. Helmet use lies within the framework of how we each choose to mitigate that risk.

I couldn't care less if this rider made toy runs, fed homeless babies, or secretly funded all of Mother Theresa's charities. It contributes nothing to the conversation. His death was untimely and unfortunate. And quite possibly unnecessary. For what it is worth I do agree with Colchesine's viewpoint on this and take it a step further in my belief that what you do will effect others whether you like it or not. When you make the choice you own responsibility the consequences.

To equate helmet use to accident causing behaviors (speeding, wheelies, cutting in and out of traffic...) is pointless. Helmets do not contribute to the causes of accidents (and spare me the non-starters like "can't see", "can't hear", "helmets break necks" rhetoric) But they do contribute to the outcome of accidents when they happen.

 

Concerning the use of helmets and other safety gear there are some things I will never understand. Every year in the Austin Tx area we have several motorcycle rallys but the largest by far is the Republic of Texas (ROT) held in early June. Upwards of 50,000 bikers, predominately Harley riders, attend this rally. It so happens in Central Texas that June can be one of our hottest months with temps reaching 100+. I've come to believe that with Harley bikers it's an attitude thing. To ride without a helmet may as well be a badge that says, I'm Mr Macho, I ride a loud motorcycle, and I don't care what anyone says or thinks." Another thing that makes me wonder about the sanity of people are the women who ride helmetless of course, but with halters that expose large areas of skin to the scorching sun. After about the third day of the rally, the effects of this folly are easy to be seen, severe cases of sunburn with blistered skin. At rallys of this kind, it is expected that large quantities of alcoholic beverages will be consumed--a deadly combination of heat, alcohol, and riding a two-wheeler. In the last couple of years the LEOs have made a large number (100?) of arrests for DWIs but the number of riders is so vast, they can barely scratch the surface. Each year during ROT there are three or four fatalities directly attributed to DWI. The Austin City Council thinks the rally is great --the tourist dolllars pour in. Not all the local citizens are happy however, because of the noise and other negative factors associated with this event.

 

...To equate helmet use to accident causing behaviors (speeding, wheelies, cutting in and out of traffic...) is pointless. Helmets do not contribute to the causes of accidents (and spare me the non-starters like "can't see", "can't hear", "helmets break necks" rhetoric) But they do contribute to the outcome of accidents when they happen.

My point wasn't whether the rider was contributing to the cause of an accident, or not. It is perhaps a bad choice of examples on my part. My point was that there are laws on the books for wearing a helmet in his state. He broke the law. He didn't break a "suggestion". There are consequences for that. He paid the ultimate consequence for that, and his family will too.

In the followup article, his own family members called him a "rebel". Wiktionary defines rebel as "To resist or become defiant toward an authority." I can love the guy, but don't ask me to love his behavior.

Chris