Motorcycle rider dies while protesting helmet law
- Thread starter usaf_eagle
- Start date
No I call this Darwisim at it's best
It's definitely both. I just imagined the other guys riding with him saying, "well shit.. Guess he should have worn his helmet."
Everyone should wear helmets when riding but if they dont want to I dont think they should have to wear them. Its your life, do with it as you please. Its just like seat belt laws.
+1 for Natural Selection.
I agree except for the seat belt law part. Seat belts give the driver a better chance of maintaining control after an impact.
Except that when their bare bones insurance policy does not pay for their long term medical care then the taxpayers have to foot the bill.
Or I guess we can split up his gear between us. Or the gear that is still good and operable. :lol1::lol1:
Good for him.
Yeah but that just goes back to whether society should "protect us from ourselves." Although I'm now seeing that these laws are not in place for our safety for the sake of our safety. There are monetary reasons behind it as FordSVTFan points out.
True.
We need to stop protecting people from themselves.
If youre too stupid to wear proper equipment then you deserve the consequences. I see squids all the time on sportbikes with flip flops, shorts and a wife beater. They have a helmet on.......ooh at least when the rest of your body is mangled and shredded theyll be able to identify you by your head.
If youre too stupid to wear proper equipment then you deserve the consequences. I see squids all the time on sportbikes with flip flops, shorts and a wife beater. They have a helmet on.......ooh at least when the rest of your body is mangled and shredded theyll be able to identify you by your head.
Its just as bad here. Its a :nonono: for me too.
I agree only if we start turning them around at hospitals. Why should our premiums go up just because they're dumbasses. And like FordSVTFan said, taxpayers foot the bill most of the time.
Excellence
... And that's why they recommend wearing helmets...
Ding.
That's the reason I am totally opposed to the movement in some states (including my own) to remove the requirement. The ONLY way I'd agree to it is if by doing so it is understood that you MUST have insurance and not one red nickel of taxpayer money is going to be spent on you if you don't or don't have enough.
Users who are viewing this thread
