While I can understand the logic of a helmet saving the head, but the rider
suffering more severe injuries, not all motorcycle accidents happen at
high-speed. I grew up in a motorcycle dealership, and I've seen my share of
motorcycle accidents, including my father, step-brother, and myself. None
of our accidents could be called high-speed. My father had a small 90cc
motorcycle, and we were at an old abandoned go-kart track with a hair-pin
turn. He went into the turn a little too fast (still slow) and felt he was
losing control of the bike. Thinking with his wallet (he wanted to sell the
used bike in good condition) he tried to save it from falling over and in
the process ran over his own leg. Toe-to-hip cast for over a year, this was
40 years ago, and he still limps. Even had a heart attack in the hospital
from the pain, but his head was not damaged. My step-brother was a racer,
beat the 750cc quarter mile mark at the local speedway with his little 350cc
2-stroke. One day he just went down the 35 mph road by our store, but
didn't realize he'd forgotten to put up the kickstand. When he leaned into
a slight turn, the kickstand caught the ground, and he went flying (with the
bike) into a field, wide open with nothing it it, except for a stone wall.
He hit it, head on. When I was in the USAF, I was riding on base (Nellis)
it had just rained, the speed limit was 25. There was a car at the
intersection facing me who had stopped waiting to turn left in front of me.
I noticed a rather large pool of water in the intersection, and didn't want
to hydroplane across it, so I slowed down. The driver apparently thought I
was going to turn, too, even though I hadn't signaled such and pulled out to
turn right in front of me. Trying to stop only locked the wheels and I went
down and skidded for probably 100 feet through the intersection (felt like
it anyway). Point is, in all three cases we wore helmets, and they may have
saved our lives, even in relatively low-speed incidents. I still maintain
that anyone who rides a motorcycle, moped, or bicycle without a helmet is an
idiot, but then I'm biased (we sold helmets).
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]on
Behalf Of John Vega
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 3:13 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [gatortalk] Re: FW: [gatornews] [SUN]: UF Campus News: UF's
helmet policy focuses on employees
Importance: Low
I don't see why this should be so.
We will allow inherently dangerous activities such as skydiving and
powerboating. Heck, we even have a football team at UF that experiences (and
causes) its fair share of injuries.
Shouldn't there need to be a more compelling reason for legislating
behavior than risk of injury?
I guess I think back to my jurisprudence class at UF Law. Rather than
adopting laws ad hoc (the "bonne judge" approach), we set up a framework
that hangs on something my professor used to call a "Grundnorm."
I've always viewed it as a social compact issue. In a state of nature, I
would give up my right to steal from others in order to protect myself from
others stealing from me. I can't think of a reason why I would give up my
right to ride a motorcycle without a helmet - I receive nothing in exchange.
The only argument that tends to be advanced is the financial burden I
would indirectly bear as a member of society to care for injured
motorcyclists. As it turns out, the financial burden would be higher with
helmet laws, not lower.
So, I'm left with no plausible reason why I give up this right or ask
others to do so; regardless of whether it may sometimes be in their interest
(the low speed crashes, as you indicate).
-Zeb
On Jun 26, 2009, at 12:04 PM, Oliver Barry wrote:
Using that logic, the injury caused by a low speed crash on a motorized
cycle would also leave the rider unharmed if wearing a helmet.
Doing something is better than doing nothing.
Oliver Barry CRS,GRI
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of John Vega
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 10:55 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [gatortalk] Re: FW: [gatornews] [SUN]: UF Campus News: UF's
helmet policy focuses on employees
On Jun 26, 2009, at 11:34 AM, Oliver Barry wrote:
This is probably a thfgt issue, but I think that anyone who rides a
bike, motorized or not, without a helmet should have his/her head examined.
(pun intended)
We ride every weekend and won’t let anyone ride with the group without a
helmet. Tennessee has a helmet law that has come close to being struck down
with each session of the legislature. So far it hasn’t. I’ve lent my voice
to those who have a vote many times.
We have 4 neurosurgeons in our town; at one point I represented 3 of
them.
To each, I asked the question whether society had a financial interest
in mandating motorcycle helmet laws.
The answers, although uniform, surprised me.
Each indicated that the type of injury that a helmet would save the life
of a motorcyclist would leave a spinal compression fracture (the cranium
being protected by the helmet). The biker would be alive, but likely
quadriplegic. The cost to society, even if the biker had insurance, of a
quadriplegic is astounding.
However, they also indicated that helmets should be mandatory for
bicycle riders. A low speed crash with a head blow that could kill a
bicyclist would leave the cyclist unharmed if wearing a helmet.
I like that UF's policy applies equally to bicycles at it does motorized
vehicles.
Food for thought.
-Zeb
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
GATORS: ONE VOICE ON SATURDAY - NO VOICE ON SUNDAY!
1996 National Football Champions | 2006 National Basketball Champions
2006 National Football Champions | 2007 National Basketball Champions
2008 National Football Champions |
Three Heisman Trophy winners: Steve Spurrier (1966), Danny Wuerffel (1996),
Tim Tebow (2007) - Visit our website at www.gatornet.us
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
