Fort Collins e-bike rider collides with Expedition

[marty]

For the non-helmet wearing Libertarians, and let's hope this never happens to any of you, if you are not wearing a helmet and have an accident that causes brain damage, it is then the responsibility of your family or your medical insurance to pay all medical costs and care. If the family is unable to do that then taxpayers are not responsible and the individual should be allowed to expire. Fair enough.

If someone eats unhealthy food, gets fat, gets sick, should they also be allowed to expire?

 

[dogman dan]

I can have hours of fun debating with wineboy, interestingly we sort of agree on where to go, but disagree on the route to get there.

But he's right on one thing, Libertarian government is one thing, and the rule of the gangster as they have in somalia is another. Wineboy and I live an hours drive from a place almost as violent at somalia. All we have to do is read a spanish newspaper to see todays dufflebag of heads that were found. Stalinisim was rule of the gangster BTW, that's why it failed to function after a few generations. Not because communisim failed. I'm not advocating communisim either, just pointing it out as another example of a failure of gangster rule. Same thing with hitler or mussolini. All three governments pretty much turned the population into criminals by enacting rules that made everybody a criminal somehow.

So what's the diff? Libertarian government requires honest law enforcement of the sensible laws they do have, plus a population that is basicly honest. It can't function in a gangster poplulation.

Right now we in the usa have too many laws, and they cannot be enforced like they should. It simply encourages scofflaw behaviour. The shining example of this is the immigration situation. Fences on the border don't help when scofflaws hire illegals for 3 bucks an hour and write up books showing 7 was paid. You can't stop them coming when they will get hired if they make it across. The other example of US law that encourages scofflaw behaviour is of course, the IRS.

 

[GMUseless]

I think John in CR makes a good point. PPE has nothing to do with causality, other than it can increase the risks the user is willing to take. Having spent 20 years in chemical plants...I've seen this time and time again....and have done it myself: suit up in a level A suit with SCBA and walk right into LEL environments, through mutagens....things that have nothing to do with that ridiculous back-to-the-future safety gear.

But, I will say the right PPE definately reduces the injury of the incident. Anyone who disagrees with that...let me put on my full face DOT helmet...and you expose your mellon...then let's take turns letting my 5 year old hit us in the head with a tire iron. I'll bet Dada lost longer than you do....

 

[John in CR]

GMUseless,

Good point. It would be silly not to want a helmet on in the event of an accident. I'm not talking about trail riding, racing, or other cycling activities where going down is assured, activities where even I would and do where a helmet. I'm talking about commuting and errand running, where there are several things completely lost on helmet worshippers:

1. The risk of getting into an accident, and the risk of being seriously injured in the event of an accident are 2 completely different things. eg Commercial flight is a very low risk activity, but if you are in a crash the risk of being killed is quite high.
2. With good defensive riding and paying attention to what you're doing, it's a safe activity, so much so that if you think you need a helmet for it, then you also need to put one on as soon as you get out of bed, a pretty silly proposition.
3. Due to a variety of factors, wearing a helmet increases the chances you will be involved in a serious accident.

I don't know about anyone else, but my goal is to avoid accidents altogether, not put the rest of my body at greater overall risk just in case I crash in a manner where a helmet would benefit.

Then there's the aspect of the greater social good. Wearing helmets and encouraging people to wear them leads to a perception that cycling is a dangerous activity. When I was a kid and bike helmets were non-existent, riding a bike wasn't considered a dangerous activity, but now it most certainly is. This perception discourages ridership, and that is certainly contrary to the greater good of society as a whole.

 

[auraslip]

Also, you folks bashing on the AGATT (all gear all the time) crowd for saying to wear a helmet should spend an hour reading through this recent thread on reddit.

After about the fifth story of someone who was either a witness or first responder to a motorcycle or bike fatality you start to realize just how dangerous it is out there. Disturbing stuff. Couldn't stop thinking about some of the stories for days.

The one where the guy was sitting on his porch smoking a cigarette and saw a guy cruise by on a moped, hit a pot hole, go over the bars, and split his head open was the most eye opening. And I mean literally SPLIT HIS HEAD OPEN. Like brains coming out all over the street. Just from a not seeing a pot hole and not wearing a helmet. Dead. With your gray stuff smeared all over the street, and your mother puking when she had to identify your body.

The now hidden description of the girl getting her head squashed open by a garbage truck when she fell off her bike at a red light was bad too. Probably a million times worse when you watched it from five feet away, but god, don't read that if you have to sleep soon.

 

[wineboyrider]

For the non-helmet wearing Libertarians, and let's hope this never happens to any of you, if you are not wearing a helmet and have an accident that causes brain damage, it is then the responsibility of your family or your medical insurance to pay all medical costs and care. If the family is unable to do that then taxpayers are not responsible and the individual should be allowed to expire. Fair enough.

Well said Rin I totally agree with you. Choices and actions have consequences for others too. I like the logic of this post a lot, but having said that as long as your family knows your choices good or bad it should still be your choice. I wear a helmet about 90% of the time.... 8) 8) 8) 8)

 

[wineboyrider]

I can have hours of fun debating with wineboy, interestingly we sort of agree on where to go, but disagree on the route to get there.

But he's right on one thing, Libertarian government is one thing, and the rule of the gangster as they have in somalia is another. Wineboy and I live an hours drive from a place almost as violent at somalia. All we have to do is read a spanish newspaper to see todays dufflebag of heads that were found. Stalinisim was rule of the gangster BTW, that's why it failed to function after a few generations. Not because communisim failed. I'm not advocating communisim either, just pointing it out as another example of a failure of gangster rule. Same thing with hitler or mussolini. All three governments pretty much turned the population into criminals by enacting rules that made everybody a criminal somehow.

So what's the diff? Libertarian government requires honest law enforcement of the sensible laws they do have, plus a population that is basicly honest. It can't function in a gangster poplulation.

Right now we in the usa have too many laws, and they cannot be enforced like they should. It simply encourages scofflaw behaviour. The shining example of this is the immigration situation. Fences on the border don't help when scofflaws hire illegals for 3 bucks an hour and write up books showing 7 was paid. You can't stop them coming when they will get hired if they make it across. The other example of US law that encourages scofflaw behaviour is of course, the IRS.

+1 What Dogman said! Now you can ride over to my house and get a bottle of wine. Dogman you are cool dude! Keep it up.

 

[auraslip]

democrats destroy society by seeking too much control
republicans throw there hands up in the air and let society destroy itself

I don't know what the answer is. The middle road I guess. All I know is that this villainization of all forms of government, and especially federal government, is destroying our country; when the party line is that big government is always bad, you can bet they'd rather make it (or let it) become bad rather than be wrong. And this is exactly what we saw with the debt ceiling; they partook in destroying our credit rating in the name of "cutting big government." Yes. Make it that much harder for Americans to get loans in the worst depression in 100 years just so you can look good on Fox news and freerepublic.

edit: deleted my rant where I talked about solving our problems by throwing baby boomers out of airplanes

 

[neptronix]

democrats destroy society by seeking too much control
republicans throw there hands up in the air and let society destroy itself

I don't know what the answer is. The middle road I guess. All I know is that this villainization of all forms of government, and especially federal government, is destroying our country; when the party line is that big government is always bad, you can bet they'd rather make it (or let it) become bad rather than be wrong. And this is exactly what we saw with the debt ceiling; they partook in destroying our credit rating in the name of "cutting big government." Yes. Make it that much harder for Americans to get loans in the worst depression in 100 years just so you can look good on Fox news and freerepublic.

I like how you put that. And that bugs the hell out of me in regards to both parties.

Being a moderate with liberal leanings, i totally agree. I moved from California, to Oregon, now the most conservative, least regulated part of Colorado.

It's nice living an a less regulated area, but people abuse it. For example, my county does not do smog testing. Can't smell most cars on the road, but a dozen times a week, i will be choked out by some car blowing thick white/blue/black smoke on the bike and have to hold my breath.

What i don't mind are laws that protect you from harming other people.. like say, emissions testing! but laws that protect you from intentionally harming yourself? I am actually completely against those. For example wearing a helmet, seeing a prostitute, or doing drugs does not directly hurt anyone else.

It's the 'liberties creep' of all these laws intended to protect you from yourself that bug the crap out of me. I saw so much of that in Oregon and California. That shit is where i draw the line and start thinking like a libertarian.

edit: deleted my rant where I talked about solving our problems by throwing baby boomers out of airplanes

I would have loved to see that but there are probably a ton of baby boomers on here. Y'all are exempted from the mandatory airplane toss.

 

[neptronix]

In terms of the helmet laws, i'm totally against them. It's not like we have a safety net that we need to save money on anymore, so let people die if they want to.

I know that sounds heartless but i don't think it's the government's job to tell you what you should do with your life.
As long as you're not hurting anyone else.. leave me the hell alone.

That being said i'll wear a helmet.

 

[Chalo]

Was the jackass in the deathmobile wearing a helmet?

Why do people insist on transferring the ethical burden for the harm cars do from car drivers (where it belongs) to their victims?

Chalo

 

[dogman dan]

I insist on it, when the bike rider runs the stop sign, and rides into the path of a person driving the car legaly. Now, it if comes out that the car driver was texting at the moment, or was drunk, then they get half the blame.

Back on the helmet merry go round. I couldn't agree more with John and company, that the helmet is no protection in the bad crash. Part of why I was giving those examples of stupid clucks crossing the train tracks. One never looked, the other never thought about the kids in the car. A case like that, you dead baby. Car or bike, don't matter. So what's the good of a helmet if you ride in front of trains?

But in my case, my nearly fatal crash only resulted in broken collarbones. What's my point? Johns point number 2 cannot be counted upon. Point number 3 is debateable, I'll for sure agree that I'm willing to ride more on the razor edge of my ability in the dirt or track wearing armor on my head. I count on tumbling ability as I go over the bars, but rest assured that a rock in the trail won't smash my noggin,,,,, as much. On the street, I ride completely differently. Despite a helmet, I go to extreme lengths to find the safe route, and ride like a pussy trying to practice point number 2 as much as I can. If Johns point number 3 applies, you have earned one stupid, and need to improve your practice of point number 2 dramaticly.

 

[LI-ghtcycle]

Lots of really good debate here!

Kudos to all for keeping a clear head and expressing your thoughts with out loosing your cool or resorting to insults. 8)

I too see the problem with a society that regulates us to infinity. I'd love to see all the silly labels go away and have us all just talk about policy and goals in the USA, but unfortunately, politics is a game of name calling, finger pointing and distraction, as in "Don't look at my faults/failures, look over there! See that other guy?! HE'S so much worse than me, don't even look closely at me!" instead of being an adult about it and fixing the problems.

I am stuck in Oregon where there is over-regulation, I have lived in parts of Montana where there is under-regulation, and somewhere in the middle is best, and I really think most all of us want the same things, and agree a lot more with each other than the politicians and talking heads would want us to believe, they would rather continue to divide us with labels and try and get our society to NOT talk to each other so they can continue to count on a vote for one party or another.

Helmet laws hell no!

That being said, I have seen no down side of ever wearing a helmet personally, I have never broken a collar bone, and I understand that particularly full face helmets can increase that chance, I have no doubt, but I would choose that over breaking my melon any day.

That being said, if I ever manage to have my head under a garbage truck's wheels, I would be surprised if ANY helmet would save me from that kind of situation, most times in that cases that I have heard of, the helmet gets squeezed off of the victims body, taking their head with it, kind of like if you step on a marble and don't hit it straight-on, and the marble shoots off.

No imagine that is a helmet, if you're really lucky, the tire hits the helmet but not square-on, and knocks you back, but if not, you're either sucked under the tires, or get your head pulled off (never seen it in person, but heard from plenty of people who have).

Riding on two wheels is a dangerous thing with cars and trucks around, we just need to remember that and ride accordingly.

 

[John in CR]

I couldn't agree more with John and company, that the helmet is no protection in the bad crash.

I don't think that and never said anything like that except in an example to demonstrate how anecdotal evidence is really no evidence at all, and that includes the horror stories from ER doctors and EMTs. They see a lot more head injuries with people in car accidents, but where's their push for people to wear helmets in cars?

It's just ridiculous how the first question asked is "was he/she wearing a helmet", and if no helmet was worn it is always mentioned, but if a cyclist is killed and wearing a helmet that tidbit is always omitted. OTOH if someone is injured or killed in any kind of accident other than riding on 2 or 3 wheels, the discussion of a helmet simply doesn't come up, even if the activity is far more worthy of helmet use or they are even commonly used. For goodness sake, it's more dangerous to walk to the store on the sidewalk than it is to ride a bike to the store, so go bother pedestrians about wearing helmets. Riding at night well lit or not, helmet or not, puts your odds of death or serious injury many times higher than riding during the day helmet or not, yet no one ever insinuates that it's idiotic to ride at night.

A huge detriment of the all too often focus on helmets is that discussion or instructions regarding things that really do improve safety are barely given a passing thought. This may not be true 100% of the time, but it is definitely pervasive.

Do you realize who gets killed or seriously injured the most in daylight riding? It's kids, so you guys need to redirect your focus from helmets to teaching kids the rules of the road and safe riding techniques, and whatever you do don't put helmets at the top of that list, because it truly doesn't belong there.

The push for helmets has proven to return no measurable benefit, so helmet pushers just give it up and focus your efforts on worthwhile pursuits.

 

[nuevomexicano]

Do you realize who gets killed or seriously injured the most in daylight riding? It's kids, so you guys need to redirect your focus from helmets to teaching kids the rules of the road and safe riding techniques, and whatever you do don't put helmets at the top of that list, because it truly doesn't belong there.

Do you have a cite for this? I ask because I've heard other people cite that night riding is involved in the majority of accidents (equally unsubstantiated as your claim).

The push for helmets has proven to return no measurable benefit, so helmet pushers just give it up and focus your efforts on worthwhile pursuits.

Again, as I asked before, does anyone actually have a study that says helmets have no measurable benefit or even a negative benefit? For instance, an '09 IIHS study recorded that, "Less than two percent of motor vehicle crash deaths are bicyclists. The most serious injuries among a majority of those killed are to the head, highlighting the importance of wearing a bicycle helmet. Helmet use has been estimated to reduce head injury risk by 85 percent. " There's a bunch more studies out there, many with even stronger language, on the BHSI website.


Too much unsubstantiated opinion is being thrown around here for this to be much more than blowing hot air and patting oneself on the back.

 

[wineboyrider]

In terms of the helmet laws, i'm totally against them. It's not like we have a safety net that we need to save money on anymore, so let people die if they want to.

I know that sounds heartless but i don't think it's the government's job to tell you what you should do with your life.
As long as you're not hurting anyone else.. leave me the hell alone.

That being said i'll wear a helmet.

That about explains how I feel about the helmet issue too. I am a laissez faire classic liberal with liberal leanings towards economical safety nets to help the less fortunate. Having said that I firmly believe that government about 90% of the time does much more harm than good and I would much more highly recommend charities to pick up the slack. But, I am not an anarchist like someone on this forum would like to portray me as. I am not for the law of the jungle or Capitalism for the poor and socialism for the rich. I tend to hate both parties equally well and baby boomers have pretty much had their way with the political system for the last 50 years, but the debt clock is ticking and they are getting older and look who's going to be the ones that take care of them..hehe. us!

 

[Joseph C.]

My this is a lively thread.

I think Neptronix's liberalism in regards to enacting laws is sound. Though I would be very much in disagreement that drugs harm no one other than the individual.

Where does cocaine or heroin come from? In places where people, many of them innocent, are dying because of them. I used to think that all drugs should be legalised and let the state control it and put the revenue in the public purse but not anymore. Fair enough with cannabis and mushrooms you can grow your own etc. but people who take coke and heroin have blood on their hands.

As currently one of the non-helmet wearing brigade, I wouldn't want to be forced to wear one. However, I would echo the sentiments of Neuvomexicano, Tony, Dogman and Auraslip that helmets make you safer. Unless someone has got cold hard proof (not evidence) as opposed to rationalistic and constructionist hypotheses my opinion will not change.

It would also be remiss not to point out that this notion of wearing a helmet/not wearing a helmet only affects the wearer/non-wearer is too simplified and often doesn't bear out in reality. The world doesn't work like that. If something happens to you - it affects other people too. You get injured as a result of not wearing a helmet you have to go to the hospital. Resources are taken up that affect other patients, in stressed places this could be very serious and even put other people's lives at risk.

I think you shouldn't rush to call someone stupid without knowing the full facts too. Many things could have happened him that we don't know about. He could have had a heart attack, a stroke, a migraine attack, being suffering from severe depression, fibromyalgia or a diabetes-related incident. We simply do not know what happened.

 

[Joseph C.]

But, I am not an anarchist like someone on this forum would like to portray me as.

Now who thinks that?

 

[AussieJester]

I fail to see what/why there is always a big drama over wearing a helmet, if it is going to protect you even slightly in a crash what's the big freaking deal about wearing one? There's many styles suuuurely one could be found that's suitable for the individual? I rarely venture out without my helmet, they are compulsory on bicycles/motorcycles in Oz and have been since the 90s again, I don't see why there is such a big fuss over wearing a piece of safety equipment when you're going to be traveling down the road on an e-bike.. Unless of courseyou have Jedi skills and can foresee ahead of time and thus avoid incidents that could cause a crash, including any malfunctions and accidents that might occur to man or machine...

KiM

 

[wineboyrider]

My this is a lively thread.

I think Neptronix's liberalism in regards to enacting laws is sound. Though I would be very much in disagreement that drugs harm no one other than the individual.

Where does cocaine or heroin come from? In places where people, many of them innocent, are dying because of them. I used to think that all drugs should be legalised and let the state control it and put the revenue in the public purse but not anymore. Fair enough with cannabis and mushrooms you can grow your own etc. but people who take coke and heroin have blood on their hands.

As currently one of the non-helmet wearing brigade, I wouldn't want to be forced to wear one. However, I would echo the sentiments of Neuvomexicano, Tony, Dogman and Auraslip that helmets make you safer. Unless someone has got cold hard proof (not evidence) as opposed to rationalistic and constructionist hypotheses my opinion will not change.

It would also be remiss not to point out that this notion of wearing a helmet/not wearing a helmet only affects the wearer/non-wearer is too simplified and often doesn't bear out in reality. The world doesn't work like that. If something happens to you - it affects other people too. You get injured as a result of not wearing a helmet you have to go to the hospital. Resources are taken up that affect other patients, in stressed places this could be very serious and even put other people's lives at risk.

I think you shouldn't rush to call someone stupid without knowing the full facts too. Many things could have happened him that we don't know about. He could have had a heart attack, a stroke, a migraine attack, being suffering from severe depression, fibromyalgia or a diabetes-related incident. We simply do not know what happened.

The comment from Rin and Neptronix about "risks" with not wearing a helmet got me thinking about the trainer that was killed by the Killer Whale at Sea World and also, Siegfried being attacked by his tiger. Most people of sound mind know that anything they do can bring great joy and there are risks involved with everything we do. I love riding E-bikes and if riding one without a helmet brings you great joy and you know the risks then have at it. I have a friend that lost his daughter a few years ago to a Horse riding accident (no she wasn't wearing a helmet), but she loved riding Horses. The family is at peace with her and their choice and to this day still their ride horses without helmets. Life is precious I hope everyone agrees, but enjoying your time until you meet the spirit in the sky is also one of God's gifts.

 

[Joseph C.]

The comment from Rin and Neptronix about "risks" with not wearing a helmet got me thinking about the trainer that was killed by the Killer Whale at Sea World and also, Siegfried being attacked by his tiger. Most people of sound mind know that anything they do can bring great joy and there are risks involved with everything we do. I love riding E-bikes and if riding one without a helmet brings you great joy and you know the risks then have at it. I have a friend that lost his daughter a few years ago to a Horse riding accident (no she wasn't wearing a helmet), but she loved riding Horses. The family is at peace with her and their choice and to this day still their ride horses without helmets. Life is precious I hope everyone agrees, but enjoying your time until you meet the spirit in the sky is also one of God's gifts.

Yes - without some form of calculated risk life is not worth living.

Funny though you mention Siegfried and the White Bengali Tiger. The duo couldn't have picked a worse cat to perform with.

Of all the major deaths of note in the past two decades by famous acts/Wildlife parks: Joy Halliday, Chuck Lizza, Dalu Mncube of Craig Busch/Lion Man ilk all were by White Bengali Tigers. The thought being that inbreeding has caused them to have a propensity to be highly unpredictable and more likely to attack their trainer.

But people prefer to see White Tigers!

Very sorry to hear about the girl's death but your friends have a wonderful attitude that we all could imbibe.

 

[TonyReynolds]

This has been a great thread and I applaud everyone, on both sides, for keeping it civil. As one person said, I'm sure that we all have far more that we agree on than not.

 

[John in CR]

Do you realize who gets killed or seriously injured the most in daylight riding? It's kids, so you guys need to redirect your focus from helmets to teaching kids the rules of the road and safe riding techniques, and whatever you do don't put helmets at the top of that list, because it truly doesn't belong there.

Do you have a cite for this? I ask because I've heard other people cite that night riding is involved in the majority of accidents (equally unsubstantiated as your claim).

The push for helmets has proven to return no measurable benefit, so helmet pushers just give it up and focus your efforts on worthwhile pursuits.

Again, as I asked before, does anyone actually have a study that says helmets have no measurable benefit or even a negative benefit? For instance, an '09 IIHS study recorded that, "Less than two percent of motor vehicle crash deaths are bicyclists. The most serious injuries among a majority of those killed are to the head, highlighting the importance of wearing a bicycle helmet. Helmet use has been estimated to reduce head injury risk by 85 percent. " There's a bunch more studies out there, many with even stronger language, on the BHSI website.


Too much unsubstantiated opinion is being thrown around here for this to be much more than blowing hot air and patting oneself on the back.

Not unsubstantiated, do your own research. Australians had to pay their taxpayer money twice for studies trying to come up with the answer supporting helmets with statistics and came up nil, and other studies concluded similarly, with only those paid to get the answer desired coming up in favor of helmets. Flaws in those have been demonstrated to be just statistical manipulations, like what you quoted. There's no question that there's a benefit IN THE EVENT OF AN ACCIDENT, however, it doesn't equate to marked improvement in public safety. There are quite a few factors that combine to a result that wearing a helmet increases the odds of crashing. Major examples are "safety equipment" making you feel safer, so you naturally ride less safely, and cars driving closer to helmeted riders than those without helmets.

Here's a good start if you have any interest in no longer being part of the ridiculous fearmongering about bikes being unsafe. http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/health/risks.htm

 

[neptronix]

My this is a lively thread.

I think Neptronix's liberalism in regards to enacting laws is sound. Though I would be very much in disagreement that drugs harm no one other than the individual.

Where does cocaine or heroin come from? In places where people, many of them innocent, are dying because of them. I used to think that all drugs should be legalised and let the state control it and put the revenue in the public purse but not anymore. Fair enough with cannabis and mushrooms you can grow your own etc. but people who take coke and heroin have blood on their hands.

Yeah there is an indirect harm. But what about oil? coal? diamonds? rate earths? many people die for those every day, directly and indirectly.. which doesn't really come up for debate that often.

That goes straight back to personal liberty again. Those people should be free to work such high risk jobs as long as they are willing to accept the risks and are aware of them. I could theoretically kill myself with drugs and hurt my family, but... that's my choice and I should be allowed to do that, as awful as that sounds.

( note: i don't do drugs of any sort.. just using that as an example )

People need to be responsible for their decisions. And need to be free to make them, as long as nobody else is being hurt.

So like i said, wearing a helmet is smart. If you don't wear one where one could save your life.. that's just darwin's chainsaw of justice

 

[Joseph C.]

Yeah there is an indirect harm. But what about oil? coal? diamonds? rate earths? many people die for those every day, directly and indirectly.. which doesn't really come up for debate that often.

That goes straight back to personal liberty again. Those people should be free to work such high risk jobs as long as they are willing to accept the risks and are aware of them. I could theoretically kill myself with drugs and hurt my family, but... that's my choice and I should be allowed to do that, as awful as that sounds.

( note: i don't do drugs of any sort.. just using that as an example )

People need to be responsible for their decisions. And need to be free to make them, as long as nobody else is being hurt.

So like i said, wearing a helmet is smart. If you don't wear one where one could save your life.. that's just darwin's chainsaw of justice

I think you can differentiate the risks. They are willing to risk their lives working in hazardous conditions. Why they do so is neither here nor there. That is totally different though from being murdered.

You don't drink?