Pentax/Camera Marketplace |
Pentax Items for Sale |
Wanted Pentax Items |
Pentax Deals |
Deal Finder & Price Alerts |
Price Watch Forum |
My Marketplace Activity |
List a New Item |
Get seller access! |
Pentax Stores |
Pentax Retailer Map |
Pentax Photos |
Sample Photo Search |
Recent Photo Mosaic |
Today's Photos |
Free Photo Storage |
Member Photo Albums |
User Photo Gallery |
Exclusive Gallery |
Photo Community |
Photo Sharing Forum |
Critique Forum |
Official Photo Contests |
World Pentax Day Gallery |
World Pentax Day Photo Map |
Pentax Resources |
Articles and Tutorials |
Member-Submitted Articles |
Recommended Gear |
Firmware Update Guide |
Firmware Updates |
Pentax News |
Pentax Lens Databases |
Pentax Lens Reviews |
Pentax Lens Search |
Third-Party Lens Reviews |
Lens Compatibility |
Pentax Serial Number Database |
In-Depth Reviews |
SLR Lens Forum |
Sample Photo Archive |
Forum Discussions |
New Posts |
Today's Threads |
Photo Threads |
Recent Photo Mosaic |
Recent Updates |
Today's Photos |
Quick Searches |
Unanswered Threads |
Recently Liked Posts |
Forum RSS Feed |
Go to Page... |
|
Search this Thread |
07-04-2011, 11:24 AM | #1 |
Man dies after motorcycle crashes during helmet protest ride Quote: New York State Troopers say one man is dead after a motorcycle crash near McClary Road and Route 11 in LaFayette on Saturday. New York State Police say 55-year-old Philip Contos of Parish was part of a protest against motorcycle helmets. Police say several motorists from the group ABATE (American Bikers Aimed for Education) of Onondaga County had come together to make a point that they didn't need their helmets. The group was driving south on Route 11 in Lafayette around 1:30 p.m., headed toward Lake Como, just south of the Finger Lakes. Police say Contos suddenly hit the brakes and lost control of the motorcycle. According to troopers, Contos was thrown over his handlebars and hit the pavement as his 1993 Harley Davidson motorcycle skidded toward the guardrail. Contos was still alive when crews arrived at the scene and was transported to Upstate University Hospital, where he was pronounced dead. According to police, Contos was not wearing his helmet, as required by law. Witnesses say this decision was part of the protest. Police say that based on evidence at the scene and from doctors, Contos would have survived if he had been wearing a DOT-approved helmet. "The medical expert we discussed the case with who pronounced him deceased stated that he would've no doubt survived the accident had he been wearing a helmet," said Trooper Jack Keller. Police are still investigating why Contos suddenly hit the brakes. No other motorcycles were involved in the crash. Friends and members of the bike group put their helmets back on as they left the scene. | |
07-04-2011, 11:47 AM | #2 |
And here I thought people would protest against risky practices, rather than diminishing one's own safety. Boggles the mind.
| |
07-04-2011, 03:56 PM | #3 |
I no longer oppose those who oppose helmet laws. Clearly there's nothing inside their heads to protect. Chris | |
07-04-2011, 05:06 PM | #4 |
Loyal Site Supporter |
My father used to own a biker bar on the north side of Syracuse. He used to tell the bikers that the law should prohibit them from wearing helmets. They didn't really get it. |
07-04-2011, 05:10 PM | #5 |
Ive had a few close calls on a bike at least 3times a good helmet saved my life Ive ridden without but never felt comfortabke doing so due to past experiences | |
07-04-2011, 05:16 PM | #6 |
Pretty similar to the wearing of seatbelts... I just don't feel 'right' unless I'm belted in there - although thats probably conditioned as well as seat belts have been compulsory in Australia since 1976.... Maybe its that 'feeling of risk' that attracts certain people to doing it... However... I think judging this gentlemans IQ based on his unfortunate passing is a bit rough - people can be very surprising - Dolph Lundgren is a Chemical Engineer after all! | |
07-04-2011, 06:56 PM | #7 |
(As for my opinion, maybe it shouldn't be illegal to ride without a helmet, but it's obviously not a good idea to make a practice of it. As for seat belt laws, that's kind of different: if you aren't in your seat, no one in in control of your vehicle. ) Last edited by Ratmagiclady; 07-04-2011 at 07:13 PM. | |
07-04-2011, 08:18 PM | #8 |
Long long ago in Kansas, I knew some members of ABATE (A Brotherhood Against Totalitarian Enforcements). And I even put onto my old guitar one of their lovely stickers: HELMET LAWS SUCK. I was invited to one of their meetings. Well, turned out the meeting wasn't ABATE but its parent group: John Birch Society. They discussed incorporating The Biker Church Of Kansas, one of whose holy rules would be: Thou shalt wear no synthetic materials upon thy noggin. Cotton, leather, rhino-skin coverings, fine, but no plastic-fibreglas helmets. I wonder if any of them are still alive... | |
07-05-2011, 08:27 AM | #9 |
All in all, helmet use should be a personal choice. I can understand if the insurance companies don't want to pay claims for bikers injured or killed while riding without helmets but that is between them and the insured. If insurers state that position then it goes right back to personal choice by the rider. In the end it is simple risks (real or perceived) vs benefits (also real or perceived). and in a free society we are generally permitted to act counter to what is thought to be our best interests by government or our fellow citizens. As some of you may have noticed, my avatar clearly shows me riding my motorcycle without a helmet. Do I do so on a regular basis? NO, but this has less to do with impact resistance during an accident than with foreign object (bugs, gravel, etc) resistance. In an impact event (you exit the bike) the primary factor in determining whether you live or die is speed. Above a certain speed you are going to die regardless of whether you are wearing a helmet or not. The second factor is method/direction of impact. If you impact head first without a helmet you are going to die of a fractured skull or a broken neck whereas if you are wearing a helmet you are going to die of a severe concussion (brains are soft and gooshy after all) or the aforementioned broken neck. Helmets mainly protect you from secondary or glancing impacts at low or moderate speeds. Basically if some other part of your fragile anatomy hits first and your head then hits, having slowed down to some extent or the angle of the impact allows you to "slide," the helmet can make a huge difference between surviving and not, and between severe head injuries or minor ones. The thing is, most bikers who dislike helmets ride without as often as legally possible especially when riding around town. Their logic is that you are less likely to get hurt at the 20-45mph speeds that are typical than out on the highway. The truth though is that those 20-45mph speeds are the ones where a helmet can make a huge difference. Slam into a car in an intersection going 35mph and that helmet can make the difference between a ride in an ambulance and a ride in a hearse. Why? Because the speed and impact forces are within the limits for which the helmet was designed, regardless of how you impact (generally). Hit the same car at 70mph and no helmet on the planet is going to save your life. At that point you are at the mercy of chance... there is a chance that you may land in such a way that your head and neck is protected or you may not. What is really stupid is that the same people who bemoan bikers going without helmets don't look twice at people riding in inadequate clothing. I can't tell you how many times I have seen idiots riding crotch rockets in shorts, t-shirts and tennis shoes, or even flipflops. You don't even have to have a serious accident to ruin your day this way. I always wear, at least, kevlar lined jeans and a leather jacket with gloves and high topped leather boots. Why, because abrasion injuries are far more frequent and often more severe in motorcycle accidents than impact injuries. A friend of mine (a certified EMT) ended up in the hospital and almost died of a septic infection after a minor "low-side" accident at about 35mph. He was wearing an armored mesh jacket. He slid about 40' across the road on his left side and slid to a slow gentle stop. After a quick once over we proceeded to a nearby gas station where he peeled off his jacket. Under the jacket he had severe abrasions from the gravel that had poked thru the mesh material. In this case, the armor did no good at all since it is located primarily around the joints and on the chest and back. We cleaned him up and went on our way, finishing the trip while he just complained of general soreness. He was confident he had no serious injuries, but within 2 days after getting home he was in the hospital. Evidently a couple small specks of dirt or whatever that we had not gotten out led to an infection and he was in the ICU for over a week. Btw, his head and helmet never even touched the ground... Mike p.s. The reason I mention the foreign object resistance in my first paragraph is that right after that photo was taken, I was hit square in the lip by a bumble bee. I had a fat lip for 2 days. Last edited by MRRiley; 07-05-2011 at 02:37 PM. Reason: I hate stupid typos... | |
07-05-2011, 08:40 AM | #10 |
All in all, helmet use should be a personal choice. I can understand if the insurance companies don't want to pay claims for bikers injured or killed while riding without helmets but that is between them and the insured. If insurers state that position then it goes right back to personal choice by the rider. In the end it is simple risks (real or perceived) vs benefits (also real or perceived). and in a free society we are generally permitted to act counter to what is thought to be our best interests by government or our fellow citizens. As some of you may have noticed, my avatar clearly shows me riding my motorcycle without a helmet. Do I do so on a regular basis? NO, but this has less to do with impact resistance during an accident than with foreign object (bugs, gravel, etc) resistance. In an impact event (you exit the bike) the primary factor in determining whether you live or die is speed. Above a certain speed you are going to die regardless of whether you are wearing a helmet or not. The second factor is method/direction of impact. If you impact head first without a helmet you are going to die of a fractured skull or a broken neck whereas if you are wearing a helmet you are going to die of a severe concussion (brains are soft and gooshy after all) or the aforementioned broken neck. Helmets mainly protect you from secondary or glancing impacts. Basically if some other part of your fragile anatomy hits first and your head then hits, having slowed down to some extent or the angle of the impact allows you to "slide," the helmet can make a huge difference between surviving and not, and between severe head injuries or minor ones. The thing is, most bikers who dislike helmets ride without as often as legally possible especially when riding around town. Their logic is that you are less likely to get hurt at the 20-45mph speeds that are typical than out on the highway. The truth though is that those 20-45mph speeds are the ones where a helmet can make a huge difference. Slam into a car in an intersection going 35mph and that helmet can make the difference between a ride in an ambulance and a ride in a hearse. Why? Because the speed and impact forces are within the limits for which the helmet was designed, regardless of how you impact (generally). Hit the same car at 70mph and no helmet on the planet is going to save your life. At that point you are at the mercy of chance... there is a chance that you may land in such a way that your head and neck is protected or you may not. What is really stupid is that the same people who bemoan bikers going without helmets don't look twice at people riding in inadequate clothing. I can't tell you how many times I have seen idiots riding crotch rockets in shorts, t-shirts and tennis shoes, or even flipflops. You don't even have to have a serious accident to ruin your day this way. I always wear, at least, kevlar lined jeans and a leather jacket with gloves and high topped leather boots. Why, because abrasion injuries are far more frequent and often more severe in motorcycle accidents than impact injuries. I friend of mine (a certified EMT) ended up in the hospital and almost died of a septic infection after a minor "low-side" accident at about 35mph. He was wearing an armored mesh jacket. He slid about 40' across the road on his left side and slid to a slow gentle stop. After a quick once over we proceeded to a nearby gas station where he peeled off his jacket. Under the jacket he had severe abrasions from the gravel that had poked thru the mesh material. In this case, the armor did no good at all since it is located primarily around the joints and on the chest and back. We cleaned him up and went on our way, finishing the trip while he just complained of general soreness. He was confident he had no serious injuries, but within 2 days after getting home he was in the hospital. Evidently a couple small specks of dirt or whatever that we had not gotten out led to an infection and he was in the ICU for over a week. Btw, his head and helmet never even touched the ground... Mike p.s. The reason I mention the foreign object resistance in my first paragraph is that right after that photo was taken, I was hit square in the lip by a bumble bee. I had a fat lip for 2 days. When I rode I always wore leathers and boots, and a helmet (not always Gloves but in canada a lot of the riding season Gloves are just needed for the cold if not the [protection). I had 3 write offs on bikes all due to things beyond rider control. fortunately all were relatively low speed the helmets did their job, the leathers did theirs and i walked away with nothing more serious than a broken wrist sore muscles and some nasty bruises(damn lucky) my helmets were always full face helmets (i hate eating bugs) on more than one occasion i had to replace the shield due to gritty dirt,gravel, hell of a lot easier than replacing an eye it does feel good to ride without (wind in hair bla bla) but given my history not a chance i would ( mind you I have no issues with seatbelts either. like Australia mentioned earlier they are mandatory in Canada and for every death due to one (ie off the road into deep water unable to get out of the car fast enough)there are a hundred lives saved due to them. I Don't always agree with Government imposing rules on how we conduct our personal lives, but I don't have an issue with this one (Remember we have universal health care so these rules likely save us money) | |
07-05-2011, 10:23 AM | #11 |
All in all, helmet use should be a personal choice. I can understand if the insurance companies don't want to pay claims for bikers injured or killed while riding without helmets but that is between them and the insured. If insurers state that position then it goes right back to personal choice by the rider. In the end it is simple risks (real or perceived) vs benefits (also real or perceived). and in a free society we are generally permitted to act counter to what is thought to be our best interests by government or our fellow citizens. As some of you may have noticed, my avatar clearly shows me riding my motorcycle without a helmet. Do I do so on a regular basis? NO, but this has less to do with impact resistance during an accident than with foreign object (bugs, gravel, etc) resistance. In an impact event (you exit the bike) the primary factor in determining whether you live or die is speed. Above a certain speed you are going to die regardless of whether you are wearing a helmet or not. The second factor is method/direction of impact. If you impact head first without a helmet you are going to die of a fractured skull or a broken neck whereas if you are wearing a helmet you are going to die of a severe concussion (brains are soft and gooshy after all) or the aforementioned broken neck. Helmets mainly protect you from secondary or glancing impacts at low or moderate speeds. Basically if some other part of your fragile anatomy hits first and your head then hits, having slowed down to some extent or the angle of the impact allows you to "slide," the helmet can make a huge difference between surviving and not, and between severe head injuries or minor ones. The thing is, most bikers who dislike helmets ride without as often as legally possible especially when riding around town. Their logic is that you are less likely to get hurt at the 20-45mph speeds that are typical than out on the highway. The truth though is that those 20-45mph speeds are the ones where a helmet can make a huge difference. Slam into a car in an intersection going 35mph and that helmet can make the difference between a ride in an ambulance and a ride in a hearse. Why? Because the speed and impact forces are within the limits for which the helmet was designed, regardless of how you impact (generally). Hit the same car at 70mph and no helmet on the planet is going to save your life. At that point you are at the mercy of chance... there is a chance that you may land in such a way that your head and neck is protected or you may not. What is really stupid is that the same people who bemoan bikers going without helmets don't look twice at people riding in inadequate clothing. I can't tell you how many times I have seen idiots riding crotch rockets in shorts, t-shirts and tennis shoes, or even flipflops. You don't even have to have a serious accident to ruin your day this way. I always wear, at least, kevlar lined jeans and a leather jacket with gloves and high topped leather boots. Why, because abrasion injuries are far more frequent and often more severe in motorcycle accidents than impact injuries. I friend of mine (a certified EMT) ended up in the hospital and almost died of a septic infection after a minor "low-side" accident at about 35mph. He was wearing an armored mesh jacket. He slid about 40' across the road on his left side and slid to a slow gentle stop. After a quick once over we proceeded to a nearby gas station where he peeled off his jacket. Under the jacket he had severe abrasions from the gravel that had poked thru the mesh material. In this case, the armor did no good at all since it is located primarily around the joints and on the chest and back. We cleaned him up and went on our way, finishing the trip while he just complained of general soreness. He was confident he had no serious injuries, but within 2 days after getting home he was in the hospital. Evidently a couple small specks of dirt or whatever that we had not gotten out led to an infection and he was in the ICU for over a week. Btw, his head and helmet never even touched the ground... Mike p.s. The reason I mention the foreign object resistance in my first paragraph is that right after that photo was taken, I was hit square in the lip by a bumble bee. I had a fat lip for 2 days. | |
07-05-2011, 11:19 AM | #12 |
Read comments in a swedish paper where his brother said that he would probably have protested even if he knew it would kill him, he was a rebel, protesting against anything. The whole thing is pretty tragicomic anyway. ^^
| |
07-05-2011, 01:51 PM | #13 |
All in all, helmet use should be a personal choice. I can understand if the insurance companies don't want to pay claims for bikers injured or killed while riding without helmets but that is between them and the insured. If insurers state that position then it goes right back to personal choice by the rider. In the end it is simple risks (real or perceived) vs benefits (also real or perceived). and in a free society we are generally permitted to act counter to what is thought to be our best interests by government or our fellow citizens. As some of you may have noticed, my avatar clearly shows me riding my motorcycle without a helmet. Do I do so on a regular basis? NO, but this has less to do with impact resistance during an accident than with foreign object (bugs, gravel, etc) resistance. In an impact event (you exit the bike) the primary factor in determining whether you live or die is speed. Above a certain speed you are going to die regardless of whether you are wearing a helmet or not. The second factor is method/direction of impact. If you impact head first without a helmet you are going to die of a fractured skull or a broken neck whereas if you are wearing a helmet you are going to die of a severe concussion (brains are soft and gooshy after all) or the aforementioned broken neck. Helmets mainly protect you from secondary or glancing impacts at low or moderate speeds. Basically if some other part of your fragile anatomy hits first and your head then hits, having slowed down to some extent or the angle of the impact allows you to "slide," the helmet can make a huge difference between surviving and not, and between severe head injuries or minor ones. The thing is, most bikers who dislike helmets ride without as often as legally possible especially when riding around town. Their logic is that you are less likely to get hurt at the 20-45mph speeds that are typical than out on the highway. The truth though is that those 20-45mph speeds are the ones where a helmet can make a huge difference. Slam into a car in an intersection going 35mph and that helmet can make the difference between a ride in an ambulance and a ride in a hearse. Why? Because the speed and impact forces are within the limits for which the helmet was designed, regardless of how you impact (generally). Hit the same car at 70mph and no helmet on the planet is going to save your life. At that point you are at the mercy of chance... there is a chance that you may land in such a way that your head and neck is protected or you may not. What is really stupid is that the same people who bemoan bikers going without helmets don't look twice at people riding in inadequate clothing. I can't tell you how many times I have seen idiots riding crotch rockets in shorts, t-shirts and tennis shoes, or even flipflops. You don't even have to have a serious accident to ruin your day this way. I always wear, at least, kevlar lined jeans and a leather jacket with gloves and high topped leather boots. Why, because abrasion injuries are far more frequent and often more severe in motorcycle accidents than impact injuries. I friend of mine (a certified EMT) ended up in the hospital and almost died of a septic infection after a minor "low-side" accident at about 35mph. He was wearing an armored mesh jacket. He slid about 40' across the road on his left side and slid to a slow gentle stop. After a quick once over we proceeded to a nearby gas station where he peeled off his jacket. Under the jacket he had severe abrasions from the gravel that had poked thru the mesh material. In this case, the armor did no good at all since it is located primarily around the joints and on the chest and back. We cleaned him up and went on our way, finishing the trip while he just complained of general soreness. He was confident he had no serious injuries, but within 2 days after getting home he was in the hospital. Evidently a couple small specks of dirt or whatever that we had not gotten out led to an infection and he was in the ICU for over a week. Btw, his head and helmet never even touched the ground... Mike p.s. The reason I mention the foreign object resistance in my first paragraph is that right after that photo was taken, I was hit square in the lip by a bumble bee. I had a fat lip for 2 days. | |
07-05-2011, 02:17 PM | #14 |
07-05-2011, 03:08 PM | #15 |
Veteran Member | All in all, helmet use should be a personal choice. I can understand if the insurance companies don't want to pay claims for bikers injured or killed while riding without helmets but that is between them and the insured. If insurers state that position then it goes right back to personal choice by the rider. In the end it is simple risks (real or perceived) vs benefits (also real or perceived). and in a free society we are generally permitted to act counter to what is thought to be our best interests by government or our fellow citizens. As some of you may have noticed, my avatar clearly shows me riding my motorcycle without a helmet. Do I do so on a regular basis? NO, but this has less to do with impact resistance during an accident than with foreign object (bugs, gravel, etc) resistance. In an impact event (you exit the bike) the primary factor in determining whether you live or die is speed. Above a certain speed you are going to die regardless of whether you are wearing a helmet or not. The second factor is method/direction of impact. If you impact head first without a helmet you are going to die of a fractured skull or a broken neck whereas if you are wearing a helmet you are going to die of a severe concussion (brains are soft and gooshy after all) or the aforementioned broken neck. Helmets mainly protect you from secondary or glancing impacts at low or moderate speeds. Basically if some other part of your fragile anatomy hits first and your head then hits, having slowed down to some extent or the angle of the impact allows you to "slide," the helmet can make a huge difference between surviving and not, and between severe head injuries or minor ones. The thing is, most bikers who dislike helmets ride without as often as legally possible especially when riding around town. Their logic is that you are less likely to get hurt at the 20-45mph speeds that are typical than out on the highway. The truth though is that those 20-45mph speeds are the ones where a helmet can make a huge difference. Slam into a car in an intersection going 35mph and that helmet can make the difference between a ride in an ambulance and a ride in a hearse. Why? Because the speed and impact forces are within the limits for which the helmet was designed, regardless of how you impact (generally). Hit the same car at 70mph and no helmet on the planet is going to save your life. At that point you are at the mercy of chance... there is a chance that you may land in such a way that your head and neck is protected or you may not. What is really stupid is that the same people who bemoan bikers going without helmets don't look twice at people riding in inadequate clothing. I can't tell you how many times I have seen idiots riding crotch rockets in shorts, t-shirts and tennis shoes, or even flipflops. You don't even have to have a serious accident to ruin your day this way. I always wear, at least, kevlar lined jeans and a leather jacket with gloves and high topped leather boots. Why, because abrasion injuries are far more frequent and often more severe in motorcycle accidents than impact injuries. I friend of mine (a certified EMT) ended up in the hospital and almost died of a septic infection after a minor "low-side" accident at about 35mph. He was wearing an armored mesh jacket. He slid about 40' across the road on his left side and slid to a slow gentle stop. After a quick once over we proceeded to a nearby gas station where he peeled off his jacket. Under the jacket he had severe abrasions from the gravel that had poked thru the mesh material. In this case, the armor did no good at all since it is located primarily around the joints and on the chest and back. We cleaned him up and went on our way, finishing the trip while he just complained of general soreness. He was confident he had no serious injuries, but within 2 days after getting home he was in the hospital. Evidently a couple small specks of dirt or whatever that we had not gotten out led to an infection and he was in the ICU for over a week. Btw, his head and helmet never even touched the ground... Mike p.s. The reason I mention the foreign object resistance in my first paragraph is that right after that photo was taken, I was hit square in the lip by a bumble bee. I had a fat lip for 2 days. To your point, Nakana's head did not touch the pavement first, but you will see that the back of his helmet struck soo thereafter, and probably still close to 200mph. So while I agree that the method/direction of impact is important, I believe it is actually more important than speed. Modern motorcycle racetracks - with plenty of runoff area (usually sand traps) are designed to minimize the types of impacts that cause the most damage, i.e., hitting walls or hard surfaces. As they say, it's not the falling off that hurt, it's the coming to a sudden stop (i.e., hitting a wall) that does. And I'll nod with others at the irony of squids wearing $500 lids paired with shorts and t-shirts. But a squid thus protected probably has a better chance surviving a 40mph crash than a cruiser rider in leather chaps, leather jacket and no helmet. The squid will have less skin (thus the name "squid") for sure, and neither is an option that I'd want to choose from. I will say that stylish leather and textile jackets are seen much more frequently among squids that just 10 short years ago, so we are making progress. Speaking of Kansas, I was just there last week sampling some of the state's fine barbecue. Saw a lot of people without helmets and without protective gear. The 100 degree heat probably influenced the decision, as did the fact that many of the farm roads go straight for miles with very little traffic. Were I to live in that state, I can _almost_ see myself riding without gear from time to time. But foam and leather and cordura have saved my life at least twice already, so I'm always fully geared: Finally, I agree in principle with peoples' right to choose as long as they bear the cost of those decisions as well - i.e., insurance, EMT, etc.... |
|
Bookmarks |
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it! |
helmet, motorcycle, police, protest, scene |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
'Jackass' Crashes Into Fall Record... | jogiba | General Talk | 4 | 10-19-2010 09:13 AM |
Pentax Utility 3 crashes in Mac OS X.6 | jmschrei | Digital Processing, Software, and Printing | 2 | 04-03-2010 05:07 PM |
Lightning Crashes | Maynerd | Post Your Photos! | 14 | 08-14-2009 12:41 PM |
GIMP 2 Crashes | rickn | Digital Processing, Software, and Printing | 8 | 07-24-2009 09:01 AM |
Ride Sally Ride - Bicycle Road Racing | MRRiley | Post Your Photos! | 13 | 06-10-2009 08:31 AM |