Forums → WEPR → Cyclist dies during protest of helmet laws while helmetless.

Been on a motorcycle without a helmet.

Still alive.

The man wasn't an idiot, he was protesting helmet laws because he believed that people should only wear helmets if they want to. He believed that people should be allowed to take risks. Should he have worn a helmet? Sure, it would have saved him. However, there are thousands upon thousands of motorcyclists who ride without helmets.

If you're going to look at a man who died protesting helmet laws because he didn't wear a helmet, then you must look into the number of people who did NOT die while riding without a helmet. You also have to consider the likelihood of even getting into a motorcycle accident.

but if you are going to ride a motorcycle, especially at a high speed, I believe that there should be a rule for eye protection.

WHY?! Why have a rule that 99.9 percent of motorcyclists already follow! You don't need a law to make it illegal for motorcycles to go without eye protection on a motorcycle. It's pointless because motorcycles already wear eye protection. Then why is it so bad to make it a rule? Because you're giving up our freedoms one small rule at a time.

Judge a man all you want for not wearing a helmet, it's your opinion, but don't take away his freedoms because you want to run his life.

Judge a man all you want for not wearing a helmet, it's your opinion, but don't take away his freedoms because you want to run his life.

Its Freedom of safety versus freedom of what you put on your head when you're on a motorcycle.
If he owns his own highway, that's great, let him take all the risks he wants. It isn't fair that he puts himself at a higher chance of losing control of his bike and possibly hitting someone else. I know 99.9% of motorcyclists follow the rule, but wouldn't it be a little scary to know that there's a .1% out there that could probably get hit in the eye with a dragonfly?
Then again, I never see many motorcycles on interstates, and I don't know how many bugs usually hit a motorcyclist, but if its quite common for one to get hit by a bug and possibly lose control, why not just enforce that?

You think no helmet is bad, I often see people riding around in shorts and sandals.

Good point, should this be illegal?

I know 99.9% of motorcyclists follow the rule, but wouldn't it be a little scary to know that there's a .1% out there that could probably get hit in the eye with a dragonfly?

.1 isn't worth a new law. Say you ride your motorcycle down the street and you lose you sun glasses, should it be illegal for you to ride back home without your sun glasses? If you know a few motorcyclists, you're going to see this (rarely) more often than you see someone who intentionally rides without glasses. Sometimes, when it's late at night and you don't have a pair of clear glasses, you're forced to ride without them.

Let's face it, you have to grow up and be a man eventually. When you need to get something done, you shouldn't be held back in the name of safety.

Just because you can't put a price on a life doesn't mean you can't go too far to protect people.

Then again, I never see many motorcycles on interstates, and I don't know how many bugs usually hit a motorcyclist, but if its quite common for one to get hit by a bug and possibly lose control, why not just enforce that?

Motorcyclists are hit by bugs all the time. It's very uncommon not to. If you ride a lot without glasses, then your chances of getting hit in the eye are actually fairly good. However, you must also ask how likely it is for someone to lose control if they are hit in the eye with a bug. When you're on a 2 wheeled vehicle, the shock of getting hit in the eye with a bug is almost always going to be less than the determination not to swerve and kill yourself.

Why have a rule that 99.9 percent of motorcyclists already follow!

Why outlaw reckless driving when 99.9% of drivers already don't do it? Why make drunk driving when the majority of people know it's stupid and wouldn't do it? It's that .01% that think to themselves, "Hey... there's nothing saying I can't, so I'm gonna do it." I've had some guy express his freedom to do whatever he wanted while his friend was driving at faster than 75mph (I was late to school... and they were going much faster than me). The freedom seeker decided to open his door (window rolled down) and jump out of his door while holding onto the frame of the window... He then proceeded to skid on his shoes while being drug at most likely 80+ mph for what seemed an eternity... it was probably 10-20 seconds (or less). The only thing I could think about during that time was, "How am I going to dodge this f'ing idiot's shattered corpse when his hands slip at 80mph?"

I'm not advocating eye protection for the safety of the cyclist. I'm advocating eye protection for the safety of the people around him. ...It is almost akin to having your headlights busted and still driving at night. Forget that other people can't see you for now. Unless the road is heavily lit with street lights, you can't hardly see crap. I've had one go out on me, and it was the worst drive ever. If the people driving impaired only ever killed themselves, then I would have no problem letting them be "free." I imagine that the number of people who jump out of their vehicles like that percents out to far less than .1% of the driving population. I still think that should be illegal.

I don't think that it is just bugs... Rain and dust/sand for those of who live out in the desert. So we are to allow cyclists without windshields to drive their vehicles without eye protection in the middle of a rain storm? I can't imagine how bad that would sting their eyes... and how much they'd have to squint and/or involuntarily close them from the rain. I mean... if we are to allow it at all we are to allow it always.

I think there are privately owned race tracks (at least there is one where I live) where they allow you to go and speed and do all kinds things that are otherwise prohibited on public roads.

What in your mind is enough of inconveniencing another person to merit action when someone is "expressing their freedom?" Is there a point where expression of freedom is too dangerous to allow on public roads? Do we let blind people drive too? ...because that's effectively what these people are when in the middle of being impaired.

I'm not sure I agree with the "I did it and nothing bad happened to me" argument... I mean I could probably go smoke a cigarette and be like "I smoked one... and don't have emphyzema or cancer."


I'm not familiar with motorcyclist terminology. I ish ignorant. Is this what happened to the poor man?


...except he wasn't wearing a helmet and didn't hit the back of a car?

...in light of recent posts (I don't wanna go revise everything) I guess the difference in those who make the laws and those who are subjected to them is that the law makers feel that there should be a minimum of protection for both the cyclist and the other people around them and the problem is opinion of where it becomes absurd.

What about when we develop the tech to have/sell/distribute in mass glasses that have functional tv screens in the lenses? It is the cyclist's right to freely watch tv and drive at the same time is it not? Or is that a bit too much of an impairment/distraction? Where then is the line for too much?

Have they made texting while driving illegal yet?... don't remember.

Have they made texting while driving illegal yet?... don't remember.

They have in Virginia.

Motorcyclists are hit by bugs all the time.

Again, I don't ride a motorcycle, but I'm having trouble comprehending how -- if anyone were to hit a bug head on in the eye at 60-80 mph, they wouldn't have some slight difficulty in not dying. Sounds like it would suck.

If you know a few motorcyclists, you're going to see this (rarely) more often than you see someone who intentionally rides without glasses.

If you know a few car drivers, I'm sure their headlights go off due to age/faulty issues than them expressing their wish to drive without any light ahead of them -- yet they too are occasionally ticketed.

Its worth a law, because you can stop all the fools that don't put the protection on. 99.9% of the rest won't have to care since they do it anyway.

...except he wasn't wearing a helmet and didn't hit the back of a car?

This is a fantastic example. What would happen if he hadn't been wearing a helmet? He might not have hit the back of the car, for starters.

Helmets impair one's ability to operate a motorcycle. They restrict your vision and hearing. They're heavy, so they make your neck tired, so you check your mirrors less. You don't look around you as much. If you've ever compared riding with a helmet to riding without a helmet, you know that.

All the statistics I've seen indicate that an accident is less likely to be fatal if you have a helmet. However, you're more likely to get into an accident in the first place. An accident that might not kill you, but it could injure you, or leave you paralyzed, or even hurt someone else.

The thing people don't understand is that helmets aren't a clear-cut safe-unsafe continuum. Helmets make riding safer in some ways and more dangerous in others. Shouldn't the rider be allowed to decide which types of safety he values? Nemo's right, but he didn't go quite far enough: if you want to count those who died without helmets, you should also look at all the people who didn't get into an accident at all because they chose not to wear a helmet.

I wore a similar type helmet when I was younger... when I would ride for hours on my four wheeler. I don't remember ever having had such a problem with fatigue. I guess I'm just a bamf like that. But then, that only matters if the "I dun it and didn't die" argument holds.

What would happen if he hadn't been wearing a helmet? He might not have hit the back of the car, for starters.

If they impair your vision in the front so bad, then why didn't the multiple other riders follow suit? Obviously, their helmets were on, so they couldn't see the crashed rider nor the vehicle he just rocketed into.


It looks more like the guy was either trying to show boat, or he botched the breaking. ...which is either a testament to why people shouldn't stunt on public roads, or a mistake on his part.

Cyclist dies during protest of helmet laws while helmetless.

Can You Say "IRONY?" Serves him right, maybe the next fool who tries that will read this thread (and the Law) first!