The irony of it all

[pam]

Bareheaded motorcyclist dies in helmet protest - CNN.com

(CNN) -- A bareheaded motorcyclist participating in a ride to protest mandatory helmet laws was killed when he was thrown over the handlebars in Onondaga, New York.

Philip A. Contos, 55, of Parish, New York, was on a ride organized by the Onondaga chapter of American Bikers Aimed Towards Education (ABATE), state police said Sunday.

[arvoreen73]

sorry but this is somewhat amusing... feel bad that he died but the irony of it all makes it humorous

[HoosierGuy]

Harley people think they are cowboys. Cowboys did not wear helmets. They aren't going to wear them either.

Edited July 5, 2011 by HoosierGuy

[Guest]

He certainly got a message across, just not the one he expected to.

[rameumptom]

Thank goodness we have one less idiot to contaminate the gene pool.... Darwin Awards nominee?

[pam]

Harley people think they are cowboys. Cowboys did not wear helmets. They aren't going to hear them either.

The cowboys won't hear the helmet?

The cowboys won't hear the Harley people?

The Harley people won't hear the cowboys?

The Harley people won't hear the helmet?

[PrinceofLight2000]

I'm wondering if all the protesters went home after this happened.

[Blackmarch]

Thank goodness we have one less idiot to contaminate the gene pool.... Darwin Awards nominee?

Maybe a runner up.

[NeuroTypical]

*shrug*. The guy used his agency to ride at increased risk, and he suffered the consequences. There would be much irony if he was out trying to educate people about how helmets don't make anyone safer - but he wasn't doing that. There is only a little irony here - in that his death was sort of counterproductive to his cause. And it is indeed only 'sort of counterproductive'. Motorcyclists who wear helmets will continue to wear them, those who don't want to will continue to not want to. It might influence legislation a little, but that's it.

[rameumptom]

I'm wondering if all the protesters went home after this happened.

Better, I wonder if they wore helmets home?

LM, yes the guy used his agency. But the irony is in him insisting on freedom to ride without a helmet and then dying from it, because his freedom was more important than his safety. Definitely needed to be removed from the gene pool....

[NeuroTypical]

It's only irony to the extent that he valued his life as much as y'all think he should have valued it. And from hanging out with a motorcycle guy or two, I've learned that's not always the case. Freedom is less important that safety? Take that statement a little ways away from a motorcycle helmet discussion, and all sorts of people will spring up to argue. (Especially since we just celebrated independence day and all.)

I'm not equipped with sufficient of judgement tools to agree or disagree that such folks "definitely need to be removed from the gene pool."

[Just_A_Guy]

. . . because his freedom was more important than his safety.

He, at least, apparently thought that freedom worth dying for. We can quibble with him over the specifics, but not over the principle.

Lots of British must have thought it truly insane that American colonists were willing to die rather than pay a few measly cents on luxury items in order to subsidize a recently-won war whose entire purpose had been to defend those very same colonies from European and native American aggression.

[RescueMom]

It's sad that his judgement cost him his life. However, I don't find it funny. He could have been someone's husband, father, uncle, friend...or brother. And call me crazy, I think Christ would be comforting his family.

[rameumptom]

I'm not equipped with sufficient of judgement tools to agree or disagree that such folks "definitely need to be removed from the gene pool."

Then leave it to us experts to determine it.

Rescuemom,

Yes, his family needs to be comforted. But it isn't for us to comfort them. A truly caring father protects himself by wearing a seatbelt in the car. Why? So he can be there for his children.

Could he have not protested while also wearing a helmet? Or find something more important to protest? Because he focused so much on such a silly argument, he's left his family alone. That is the sad part of this situation.

[RescueMom]

er...why isn't up to us to comfort them? suppose his family comes here and reads this thread...what impression of the Church would that leave them?

Sure he made a terrible mistake. But that doesn't make him any less dead. All of us make stupid mistakes from time to time..he made one and it cost him his life. I don't find it funny or ironic, just sad.

[Traveler]

There is a debate concerning law and freedom. I see nothing in his protest riding and consequent death to assume his protest was not valid. I do not see that his death should change any law or attitude about any law. I agree with the protest. Some things I do not agree is that someone wearing a helmet ridding in protest should somehow be excluded or even thought odd. The one thing Mr. Contos proved was that helmet laws did not make a difference. Wake up people - it is not about law it is about choice and we - especially members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints ought to support is choice and who is accountable.

What I believe we should change in the law is that anyone riding a motorcycle without a helmet is excluded from any and all law suits concerning head injuries regardless of what happens while on public roads or who is at fault. I also believe that the law should provide personal exclusions for insurance companies that want to limit or inhibit payouts concerning any head injury incurred while not wearing a helmet while riding a motorcycle. I also believe this mentality should exist for seatbelts.

The Traveler

[rameumptom]

This wasn't a terrible mistake, but a tragic choice. A mistake is when I'm carrying a cake, trip and drop it on the floor. A tragic choice is when someone intentionally chooses to ride a motorcycle without a helmet and ends up injured or dead because of it.

[Traveler]

This wasn't a terrible mistake, but a tragic choice. A mistake is when I'm carrying a cake, trip and drop it on the floor. A tragic choice is when someone intentionally chooses to ride a motorcycle without a helmet and ends up injured or dead because of it.

It is my understanding of the eternal nature of things - that the greatest evil that does or can exist is to think to make such choice (for whatever reason) for someone else.

The Traveler

[rameumptom]

So, we shouldn't make choices for our children? We shouldn't have laws at all? There isn't a freedom to use the highways. We all accept (for the most part) the right of government to regulate who can drive, don't we? So, shouldn't they also have the right to ensure vehicles meet a basic safety standard (such as working headlights for night time driving)? And on a motorcycle, should they not have the right to require a helmet? When a person is injured on a bike without using a helmet, it means my insurance goes up to subsidize those knuckleheads. And if they have no insurance, my taxes go up to pay for their emergency room visit, etc.

So, I think government does have a responsibility to ensure that traffic safety is maintained.

I'm a libertarian, but believe states have the right to regulate the roadways.

[MorningStar]

I think too of the people who have to deal with the gruesome scene. It's not just affecting me if I decided not to wear a helmet or use a seatbelt.

[Vort]

I would mention my titanium crowbar, but it's not ironic.

[pam]

I would mention my titanium crowbar, but it's not ironic.

Boo..hiss...

[Traveler]

So, we shouldn't make choices for our children? We shouldn't have laws at all? There isn't a freedom to use the highways. We all accept (for the most part) the right of government to regulate who can drive, don't we? So, shouldn't they also have the right to ensure vehicles meet a basic safety standard (such as working headlights for night time driving)? And on a motorcycle, should they not have the right to require a helmet? When a person is injured on a bike without using a helmet, it means my insurance goes up to subsidize those knuckleheads. And if they have no insurance, my taxes go up to pay for their emergency room visit, etc.

So, I think government does have a responsibility to ensure that traffic safety is maintained.

I'm a libertarian, but believe states have the right to regulate the roadways.

I will try to put this in as simple terms as possible.

The law has two obligations as it see it:

First obligation of law is to protect the innocent.

Second obligation of law is to punish the guilty.

I do not see how helmet or seat belt laws protect the innocent or punish the guilty. As best as I can figure they are an attempt to protect the guilty. Not only am I not sure that such helmet and seat belt laws really do such (current thread case in point). So even if it were possible - I not sure we could do such a thing. Children by defination are innocent. Therefore to take a child on a murdercycle without a helmet would constitute child abuse.

But I thought we are talking about making choices for someone that is capable of making the choice themself.

Driving without insurance is something else - you should be able to drive without insurance for yourself but not for danage you may cause to others. Auto insurance is specifically divided in coverage for exactly that reason

The Traveler

[MorningStar]

I would mention my titanium crowbar, but it's not ironic.

My husband found some really expensive drumsticks on Amazon and couldn't figure out why they were that much. I asked him if they were made out of titanium.