More reckless bikers..

[kamkar]

some times after crashes you will see wrecked cars at the roadside wrapped in police tape, they can be there for a while before they are removed.
The same goes of its a car the police have removed the plates on, but in that case you only have a couple of days to remove your car, or the police will do it for you at your charge.
But it will have to be a serious wreck with cars blocking traffic before the police show up, for the normal fender bender ppl just solve it them self and call a tow truck.
Many / most Danes have a subscription to a tow truck company, they might also provide a first aid box and a fire extinguisher, the price for this is around 80 DKKr every month.

 

[dash riposki]

Typical thinking of one from a developed country. Fact is the undeveloped and developing countries, people don't see it that way. Having a motorized vehicle have taken most of their income and the law is so corrupted that they can pay their way out of any offense they commit. They don't think they are endangering themselves. They just don't think that way.

In Thailand most of the riders skip a helmet, even though the most common thing to be stopped for, and have to pay a fine, or 'tea money' to the cop on the spot is.....no helmet.

My friend has owned a motorbike for years, and has a car license. Recently she was mad because she got caught at a checkpoint and has no motorbike license. (She had a helmet)
I forget what the fine was, something like $15 US. I asked how much it cost to get a motorbike license? $6. Does she intend to get one? NO.

 

[SawMaster]

I can't say for elsewhere but here in the US there are fewer motorcycle fatalities in states without mandatory helmet laws than in states where they are required. Those numbers come from the government and insurance companies- not something made up or twisted from unreliable sources. Back when I rode I didn't always wear a helmet but I was lucky enough to have one on the three times it proved useful and I also lobbied for ABATE to keep our freedom for adults to choose intact. I know several people who suffered severe and permanent body harm in motorcycle crashes where a helmet didn't matter. I knew people whose necks were broken in motorcycle crashes in a manner which indicated their helmet caught on something in a crash, snapped their neck, and killed them. The coroner said as much. And I am one who would prefer to have my head smashed in than to live the rest of my life in severe pain drooling stupidly in my wheelchair. I'm an adult, I know the options and the risks, so let me decide. That's what freedom means and I like freedom I like the wind in my face and blowing through what hair I have left sometimes too. But I usually wore a helmet, knowing it restricted my vision and hearing- the two main senses which were keeping me safe while riding. I'd be much the same if I rode today, I'm sure. Here in SC anyone under 21 must wear a helmet- at 21 you decide and you're responsible for your decision.

A helmet can save you or kill you or not matter at all. You have to decide ahead of time which risk is the highest and then live (or die) knowing that it was your decision. Nobody has the right to require someone else to take a needless risk and those best suited to making those decisions are the ones with experience in the matter- the riders. To those who believe helmets are so beneficial, why don't you require them for car users where head injuries also kill and maim in numbers much higher than for motorcycles alone? Do you wear one when you drive? Nope, and in most cases you cannot legally wear a helmet in a car because it reduces your ability to see and hear- in most states it's actually illegal. Most insurance companies will not allow you to do that either. WTF? If it's smart for one then it's smart for all so why the discrimination and why would you want to force me to be less safe by making me restrict my vision and hearing when on a bike is when I need that the most? When all road users have to wear a DOT-approved helmet than I'll agree to wear one riding too but until then it should be a person's individual choice (and that includes wearing a helmet in a car if you want to). It is not for anyone else to decide.

It's fun doing foolish things on a motorcycle but no rider has the right to be foolish on public roads where it affects other road users. If you want to be treated with respect you have to be respectful of others. If you have an overwhelming urge to ride in a foolish manner then go somewhere that is a better place to do that- shows, expositions, and race tracks are all over the place. If you can't ride responsibly then park until you can. Same as driving, not everybody is fit to ride but it is never properly tested for and we see the results daily, mostly in car drivers.

Phil

 

[Gibson99]

I do wear a helmet in the car sometimes. And it's not just DOT certified; it's Snell certified. And I've since replaced that open face Snell M2005 with a full face Snell M2010 helmet.

 

[Rajagra]

yup, they were riding parallel and talking as if they were strolling in a park or riding within private property.

They do have all the right to be there but not at someone else's expense. At the 15 second mark the right biker nearly collided with the car on its right and then almost swerved into his friends bike to avoid the car. If something would've gone wrong, the car guy would be blamed and probably thrashed beyond recognition before the police arrives.

This. Plus the fact they were in complete denial of the dangers they are in / putting themselves in.

But hey, showing off to the girls is important, right?

Sent from my tap-to-talk using Tapatalk

 

[dash riposki]

The helmets which are likely to increase your chances of death or injury are those novelty types like the 'German Army' and skullcap helmets.



If a legal helmet is reducing your vision, you probably have it on backwards.

 

[GTA Driver]

I wonder if people get a false sense of security with personal equipment (like helmets) and vehicle equipment (like air bags, snow tires) which result in them taking risks they would not take if that equipment is not present.

Baseball and Hockey have equipment they did not have 3 or 4 generations ago or has it been enforced. I am a pissed off hockey fan and don't follow it as much as I used too but from what I have heard the generous equipment is used almost as a weapon more than for personal safety. Players are NOT slowing down as they believe the equipment can cushion the shock, sometime against the boards or sometimes against an opposing player and hence why some say its like a weapon.

We see more concussions in the three of the four major contact sports in North America where there is equipment and I think its the risky way they play.

I see motorists taking risks they wouldn't take 30 plus years ago when I started driving and coincidentally there are more fatal accidents year to year.

I wonder if motorcycle helmets give its users a false sense of security and those using them go faster and more reckless.

 

[dash riposki]

If a motorcycle helmet makes you feel invincible, you've got other problems.

You're more likely to survive a car wreck these days with the various air bags and other safety improvements. Funny, i don't see people talking about the 'freedom' to choose to die in an accident in a car, like they do on a motorcycle.

 

[GTA Driver]

I think people are more likely to survive car accidents than years ago, but I find that Snow tires and 4 wheel drive give a false sense of security. I will drive faster in my Rav4 with snow tires than I would with my 91 mustang without, but I will never drive at excessive speeds. Its funny, but its pickup trucks and SUVs which are the most aggressive in the winter, and the most likely to be in a ditch during that season

 

[kamkar]

If a legal helmet is reducing your vision, you probably have it on backwards

 

[Gibson99]

If a legal helmet is reducing your vision, you probably have it on backwards.

To meet the higher standards of the Snell certification, the full face ones do have a smaller eyeport than a similar DOT helmet. Maybe that's what people are thinking? Snell SA helmets have an even smaller eyeport, but they're meant for in-car use, and thus are constructed differently for impacting things like roll bars or maybe a steering wheel, as opposed to larger, flatter things like the road or a tree that a motorcycle user is more likely to impact.

 

[dash riposki]

I never thought the DOT helmet standards were anything to be proud of, but then again, I found this quote on the Snell website.

"The Foundation recommends that if you are participating in an activity that requires that you wear a helmet, you avoid hitting stuff with your head. "

 

[Rajagra]

I found this quote on the Snell website.

"The Foundation recommends that if you are participating in an activity that requires that you wear a helmet, you avoid hitting stuff with your head. "

Hehe I had to read that a few times before I realised they MIGHT not be saying that tongue-in-cheek.

But I prefer to think they have a sense of humour.

Sent from my tap-to-talk using Tapatalk

 

[Rajagra]

If a motorcycle helmet makes you feel invincible, you've got other problems.

Yup. Everyone knows it's leathers that do that.

Or those magic t-shirts, shorts and flip-flops. [emoji2]

Sent from my tap-to-talk using Tapatalk

 

[SawMaster]

What? No attacks on me yet? Y'all are some good and decent folks indeed

Gibson, wearing during racing (autocross) doesn't count as wearing on the road Glad you have a Snell rated lid; they're better but no design is always perfect. Thing is that if you whack something that hard where Snell vs DOT would matter you're going to have brain trauma anyway and that might be enough to kill you. People do look better in a coffin when their head is intact so go Snell

Dash, I had one of the earliest Snell-approved helmets ( can't remember the brand, I bought it used) and it did hamper my peripheral vision. Later helmets did too, and sometimes the face visor was the problem- I used my helmet once at night when mine misted up instantly hitting a dense fogbank. I hit the curb I couldn't see anymore, high-sided, then skidded on my head a few feet along the aidewalk. Had I been wearing my open-face helmet I could have nodded down and peered over my glasses, seen the curb, and missed it. Not going fast, maybe 15 MPH, but lacking vision caused the crash. That didn't put me off wearing helmets; I was glad it saved my scalp and the few hairs alive on it. And those folks I knew whose necks were broken had that happen while sliding- the back of their normal helmet snagged something and it was over instantly for them. Nothing you can do to prevent that- the back of a helmet must stop somewhere- and a 'novelty' helmet which sits higher is prone to release a snag earlier making it safer in situations like that. I could also hear better with my 'less-safe' open-face helmet. Bicycle helmets are nutso ideas- they protect for only one type of crash when there are many kinds of crashes; a strapped-on construction hard-hat is rated for more impact than those while providing protection from other angles too. And the cyclists are also against hearing and vision restrictive full helmets. They like their fancy-looking ones no matter how little they will do in anything but an over-the-handlebars crash.

If you take the time to read the stickers and tags on helmets you'll find they do not guarantee performance at speeds over 15-30MPH. I can understand this being for liability issues (and that they work at much higher speeds) but those kinds of statements can be used against an argument for helmets. It's the same as with the statistics I mentioned- when those promoting helmet use cannot prove their usefulness you'll get states like SC where your own words will be used to stop you cold. What is perceived is not always real and unless you look from every possible angle then you do not truly know for sure

And I expected a cry over the "public burden" of people disabled from head injuries in motorcycle crashes Maybe my pointing out there are more car drivers like this was understood. At low speeds in a suburban subdivision a helmet isn't much use for a good rider who is always looking for the softest spot to crash in should things go wrong, but at highway speeds, in heavy traffic, or where soft spots are rare it's a darn good idea to wear a helmet IMHO and I advocate that.

When I began driving there were many cars with unpadded dashboards, no seat belts, keys and switches located to cleave knee-caps in a crash. pick-up trucks with the gas tank behind the seat, drum brakes that could get wet and not work, ad nauseum. People drove more slowly and more carefully knowing those dangers were very real. Now we have much safer cars and look how people drive knowing that they will likely survive a crash instead of the opposite. Like helmets it has caused a mindset where something unsafe is believed to be safe when it never can be totally safe. If we went back to cars with no safety features I think most people would drive a lot better. I know that when I rode without a helmet I was very aware that I must not crash or else! That is probably why the government and insurance numbers say what they do- unprotected riders tend to ride more safely.

My sole beef with this is freedom of choice and discrimination. If you're going to allow folks to climb a mountain or go cave diving where injury and death are not uncommon then you shouldn't be down on people who choose to ride motorcycles with or without a helmet. And if helmets are so effective let everyone use them when they want to or require that for all- not just some. The 'pro' and 'con' arguments have been around for years and if anybody could really prove their point(s) that impasse would end.

But the bottom line is that in almost every crash, car or bike,, you are likely better off with a decent helmet on than without- however the best of all is to not crash, which riding or driving safely goes so far towards doing as to render the helmet question moot if we could only get everyone to do that somehow. Drive and ride to avoid crashing- that's the real key to road safety for everyone.

Phil, ex-biker in a somewhat backwards but freedom-loving state

 

[dash riposki]

I'm actually in favor of billing people for being rescued in situations they shouldn't have been in.
I appreciate SC announcing during the recent hurricane 'OK, we warned you for days to get out, you're on your own. We're not coming in to get you, help you, etc'.

 

[kamkar]

I'm actually in favor of billing people for being rescued in situations they shouldn't have been in.

I will have to agree on this.

Remind me of our public healthcare system, so some person in a far away country might sit and think wauuuu those Danes are lucky with free healthcare.
BUT ! its only some things thats free, and some things you think " why the hell is this and that free, when so and so is not free at all.

You can get your teeth bashed in by a baseball bat and your jaw pulverized, and you will get new teeth and your jaw fixed, and it wont cost you a dime even if you trashed your teeth on a BMX track or something, but if you suffer from some form of tooth decay or just dont brush your teeth that much or just regular visits, well then you have to go to a expensive dentist and pay 100% yourself, or go to another EU country and save >50% on the dentist bill.

 

[SawMaster]

It should all be about personal responsibility- nobody should have to suffer or be burdened by anyone else's choices. But instead the system almost always supports stupidity with little or no penalty. We'd all be better off by making the stupid people pay the full bill for their choices and actions, and that would have the dual benefit of letting the stupid ones eliminate themselves while making more resources available for the non-stupid ones.

Gov. Haley is pretty popular here for her no-BS approaches to things, as was seen when she made it clear that we weren't going to be responsible for anybody who stayed behind during the hurricane evacuations. Now if she could only get our rotten roads fixed..........

Phil

 

[dash riposki]

Nikki Haley is actually easier to look at and listen to than your average Southern governor.

Hard to imagine SC would end up with a female, ethnic Indian governor, who grew up in a rural town.

 

[Gibson99]

Hard to imagine SC would end up with a female, ethnic Indian governor, who grew up in a rural town.

I was surprised when Bobby Jindal was elected in Louisiana for most of those same reasons. Apparently he did really well too.