Bruce Rossmeyer killed in motorcycle accident while traveling to Sturgis

[ThomWV]

http://www.examiner.com/x-264-Celebrity-News-Examiner~y2009m7d31-Harley-Davidson-tycoon-Bruce-Rossmeyer-killed-in-motorcycle-accident-no-helmet

The "no helmet" is just a distraction - the question is if the towed RV had a turnsignal on.

[rocktivity]

1. DING DING DING! ThomWV, you're our grand prize winner!

...the question is if the towed RV had a turn signal on...

Which is exactly why helmets are a good idea. They're not so much about on how good a motorcyclist YOU are, but of how good the person, vehicle or animal you could hit is NOT.

RIP.

[Liberal_in_LA]

57. Cute smiley. Glad he's got a helmet on.

[rocktivity]

74. ..

_____________________________________________________

:evilgrin:
rocktivity

[Liberal_in_LA]

80. uh oh. Office Crowley's on the job

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

2. WOW!

They mentioned my old, dear friend Richie Supa in the article! I haven't seen him in years. Great guy. Just the bestest.

[yellowcanine]

3. "No helmet is just a distraction"??? Regardless of fault/causes of the accident, there is no

question that Mr. Rossmeyer's chances of surviving would have been increased if he had been wearing a helmet. Now he might (actually probably) would still be dead because hitting a vehicle broadside at full highway speed on a motorcycle is likely going to kill you, helmet or no helmet. But the data is irrefutable that helmets do save lives. So it can't be "just a distraction."

[TransitJohn]

4. Data

question that Mr. Rossmeyer's chances of surviving would have been increased if he had been wearing a helmet. Now he might (actually probably) would still be dead because hitting a vehicle broadside at full highway speed on a motorcycle is likely going to kill you, helmet or no helmet. But the data is irrefutable that helmets do save lives. So it can't be "just a distraction."

As a former ABATE member, no the data is not. And the gratuitous use of "use of a helmet" in an article covering a motorcycle accident or "use of seatbelt" in an article covering an automobile accident is just a distraction from the events that took place.

[ThomWV]

5. Thank you - at least someone here knows the difference

Let me say this first - because its important to know that I am not trying to serve a private agenda here. I ride roughly 12~15,000 miles a year and I always - always - wear a helmet. A significant number of the miles I ride are in a state where no helmet is required (Pennsylvania) but that does not tempt me to go without.

Here is my point. The accident reportedly occurred because a truck towing an RV made a left hand turn and in doing so caused a motorcycle that was in the process of passing it to crash and the motorcycle's driver to be killed - probably run over by both the towing and towed vehicles. Him having a helmet on or not did not cause the accident and could not in any way have caused the accident. A turn signal may have made a difference though. If the towing and towed vehicles had a working turn signal (often not the case on towed vehicles) and if it was used then it is the motorcycle driver's fault that he did not see or heed it. On the other hand if there was no signal then the towing and towed vehicles driver is at fault. Once again, the helmet had nothing to do with it.

One might argue that the motorcycle driver's injuries might have been less severe had he been wearing a helmet, but of course we don't know that he suffered any head injuries at all, all we know is that he is dead from the accident, but if he were wearing a helmet or not is as immaterial as if he were wearing a red shirt or a green one as far as the cause of the accident was concerned.

[yellowcanine]

18. No one is arguing that a helmet would have prevented the accident.

What I am saying is that it would have increased the chances of survival - increased the chances, not guaranteed it. The data IS clear. Denying it doesn't change the facts.

http://www.iii.org/media/hottopics/insurance/motorcycle/?table_sort_739024=5

[abumbyanyothername]

67. If I am forced to buy into an insurance pool

that covers the victims of motorcycle accidents, then I want those victims to be wearing helmets.

But that's just the self-interested part of me.

[WillyT]

72. Hate To Be Crude And All, But...

as a former motorcycle rider I've always wondered...

What if the helmet saves my head (and life), but leaves me a quadriplegic? And how would I feel about that?

As for insurance and the costs to others... which is more expensive: my funeral, or the next several decades
of respirator\wheelchair\assisted living existence?

Again, not to be heartless, but we assume a lot when we promote motorcycle helmets and their inherent "cost savings".

:shrug:

[tularetom]

6. See, here's the thing

If Rossmeyer had lived on as a vegetable, his medical expenses would have been millions of dollars. Just to keep him alive. Since he wouldn't be paying those costs, the insurance premiums of everybody else would have to increase to pay for it.

I don't give a shit about any macho no helmet bullshit, I don't want my insurance costs to go up because some jackoff refuses to wear a helmet. Just like I don't want to pay for the asswipes who insist on inhaling carcinogen laden smoke into their lungs.

[uncle ray]

19. so don't buy health insurance.

go it alone then.

because one thing i can guarantee is that everybody out there does something risky that you don't approve of.

i find it curious that so many demand that motorcycle riders wear helmets so they don't have to cover the cost, how about pedestrians? why not make them wear helmets when crossing the road? i mean really, screw that macho bullshit " i can walk perfectly well, thank you". the reality is thousands of pedestrians are injured and killed every year while crossing the street. why should i have to pay for some asswipe who thinks he has the right to cross a street with no helmet on and a green walk signal who gets hit by a motorist who wasn't paying attention? we sure can't hold the inattentive motorists responsible.

and don't get me started on those keyboard warriors, driving my health care costs through the ceiling, what with all of their carpal tunnel causing typing.:mad:

[TransitJohn]

27. You don't sound

anything like a Democrat.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ceveritt]

7. Wrong

Sorry, mate. ABATE has always been wrong about the effectiveness of helmets in saving motorcyclists' lives, period, end of story. None of their arguments hold water.

I won't get into the discussion of "use of a helmet" in a news story covering a motorcycle accident. Nor will I get into the debate over whether it is right or wrong for the State to mandate helmet usage.

However, the research is indeed irrefutable that wearing a helmet will save one's life in a motorcycle accident. Anyone who says different is a liar, or has been horribly misinformed. I've worked in the industry for 25+ years, I've read the research, and I know whereof I speak on this topic.

I don't have many posts. Generally, I'd rather be quiet. But this sort of nonsense requires a reply. Sorry if anyone is offended.

[Critters2]

48. I'm not offended. Thanks for inserting a little commonsense into the discussion! nt

[Obamanaut]

66. I watched Miz O sail over the handlebars of the scooter she was

riding. It seemed like I felt the thump when she hit the road. I talked with the neurosurgeon about such things as surgery to reduce the pressure, possibility of brain damage, DNR, and other stuff I don't ever want to talk about again.

He also told me that if she had not been wearing a helmet, she would not have made it as far as the ICU.

She was traveling at less than 25 mph.

[doc03]

8. No it's not just a distraction, to deny your chances aren't

better while wearing a helmet or seat belt in an accident is ridiculous. I never ride my bike even a hundred feet without my helmet. I'm not saying you can't get killed with a helmet on but your chances are much better. I'm sure you can give some examples where a rider was killed because of a helmet. People have made the same arguments for decades about seat belts. A guy was killed in the mall parking lot a couple weeks ago, he hit a curb and went down, his head popped like a cantaloupe. Every week someone gets killed on a bike locally and 9 times out of ten they weren't wearing a helmet. I live right on a very popular motorcycle road and I can sit on my front porch on a Saturday and see hundreds of motorcycles pass my house. I would say at least 90% of Harley riders don't wear helmets. It's just the opposite with people on Goldwings, BMWs or other bikes. If you want to live up to the tough guy Harley image that's fine with me, knock yourself out. Just because the accident was caused by some jackass not using a turn signal doesn't make you any less dead.

[Johonny]

13. dead is dead

regardless of how the death occurred. To the dead it really no longer matters who fault it was.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

20. I'm sure it matters to the guy driving the pick-up truck.

He has to live with the fact he was involved in(probably through no fault of his own) killing some macho douche-bag who refused to wear a helmet.

Turn signal or no turn-signal, I find it hard to believe a defensive driver couldn't have avoided such an accident. Pick-ps with campers don't change directions THAT fast and without some telegraphing. Most likely, the Harley was doing a higher speed overtake relative to the pick-up.

Sorry if I sound a little callous but I can't even count the times I've been passed in my truck by some douche-bag on a bike at 25-40 MPH differential and thought what a tragedy it would have been for all involved if I got a bug up my ass to change lanes at the wrong/right time.

If you are going to pass a truck, approach, signal, try to make eye contact, keep the differential low enough so you can brake if needed and leave a wide birth as possible.

[yellowcanine]

31. nit to pick - that would be "berth"; "birth" - ers are the nuts on Lou Dobbs.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

34. LOL. It crossed my mind when I wrote it but I never changed it.

I tend to give birthers a wide berth. Really wide.

[Johonny]

35. The people in the ER call them Donor Cycles for a reason

and I feel your pain on this.

[yellowcanine]

38. Ouch. I ride one of those - actually I ride a cruiser. The real donor cycles are the sport bikes.

Those guys really scare me. Particularly when I am on my cruiser toodling along at 65mph and they blow by me at 100+ mph. Now THAT's scary.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

42. I don't understand how anybody can find those things comfortable for more than five minutes.

I've been looking into starting to ride, checking out a variety of bikes one of which was the old Ducati ST2, which is a sport/touring bike. I was thinking that something with fairings might be nice, because where I live there's going to be at least a twenty minute freeway journey to get to the twisties. The seating position isn't too bad, but it's too far forward and, to be quite frank, with the engine running it makes me feel like I'm going to poop my pants. And that's while it's standing still.

[yellowcanine]

58. I would recommend a mid size cruiser, 1000 -1300 cc. Big enough to keep from

being blown off the road but still nimble enough to enjoy a winding road. Also big enough to put on some decent sized saddle bags and do some touring without getting so tired. Probably not big enough to tour 2 up comfortably however. Get a Goldwing if you want to do that.

[RaleighNCDUer]

9. The point is, with the limited (and typically half-assed) reporting

even putting "no helmet" in the headline, it is laying the blame on the rider, not the driver who may or may not have signaled his turn, and at the least did not see the rider beside him as he started to turn across the lane.

Cause of death may (or may not) have been no helmet, but the REAL issue is the cause of the ACCIDENT.

[yellowcanine]

14. Bikers (and I am one) accept the risk of dumbass drivers who don't signal

That is why anyone without a death wish takes a Motorcycle Safety Training Course and learns to ride defensively - the first step of which is wearing a DOT or better yet, Snell approved helmet.

I don't know whether the guy had his turn signal on or not but a biker coming up behind a slow moving vehicle with a trailer approaching a possible left hand turn opportunity had better be watching for the vehicle to do just that. The rider is now dead - it means little as to who was at fault as far as he is concerned. The point is if he had been riding defensively he just might be alive.


The data IS clear that helmets save lives. The people who collect the best data are the NHTSA and the insurance industry. Here is what they say.

http://www.iii.org/media/hottopics/insurance/motorcycle/?table_sort_739024=5

[gratuitous]

15. Defensive driving is the key

I prefer my cycles without noisy, smelly, internal combustibles, but I know for a fact that the signal doesn't turn a vehicle, the wheels do. I take note of whether a vehicle has its signal on or not, but the lion's share of my attention in a potential turn situation is on the vehicle's front tire. I haven't seen one turn yet without the wheel turning first.

[snooper2]

33. Thanks for posting correct response- now I don't have too :)

:hi:

passing somebody on your bike is one of the most dangerous things you can do....

[yellowcanine]

40. Not to mention that it is often illegal and always unwise to pass on the left in that situation.

Through an intersection or where there is a side road going off to the left. In the latter case you are actually supposed to pass on the RIGHT if a vehicle is slowing down to turn and there is room to safely pass on the right. Intersections are a little trickier of course. If you don't know whether the vehicle is turning right or left you are pretty much screwed unless you can guess correctly in time to make your move. Point is that with defensive riding you shouldn't be having to make such choices.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

43. If the news reports are to be believed...

...then the driver of the truck slowed and signaled his turn. If that's the case there's no excuse for what this guy did, especially if he was riding formation with others. If that's the case it's lucky he didn't get anybody else killed. On the other hand, the media reports may very well be bullshit. I've been in the situation of having been involved in this sort of accident and then seeing the bullshit media reports, so I'm going to withhold judgement.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

37. Why lay blame on the driver and not the guy who hit him from behind?

Defensive driving (and riding) 101: You must assume at all times that the vehicle in front of you may:

1) Make an unsignaled turn or lane change, or another similar maneuver.

2) Suffer equipment failure such as a tire blowout or stall.

3) Need to make an evasive maneuver such as a swerve or hard braking to avoid a road hazard which you cannot see.

4) May not see you either because you are in his or her blind spot or because he or she failed to make a proper visual check before performing a lane change or turn.

These are just a few of the reasons why passing is very dangerous, why it is prohibited in many places, and why you must be extremely careful when performing a passing maneuver in places where it is permitted.

[yellowcanine]

41. Yes the overtaking vehicle usually bears at least some of the responsibility for a collision in this

situation. Signals or no signals. My guess is that if it can be shown that there was no signal - tough without an eyewitness or evidence that the signal was not working - that an accident investigator would assess contributory negligence on both drivers.

[michreject]

11. Bullshit

They're hot, heavy and reduce vision.

[yellowcanine]

16. Maybe so but they do save lives so it is not bs. Link here.

http://www.iii.org/media/hottopics/insurance/motorcycle/?table_sort_739024=5

And I wear a XXXL full helmet with face shield. I may have a large hard head but I haven't noticed that it is heavy - I see fine - I haven't missed anything yet riding more than 20,000 miles over the past three years in all kinds of conditions - city traffic, multilane highways, four lane highways with uncontrolled intersections, pouring rain, at night, and in bright sunshine. I ride nearly every day for 10 months of the year 45 miles each way to work. And I am a near sighted old fart with progressive lens eyeglasses. What is bs is the claim that helmets reduce vision significantly. The people who say that have no data. I have yet to hear of a biker who had an accident because his vision was obstructed by a helmet. Yes it can get hot when I am sitting at a light on a 90+ degree day but I put the face shield up. Other than that, I have never had a problem with the helmet being hot.

You may dislike helmets but that doesn't change the facts.

I would add on the sight thing - you aren't going to see so well if a bird or insect flies into an eye or your face gets hit with dust blowing off a dump truck either - add a face shield to the helmet.

[michreject]

44. I wear a small bennie

No snaps for a shield.

I wouldn't wear one anyway.

Let those who ride, decide.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

50. OK, I'm going to take issue with that.

Back when I was doing my touring bicycling, I used to ride without eyewear protection some of the time. That stopped the first time I went down a road through a creek bottom and got blinded by gnats. The simple fact of the matter is that if you're not in control of your vehicle, be it bicycle, motorcycle, or car, then you are a threat to other users of the road. I'm actually of the opinion that mandated eye protection is more important than helmets. If you don't wear a helmet you will probably only injure yourself, but if you lose control of your vehicle due to being unable to see you are a threat to others as well.

[michreject]

51. I wear sun glasses or amber tinted glasses if it's dark.

Always have something over my eyes. I have a windshield too. I have a Heritage Classic.

[yellowcanine]

54. Eyeglasses can blow off and most will not take an impact. If no face shied, goggles should be worn.

A windshield does not do it either. No side protection and unless you have a very tall windshield you are looking over the top of the windshield. Sorry but Cessna is correct about the need for eye protection. If you are riding in a area where there are a lot of June beetles or Japanese beetles, not to mention birds, you are taking a risk.

[anigbrowl]

22. waaaaah

and if you hit your head on the ground or another vehicle, they'll stop you cracking your skull. This complaint is so much bullshit. I've worn a full-face helmet (the worst of all worlds, according to your criteria) for my whole riding career and not once have I ever felt it got in the way of my safe riding. In the two accidents I've been in I was damn grateful to have lid on...along with gloves, jackets and boots.

If you want to get scraped off the road riding without protection, that's your business. But don't expect me to pay for it, or care.

[michreject]

45. You go down doing 80 MPH

and there isn't a whole lot left anyway. Helmet is useless.

[Robb]

47. Dress for the crash, not the ride.

All the gear, all the time.

Wear the right stuff and you'll walk away sometimes. Don't and you never will.

Easy as that.

[michreject]

49. I wear some protective clothing

Cowboy boots, levi's, leather vest (with my "HOG" patch), fingerless gloves, sun glasses and my skull cap.

[ThomWV]

53. I've gone down going considerably faster than that without serious injury

and without a helmet too. You lose a lot of skin and it hurts like hell but you can go down at high speed and not break anything - and there's no reason to ask me how I know. I also know its quite possible to go down at relatively low speed and break lots of bones. No need to ask me how I know about that one either.

[michreject]

64. Glad to see you survived

Or did you? :evilgrin:

[yellowcanine]

55. Not true actually. Depends how you go down. Hit an immovable object head on and yes you are

likely correct. Plus there is the question of mitigating the damage regardless of the speed. A helmet + armored clothing will go a long way. Get ejected from a bike at 25 mph without a helmet and your chances are not that good. Low speed crashes happen also.

[Mr Rabble]

79. I crashed less than a month ago at well over 100mph. Im still here.

I am a roadracer, and I crashed at over 100mph on July 3rd. I was wearing full leathers, body armor, gloves, boots, and of course a helmet.

I lost no skin.
I broke no bones.

I did sprain my ankle, and I was bruised.

Without my safety gear, I would not be writing this post.

Anyone trying to argue that helmets do more harm than good should be put into the same category with climate change deniers, and flat earthers.

Im not saying that helmets should be lawfully mandated- I think it should be up to the rider. What I am saying is that they will save your life. Period.

[michreject]

82. See my post 44 nt

[Hell Hath No Fury]

23. Today's helmets --

are relatively light, have excellent visual range, and can be cooled with vents. I am a very small woman who wears a full face helmet, and I can see and hear everything I need to drive safely.

Sorry, but those are just excuses for not wanting to wear a helmet.

I pesonally have no problem with someone not wearing a helmet -- my Mom was the recipient of a tissue transplant from a dead motorcyclist -- there are plenty of people out there just like her who need organ and tissue transplants. Gotta keep the supply going.

[yellowcanine]

29. Well there is that. But I still think the costs to society outweigh any "benefits"

So yes, I am in favor of both mandatory helmet use and seat belts. The craziest law is in Delaware, where they have to have a helmet but the rider does not have to wear it!

[michreject]

46. If I'm dead

I have no problem donating my useful organs.

[madmom]

10. This same thing happened to my hubby, only it was a van. He was getting ready

to pass it when it made a left turn in front of him. That was in 1984, to this day he walks with a limp. Luckily they were on country roads and not going highway speed.

Edited to add: he was not wearing a helmet and the only "head" injury he received was road rash on his face, the damage was mostly to limbs.

[yellowcanine]

17. If he had been wearing a full helmet his pretty face might have been spared.

My brother flipped his scooter on a rain slick road and "bit" the road. He too would have all of his own teeth and no face scars if he had been wearing a full helmet. After the scooter accident he got a motorcycle AND a full helmet.

[madmom]

21. His face scars were the least of his problems. He had two broken legs , a broken

hand, a broken foot and severe lacerations on his left knee. He hit a street sign and broke it off, the bike ended up in three pieces. The few scares he still has are covered with a mustache and beard.

[yellowcanine]

26. I guess at that point I would just be happy to be alive.

[Obamanaut]

68. My post #66 above, speaks about Miz O wearing a helmet. Even so,

at under 25 mph - three separate brain bleeds, cracked cheek bone, one broken collar bone, the other collar bone displaced, five ribs broken in nine places, broken wrist, road rash.

She now has balance problems, some short term memory loss, had to relearn many things - rehab hospital said what we would experience together would be similar to after effects of a stroke.

We believe in helmets. Gave hers to the motorcycle safety class at a nearby AFB. Many young military members remove their helmets (required on base) as soon as they leave the base.

[melm00se]

12. when I first started

riding, i would go helmetless where it was legal and helmeted where it wasn't.

I had a friend of mine ask me "is the ground somehow softer in states that don't require helmets?"

I put on a helmet and have never gone riding without one...

if I ever wanted it more cemented in my head, I looked at this helmet:



and I remember that this was worn by Dave Swisher who, at last count, has north of 1 million miles under his belt.

[rockymountaindem]

25. There's a picture that's worth more than 1000 words n/t

[Spazito]

32. Very powerful reminder for sure! n/t

[timeforpeace]

24. Thank goodness there are issues that just go on and on and transcend rational discourse.

If we didn't care if they kill themselves the issue would go away. So, if they don't care, why should we? Issue over. MoveOn.Org

[yellowcanine]

28. Problem is we all pay in higher insurance and taxes to take care of the medical costs

and death benefits for the riders who chose not to wear a helmet.

[jimmyflint]

61. lol, this response always makes me laugh

I believe your statement is correct and I do wear a helmet. However, people engage in a myriad of dangerous activities. Are laws against all dangerous activities soon to follow? Will the obese,smokers,drinkers,unprotected sex,poor diet,lack of physical activity laws soon follow? Those are just a few examples of risky behavior. There are somethings in my life I don't want the nanny.GOV or any of you to decide for me especially when red meat,sex,Bourbon, and Padron cigars are involved.

[yellowcanine]

76. We should do the things which can be done. Seat belt laws and helmet laws are relatively easy to

enforce. Eating habits, sex habits, exercise, not so much. Plus, helmet laws and seat belt laws are relatively easy to define - people either comply or not. Eating habits, sex habits, exercise are a matter of degree - not so easily defined as to what is acceptable or not.

[Marr]

30. The question is not "did the RV have a turn signal on".

The question is, "why wasn't Rossmeyer driving defensively?". People do stupid things-- especially when they're driving. If you're on a motorcycle, you should assume every driver around is escaping from a psyche ward. Anyone who'd go around without a helmet is not making their safety a priority.

[ThomWV]

52. I presume you never pass a slow vehicle. Is that correct?

The fact that he wasn't wearing a helmet did nothing to cause the accident. It is a point to consider if you are asking why he died, but I didn't ask that and didn't imply that it was a question - quite the opposite actually.

[yellowcanine]

56. If a vehicle in front of me is slowing down approaching a possible left turn I am

not going to pass it on the left, no, not if I can avoid it. And if I can't avoid it I do not have control of my vehicle shame on me. Someone stops dead in the road without any warning - maybe I have an excuse or maybe I was not maintaining a safe distance or not paying attention?

[Marr]

73. Very rarely, as a matter of fact.

And never if they have an option to turn left coming up.

[Joe Fields]

36. Chances are that when you have a motorcycle wreck on a highway,

it doesn't matter whether you are or aren't wearing a helmet.

Having said that,I am a firm believer in helmet laws, because if the helmet law saves just one life, it's worth it. You have to be a complete idiot to ride a bike without a helmet.

[old mark]

59. I see lots of people without helmets every day, as if they were riding in a car.

The worst mistake PA ever made - other than electing Rendell Governor - was to repeal the helmet law.
It was nothing but pure politics.

It evidently has been great for organ donations.
mark

[robdogbucky]

62. Cyclist's Head Run Over By Truck, Saved by Helmet

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/05/cyclists_head_r.php

Let those who ride, commit suicide.

That's what I always say. If only they were the only ones paying for it when they do.

When commuting to the office for a couple of years on a busy morning freeway in the Bay Area, the only accidents I saw were: One of a phone-using pickup truck-driving speeding jerk, who had just changed lanes at high speed and did not notice the traffic stopped in the lane ahead of him, causing about a 10-car chain rear-ender. Right in front of me. And then 3 very bad motorcycle accidents by lane-splitters. The physics of the situation just horrify me.

Is lane-splitting legal where everyone else lives? We do have a helmet law here in California, but lane-splitting is legal in conditions where traffic is congested or slow, as I understand it. I have the understanding that lane-splitting is not legal in many states. I am happy to be corrected. It seems on the face of it to be a dangerous practice, knowing how inattentive many drivers are.

I always marveled at how the lane-splitters here in the Bay Area are playing Russian Roulette by doing it though. One must realize that most drivers don't signal when changing lanes, many do not even look. One gets lulled into passive driving habits in monotonous heavy freeway traffic and I can see how any driver can make a lane change without thinking, "What if there is a lane-splitter that has decided to bolt ahead?" I know that I try to be vigilant and yet I have found the surprise of a lane-splitter appearing out of nowhere when I was going to change lanes in heavy traffic.

I just don't see how doing it can be that productive when it only takes one inattentive driver to ruin a motorcyclist's day.


Just my dos centavos,

robdogbucky

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

60. Yeah, that's part of a public awareness campaign.

They do it with seatbelts too.

Somebody dies and they weren't wearing their seatbelt, the news mentions it.

Somebody survives and they were wearing their seatbelt, the news mentions it.

It's got nothing to do with responsibility for the crash.

[ceveritt]

63. People who do not ride motorcycles really should refrain from making uninformed ironclad ...

... statements about those of us who do ride. And motorcyclists who are unfamiliar with other segments of the sport should likewise hold their counsel.

1. yellowcanine: "Sportbike riders are the real donor cycles."

Please do not tar all of us with that particular brush. It is neither fair nor logical, and demonstrates a serious lack of knowledge. Yes, there are irresponsible riders. That does not mean, however, that we all are.

2. michreject: "You go down at 80 mph ... helmet is useless."

That is a lie, plain and simple. MotoGP rider Shinya Nakano came off at +/- 200 mph at Mugello in 2004. Apart from being battered and bruised (what else would one expect?) he had NO injuries. You can find the video on YouTube.

"(Helmets) are hot, heavy and reduce vision."

More nonsense. Modern helmets have ample ventilation; they're also remarkably light; and the notion that helmets reduce vision is a baseless canard that has been proven false for more than a generation.

I really do not want to get in a pissing match with anyone at DU. I'd like to think we're all in this for a common cause. But I will not sit mute while some of these falsehoods and misconceptions are thrown about as if they were God's own truth. They've no more basis in reality than the birthers' arguments.

Again, apologies if anyone is offended. But I've ridden for just shy of 40 years, and written about motorcycles and motorcycling for 25+. I might not know much about a lot of things. However, this is a topic I do know intimately, through research and personal experience.

[IDemo]

65. Thanks for speaking up, ceveritt

I have ridden for over 30 years and have always worn a helmet. The myths about helmets: that they are no safer or even more dangerous than unhelmeted riding, were busted long ago.

[ceveritt]

70. IDemo

Well, shucks. You are welcome. And thanks for ... well, ... your thanks. You are most kind.

[Divine Discontent]

69. very fair minded post expressing your thoughts on others comments!

this is the way to respond, folks!

I think his death is one of those deaths where, if you are riding a motorcycle, you risk the person turning on you at any time - there's not much to do - he more than likely would have died even with a helmet - without one it was fast and hopefully just fast and short pain.

rip to him!

[ceveritt]

71. Divine Discontent

Gloryosky. Please, sir or madam; you will turn my head.

Thank you too for the kind words. Much obliged.

[Divine Discontent]

77. you're welcome, and thank you. :) eom

[yellowcanine]

78. Sorry but the data support my statement re "sport bikes" though I should have said "supersports".

Of course even all supersport riders aren't irresponsible. But as a group, they are far more likely to be involved in fatal accidents than other types of motorcycles. And that is all my statement implied. I WAS a little sloppy in the description - should have said "supersport bikes" I was NOT talking about sport touring bikes and the like, though sport bike riders also have a higher fatality rate than cruisers and touring bikes. But it is the supersport bikes, not cruisers, touring bikes or sport touring bikes, that are blasting by me on the capital beltway at 100 + mph and doing wheelies on same capital beltway.

Here is the link to the data and the pertinent paragraph pasted in:
http://www.iii.org/media/hottopics/insurance/motorcycle/?table_sort_739024=5

By Type of Motorcycle:
According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), riders of “supersports” motorcycles have driver death rates per 10,000 registered vehicles nearly four times higher than for drivers of other types of motorcycles. Supersports have more horsepower than conventional motorcycles and can reach speeds of up to 190 mph. They are built on racing platforms and are modified for street use. The bikes are popular with riders under the age of 30. The bikes are light-weight and aerodynamically styled. In 2005, these bikes registered 22.5 driver deaths per 10,000 registered vehicles compared with 10.7 deaths for other sport models (related to supersports but do not have the acceleration, stability and handling of supersports). Standards and cruisers and touring bikes, with upright handlebars, have rates of 5.7 and 6.5 per 10,000 vehicles. In 2005, supersports accounted for 9 percent of registrations, and standards and cruisers made up 51 percent of registrations. Among fatally injured drivers, the IIHS says that drivers of supersports were the youngest—with an average age of 27. Touring motorcycle drivers were the oldest, 51 years old. Fatally injured drivers of other sports models were 34, on average; standard and cruiser drivers were 44 years old. Speeding and driver error were bigger factors in supersport and sport fatal crashes. Speed was cited in 57 percent of supersport riders’ fatal crashes in 2005 and in 46 percent for sport model riders. Speed was a factor in 27 of fatal crashes of riders of cruisers and standards, and for 22 percent of riders of touring models.

[ceveritt]

81. yellow canine

Sorry, boss. Your exact quote was, "The real donor cycles are the sport bikes." There is no wiggle room in that simple declarative sentence. As I objected, you are using a far too broad a brush to tar us all. The data might support your statement for some sport bike riders, but not all. That was my point.

I know the data/information. I simply object to such sweeping generalizations that are not true. Still, thanks for the additional information.

[Jakes Progress]

75. Sold my BMW R75/6 thirty years ago

when I had a kid. One day I dodged a dodge and while picking myself up from the ditch, I decided my kid should grow up with a dad.

I wore a helmet and gear always. You will come off a bike sometime and it doesn't take much imagination to figure what happens when you hit the pavement at even school zone speeds. Those who ride with sandals and shorts have no sense and no imagination.

Best advice I had about road riding was that the car is always right. You will never win an argument with a car or truck with a bike in a crash, never. Watch every single vehicle like it is going to try to kill you. Don't wait for signals and don't watch the car - watch the wheels. You will see them approaching a center line long before you will register that the car is moving.

Well. My kid is grown, and I'm getting the itch again. But then, there are those really cool grandkids.

[cloudbase]

83. Did he have loud pipes?