Comments on: Ben Roethlisberger Motorcycle Accident

By: Wheelstand

Wheelstand — Fri, 23 Jun 2006 22:08:19 +0000

Quote from C.J. Luke:
“Personally, I think “helmet laws” are stupid. ”

I am not one for laws designed to protect me from me. However, this moronic quote merits an intelligent response. I support helmet and seatbelt laws ONLY because they help prevent taxpayers from footing unneccessary medical bills caused by uninsured/under-insured dummies who crack their skulls and need $100,000+ in medical expenses that could’ve be prevented by wearing a helmet.. The only way I’d be in favor of repealing helmet laws is if the helmet-less rider has a HUGE medical insurance policy. Either way, preventable head injuries cause medical insurance rates to go up, insured or not.
Free-basers? Hilarious. It’s “base-jumpers” and you can’t compare a thrill seeker with someone who is simply using a mode of transportation in a safe-as-possible manner.

By: Biker Betty

Biker Betty — Thu, 15 Jun 2006 06:31:59 +0000

I like what James said. Why when a bike crash makes the paper does everyone come out of the woodwork and decide what WE should wear and do!! And then they call us names. I do choose to wear all the gear, but that doesn’t make me better then the one that doesn’t. That is their choice. I do like that the odds are more in my favor for survival in a crash.

By: coho

coho — Thu, 15 Jun 2006 05:50:49 +0000

I had never heard of him until he fell off his bike.
He chose not to wear a helmet (which, apparently, he wears at work every day). He got a helmet-preventable head injury.

Dumbass, serves him right.

By: GenWaylaid

GenWaylaid — Wed, 14 Jun 2006 05:59:00 +0000

Now Ben can put all the money he saved by not buying a helmet into buying a new head.

Surely, in the interest of fairness, these sorts of accidents shouldn’t drive insurance rates up for ALL riders. Instead of mandatory helmet laws, we should have motorcycle policies that provide coverage only if you’re wearing safety gear at the time. If you’re not, the insurance company cuts the coverage to the legal minimum, hikes the deductible way up, or both. Some riders may need this explained to them with pictures, but it would at least be in line with auto policies that give discounts for safety features and medical policies that penalize for costly lifestyle choices like smoking. That way those riders who are determined to go helmetless or are terminally stupid would bear the entire burden of their unsafe behavior themselves.

By: hoyt

hoyt — Tue, 13 Jun 2006 23:34:02 +0000

lots of topics coming out over this discussion –

1. press – their b.s. continues to exist in the depths of tabloids

“that’s not news!”

Personally, I think photographing the older woman driver was lame.

CJ has a good point in his first post, too….the press would have spun it any other way if he had a helmet

2. Ben may have been able to walk away had he had a helmet – which would have saved 7 hours of surgery…. hours of a medical staff’s time should have been spent elsewhere.

3. rider awareness – not saying he wasn’t aware. Instead, this incident pointed out possible factors that make bad drivers worse (I will hopefully be more aware of cager’s vision being obstructed – For example, looking out for driver’s vision being obstructed by shadows caused by an overpass – even if that wasn’t one of the culprits to this accident)

4. was that sales guy justifiying why they gave Ben a Hayabusa ?

Is there a responsibility of the motrcycle industry to not sell bikes of this caliber to “first-time buyers” ? Legally no, but it probably would help the overall industry (buy a real 1st bike, then come in and trade-up if/when you want the higher performance bikes).

I’ve seen young a salesman trying to sell a GSXR1000 to a guy that said he was shopping for his 1st bike.

5. Stricter driver’s testing

6, Routine driver’s testing (not just for seniors)