FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[What's Burning?]

ONONDAGA, N.Y. (AP) — A man riding bareheaded on one of about 550 motorcycles in an anti-helmet law rally lost control of his cycle, went over his handlebars, hit his head on the pavement and died, police said Sunday.

The motorcyclist, 55-year-old Philip A. Contos, likely would have survived the accident if he'd been wearing a helmet, state troopers said.

The accident happened Saturday afternoon in Onondaga, a town in central New York near Syracuse.

Contos was driving a 1983 Harley-Davidson on a helmet protest ride organized by the Onondaga chapter of American Bikers Aimed Towards Education, or ABATE, troopers said. The organization states that it encourages the voluntary use of helmets but opposes mandatory helmet laws.

Contos, of Parish, hit his brakes, and his motorcycle fishtailed and went out of control, flipping him over the handlebars, police said. He was pronounced dead at a hospital.

The statewide president of ABATE, Thomas Alton, said Contos wasn't a member of ABATE but was a motorcyclist with 30 years of experience.

"He was one of the public who wanted to join in support of helmet freedom," Alton said.

Participants in the ride, which the Onondaga chapter has held annually for 11 years on the July 4th weekend, were told it was their choice whether to wear helmets, Alton said, and some wore them while others didn't.

"I don't believe we've ever had a fatality on any group run of any kind," he said.

The ride, on a hot, sunny afternoon, was about 30 miles long from Syracuse to Lake Como near Cortland.

No other motorcycles were involved in the accident, Alton said.

"An officer of my group said there may have been equipment difficulties for the rider," he said. "Apparently he was riding a motorcycle that wasn't his usual one. Some vehicles have different quirks."

While mandatory helmet laws are a major issue for ABATE, the group also lobbies for numerous other issues, including adding motorcycle awareness to driver's permit exams and fighting motorcycle-only police checkpoints.

"Awareness is our first issue," Alton said. "A large percentage of motorcyclists killed on the highway have been because a car turned left in front of it."

New York is one of 20 states that require all motorcycle riders to wear helmets. Lobbying by motorcyclist groups has led some states to repeal helmet laws.

A helmet that meets federal standards reduces the wearer's chances of being killed in an accident by more than 40 percent, said safety consultant Jim Hedlund, of the Governors Highway Safety Association.

Annual motorcycle fatalities have more than doubled since the late 1990s, peaking in 2008 at 5,312 deaths but dropping to 3,615 last year, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says.

Pennsylvania is a no helmet required state. I find it unbelievable that a law like that is allowed to coexist along with a law stating motorists have to wear seat belts.

[darwin dali]

[myownalias]

Pennsylvania is a no helmet required state. I find it unbelievable that a law like that is allowed to coexist along with a law stating motorists have to wear seat belts.

It's the same in Kansas; and I completely agree with you! Back home in the UK; it's a strict law that a helmet needs to be worn; bikers can have their licence revoked for not wearing a helmet!

[acosmichippo]

[youtube]VdoFTbNltm4[/youtube]

In all seriousness, to fight for "adding motorcycle awareness to driver's permit exams" (presumably to make the road safer for motorcyclists), and ALSO against mandatory helmet laws (which would inherently make riding MORE dangerous) is just ridiculous. More safety's great as long as it's EVERYONE ELSE that has to accomodate YOU, right?

Then again, there are too many people on the earth as it is. If a few stupid motorcyclists want to remove themselves from the gene pool, it's fine with me.

[Jabberwocky]

I am in 2 minds over this. I think driving tests should be different. (I am on about in the UK here)
Just because I can reverse around a corner, do a parrallel park, and "turn the car around in the road using forward and reverse gears" does not mean that you can drive!!! I think everyone should be tested every few years, maybe depending on age or how you scored in your previous test to set the longevity of the period. However the driver is marked on road awareness and for want of a better word curtesy(spl) to other road users, as well as road sense.

How many times do you see a 70 year old granny doing about 20 miles an hour in a 60 zone? all the time, that would be an instant fail. If the driver feels that going at that speed is the fastest they can go safely then they have no right and must not be confident or competent to drive. I would also have middle lane hoggers publicly flogged.

However rant over.

People should be made more aware of motorcycles. However if I am sat on the motorway doing 70mph and a bike comes past me at 150mph and misses my wing mirror by about 2cm, one day they will clip my wing mirror and will end up as a bloody stain on the road, why would that be my fault as a car driver?!?!?

[darwin dali]

I am in 2 minds over this. I think driving tests should be different. (I am on about in the UK here)
Just because I can reverse around a corner, do a parrallel park, and "turn the car around in the road using forward and reverse gears" does not mean that you can drive!!! I think everyone should be tested every few years, maybe depending on age or how you scored in your previous test to set the longevity of the period. However the driver is marked on road awareness and for want of a better word curtesy(spl) to other road users, as well as road sense.

How many times do you see a 70 year old granny doing about 20 miles an hour in a 60 zone? all the time, that would be an instant fail. If the driver feels that going at that speed is the fastest they can go safely then they have no right and must not be confident or competent to drive. I would also have middle lane hoggers publicly flogged.

I'll volunteer for the

[Blinky McSquinty]

Wow, talk about a canditate for the Darwin Awards.

I work, pay taxes, and try to respect the laws. But if someone wishes to elect to ride a motorcycle without a helmet, why should any of my tax dollars go towards this individual when they crash?

It is their right to decide whether they ride with or without a helmet, but all are aware that by not wearing a helmet, their personal level of head protection is reduced, to the point where it could have made a difference. But if they choose to ride with a reduced level of protection, why should ambulances and fire trucks, paid by my taxes, be wasted on them? Especially if those same first responders missed a call involving a choking child because they were out taking care of some sod who didn't want a lid.

Naw, if a call comes in through 911, the first question that should be asked if they elected to wear the appropriate safety gear. If not, they have to find their own way, not waste taxpayers dollars just because they want to be stupid.

[FRAFPDD]

I am in 2 minds over this. I think driving tests should be different. (I am on about in the UK here)
Just because I can reverse around a corner, do a parrallel park, and "turn the car around in the road using forward and reverse gears" does not mean that you can drive!!! I think everyone should be tested every few years, maybe depending on age or how you scored in your previous test to set the longevity of the period. However the driver is marked on road awareness and for want of a better word curtesy(spl) to other road users, as well as road sense.

How many times do you see a 70 year old granny doing about 20 miles an hour in a 60 zone? all the time, that would be an instant fail. If the driver feels that going at that speed is the fastest they can go safely then they have no right and must not be confident or competent to drive. I would also have middle lane hoggers publicly flogged.

However rant over.

People should be made more aware of motorcycles. However if I am sat on the motorway doing 70mph and a bike comes past me at 150mph and misses my wing mirror by about 2cm, one day they will clip my wing mirror and will end up as a bloody stain on the road, why would that be my fault as a car driver?!?!?

I spent over a thousand pounds on temporary contract work at 18 to pay for my driving, i passed second time and what do i get? Insurace costs into the mid thousands, so what do i do? I walk or ride a bike everywhere like i have done my whole life.

Do you know why the insurance is so much? Its because stupid c***s that are priveleged enough to have their careless mothers and fathers pay not only for their car but their insurance, waste this blessing by acting like total dicks on the road and crashing. Two people i know have written of their cars at 19, two of my good mates who i tell are total dickwads were uncareful enough to bump into people. Its a joke, and me, whod be as good as goldwith such a priveledge of driving cant drive because these lot f*ck it up for me.

This does all come down to the driving test, i found it hard personally, i act confident when im not and i think it led my instructor to think i was being complacent at times when i made rookie errors on the day of the test i was nervous but as soon as im driving its fine. Theres also a load to take in, if your slightly to quick with the clutch going down or up the gears the car jumps and it takes your focus off the road users round you etc. Then theres how tight the roads are etc, i failed my first test for going or a gap which was not there, but what can i say? I blame Senna for that one....

That said the test might no be that stressing, but they do try and catch you out passively and they are strict as anything, another road user cuts you up, you fail. You get tailgated by some ignorant twat, you fail.

In terms of motorbikes the moment i passed cars i wanted to start on Bikes, but i havent been able to afford that. And im constantly told that ill get killed, which is a shame cause i know itd always be the fault of a car user if i did, as id be so so careful riding one.

[bud]

Heard about this, I thought in this day and age it would be compulsory in all US states to wear helmets for not only motorcyclists, but also for cyclists.

[The_Stig_Money]

Making a person wear a helment is dumb, but riding with out a helmet is dumber.

My family rides motorcycles ( excluding me ), it is the other drivers you have to worry about, so why not wear a helmet?

The only excuse I have heard was " I would rather be dead then a road rashed vegetable"

[Jabberwocky]

You got a $10 head then put it in a $10 helmet.

Fraf, I am not saying that all Bikers ride around thinking they are Ghostrider, but it is always the car driver that gets the blame. when it is not always the case that the car driver is at fault.

I lived in Cyprus for 4 years, and every crash that I saw or knew about if it was a Cypriot v a non Cypriot then it was always the non Cypriots fault. Admittedly about 10 -15 years ago there was even cases of the police moving the cars around so that it looked like it was the non cypriots fault before they police took the accident photos.

It strikes me that Car V Bikers is the same, always the cars fault.

[bud]

I don't see what's dumb about having a law for compulsory helmet use, it's law here for both motorcyclists and cyclists to wear one. It's for your own good.

[andrew]

Making a person wear a helment is dumb

Yes, something that saves lives is dumb.

I ended up on the ground years ago whislt riding my bike, taking a chunk out of my helmet in the process. Ended up in the doctors later that day to get checked and told I had a minor concussion. Told it could have been worse if I didn't have a helmet. They may look naff and are pretty uncomfortable unless you have your hair cut very short but it's better than ending up dead or in the hospital where you will contract MRSA and wake up dead one morning.

[Juliet P]

I am in 2 minds over this. I think driving tests should be different. (I am on about in the UK here)
Just because I can reverse around a corner, do a parrallel park, and "turn the car around in the road using forward and reverse gears" does not mean that you can drive!!! I think everyone should be tested every few years, maybe depending on age or how you scored in your previous test to set the longevity of the period. However the driver is marked on road awareness and for want of a better word curtesy(spl) to other road users, as well as road sense.

How many times do you see a 70 year old granny doing about 20 miles an hour in a 60 zone? all the time, that would be an instant fail. If the driver feels that going at that speed is the fastest they can go safely then they have no right and must not be confident or competent to drive. I would also have middle lane hoggers publicly flogged.

I'll volunteer for the

I sit in the middle lane and I refuse to apologise for it. If you're in a car on a road with three lanes with a heavy volume of lorries/caravans etc. in the slow lane then the most sensible place to be is in the middle. Anyone going faster than me (i.e. breaking the speed limit - as I tend to stick at 70) can go into the right hand lane (UK) to overtake if they want.

[racechick]

I am in 2 minds over this. I think driving tests should be different. (I am on about in the UK here)
Just because I can reverse around a corner, do a parrallel park, and "turn the car around in the road using forward and reverse gears" does not mean that you can drive!!! I think everyone should be tested every few years, maybe depending on age or how you scored in your previous test to set the longevity of the period. However the driver is marked on road awareness and for want of a better word curtesy(spl) to other road users, as well as road sense.

How many times do you see a 70 year old granny doing about 20 miles an hour in a 60 zone? all the time, that would be an instant fail. If the driver feels that going at that speed is the fastest they can go safely then they have no right and must not be confident or competent to drive. I would also have middle lane hoggers publicly flogged.

I'll volunteer for the

I sit in the middle lane and I refuse to apologise for it. If you're in a car on a road with three lanes with a heavy volume of lorries/caravans etc. in the slow lane then the most sensible place to be is in the middle. Anyone going faster than me (i.e. breaking the speed limit - as I tend to stick at 70) can go into the right hand lane (UK) to overtake if they want.

Its an overtaking lane! Dangerous to hog it.