Comments by "SmallSpoonBrigade" (@SmallSpoonBrigade) on "Anti-Helmet Atty Dies in Motorcycle Accident w/o Helmet" video.

@HAASgoggles There would be constitutional issues with that. Especially given the lack of protection that the victims of accidents get when it comes to deciding when it's time to start harvesting. In some cases, it's the same doctor representing both the donor as well as the recipients and the standards to decide if you're dead enough may or may not match with what the donor wants. It's why it's important to have the donor information in a living will, not simply attached to your driver's license.
7
Even more so if you've got a rider riding on the back with you. A hard stop, even if you don't crash, is likely to lead to heads bonking together.
2
That's the thing there, helmets protect against a lot, I've been hit by bits of gravel in the neck. It's literally the only part of my body that isn't covered by gear, and it hurt, a lot.
2
This is not true. The main cause of death in a car crash, for the occupants, is being ejected from the car. It is extremely well established that the seatbelts do save lives. As far as the laws, just look at this case, people won't wear their seat belts if there isn't a fine associated with it.
2
He loved crashing his motorcycle without a helmet? Damn, that's hardcore.
1
And if you're just injured, the rest of us get to pick up the tab on that. Which, honestly, with a car crash you're far more likely to be seriously injured than killed. And I shudder to think what the airbag does if you're not restrained to the seat when it pops off.
1
How is this any different from the various other safety laws that exist to protect the public from having to deal with the consequences of people not making the minimum effort to protect themselves?
1
And when a mishap or crash just affects you, then you can have that choice. If emergency responders and witnesses could just choose not to be impacted with it, making it a personal responsibility choice would be far more reasonable. Allowing those stupid brains on the half shell style helmets is beyond asinine. If they're only going to require a half of a helmet, it really should be the bottom half that you're forced to have.
1
@HAASgoggles I've got the terms laid out in my living will and to what the precise situation is where they can have whatever they can use. I don't believe that the organ donor program on the drivers license gives them anything other than carte blanch to do what they like. It doesn't say what you personally consider to be death for the purpose of organ donation.
1
@Primalxbeast if they've genuinely determined you to be brain dead, there's no point to anaesthesia as when a healthy human that's asleep can't feel any pain. One with so little brain activity that it can't be detected isn't going to feel anything, You do have the option of requiring cardiac death which is an even harder standard to screw up. But, at some point, either you trust the process our you don't and it's up to us all to make the decision for ourselves while it's possible.
1
Why not? Hospitals and emergency workers are legally obligated to provide at least basic care. And that is extremely expensive in the case where there's a head injury involved. If we're forced to pay, then it seems reasonable to enforce basic safety requirements. There's a pretty decent chance that even with helmets, that motorcycles will be banned before too long due to how hard it is to get AI cars to deal with them.
1
Only because the state ultimately chose not to require the helmet. The amount of insurance coverage in order to not wear a helmet is ridiculous. Head injuries, even relatively minor ones, are expensive to treat. That $10k insurance requirement can easily be run through in a day of intensive care.
1