Delaware roads: Crash kills motorcyclist in Hockessin
Accident is state's first motorcycle fatality in '10

A 41-year-old man was killed after crashing with a car while riding his motorcycle in Hockessin on Tuesday afternoon.

The first motorcycle fatality in Delaware for 2010 occurred just before 3 p.m. along Lancaster Pike at Yorklyn Road.

John McGrellis of Hockessin was traveling on a 1995 Harley-Davidson Sportster when he struck a 1999 Toyota Camry driven by Win Oo, 36, of Wilmington.

Police said Oo was southbound and turning right into a Wawa (convenience store) parking lot when McGrellis tried to pass on the right shoulder. McGrellis was sideswiped, hit the curb and flew off the motorcycle. McGrellis, who was not wearing a helmet, suffered a fatal head injury, police said. McGrellis also was driving with a revoked license, they said.

In 2009, half of the 14 fatal motorcycle crashes in Delaware happened in August and Sept. according to OHS.

Pictures here (http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20100602/NEWS01/6020332/-1/updates/Motorcyclist-killed-in-crash-is-identified)

Very true. You can't fix stupid but sad non the less.

Yea, read about that this morning, guessing the guy turning right didn't signal and the biker was not waiting to see which way he was going and paid for it. It still bugs me that DE does not enforce helmet laws, this guy could still be alive.

Well, he was riding with no license, wasn't wearing a helmet as required by law, and certainly wasn't thinking when he decided to break the law again and pass a slowing vehicle in the right lane on the shoulder. Sounds like if this accident hadn't been his last, he would have had at least one more.

Sad to hear it. Very bad decision making on his part. I'm sure the driver feels like hell too.

wasn't wearing a helmet as required by law

It is legal in DE to not wear a helmet, that needs to change, sometimes people NEED to be told what to do for their own safety, just like seat belts.

'Eh...maybe it is just me...but I don't feel sorry or sad when stupid people do stupid things and voluntarily take themselves out of the gene pool. *shrug*

If that makes me a bad man...so be it.

Hey, I always say "Stupid people die all the time", ...or as the phrase goes, "Natural Selection"


KM

It is legal in DE to not wear a helmet, that needs to change, sometimes people NEED to be told what to do for their own safety, just like seat belts.

I strongly disagree with the people NEED to be told what to do for their own safety.The thought of every thing I have to do already because the government tells me so.I have sense enough to KNOW I need to wear a helmet and do most of the time.I am over 18 and responsible for my own safety,the government is not my Mommy and needs to leave people alone. I'll worry about my own welfare and let every body else do the same.The government already steals more with a pencil from me and every one else than Jesse James ,Billy the kid and every other outlaw I can name did with a gun,which by the way they don't want us to have either in the name of safety.I don't NEED protected from myself any more than I am already. Children need protected, not adults.Rant over,I'm moving on.

I strongly disagree with the people NEED to be told what to do for their own safety.The thought of every thing I have to do already because the government tells me so.I have sense enough to KNOW I need to wear a helmet and do most of the time.I am over 18 and responsible for my own safety,the government is not my Mommy and needs to leave people alone. I'll worry about my own welfare and let every body else do the same.The government already steals more with a pencil from me and every one else than Jesse James ,Billy the kid and every other outlaw I can name did with a gun,which by the way they don't want us to have either in the name of safety.I don't NEED protected from myself any more than I am already. Children need protected, not adults.Rant over,I'm moving on.


Mellow,
Hear ya loud and clear, and agree to a point, but I also believe in the freedom of choice. Denny said it better than I could.
The lack of a helmet didn't cause this mans' death....stupidity did. You might forgive riding without a valid license. You might even forgive the no helmet thing. You can't forgive stupid. This tragedy happened within earshot of where I'm sitting...he was a prominent community figure, but he thought he was above common sense. Paid the ultimate price. Sad!

It is legal in DE to not wear a helmet, that needs to change, sometimes people NEED to be told what to do for their own safety, just like seat belts.

No, adults only NEED to be accountable for their own actions.

It is legal in DE to not wear a helmet, that needs to change, sometimes people NEED to be told what to do for their own safety, just like seat belts.

It is not that smart to ride a motorcycle. However, I don't want them (law maker) to make it illegal to ride one.

What's really sad is the biker is dead from HIS mistake and poor judgment while Win Oo will live with this the rest of his life.

DT

I strongly disagree with the people NEED to be told what to do for their own safety.The thought of every thing I have to do already because the government tells me so.I have sense enough to KNOW I need to wear a helmet and do most of the time.I am over 18 and responsible for my own safety,the government is not my Mommy and needs to leave people alone. I'll worry about my own welfare and let every body else do the same.The government already steals more with a pencil from me and every one else than Jesse James ,Billy the kid and every other outlaw I can name did with a gun,which by the way they don't want us to have either in the name of safety.I don't NEED protected from myself any more than I am already. Children need protected, not adults.Rant over,I'm moving on.

Denny well said :smiley_th

People need to be careful what they ask the GOV for. Mandatory helmet laws today, ban those dangerous motorcycles tommorrow.

It is legal in DE to not wear a helmet, that needs to change, sometimes people NEED to be told what to do for their own safety, just like seat belts.

Thought I read in one of the write ups that helmets were mandatory in Delaware. Louisiana says you have to wear an approved helmet. Coming home this evening I rode up behind a guy and his girl riding an American made cruiser. Her half helmet might have been legal. It looked pretty thin to be an approved helmet, but it did have some thickness to it and had a DOT sticker. Yeah, those stickers can be bought. His skid lid was definitely illegal. That was the only "gear" they were wearing.

Some folks are just going to buck the system. Don't know if they want to figuratively stick their finger in the eye of the government that tells them what to do, or they just figure they'll never be in an accident and won't need a good helmet or other gear. They guy in Delaware comes across as the former. Suspended license (DUI?), risk taker (passing on the right), and careless with his life.

I don't mind letting folks decide what gear they should wear. But it irks me no end that the Bozos here in Louisiana that opt to wear illegal helmets are the ones most likely to spend years on life support in the state's taxpayer financed charity hospital system!

I don't mind no helmet laws....as long as someone besides the taxpayer pays for scraping up the brains. In the great state of Texas, we have to get the extra insurance ..just enough to help cover the cost of clean up. I think thats pretty good deal.

I strongly disagree with the people NEED to be told what to do for their own safety.The thought of every thing I have to do already because the government tells me so.I have sense enough to KNOW I need to wear a helmet and do most of the time.I am over 18 and responsible for my own safety,the government is not my Mommy and needs to leave people alone. I'll worry about my own welfare and let every body else do the same.The government already steals more with a pencil from me and every one else than Jesse James ,Billy the kid and every other outlaw I can name did with a gun,which by the way they don't want us to have either in the name of safety.I don't NEED protected from myself any more than I am already. Children need protected, not adults.Rant over,I'm moving on.

I agree 100%!

No one likes to be told what to do, but when it is for the betterment of society then yes, I think it is necessary. I think your taking the whole thing way out of proportion, if people do not wear seat belts do you think government will ban cars because they are dangerous? Statistics prove my point, helmets should be worn at all times, some people are just to stupid to make the right decision and have to be told what to do.

Sad to say, but this guy did it to himself. Helmet wearing is a choice. Your life, your choice. As for stupid people, you can tell them what to do all you want. They are still going to be stupid and they are still going to do what they want.

No one likes to be told what to do, but when it is for the betterment of society then yes, I think it is necessary. I think your taking the whole thing way out of proportion, if people do not wear seat belts do you think government will ban cars because they are dangerous? Statistics prove my point, helmets should be worn at all times, some people are just to stupid to make the right decision and have to be told what to do.

It is not about how stupid You think some one is,You are not their Judge nor will you make me believe people that hold a Job,pay taxes.raise families are incapable of making decisions on their own.Because you and our current so called leaders think they know how to better run our lives doesn't make it correct.Society is not responsible for my actions or my welfare,I am ,have you read the Bill of Rights or the US Constitution.What you are saying is what has got the country in the shape it is now.Remember Jim Jones he told all those people that they needed to do what was better for their "society" right up to the point he had them commit mass suicide.I am not a Lemming and do not fall in line and run off the cliff with every body else.We as individuals have the right to make our own choices ,for now. Follo

It is not about how stupid You think some one is,You are not their Judge nor will you make me believe people that hold a Job,pay taxes.raise families are incapable of making decisions on their own.Because you and our current so called leaders think they know how to better run our lives doesn't make it correct.Society is not responsible for my actions or my welfare,I am ,have you read the Bill of Rights or the US Constitution.What you are saying is what has got the country in the shape it is now.Remember Jim Jones he told all those people that they needed to do what was better for their "society" right up to the point he had them commit mass suicide.I am not a Lemming and do not fall in line and run off the cliff with every body else.We as individuals have the right to make our own choices ,for now. Follo

again, I agree 100%!!!!

I also believe that helmets (along with other gear) should be worn at all times! BUT in the end it is the RIDERS CHOICE!!!!

After having a family member in a serious accident and a helmet saving them you might change your mind. Not trying to cram anything down peoples throats, like you say if you don't want to wear one and take a chance of dying, more power to you if you live in a state with a no helmet law. Wasn't trying to turn this into a political discussion that you feel you need to bring up Jim Jones in. Deaths like the one in the original post could be avoided with the proper equipment.

At the very minimum wear a half helmet for your own safety.

After having a family member in a serious accident and a helmet saving them you might change your mind. Not trying to cram anything down peoples throats, like you say if you don't want to wear one and take a chance of dying, more power to you if you live in a state with a no helmet law. Wasn't trying to turn this into a political discussion that you feel you need to bring up Jim Jones in. Deaths like the one in the original post could be avoided with the proper equipment.

At the very minimum wear a half helmet for your own safety.

I have lost a friend due to not wearing a helmet. I still say it's the riders choice!

also this death could have been avoided very easily! if the rider would have obeyed all the other laws in the first place and not been a riding like a dolt, there would have been NO need for a helmet! like the post says "you CAN'T fix stupid!"

I do have a family member with one arm due to a motorcycle accident and have went down a time or two myself,I do wear a FF most of the time and a jacket with armor,but I choose to and I believe you did turn it into a political discussion when you brought up passing a law to make others do as you see fit.
I think I was just pointing out where things can end up once you start down the slippery slope.I like you and respect your opinion but I just don't happen to agree with you on this particular subject.And as for this poor soul who died ,no amount of laws could have prevented his death,he was on a road to his own destruction in more than one way.He was breaking several laws and using no common sense when he died,one more law would have made no difference.Sad situation ,but when you get down too it ,his number had rolled around.

It is legal in DE to not wear a helmet, that needs to change, sometimes people NEED to be told what to do for their own safety, just like seat belts.

This is nonsense.
An adult rider is responsible for his own life, as is his adult passenger.
Minor passengers wear helmets. That is the way it is in Ohio, and we like it. First year bikers and their passengers are also required to wear a helmet, and that is reasonable.

I don't need you or the government to keep me safe.

On the other hand, an inadequately insured biker who is injured should not expect that same government to pay his medical bills.

My feelings are very strong on the Helmet issue, I feel MD made the right move to enforce helmet laws, I have seen accident's that were not the riders fault, that rider lived due to having to have a helmet on, would they have worn one without the law, dunno, would they still be alive, probably not.

I am not a get the government into everything kinda person, just a person who has seen a law save peoples lives.

My feelings are very strong on the Helmet issue, I feel MD made the right move to enforce helmet laws, I have seen accident's that were not the riders fault, that rider lived due to having to have a helmet on, would they have worn one without the law, dunno, would they still be alive, probably not.

I am not a get the government into everything kinda person, just a person who has seen a law save peoples lives.

I think you are missing my point. law or no law, the bottom line is people will do what they want to do! again, YOU CAN'T FIX STUPID!!!!

as the saying goes "stupid hurts"!

I would have to say that those that say the "government" has no right to tell us "adults" that they have to wear a helmet , are a abit off in their thinking.

The "government" has a perfectly good right to do so and I tend to agree. You should also wear a seatbelt in your car. This is really no different than them telling you that you can't go over 65 mph on this road , that you should go slow in school zones , or that you might loose your licence if they catch you driving drunk.

Operating a vehicle on public roads is not a right, it is a privlidge,(they told you that the first day) and there should be rules for EVERYONE to follow, or suffer the penalties.

Our "government" spent thousands of tax payers dollers trying to find a way to make motorcycles safer for those on the road. After seveal years of study, and ruling out alot of ill concieved ideas, the one thing they did find out that a riders survivalbility increased dramaticly if they were wearing a helmet. So they said, you want to ride a bike....you have to wear a helmet.

Then helmetless idiots bitched and moaned to their state representatives about it, and due to the way our laws work in this country, a few states decided to make their own rules to appiese their voters.

So , I look at it this way, if your state allows you to not wear a helmet, you don't have to. If your state requires you wear one, do so...but in either case don't bitch about it here or tell me what you think the law should be....tell your senators and governers how you feel and do something about it.


In my view the state has the right to tell you what to do when it comes to driving or riding on public roads... becuase that is their freaking job....to make laws to protect people. (Even those that are too stupid to protect themselves)

Next time you get a speeding ticket tell the judge you are "an adult" and capable of making your own desicions on how fast you should go..... Am sure he will appologise and dismiss the charge. ;)


KM

Some states had helmet laws before enacting seat belt laws.
...Whats up with that?

I would have to say that those that say the "government" has no right to tell us "adults" that they have to wear a helmet , are a abit off in their thinking.

The "government" has a perfectly good right to do so and I tend to agree. You should also wear a seatbelt in your car. This is really no different than them telling you that you can't go over 65 mph on this road , that you should go slow in school zones , or that you might loose your licence if they catch you driving drunk.

Operating a vehicle on public roads is not a right, it is a privlidge,(they told you that the first day) and there should be rules for EVERYONE to follow, or suffer the penalties.

Our "government" spent thousands of tax payers dollers trying to find a way to make motorcycles safer for those on the road. After seveal years of study, and ruling out alot of ill concieved ideas, the one thing they did find out that a riders survivalbility increased dramaticly if they were wearing a helmet. So they said, you want to ride a bike....you have to wear a helmet.

Then helmetless idiots bitched and moaned to their state representatives about it, and due to the way our laws work in this country, a few states decided to make their own rules to appiese their voters.

So , I look at it this way, if your state allows you to not wear a helmet, you don't have to. If your state requires you wear one, do so...but in either case don't bitch about it here or tell me what you think the law should be....tell your senators and governers how you feel and do something about it.


In my view the state has the right to tell you what to do when it comes to driving or riding on public roads... becuase that is their freaking job....to make laws to protect people. (Even those that are too stupid to protect themselves)

Next time you get a speeding ticket tell the judge you are "an adult" and capable of making your own desicions on how fast you should go..... Am sure he will appologise and dismiss the charge. ;)


KM

Apples and oranges knife ,The states job is to protect the general public and from senseless acts of violence and maintain order ,do you think that they should tell you that drinking is hard on your liver and smoking cigars will shorten your life span and there have been plenty of studies to prove these points too,No. you don't because you think it is your choice,I do not propose they pass a law that prevents any body from doing things that don't affect me ,and I hate it for you because you feel our majority rules form of government is not right,too bad, that's how it is,The man in question was doing several things that were illegal and stupid and he paid the price for it.That is no reason to call any one who doesn't agree with you idiots.Some times I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or just have a burr under your saddle.But I do know you are fairly intelligent and like to read your posts,I just never know what to expect.So if you are being facetious or not I have yet to figure out but you are not dull either way.

The Government's job is *not* to protect me from myself. The Government's job is to protect my ability to enjoy my rights without having them infringed upon by others. Speed limits are put in place to protect me from those who drive too fast for the type of road and could kill me with their recklessness. Traffic signals are put in place to bring orderly flow to the use of the public roadways and protect me from the chaos and calamity that would result otherwise. In this, I agree with KM. Where rules need to be made to protect us from others, the Government has a perfect right to put such rules in place.

Where my opinion differs is when it comes to protecting me from myself. So long as I am not impacting upon the rights of others, leave me alone. Don't tell me that I need to wear my seat belt in my car. Don't tell me that I need to wear a helmet. I do both anyway, not because the Government tells me to, but because I am a rational adult and believe that wearing one's seat belt and wearing a helmet are smart things to do. Those are choices that I've made for *myself*, and I, as a member of society who elected "the Government", have no business telling KM or Flite or LP or Denny or anyone else that they *must* conform to my way of thinking on the subject.

As Denny said, ceding one's responsibility to make choices for oneself when it comes to one's personal liberties to "the Government" is all fine and dandy, up until "they" tell you to do something that you don't agree with. That's a *very* slippery slope, since by the time that "they" tell you to do something that you *don't* agree with, you've already allowed them to set the precedent of telling you what to do in other instances when you *did* agree. For "the betterment of society" is an extremely dangerous concept since the next logical question is, "who gets to decide what's *best* for society" and in what context does that rationalization get applied? While this is nowhere near in the same league, class, or scope, and constitutes an extreme example, the concept is the same: I'm sure that Hitler thought that the elimination of the Jews was for the betterment of society, too.

I'm not trying to flame anyone, but Mellow, your statement of "not trying to cram anything down peoples throats" is inconsistent with your support of helmet laws, since by supporting helmet laws, that's *exactly* what you're doing. You're supporting the use of Government authority to *force* all motorcyclists to wear helmets (i.e. - cram the use of helmets down everyone's throats). If your opinion is actually "follow the laws in your state", then I would agree and apologize for misunderstanding your point.

Freedom is often only won by bloodshed, and once given away, is a very difficult and bloody thing to regain. I don't give my freedom away lightly. So far as it involves rules put in place to protect me from having others violate my rights (and also protects others from my violating theirs), I cede to the Government that authority. When I am not impacting anyone else, I cede to the Government nothing. Where those two concepts seem to meet at a grey line, the Founders would have us err on the side of personal freedom.

--FA

FL has a decent compromise - If you carry a certain amount of private insurance you don't have to wear a helmet. If you don't have that amount of insurance, you have to wear one.

I like this because the roads, police, fire, emts, and, to some extent, the health care system are resources we all share. We all should have, via our elected government, some ability to regulate how those resources are used. The trick comes in balancing individual freedoms against societal interests and costs.

If someone does not want to wear a helmet I have no personal problem with that - but if he dies for lack of one, I don't really want to pay the costs for something that could have been easily preventable. Well, I probably wouldn't complain all that much, as I'm a charitable guy. But what happens when we have thousands of deaths? Or tens of thousands?

The Government's job is *not* to protect me from myself. The Government's job is to protect my ability to enjoy my rights without having them infringed upon by others. Speed limits are put in place to protect me from those who drive too fast for the type of road and could kill me with their recklessness. Traffic signals are put in place to bring orderly flow to the use of the public roadways and protect me from the chaos and calamity that would result otherwise. In this, I agree with KM. Where rules need to be made to protect us from others, the Government has a perfect right to put such rules in place.

Where my opinion differs is when it comes to protecting me from myself. So long as I am not impacting upon the rights of others, leave me alone. Don't tell me that I need to wear my seat belt in my car. Don't tell me that I need to wear a helmet. I do both anyway, not because the Government tells me to, but because I am a rational adult and believe that wearing one's seat belt and wearing a helmet are smart things to do. Those are choices that I've made for *myself*, and I, as a member of society who elected "the Government", have no business telling KM or Flite or LP or Denny or anyone else that they *must* conform to my way of thinking on the subject.

As Denny said, ceding one's responsibility to make choices for oneself when it comes to one's personal liberties to "the Government" is all fine and dandy, up until "they" tell you to do something that you don't agree with. That's a *very* slippery slope, since by the time that "they" tell you to do something that you *don't* agree with, you've already allowed them to set the precedent of telling you what to do in other instances when you *did* agree. For "the betterment of society" is an extremely dangerous concept since the next logical question is, "who gets to decide what's *best* for society" and in what context does that rationalization get applied? While this is nowhere near in the same league, class, or scope, and constitutes an extreme example, the concept is the same: I'm sure that Hitler thought that the elimination of the Jews was for the betterment of society, too.

I'm not trying to flame anyone, but Mellow, your statement of "not trying to cram anything down peoples throats" is inconsistent with your support of helmet laws, since by supporting helmet laws, that's *exactly* what you're doing. You're supporting the use of Government authority to *force* all motorcyclists to wear helmets (i.e. - cram the use of helmets down everyone's throats). If your opinion is actually "follow the laws in your state", then I would agree and apologize for misunderstanding your point.

Freedom is often only won by bloodshed, and once given away, is a very difficult and bloody thing to regain. I don't give my freedom away lightly. So far as it involves rules put in place to protect me from having others violates my rights (and also protects others from my violating theirs), I cede to the Government that authority. When I am not impacting anyone else, I cede to the Government nothing. Where those two concepts seem to meet at a grey line, the Founders would have us err on the side of personal freedom.

--FA

I'm surprised my original post decided to take on a life of it's own, but since it did, I commend FA's articulate soliloquy. Well done!!

I like this because the roads, police, fire, emts, and, to some extent, the health care system are resources we all share. We all should have, via our elected government, some ability to regulate how those resources are used. The trick comes in balancing individual freedoms against societal interests and costs.

If someone does not want to wear a helmet I have no personal problem with that - but if he dies for lack of one, I don't really want to pay the costs for something that could have been easily preventable. Well, I probably wouldn't complain all that much, as I'm a charitable guy. But what happens when we have thousands of deaths? Or tens of thousands?

I'm not sure that I follow you. I don't understand how you pay significant costs for someone dying while riding his / her motorcycle (whether or not the death could have been prevented through the wearing of a helmet would have to be determined, if possible, on a case by case basis and is really immaterial to my question). And do you not pay the same costs for "police, fire, emts, and, to some extent, the health care system" when accidents involving the dispatching of said organizations happen *anywhere*?

Using the logic of "we have created a community-funded system of police, fire, emts and, to some extent, a health care system to help handle accidents that occur and thus I, as a member of the society that created the system, have a right, through the government created to oversee that system, to put regulations in place in order to prevent me from incurring cost", what is the logical barrier that prevents that same government from simply saying that motorcycles are too dangerous and will no longer be allowed on the roads? Or that skydiving is too risky? Or that bungee-jumping or rock climbing or scuba diving are all too dangerous and are too likely to incur cost? Where does that logic end? There are *already* efforts underway to control what we are and are not allowed to *eat* (due to fat content, trans-fats, MSG, etc). I ask again: where does it end?

--FA

Proves once again that you bring up helmet laws on a motorcycle forum and you get an old fashioned bar fight!

Back to it's sad but you can't fix stupid... You never know if a helmet would have made any difference in this particular situation.

On a side note, there are a lot of laws that were written to protect stupid people! Lawyers have made careers out of protecting stupid people...

On another side note, I personally doubt that the government would ever completely outlaw motorcycles because of its natural population thinning capability... Now I could see them banning loud pipes cause that might be something that would affect them personally...

I'm surprised my original post decided to take on a life of it's own, but since it did, I commend FA's articulate soliloquy. Well done!!

Thanks for the commendation, VoIP. It wasn't my purpose in responding, but I thank you nonetheless!

There is a problematic lack of distinction today between the words "should" and "will", and an even more dangerous inconsistency in the application of the two. Just because I don't like what a person does, and think that they *should* not do it (or that they *should* do something else) does not give me the right to say that they *will* do as I think best through the enactment of legislation. Obviously, there are cases where a person's actions so significantly infringe upon the rights of others in society that rules have to be put in place to protect those upon whose rights the person is infringing (rape, robbery, theft, etc.). There are all manner of activities, however, where there exist people who think the activity monumentally stupid or dangerous and from that belief feel justified in imposing their belief upon those who rationally choose to partake in said activity.

What it often boils down to is that people declare themselves to be "for" a law that they emotionally feel good about while at the same time declare themselves to be "against" a law that makes them angry when they cannot articulate a logical distinction between the two laws. People often do not want to truly examine *why* they think the way that they do, since to do so often causes people to realize that one or the other of their positions is intellectually inconsistent. We thus wind up with an illogical mess of inconsistent rules and regulations based on the vacillations of emotion, and have discussions about proposed new laws that devolve into screaming matches and name calling. How often do you hear any type of discussion about a controversial topic today that does not devolve in such a manner?

To return this thread to its origins, the death of the rider was tragic, and is deserving of prayers for the rider, his family, and friends. That being said, the circumstances of his death should serve to the rest of us as no more than reminders to ride safely and that the choices we make every day have consequences that we must be prepared to accept.

--FA

Apples and oranges knife ,The states job is to protect the general public and from senseless acts of violence and maintain order ,do you think that they should tell you that drinking is hard on your liver and smoking cigars will shorten your life span and there have been plenty of studies to prove these points too,No. you don't because you think it is your choice,I do not propose they pass a law that prevents any body from doing things that don't affect me ,and I hate it for you because you feel our majority rules form of government is not right,too bad, that's how it is,The man in question was doing several things that were illegal and stupid and he paid the price for it.That is no reason to call any one who doesn't agree with you idiots.Some times I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or just have a burr under your saddle.But I do know you are fairly intelligent and like to read your posts,I just never know what to expect.So if you are being facetious or not I have yet to figure out but you are not dull either way.

First off I did not call anyone that does not agree with me idiots. I called those that ride without helmets idiots. I personally don't give a crap if you wear a helmet or not, as long as you are not violating the law in your state. The "majority rules" form of government we have is working fine.....as the majority of people in the US believe you should wear a helmet when riding a motorcycle.

Sarcasim aside, you miss the point..it is not apples and oranges. The government is doing their job, becuse the helmet law is written to protect ALL of those riding a motorcycle, as a group. There are thousands of laws and regulations that cover specific groups as opposed to "everyone". Take OSHA for instance. They require hard hats on construction sites. This of course only effects construction workers, not the "general public" and one can make the same case that because you don't want to wear a hard hat you are only effecting "yourself".

You are simply picking the letter of the law as it effects you, and not looking at it as our government does, as how it effects thoussands. They have guard rails around the Grand Canyon so you do not fall and die, but you want to say that you as "an adult" are quite capable of not walking off the edge.

That speeding ticket you got in the middle of the desert going 95 mph should be thrown out because there was not another vehicle for a hundred miles , so if you did crash and burn you would only be hurting yourself, not endangering anyone else.

Helmet laws are not made to "protect the public at large"...it just happens to be directed to the "public" that ride the bikes. If I never go to the Grand Canyon what do I need a guard rail there for?

Stop looking at tihs selfishly. There are THOUSANDS of rules and regs that only effect select groups, to insure their safety. My point was that if you do not like the rules, as the bumper sticker says..." STOP BITCHING AND START THE REVOLUTION".... That is how the government works, you have a voice but it only works if you in fact do something about it. Sitting on your couch and bitching about it while watching TV does nothing.

Window washers on high rise buildings are required to wear safety harnessess by law, if they were to fall the odds of them hitting someone is actually quite low, so the harness is required to protect just their life really.You again could argue that this is just the government removing their right to be "free and unfettered" to wash the windows more easily.

But I am sure if you wanted to make a law that said they did not have to wear a safety harness, you would find a few window washers that would join you, and a bunch that feel you have something against window washers , as you want to make their job more dangerous.

Think about this before calling you congressman about helmet laws.

KM

First off I did not call anyone that does not agree with me idiots. I called those that ride without helmets idiots. I personally don't give a crap if you wear a helmet or not, as long as you are not violating the law in your state. The "majority rules" form of government we have is working fine.....as the majority of people in the US believe you should wear a helmet when riding a motorcycle.

Sarcasim aside, you miss the point..it is not apples and oranges. The government is doing their job, becuse the helmet law is written to protect ALL of those riding a motorcycle, as a group. There are thousands of laws and regulations that cover specific groups as opposed to "everyone". Take OSHA for instance. They require hard hats on construction sites. This of course only effects construction workers, not the "general public" and one can make the same case that because you don't want to wear a hard hat you are only effecting "yourself".

You are simply picking the letter of the law as it effects you, and not looking at it as our government does, as how it effects thoussands. They have guard rails around the Grand Canyon so you do not fall and die, but you want to say that you as "an adult" are quite capable of not walking off the edge.

That speeding ticket you got in the middle of the desert going 95 mph should be thrown out because there was not another vehicle for a hundred miles , so if you did crash and burn you would only be hurting yourself, not endangering anyone else.

Helmet laws are not made to "protect the public at large"...it just happens to be directed to the "public" that ride the bikes. If I never go to the Grand Canyon what do I need a guard rail there for?

Stop looking at tihs selfishly. There are THOUSANDS of rules and regs that only effect select groups, to insure their safety. My point was that if you do not like the rules, as the bumper sticker says..." STOP BITCHING AND START THE REVOLUTION".... That is how the government works, you have a voice but it only works if you in fact do something about it. Sitting on your couch and bitching about it while watching TV does nothing.

Window washers on high rise buildings are required to wear safety harnessess by law, if they were to fall the odds of them hitting someone is actually quite low, so the harness is required to protect just their life really.You again could argue that this is just the government removing their right to be "free and unfettered" to wash the windows more easily.

But I am sure if you wanted to make a law that said they did not have to wear a safety harness, you would find a few window washers that would join you, and a bunch that feel you have something against window washers , as you want to make their job more dangerous.

Think about this before calling you congressman about helmet laws.

KM

Once again you try to put your opinions above every body elses .I did not miss the point .You Just don't have a valid one nor did you answer the questions I proposed to you concerning Your personal choices that concern your health and well being ,or are you the only person on here capable of making decisions for himself.you can't have it both ways. I realize every thing is a compromise and a society requires laws to run efficiently and protect those who cannot protect themselves ,The grand canyon guardrail example is a good one ,It is not there for Adults who know better than to walk off the edge.If you need that guardrail I am glad it is there for you.I really don't,I realize there are those who do.I am not arguing that helmets aren't safer,I wear a FF almost all the time,I have heard you complain about Idiots with Loud pipes and then state you were building an old vulcan that you intended to rip around on with loud pipes when you retire and when someone else asked you didn't you think loud pipes were obnoxious,you told them that after you retired you deserved to act like that. Not a quote but that is the jist of it,I think I have figured you out, everybody that agrees with you (at the time)is right and everybody else is wrong,It seems you cannot debate a point without being insulting,even if not to me personally.

Once again you try to put your opinions above every body elses .I did not miss the point .You Just don't have a valid one nor did you answer the questions I proposed to you concerning Your personal choices that concern your health and well being ,or are you the only person on here capable of making decisions for himself.you can't have it both ways. I realize every thing is a compromise and a society requires laws to run efficiently and protect those who cannot protect themselves ,The grand canyon guardrail example is a good one ,It is not there for Adults who know better than to walk off the edge.If you need that guardrail I am glad it is there for you.I really don't,I realize there are those who do.I am not arguing that helmets aren't safer,I wear a FF almost all the time,I have heard you complain about Idiots with Loud pipes and then state you were building an old vulcan that you intended to rip around on with loud pipes when you retire and when someone else asked you didn't you think loud pipes were obnoxious,you told them that after you retired you deserved to act like that. Not a quote but that is the jist of it,I think I have figured you out, everybody that agrees with you (at the time)is right and everybody else is wrong,It seems you cannot debate a point without being insulting,even if not to me personally.

It is obvious to me you can't tell when I am joking , and when I am just stating my opinion.
To say I am putting my opinions above everyone elses is also a bit of a stretch, as it seems any time I attempt to debate a subject I get admonished for "thinking I am right and that my opponents are wrong".... and I don't respect their view somehow.

I was always taught that in a debate it was one of the fundimentals to shoot holes in the others theories, and to attempt to prove that they ARE wrong and you are right. But not to take anything personally as most subjects worth debating exsist because no one has really found a right or wrong answer.
However if anyone was insulted , I am sorry.

I do believe those that opperate their bikes (or cars) with exessively loud exhausts are aszholes, and those that ride without helmets are idiots. (That of course is MY opinion, And I really don't care if you are insulted by it) .....I will however support their right to be an idiot if the law in their state allows them to, and help them defend their right to be an idiot to others if need be.

I just really really get tired of arguments over helmet laws, as no one seems to understand that WE are in fact the government, and can influence the making or removal of laws. Our "debate" here is in fact just for the amusemnent of the others reading here, but does serve to provide the opposing views for fence sitters to study if in fact they are someday called upon to change or create a law. Does seem that the ones that are the most vocal about being able to ride without a helmet are the ones that want to.

As mentioned, I don't care if you choose not to wear a helmet if your state allows you to do so. And like the poor chap in the first post here , you might die because of it, only fullfilling the natural order of selection. Less stupid bikers means more smarter ones.........;) (< joking for those who might be offended)



KM

Location: Northbound SR 1, south of Frederica
Date of Occurrence: Sunday June 6, 2010 at 2:45 p.m.
Operator/ Vehicle:
Op 1- David Sapp, 47, Dover, DE
Passenger – 40 year-old female from Dover, DE
Veh 1- 2008 Harley Davidson motorcycle

Resume:

Delaware State Police are investigating a motorcycle crash that has left a 40 year-old passenger in critical condition and backed up traffic for miles.

The crash occurred this afternoon when Sapp was heading north in the right-hand lane of SR 1. A vehicle in front of Sapp veered off to the right and clipped a pole. Sapp locked up his brakes causing him to loose control of his motorcycle. Both Sapp and his passenger went down. Neither one was wearing a helmet.

Sapp and his passenger were flown to Christiana Hospital near Newark where both were admitted. The 40 year-old passenger was listed in critical condition at the time of this release.

The passenger’s name is being withheld at this time.

Northbound SR 1 was closed for 3 hours until the wreckage could be cleared. Northbound traffic was backed up for miles.


It's that time of year, another one this weekend, no helmets. Hopefully they make it out OK.

It is obvious to me you can't tell when I am joking , and when I am just stating my opinion.
To say I am putting my opinions above everyone elses is also a bit of a stretch, as it seems any time I attempt to debate a subject I get admonished for "thinking I am right and that my opponents are wrong".... and I don't respect their view somehow.

I was always taught that in a debate it was one of the fundimentals to shoot holes in the others theories, and to attempt to prove that they ARE wrong and you are right. But not to take anything personally as most subjects worth debating exsist because no one has really found a right or wrong answer.
However if anyone was insulted , I am sorry.

I do believe those that opperate their bikes (or cars) with exessively loud exhausts are aszholes, and those that ride without helmets are idiots. (That of course is MY opinion, And I really don't care if you are insulted by it) .....I will however support their right to be an idiot if the law in their state allows them to, and help them defend their right to be an idiot to others if need be.

I just really really get tired of arguments over helmet laws, as no one seems to understand that WE are in fact the government, and can influence the making or removal of laws. Our "debate" here is in fact just for the amusemnent of the others reading here, but does serve to provide the opposing views for fence sitters to study if in fact they are someday called upon to change or create a law. Does seem that the ones that are the most vocal about being able to ride without a helmet are the ones that want to.

As mentioned, I don't care if you choose not to wear a helmet if your state allows you to do so. And like the poor chap in the first post here , you might die because of it, only fullfilling the natural order of selection. Less stupid bikers means more smarter ones.........;) (< joking for those who might be offended)



KM

Like I said I honestly do like you,and you make life interesting ,while you are probably an extremely funny man in person ,nuances and tones you use are hard to detect in the cold world of cyberspace. It is quite dry and impersonal and your sense of humor is hard to get in this setting ,although you would probably have me rolling in person and I'll grant you there are too many of these subjects that have been worn out and talked to death, with you 100% on that. There is very little that offends me personally.We would probably have fun if we were face to face taking verbal potshots at each other.You would be a worthy opponent.So have yourself a nice one and I look forward to crossing paths someday ,it would be a hoot ,but we would probably have everyone around us mad:smiley_th