The Department of Ironic Headlines Department.

Lawmaker who opposed universal helmet law dies in motorcycle crash

I mean, really. :wink:

He was wearing helmet at the time of the accident.
Is it still ironic?

Also, is it ironic that the phrase “Department of Ironic Headlines Department” is not ironic in itself (it’s only redundant)?

Why is it ironic? He was wearing his helmet at the time, but was broadsided by a truck. Helmets won’t save you in every situation, and riding a motorcycle is riskier than driving a car, if there’s an accident.

Why do we as adults must wear seat belts when motorcyclists do not have to wear helmets?

Insurance companies like it of course but do motorcyclists pay more in insurance if they dont wear helmets?

I can understand harnessing children into the car but adults should have a choice!

Is not wearing the seat belt just give the state or locals to collect monies thru more tickets?

Ahhh, the Ironic Law of Irony: The most common use of the term “irony” is to debate whether or not something is ironic.

If one doesn’t wear a helmet one is an idiot. Therefore, wearing a helmet should not be a requirement. The gene pool could get cleaner. While I’m not in favor of helmet or seat belt laws I also would not object to insurance companies charging higher rates for those who don’t wear a helmet or buckle up.

And I say this knowing full well a helmet won’t necessarily save the life of a motorcycle rider.

I bet Alanis Morissette would appreciate the irony.

To keep you in your seat and in control of the vehicle.

In your seat, sure. But in control?..

They would just lie to the insurance company, and claim that they always buckle up/wear their helmet. And there would be a public outcry if the cruel insurance company refused to cover an injured driver just because he forgot to use his seat belt the one day he happened to have an accident.

Also, the non-helmet wearers aren’t always killed.
Here in Minnesota, we have an entire State Hospital ward filled with young people comatose or nearly so due to traumatic brain injury. I’ve been there for work, and seen the attendants going around moving their bodies to different positions every few hours, to try to avoid body decay starting – this on 20-year-old men who will live(?) for many years like this.

Besides the wasted potential of those lives, there is also a great cost to the Minnesota taxpayers to operate this facility. And nearly ever TBI-injured non-helmeted motorcyclist ends up her, at taxpayer expense – nearly all insurance plans reach their limits on this, and families can’t afford to cover it.

I suggest you experiment in a wet parking lot, if that won’t get you in trouble. Obviously there are situations where it isn’t going to help, which tells us nothing useful.

Here’s a counterexample. This guy might have had a better shot at controlling his car and avoiding a crash, if he wasn’t mostly occupied with keeping himself in the driver’s seat.

Motor vehicle crashes (not just motorcycles) are a leading cause of traumatic brain injury. Motorcyclists constitute a minority (albeit disproportionate) percentage of this, due to there being so many more car drivers than motorcyclists out there. If our goal is to reduce costs associated with TBI, and we’re OK with mandating helmet use for motorcyclists, it seems sensible to also mandate helmet use for car occupants.

But I have a feeling most car drivers won’t be on board with that…