{g} Who will be the first to post a Roethlisberger pic ? {g}

Jack · Post by **Jack** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 6:23 am

Ben Roethlisberger, accompanied by bodyguards and wearing a hood to cover facial injuries from a motorcycle crash, visited the Pittsburgh Steelers' offices Tuesday, a newspaper reported.

Roethlisberger underwent seven hours of surgery to repair a broken jaw and other facial bones. Tests showed no brain injuries, although he had a mild concussion. He also lost two teeth and chipped several others.

I am figuring that he looks somewhere between this...

and this...

Risa · Post by **Risa** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 12:07 pm

Yes, he should have worn a helmet. Yes, he got extremely lucky because the way he hit he would have been paralyzed for life (allegedly) if he had worn a helmet.

What I really want to know is, who had the right of way? That was a 62 (?) year old woman in a Chrysler New Yorker (uh oh) who hit him as she was making a left hand turn.

Forget the helmet issue; to me the bigger issue is who had right of way? if you're wearing a helmet while disobeying traffic laws, but you still get hit, all the helmets in the world won't save you from the fact that you are disobeying traffic laws. You disobey the traffic laws, you die; end of story.

If he had the right of way, but the elderly lady did not, then why bag on benny for not wearing a helmet when the real problem is elderly drivers who have absolutely no business whatsoever being on the road?

It's impossible that they both had right of way; and if Ben *was* in the wrong, then all this bullshit about helmet laws is just politicizing 'seizing the moment' by those who already had issues with the helmet/no helmet shit. The real news is that Ben fucked up by breaking the traffic laws; or that it doesn't matter whether Ben was wearing a helmet or not, an elderly person with no business on the road wiped him out.

Which is it?

rozy · Post by **rozy** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 12:22 pm

Her fault. And she was issued a ticket as seach. Just a little light reading out front should have told you.

Risa · Post by **Risa** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 12:32 pm

What light reading? every article (and admittedly it wasn't very many) I read in the local papers here in albuquerque and in USAToday don't hardly mention shit about the little old lady except to say he crashed into her. USAToday was the paper where I got the info about her making a left hand turn, but it didn't mention anything about fault.

As for light reading, how about whitewashing? in all of the helmet debates, how many people are talking about old people who shouldn't be on the road? if it was her fault, that's a much bigger issue than wearing a helmet/not wearing a helmet. If Ben is such a beloved figure and Season Over Troll (tm) is now at his bedside, why not spare a little vindictiveness in the national media for the little old lady who made a left hand turn (and you have to really be in the wrong to make a a left hand turn illegally), instead of calling Ben out as stupid, or arrogant, or wanting to be cool and paying the price?

you know what I mean? but I haven't read many articles, and of those i have read (and even these boards' discussions) it's all about the helmet/no helmet issue, and not about old people driving who have no business driving. I'm going by atmosphere, and the atmosphere is, Ben is a loser for not wearing his helmet. the atmosphere is people who don't wear helmets are only trying to look cool and it's all their fault.

Well, no it ain't.

I seem to remember in USAToday someone even making a comment about (among other things) elderly cyclists being a hazard on the road more than helmet/no helmet; but not about elderly car drivers; and a motorcycle riding letter writer raising cane about the assumption that the elderly can't be responsible cyclists.

But if there's been a lot of ink about the elderly lady being at fault, ultimately for all this, then ok. How does one get an attempted vehicular homicide rap? Remember when Laura Bush ran that red stop sign and killed her boyfriend? Well, if Ben had died, would this elderly lady been charged?

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 1:17 pm

Well, my dad rides bikes, and I rode bikes for a little while back when I lived in Texas. I got my license and wanted a bike, but my parents talked me out of it. I’ve always been scared to death while riding that someone else was going to nail me or I’d hit a pot hole and take a spill. My dad always said that was a GOOD thing. Taught me to respect the bike and the dangers involved.

That being said, my dad also ingrained in me that no matter who is at fault in a car vs. bike collision, it is always the biker’s fault. You gotta ride extremely defensively.

Oh, one more thing…Ben did not even have a motorcycle license. I’d say it’s his fault because he should not have even been there. Kinda like the bank robber suing the bank for the wet floor that caused him to slip and break his hip.

Risa · Post by **Risa** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 1:28 pm

IndyFrisco wrote:Oh, one more thing…Ben did not even have a motorcycle license. I’d say it’s his fault because he should not have even been there. Kinda like the bank robber suing the bank for the wet floor that caused him to slip and break his hip.

when was the last time that little old lady had a real driver's test?

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 1:51 pm

62 isn't 82 or 92.

Neely8 · Post by **Neely8** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 1:55 pm

Risa wrote:
IndyFrisco wrote:Oh, one more thing…Ben did not even have a motorcycle license. I’d say it’s his fault because he should not have even been there. Kinda like the bank robber suing the bank for the wet floor that caused him to slip and break his hip.
when was the last time that little old lady had a real driver's test?

Im sure she had a license. Ben did not. If he was not riding a bike on city streets like he wasn't licensed to do then this all would have been avoided. Granted she turned in front of him but he should never have been there. I would say driving without a license trumps anything she did......

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 1:58 pm

Ben had the legal right of way. Right of way isn't trumped by how completely you're licensed.

The lady didn't see the bike, and she executed a "Pittsburgh Left" as it's known here. At lights that turn green, often people will hop through with a left. You get so used to it that you expect it after a while. Worse than that are the folks that act as if they don't fucking REALIZE that it's not a legal right of way.

It's just one of many MANY traffic SNAFUs we face today.

Neely8 · Post by **Neely8** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 2:03 pm

PSUFAN wrote:Ben had the legal right of way. Right of way isn't trumped by how completely you're licensed.

The lady didn't see the bike, and she executed a "Pittsburgh Left" as it's known here. At lights that turn green, often people will hop through with a left. You get so used to it that you expect it after a while. Worse than that are the folks that act as if they don't fucking REALIZE that it's not a legal right of way.

It's just one of many MANY traffic SNAFUs we face today.

I have driven in that city.......freakin nightmare. NYC and Boston are easier to figure out.....

If he doesn't have a license to ride a bike then he shouldn't be on the road to begin with......

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 2:10 pm

No argument there. Nonetheless, if you are driving, your license or lack thereof doesn't qualify adherence to the rules of the road. Those rules affect the flow of traffic...while your license doesn't.

Ben's an idiot for not being licensed, and for not wearing a helmet. He had the right of way, though, without a doubt.

Uncle Fester · Post by **Uncle Fester** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 2:49 pm

It's impossible that they both had right of way; and if Ben *was* in the wrong, then all this bullshit about helmet laws is just politicizing 'seizing the moment' by those who already had issues with the helmet/no helmet shit. The real news is that Ben fucked up by breaking the traffic laws; or that it doesn't matter whether Ben was wearing a helmet or not, an elderly person with no business on the road wiped him out.

Which is it?

And what about the old lady? Was she really old or just kinda old? How old is old? How young is young? When does young become old? Who decides? What is the Capital of Idaho?

Why was she driving a New Yorker? Was she from New York? Can you drive a New Yorker in Idaho? Is Idaho frontin' for Wyoming?

How does this affect Dr. Detroit? Can I have a cheese sandwich?

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 2:55 pm

The bottom line is, Ben's face got fucked up and he needed 7 hours of surgery. Little Old Lady probably got a scare and went "ooooh!!!".

BODE Little Old Lady

Van · Post by **Van** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 6:03 pm

Yes, he got extremely lucky because the way he hit he would have been paralyzed for life (allegedly) if he had worn a helmet.

Never will a more ignorant thing be posted anywhere.

Van · Post by **Van** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 6:09 pm

Mvscal, that one is going to be damn near impossible to top.

"Helmets cause injuries!" is about as amazingly stupid as it gets.

She gets a partial pass though because she's just passing along stupid info about which she's aware she knows absolutely nothing.

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 6:17 pm

Van,

Just curious....what I said earlier about what my dad used to tell me about "fault", have you heard that before? That no matter whose fault it is in a car vs. bike accident, it is always the biker's fault because they, for their own good, always need to be the better driver?

Just curious if that is something that is well known or talked about amongst the biking community or if my dad was just using that as a scare tactic to drive better when I was riding.

Van · Post by **Van** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 6:24 pm

Indy, no, legally that's utter nonsense. In terms of moving violations and insurance claims "fault" still needs to be determined in a car/motorcyclce collision.

If anything it tends to run the other way, unless the motorcycle in question was observed to be doing something stupid. Otherwise, yep, the initial assumption is usually that the car driver didn't see the blameless motorcyclist.

A lot of accidents are deemed 50/50 in terms of fault due to that assumption and the car driver's inability to convince the police to the contrary.

In the end though "fault" still must be determined, at least here in California.

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 6:28 pm

No, I didn't mean "legally". I meant more of an "unwritten rule" in motorcycle circles. Rules of the road to live by so to speak. My dad says he always rides with that attitude and encouraged me to do the same. I was just curious if that was an attitude and style of riding you and your biking companions live by out on the left coast as well.

Van · Post by **Van** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 6:34 pm

Well, yeah, for your own self preservation as a motorcyclist you should always ride with the attitude that you're invisible and that all cagers are brain dead soccer moms who wouldn't see you even if you crawled outta their mocha latte and chewed on their left nostril.

You should ride offensively, not defensively. Think of yourself as a motorized Barry Sanders. Your goal at all times is to always seek daylight and instantly get to that open space. Don't allow yourself to ever get hemmed in by traffic, in any direction. It's a very active pursuit.

ChargerMike · Post by **ChargerMike** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 7:28 pm

...my sources tell me this was taken at the emergency hospital..hey I don't know.

Van · Post by **Van** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 7:33 pm

Dude lived too.

Maybe you might wanna wear a FULL FACE helmet, all you beanie helmet wearin' Harley guys who think that your face will hold up just fine when skipping along hot asphalt at 50 mph...

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 8:13 pm

Thanks CM I really needed that.

Excuse me for a minute....

PrimeX · Post by **PrimeX** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 8:18 pm

ChargerMike wrote:...my sources tell me this was taken at the emergency hospital..hey I don't know.

SSTFU.

'Sup Mikey?

Van · Post by **Van** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 8:20 pm

Exactly. That's the problem with not wearing a helmet, or with wearing a half helmet.

Sometimes you live.

A guy like Roethlisburger, if he'd been wearing a full face helmet all he would've sustained were the knee injuries. Instead, due to his vanity, he sustained quite a bit of damage to his melon.

That guy in that gruesome pic? That's the result of a medium speed crash while wearing a half face helmet with no chin bar.

If you value your face as much as the top of your head wear a fucking full face helmet or don't ride at all.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 8:32 pm

PrimeX wrote: SSTFU.

'Sup Mikey?

I'm back now.

Feel much better after losing my lunch.

Glad that dude got his eyes back.

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 8:35 pm

I was eating popcorn when I saw the pic. I didn't eat anymore after seeing it.

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 9:11 pm

[/quote]

Jack · Post by **Jack** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 10:11 pm

PrimeX wrote:
ChargerMike wrote:...my sources tell me this was taken at the emergency hospital..hey I don't know.

SSTFU.

'Sup Mikey?

Looks like this dude had eaten a stick of dynamite, like they do in cartoons... and get their face blown up .. but in a few moments everything goes back to normal...

I wonder if that is what happened to this kid??

ChargerMike · Post by **ChargerMike** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 11:06 pm

...didn't notice until Prime enhanced the pic, but dudes tounge seems to have come through intact

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 12:11 am

ChargerMike wrote:...didn't notice until Prime enhanced the pic, but dudes tounge seems to have come through intact

Yeah, so did a coulple of molars.

ChargerMike · Post by **ChargerMike** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 12:29 am

...where's Waldo?

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 12:40 am

any after picks of that dude? rack the hell outta my shoei. hope I never need it as badly as that dude did.

as for IB's brain dead post, the fact that she threw in the 'alledgedly' actually makes it a pretty solid post....for here. I used to work with harley dude. like all harley dudes, he had a story about the time the lack of a helmet saved him. he was sitting on his sportster at a light and some stupid bitch rear ended him. he claimed that the extra weight of a brain bucket would have resulted in him fracturng his neck. while this does seem possible, you still have to be really fukking dumb to ride without a full face lid. just ask meathead in that pick.

the rest of annie's post where she rambles, as only she can, about fault and how apparently, it's ok to make a biker a hood ornament if he doesn't have the proper papers, was definitely the dumbest thing I've read today.

Risa · Post by **Risa** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 1:00 am

Whatever, y'all. I too have heard those 'wearing no helmet saved my life'... which is why I said some. Some biker in the news said that Ben got off easy and would have been in worse shape if he'd been wearing a helmet; he also said it's better to be dead, than paralyzed for life -- and I hate to say it, but he has a point there. It's the 'do you force people to wear seatbelts, or do you let people make their own decisions, particularly in situations or with people who are in demographics known to be in worse shape during the use of a seat belt -- or improper seat belt use -- than not.

Yes, I know helmet (like seatbelts) save lives. But there's the rare times when it doesn't. Do you take your chances with dying immediately, or take your chances with living, sometimes in a fate worse than death situation?

And jsc, fuck that: i think organ donation should be mandatory for EVERYONE. organ donation should be the default on your driver's license, not the optional.

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 1:33 am

agree with you on the organs. as for helmet/seatbelt laws, I gotta go with darwin on this one. If you're dumb enough to ride without a lid, more power to you. That's one fewer mofo I'll have to share limited SS dollars with when I'm old. Some states have laws that say you can go ahead and be stupid so long asa you have ample insurance. I kinda like that rule.

Van · Post by **Van** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 2:11 am

It's all bullshit. There's never been a documented case whereby the wearing of a helmet was proven to be the deciding factor in injuring somebody.

Pure bullshit Biker Dude Urban Myth.

You want to prevent a situation where living is worse than dying? Wear a helmet. Starting off by protecting your head makes living so much better afterwards and paralysis is NOT going to be induced by wearing a helmet.

Annie, Moron Biker dude also makes the specious argument that "wearing a helmet reduces my peripheral vision and my sense of space and even my hearing"...

Bullshit, again. Don't buy any of that nonsense and sure as hell don't ever pass it along as some sort of cautionary note.

Wear a full face helmet, period. There's a reason real racers without exception wear full face helmets, and they ride in much closer quarters than any street rider.

Wear a full face helmet, period. Advise others to do so, period.

Risa · Post by **Risa** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 2:26 am

Annie, Moron Biker dude also makes the specious argument that "wearing a helmet reduces my peripheral vision and my sense of space and even my hearing"...

Why doesn't it?

(and you're in the wrong roach. you're in the wrong, wrong, wrong. omg.)

Ken · Post by **Ken** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 2:43 am

Roach wrote:I can't stop myself. I thought of it a while ago and tried to suppress it. I can't. I have to do it. Too bad for you fukkers.

After oral sex with Cinder...
It's not just an open face beef sandwich anymore boys.

I was thinking more along the lines of... "How's 'bout a bit of warning before posting a pic of cinder's snatch, eh?"

Van · Post by **Van** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 4:23 am

Annie, when riding a bike at speed without a helmet the roar of the windblast is so great that your hearing is FAR more drowned out than it is when wearing a helmet. Wearting a helmet knocks down the constant droning high frequency noise of riding but you can still hear anything that might interrupt that high frequency drone.

You can hear what you need to, in other words. Sirens, honking horns, other bikes, cars pulling near, whatever. You can easily hear what you need to hear when you wear a full face helmet.

In fact, prolonged exposure to highway droning can cause tinnitus even when wearing a full face helmet. You gotta wear earplugs if you regularly spend a lot of time on a bike at speed. All racers and all Iron Butt Tour contestants wear earplugs, for this very reason.

Believe me, they still need to be able to hear what's going on around them, and of course they can.

Peripheral vision? Ever wear a modern full face helmet? Unless you have eyes in the back of your head you won't have any better peripheral vision wearing no helmet than you will when wearing a (good) full face helmet. They're designed to give you a full panaramic view to the sides, as much as your normal field of vision would allow anyway.

The depth perception/spacial argument is simply stupid. It's based on not being used to wearing a helmet, is all.

"Claustrophobia!", is what some people say. No, lady, it's not claustrophobia. It's vanity, pure and simple. You don't want to deal with "helmet hair" and you want that whole hair in the breeze with your cool sunglasses on look.

Shut the fuck up, lady. Your head won't look that great when a chunk of it is missing because your Vin Diesel Wannabe boyfriend crashed the bike after a kicked up rock hit him in his cheek and caused him to screw up and down you both went, helmetless.

Annie, here's all you need to ever know in terms of real safety:

What do professional motorcycle roadracers use for safety?

See, racers can't afford artiface. They can't prioritize fashion over function. They have to protect themselves as best as possible. In fact, we have racers to thank for the advancements in full face helmets such as the incredible peripheral vision, light breatheable materials, awesome venting and very light material weight.

Racers would look at you like you're from Mars if you tried to tell them that a full face helmet cuts down their hearing/spacial awareness/peripheral vision. Try to also tell them that the weight of their helmet puts them at risk for neck injury and they'd walk you over to the nearest brick wall (or they'd just stoop down to the tarmac's surface) and grab your hand and have you knock on the surface.

"What, and you think my unprotected head hitting this at speed doesn't also put my neck at risk?? What about my head??"

Annie, people have died simply from slipping at a red light and tipping over. Lots of people have become vegetables due to very low speed spills which occured without the benefit of head protection. They simply landed wrong and hit their unprotected head, hard. A six foot drop is all it takes.

That same episode, only while wearing a good full face helmet? They have to pay for some scratched up bike parts and maybe they have to also buy a new helmet.

Big fucking deal. Every time you see a really scuffed up or heavily damaged helmet just imagine if that'd been the person's head taking that shot rather than the helmet.

This is a no brainer, an absolute no brainer.

chargerfan · Post by **chargerfan** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 4:47 am

Could have been worse he could have ended up like this dude. This guy was supposedly going 176 mph.

***Warning Extreme Gore*** dont scroll down if you have a weak Stomach.

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 5:06 am

nice tatts. is that a subway logo on his right arm?