dave mcbride Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 Well if Jerome says it...with his vast medical expertise... "encouraging" news from a hospital means the patient isn't going to DIE. From a medical standpoint Kellen Winslow wasn't seriously injured in his motorcycle wreck, hospitals prioritize arms and legs much lower than heads and internal organs, if you tear an ACL in a car wreck you're "fine" because it won't kill you. If you whack your head off the ground and the news is "encouraging" that means they don't think they'll have to drill a hole in your skull to let the blood drain out before the excess pressure kills you. It doesn't mean that you don't have a hellacious concussion or a fractured skull. 707360[/snapback] i'm just pointing out that no one really knows what state he is in. he could be fine or not - we'll all find out soon enough. it just seems that most here are using this as a platform to attack the guy for his evident stupidity, and that argument gets bolstered when one assumes that he suffered horrible injuries. if one assumes that he just suffered some relatively minor injuries, then the drama recedes a bit and no one can get quite so worked up. that's why people like to focus on the former possibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaliforniaCheez Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 While not all the facts are known there is enough to provide a picture of what happened. 1. The other driver was from out of town with Maine plates. Unfamiliar with the area. 2. It was a Chrysler New Yorker. Young alert drivers with good eyesight are usually not in the market for New Yorkers. 3. The big Chrysler was turning left. Those turning left are usually required to yield. Ben was not at fault. He was not wearing a hearing and vision restricting helmet. The loss of earnings and loss of earning potential for a career likely exceeds the the liability limits of the Chrysler's policy. The out of towner is likely very lonely in Pittsburgh right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sen. John Blutarsky Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 Ben was not at fault. He was not wearing a hearing and vision restricting helmet. 707371[/snapback] Ya know, that hearing and vision restricting helmet doesn't seem to bother him at work. And any helmet is better than none, even if it wasn't a full face shielded one. The rest of us have hearing and vision restricting CARS around us, my helmet weighs 3,000 lbs...how's yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC-Bills Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 I think the helmet law should be based upon speed. if you're going less than 35 (e.g. on a city street) you should have to wear a helmet because the likelihood of a minor crash that you can survive is high, if you're on the freeway the hell with it because if you wipe out you're road kill, especially these guys on the racing bikes, they fall, they're dead, the only thing the helmet will do is allow your faily to identify the mass of shredded flesh you will have become. 707366[/snapback] Don't take my previous post seriously. Just throwing some good natured crap KRC's way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sen. John Blutarsky Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 it just seems that most here are using this as a platform to attack the guy for his evident stupidity, and that argument gets bolstered when one assumes that he suffered horrible injuries. if one assumes that he just suffered some relatively minor injuries, then the drama recedes a bit and no one can get quite so worked up. 707370[/snapback] His level of stupidity is, in no way, linked to the severity of his injuries. He was stupid before he got hit by a car. I'm also quite sure that he was in violation of his massive contract (just like Winslow). If he ends up not being seriously hurt, it makes him luckier, not smarter. Just like it makes me luckier if I drive my car w/o a seatbelt and the airbag switched off and I don't get hurt, it isn't smart, it's lucky. If he wears a cup for football why not a helmet for riding in PA...neither are required by the rules (the NFL requires helmet use so it's not a fair comparison) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 What's good for the squeegie industry is good for America. 707369[/snapback] Don't forget the sponge industry. A country cannot be built on squeegies alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 Don't take my previous post seriously. Just throwing some good natured crap KRC's way. 707376[/snapback] Rabble-rouser. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC-Bills Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 Just think of all the people hitting the unemployment lines? Where will they find work? 707362[/snapback] Who needs work when we have welfare? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC-Bills Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 Rabble-rouser. 707381[/snapback] Stop putting me up on a pedestal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaliforniaCheez Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 Why blame the victim?? The other driver clobbered him. Higher standards are required to operate a car in this country. Motorcycles are not to blame. It is the drivers who fail to maintain a proper lookout for other traffic are to be blamed. This Maine driver should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law in Pittsburgh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 Who needs work when we have welfare? 707382[/snapback] Good point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H2o Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 Yo, kid is really messed up. Broken jaw, nose, possible sinus cavity. They said a 9" laceration across the back of his head. Knee injuries that they don't know the full extent of yet. They said he knocked out half of his teeth. A plastic surgeon is being brought in to reconstruct his face basically. Pittsburgh better hope Omar Jacobs can get it done at the pro level. My prayers are with Ben though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 Stop putting me up on a pedestal 707384[/snapback] You have nothing to worry about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC-Bills Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 You have nothing to worry about. 707388[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeFerguson Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 There will always be things that are beyond your control or happen too quickly but it's a chance you take. 707266[/snapback] This pretty much sums up how I feel about any high risk activity. I ride my bicycle to work quite often. I realize when I do so I put myself in a more vulnerable position. If I were to someday be hit by a car, I wouldn't blame the driver. The moment I took my bicycle out on to a road with huge cars traveling with an unstoppable force, I accepted responsibility for any accident that could come my way. I don't get angry at cars for not being aware of me on the road. Statistically it is not in their minds to look for people on bicycles (and motorcycles), so drivers are not expecting me. No motorcyclist should ever expect a car to be overly aware of their presence simply because they are driving a dangerous vehicle. I don't really care about all the factors involved in this particular accident. I don't care if it was a confusing intersection, if it wasn't Ben's fault, if there was low visibility. I don't feel any obligation to feel sorry for a guy who is injured in a motorcycle accident, regardless of whether he was wearing a helmet or not. On the same note, I don't expect anyone to feel sorry for me if I ever get hit by a car while I'm on my bicycle. I accepted the risk involved in my high risk activity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sen. John Blutarsky Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 This Maine driver should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law in Pittsburgh. 707385[/snapback] I agree, but it doesn't excuse the person who got hit for not doing everything they can do to protect themselves. I go right back to the seat belt arguement, if you go through a windshield w/o a belt on it's at least partially YOUR FAULT for not accepting responsibility for your own safety. YOU could have taken action to reduce the severity of your own injuries in the event of an accident. YOU chose not to do that. Why does he wear a mouthguard on the field, thigh pads, large (non-kicker) shoulder pads? To protect himself from the hit he doesn't see coming. He does that on grass, not at any speed on concrete with thousands of pounds of steel flying around. For football, he'll take precautions, but not for riding his motorcycle? Stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cripes Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 The bike he was riding (Suzuki Hayabusa) is labeled the "world's fastest bike" by many enthusiasts. 200 mph top speed; you get get up to 150 mph in under 10 seconds. Loosing a few teeth and breaking a jaw in a low-speed downtown crash may turn out to be the luckiest break of Roethlisberger's life if it permanently gets him off this two-wheeled ICBM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevie Ray Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 Why blame the victim?? The other driver clobbered him. Higher standards are required to operate a car in this country. Motorcycles are not to blame. It is the drivers who fail to maintain a proper lookout for other traffic are to be blamed. This Maine driver should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law in Pittsburgh. 707385[/snapback] Without knowing all the full details (like was the driver DUI), why should she be prosecuted? It was an accident. I'm sure she wasnt aiming to mow him down. Blame it on carelessness or stupidity on her part, or perhaps BR was speeding and just came out of nowhere (tunnel?) while she was just about making her turn, but does that warrant prosecution? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 Pictures of wreck FYI - it might take time to load. He is lucky. 707339[/snapback] If he was going fast enough to do that, he's an idiot for not wearing a helmet. But he has a right to be an idiot. Just so he pays for the lady's car... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 I think the helmet law should be based upon speed. if you're going less than 35 (e.g. on a city street) you should have to wear a helmet because the likelihood of a minor crash that you can survive is high, if you're on the freeway the hell with it because if you wipe out you're road kill, especially these guys on the racing bikes, they fall, they're dead, the only thing the helmet will do is allow your faily to identify the mass of shredded flesh you will have become. 707366[/snapback] Most fatal crashes take place at less than 30... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts