Bikers wearing pumpkin helmets
Some Nigerian motorcyclists are attempting to get around a new helmet law by wearing dried pumpkins shells on their heads. The shells, called calabashes, are commonly used as vessels for liquid. So far, 50 motorcycles have been impounded in the city of Kano after their riders were caught wearing pumpkin helmets. From the BBC News:
Kano Federal Road Safety Commission commander Yusuf Garba told the BBC they were taking a hard line with people found using the improvised helmets.Nigeria bikers' vegetable helmets (Thanks, Carlo Longino!)
"We are impounding their bikes and want to take them to court so they can explain why they think wearing a calabash is good enough for their safety," he said.
the latest
latest episodes
bikers that don't wear lids don't deserve the brains they're putting at risk.
In states where bikers don't have to wear helmets, if they get into an accident while not wearing one, and don't have complete insurance, not a cent of state money should be spent on their account.
Pictures??
Tim, what about people that don't fasten their seat belts? That don't pay attention while driving? That eat unhealthy food?
Is it just British usage to call any kind of gourd a pumpkin, or is the writer of this article just ignorant as to the difference between a pumpkin (which is an American squash) and a calabash (which is an African gourd)?
this thread is useless without pics
Thank goodness, in my state we may have nanny-laws about smoking, but at least we let people ride their bikes as unprotected as they like!
(having said that, not wearing a helmet is stupid! Seriously, people.)
These things aren't going to do any good if they get in a wreck. Those people are out of their gourds.
@#3 dculberson
I believe most states do have laws regarding seat belts and liability. I don't think laws can necessarily be made in regards to a person paying attention while driving; other than laws regarding medical conditions which might cause said loss of attention. As for the food issue, well that is just a tad off topic isn't it?
DBarak FTW.
Is somebody seriously comparing not wearing a seatbelt to eating a cheeseburger again? You can choose not to have cheeseburgers terribly often, and even if you do, offset it by eating better in other ways and exercising, but how the hell do you exercise away you being a smear on the highway pavement? I need to learn that ab crunch!
Personally, I Ride. I support wearing a helmet, but being in AZ I don't always wear one. It is my choice and I am well aware of the risk I take by not doing so. My decision doesn't affect anyone else other than me.
Helmet laws are just a impingement on personal liberty, If I want to take my life in my own hands knowing the risks involved why should the state tell me different? Seriously, If you have a rational argument, I'd like to hear it.
@ #11 posted by vetnoir
My only argument for helmet laws is the cost to the community for medical treatment, or worse, handling and disposal of remains. (I'm not trying to be ghoulish.)
@11: "My decision doesn't affect anyone else other than me."
Really? You don't have any friends or family that care about you?
How about those that have to pick up the pieces after your extended stay in the ICU due to brain injuries?
But you have insurance, right? Well thanks for raising the rates for the rest of us. And if you don't have insurance, the taxpayers get to foot the bill.
Oh, that's right. Your decision doesn't affect anyone else.
VetNoir, have you signed an organ-donor card?
If you do, you can partially defray the impact on others of your decision. And your signature on the organ-donor card goes up in value, since you're much more likely than, say, me to actually die with harvestable organs.
I have it on good authority that EMTs call any motorcyclist without a helmet an organ donor anyway, but that's just their ironic observation—your organs can't be harvested if you didn't sign up to donate them.
I generally encourage people to sign organ-donor cards, but in your case it's particularly important, and possibly urgent.
helmets should be optional. If medical care is to be denied high risk takers, then it should be across the board. Skiers, skaters, those who voluntarily chose dangerous work, fair is fair.
I agree with Vetnoir...Wearing a helmet is the smarter thing to do, but I think wearing one is up to the rider. It is an issue of personal liberty. As far as getting in a bike accident, its like Seinfeld said
about people who wear helmets when they jump out of airplanes, "the helmet is wearing you for protection".
My point is that many people engage in risk taking behavior, and it's not your job to decide which risk is okay and which isn't.
PaulieBaby, I guess you've never seen a helmet cracked in half when the rider's head was uninjured. Same accident minus the helmet, the head cracks open instead.
If you don't think a helmet does any good, why do you think wearing one is "the smarter thing to do"?
Fatal accidents snarl traffic, DCulberson. Also, dead bodies in the road are a traffic hazard. Do you think it's a matter of personal liberty to drive the wrong way down a highway? Of course not. There's a difference between taking a personal risk and taking a risk that endangers others.
You force people to wear helmets for their own good. Then I suppose you can force people to quit smoking for their own good. Quit drinking for their own good.
Quit going outside after dark for their own good. What are the statistics on muggings after dark?
You could force people to stop doing, well, anything risky simply for their own good.
I do agree that they should wear helmets, but I don't agree that we should make them do so (except in the cases of minors as passengers.)
There are reasons that someone might not wear a helmet. I have known a few bikers who feel it throws off their balance, impedes their vision, or is simply too hot and they start sweating into their eyes and dew rags don't do anything for it. All of these are potentially accident-causing. In certain circumstances, and hear me out here, it might actually, possibly, on some level, be safer for the drivers around the rider if the rider is not wearing a helmet.
In some cases. Sometimes. Perhaps. Maybe.
It seems like most people who insist on riders wearing helmets don't ride. A lot of bicycle riders, sensibly, wear helmets for their commutes, but might not when popping down the street to go to the store. Same goes for me when I'm going long distance or plan to ride fast on my motorcycle, I strap a lid on, and if I'm just putting around the neighborhood, I wouldn't, if the state of Oregon would allow it. There are plenty of head injuries in car accidents, too, so why not wear helmets when driving?
I remember an ABATE event years ago in California where everyone wore helmets made of bread to the San Francisco bay and tossed them into the bay at the end of the ride.
if riding motorcycles is so inherently dangerous, then perhaps they should be banned altogether. It isn't much of a stretch to argue there is insufficient utilitarian justification for motorcycles.
the real problem is "pleasure" movement. People shouldn't waste gas, pollute and take risks just for the joy of moving around. If there isn't a good practical reason for it, people should not leave their work stations or bunks. Well except for feeding and the toilet - but we're working on that.
I ride, and anyone who rides on the street without a lid is a fool. There's no law about eye protection or against wearing shorts and flip flops, either. Maybe the "personal liberty" gang should really prove their point and ride around in nothing but thongs and sandals.
@Forgeweld
Why stop at driving? Pedestrians are in danger of getting hit by cars at every crosswalk. Perhaps we should all be wearing helmets when we are near a road. Certainly, it would be safer. We don't need to be taking any unnecessary risks.
Especially the uninsured!
Not to mention the electricity wasted by viewing non-work related content on such work stations, and the resultant unnecessary strain on eyes, musco-skelatal systems, etc. that are driving our insurance costs through the roof!
@GRIMC
Then let them be fools. If they are a fool in one area, perhaps they stumble around for their entire lives as fools, and they take themselves out of the gene pool. So be it, and let them eat their cake.
Oh wait, that's bad for you too. Hmm.
I'd love to see pictures of these helmets. I see gourd birdfeeders converted to head wear.
I think people on bikes without helmets are idiots, but support their right to choose.
I hope the government bodies that hand out bikes to the unemployed are also providing helmets. The Nigerian drivers are protesting the cost, not their civil liberties.
One helmet costs 10% of a bike, up to $29. Passengers require a helmet too. Drivers charge ~$.50 a ride. So it takes 116 trips to cover the cost of two helmets and there is a high risk that passengers will steal the helmet. Plus, riders are reluctant to wear them, apparently due to fears of bad juju.
If the intent of the law is to eliminate okada they should ban them like in Abuja. If the intent is improve road safety they should require proven skills and subsidize helmets.
those dudes just need DOT stickers (or the Nigerian equivalent of the the DOT) on their helmets so the cops don't bust them for wearing "novelty" helmets.
I can't believe nobody has posted a link to this famous helmet
Ah and this flickr photo with a but of synchronicity in who the first commenter is.
Xopher, your argument is so ridiculous as to be ignorable. It makes no sense.
@dculberson
If you're talking about the cracked helmet thing, you should know that motorcycle helmets are designed to fracture on impact, absorbing the kinetic force in that manner. They're not supposed to last like football helmets. One wreck, one helmet.
How do I get membership in that "personal liberty" gang?
Nigerians are not rich by and large. Helmets there are probably a hardship. Further, a good helmet costs around $500 and up these days. Also, if dropped even once, they are considered compromised.
What role does those who profit from forcing helmet purchases play in all this? What about bicycle helmets?
Plain fact is, the driving force behind helmet laws has always been to give police another stick to beat people with.
Remember kids, any government regulation is a totally black and white issue. Anyone who tells you there's room for shades of grey is an evil socialist who wants to stop you from eating cheeseburgers. There is no other option but to accept this argument. If you fail to accept it, you will be told you are "so ridiculous as to be ignorable" and that you make no sense. Because that's how good debate happens.
Now that you know this, you can stop any pretense at debate. Holy writ has been handed down by my parents, Ayn Rand and God.
Does anybody know the monetary cost of paying for medical treatment for accident victims who didn't wear seatbelts, helmets, etc compared to the monetary cost of having the police and courts enforce these laws?
I mean, we're getting people arguing about how much it costs to provide care for people injured in bike accidents, but cops, judges, and lawyers don't work free.
Plain fact is, the driving force behind helmet laws has always been to give police another stick to beat people with.
Yep. Just as seat belt laws are really about literally putting the citizenry in bondage and restrict their freedom of movement.
You people are pathetic. People are putting GOURDS (ok fine calabashes) on their heads! It's AMUSING!
If you want to get all serious, go post in the pharmacy thread (kankankan). One erect penis and everyone is completely blinded to the rest of the medical misery present.
Not amusing enough, Holtt. Had boingboing gone all the way they would have showed an hybrid between the calabash helmet and calabash lamps (you let the fruit dry and drill n holes in it, glue glass marbles and put a lightbulb inside).
Not quite kankankan, tho.
Hmm what about using a calabash as a prophylactic? It would be birth control, STD protection, AND you'd last for hours!
LIVE FREE OR DIE
I reserve the right to wear a pumpkin on my head whenever and wherever it pleases me!
Jjasper, how is this "good debate:"
"Fatal accidents snarl traffic, DCulberson. Also, dead bodies in the road are a traffic hazard. Do you think it's a matter of personal liberty to drive the wrong way down a highway? Of course not. There's a difference between taking a personal risk and taking a risk that endangers others."
Yes, because saying that one personally risky behavior is comparable to another is just like saying it's okay to drive the wrong way down the highway, amirite? No, it's not, so Xopher's "point" is ridiculous and useless.
Man, I wish the post or article had pictures!
As for helmets, try living in Hawaii. Helmets are not required by law and I frequently see people speeding by me on motorcycles on the freeway(!) with no helmet. It always makes me cringe.
BUT, I do support the right to choose. Free will and whatnot.
They will only get my pumpkin if they pry it from my cold dead ... head.
If I want to take my life in my own hands knowing the risks involved why should the state tell me different?
Because I have to pay for your ambulance ride and your ER visit and your long term care. Either through taxes or by higher insurance premiums.
then should people who wish to engage in high risk activity be able to purchase or decline extra insurance coverage?
GrimC 33: In fairness I think DCulberson was referring to my argument at 19, which was no more absurd than the perennial Libertarian claim that nothing they do impacts anyone else, or even than the lines they draw. It's ridiculous to say that a cracked-open head affects no one but the person whose head it is. I reduced it to the triviality of snarling traffic as a way of making fun of this notion.
JJasper 36: You are my new hero. Swift demolition and my favorite argument for the serial comma in one comment!
I was listening to a traumatic brain injury specialist being interviewed on the radio. He said he literally gags a little when he sees someone riding a motorcycle without a helmet, because he's seen so many of them post-crash and knows what can happen. (Interestingly, he also said the Army provides the best TBI care anywhere, and that people with comparable brain injuries get better treatment if they get the injury in Iraq than if they get it in the US.)
We have laws that strike some sort of balance between total who-cares depraved indifference to people and total "With Folded Hands" paternalist paralysis. Generally we try to protect people from truly massive stupidity, while letting them make their own decisions about relatively minor things. That's why it's illegal to walk the tracks in the subway, but not to pig out at Subway.
It's debatable where the line is. Only the most extreme libertarian loonies would say there should be no line, and that you should be able to walk the subway tracks if you want. Only extreme paternalist wackos would say there should be no line, and that you should be protected from ever doing anything that might not be in your best interest.
I think helmet laws are a reasonable protective measure. This is a matter on which reasonable people could have a rational disagreement, but some of the anti-helmet-law people on this thread are saying "well then you should only be able to have nonfat milk on your cornflakes" as if there were no matters of degree to consider. If a married man yells at his wife (once, not as an ongoing pattern of emotional abuse), only crazy people think that he should be arrested (just for that). If he beats her regularly, so that she's bruised/bleeding and terrified, only crazy people think he should not be. 100 years ago most people thought the government had no business interfering in his treatment of his wife.
I think the extreme position that there should be no laws protecting people from truly massive stupidity is more or less equivalent to depraved indifference to others. I think riding a motorcycle without a helmet belongs in that category; if you disagree, do try to be rational.
The Nigerians are good sports, Charlie Brown!
Antinous, what about other risky behavior, stuff that you yourself engage in? Should that be made illegal or should the cost of coverage be denied when something goes wrong?
I get it ... smashing pumpkins?
Teenage rebellion - ur doin it rong. Well, not so much wrong as decades too late.
I think it should be against the law for people to voluntarily enroll in a military that sends them off to be killed or maimed in illegal, unjust wars of aggression. The numbers support me.
dculberson - You may not know this, but Xopher has been known to employ small amounts of sarcasm and hyperbole.
Try looking beyond that, and actually talk about *why* this particular restriction on "personal liberty" is bad instead of a blanket statement that because it's a restriction on something you think should be a persona liberty, it's ipso-facto bad.
Really. It's good for you to think from time to time.
Oh, and anyone who points at an argument and tells everyone that it's "so ridiculous as to be ignorable" should be sent off to the hell of recursive hells. It's that simple, understand?
[/David Lo Pan]
Technically, does driving without a helmet really raise health insurance rates? Life insurance, maybe...
Superfluous, only some of them die right away.
Others are Schiavoed, and their families keep them pseudoalive for months or years, while the medical bills pile up and up.
Others are "locked in," apparently conscious but unable to move or speak or communicate in any way, and can remain that way for decades, needing constant care but not quite dying.
Still others make a partial recovery, and are dramatically impaired physically or mentally or both, requiring all kinds of accommodations that cost a fortune.
I think the TBI expert on the radio said that even if you make a complete recovery from a not-that-bad injury, the whole process comes in at around $250,000.
what price With Folded Hands?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/With_Folded_Hands
Ha, Takuan! I already mentioned WFH at #48!
I wish all the sky-is-falling 'we are being bankrupted by the overwhelming burdens that idiot motorcyclists are putting on the health care system' people would at least supply some numbers to back up their assertions. I had a good friend who died when her horse kicked her in the head. Sad accident. Lots of people get head injuries in soccer and rugby games. I'm sure these all add up to increased health care costs, but I don't think it's so overwhelming that all of these people should be forced to wear helmets. Maybe it is. If it saved you $50 a year on your insurance bill, would you demand all of those people protect themselves as thought necessary?
I think we would bring down health care costs a lot more by regulating administration and overhead costs in HMOs than by a helmet fest. If head injuries are so costly and you're so concerned about them, you should know that the highest single cause, 28%, are caused by falls. Motor vehicle accidents account for 20% (http://www.biausa.org/aboutbi.htm). Maybe all hikers and anyone using a ladder should be wearing them.
Motorcycle accidents are so visible and can be so traumatic that they get a lot of attention. I have ridden since I was a little squirt and have a pretty good idea of how to protect myself and when I need a helmet and when I don't. Someone who just bought a scooter at age 30 should probably be wearing a helmet all the time. Should I have to wear a helmet to protect society and inexperienced riders? Maybe so. But without studies and statistics to tell me what the truth of the situation might be, I just feel like motorcyclists are being picked on by the ignorant majority.
so why are you arguing against yourself?
I didn't think I was. I don't think it's anyone's business whether I wear a helmet or not, but if I saw credible proof that the overall benefit to society were so overwhelming and the detriment so much more than other risky activities where helmets are not mandated I would be willing to shut up and put on the skid lid. I haven't seen anything like that and doubt I will, but it's not completely out of the question.
no no! Teh Xoph!
Huh?
Jjasper, I think the onus is on those that wish to restrict freedoms to prove their case.
And nice, wishing hell upon someone for dismissing someone else's logical fallacy.
The thing is, we *can* restrict other people's "freedom", and we're inevitably going to. So the only question is, what are the rules.
And nice, wishing hell upon someone for dismissing someone else's logical fallacy.
Irony. Ur doing it wrong.
smattr? U dnt speek kitteh? I said: "my comment regarding the argument was directed at the alien burrowing mammal,not yourself" Pray forgive me.
Sometimes I think some of you just live to argue and others to just stir it up. Kitteh helmet picture FTW if you ask me. ^~^
what do you mean by that? Is that a challenge?
Tak: I wasn't. If you read the comment I refer to, I used WFH to point out the danger of excess in the direction of restricting freedom too much (and used "walking on the subway tracks" to point out the danger of restricting it too little). I think the line has to be drawn somewhere, and opined that helmet laws are on the correct side of that line.
We who believe in helmet laws aren't necessarily fascists, in other words.
(cryptofascist!)
@forgeveld
Someone who just bought a scooter at age 30 should probably be wearing a helmet all the time.
And that, I think, exposes the major flaw in your way of thinking. You apparently have the too-common belief that motorcycle crashes are due to rider mistakes. It could never happen to you, because you're too experienced. Truth is, you could be Valentino Rossi and if some cager isn't paying attention and t-bones you, all your skills aren't going to help.
When you don't wear a lid, you're not relying on your riding skill to protect yourself; you're trusting the driving-while-texting-eating-a-hamburger-shouting-at-the-kids-while-pulling-out-into-traffic drivers of the world.
(Mollusk!)
@grimc
The biggest part of surviving on the road is an awareness that borders on paranoia of all the potential ill moves by everything else on the road. It's not perfect,but mostly effective. I think the flaw in your thinking is that getting an unavoidable hit on a bike and a resulting head injury is so much more likely than one resulting from a horse kick or a ladder fall that we have to force helmets on motorcyclists.
It's a matter of relative risk and whether you get to be free enough to manage that risk yourself, or society gets to restrict it. I've also heard people say that it's just plain reckless to ride at all no matter what you're wearing, because of the type of unavoidable hazards you mention. Cooped up in a cage, belted, with air bags ready to pop is a much safer way to get around than a bike. There are plenty of horrible, life altering and ending injuries to be gotten if you get T-boned while riding even if your melon comes out unscathed. Risking those is part of the 'cost' of the benefits of riding and assessing and mitigating those risks, including the decision of whether to wear a helmet or not should be up to the rider, in my opinion.
A solid rider education course and licensing test to get a moto license with the horrors of head injuries and the benefits of helmets featured, yes. Mandatory helmet laws, no.
i actually saw a man on a crotchrocket swerve to miss a car-carrier, hit the tail end of said carrier, was thrown from the bike, and was decapitated by a signpost. he was wearing a full face shoei helmet. probably one of the most traumatic things i've witnessed. i doubt a punkin shell would've done him any better, but having a top-of-the-line piece of headgear didn't do much for him either. i have to admit, i rarely wear one when i ride, myself. i def dont think that it should be legislated. i dont think seatbelts should either, though i always buckle up. and grimc, when on the road, i am of the opinion that EVERYONE else is trying to kill me, either on a bike or in a car.
bicycle or motorcycle, you ride like they are trying their damnedest to kill you - or they will.
Tak@77- Amen to that.
It may be that they are actually using the fruit of the calabash tree (cresentai cujete) rather that the calabash gourd.
The fruit of the calabash tree would indeed make a fine helmet.
Nobody's sed it yet, so I must:
PUNKIN-HEADS!
Jjasper, sorry, I recognize the irony now, I was just a little miffed at the moment I guess!
Here's the thing; I wear a helmet every single time I ride. I also wear a full armored suit. EVERY time, even when it's 90 degrees out. But I just don't believe it's right to force that on others. Yes, there's a cost to society, but that's true of a lot of things.
I think Forgeweld raises a great point: good rider education goes way further than safety equipment. Avoiding a crash is better than a helmet any day. Which reminds me, I need to sign up for the expert rider's course this year!
In Viet Nam there's a helmet law, but not nearly enough helmets for everyone in the country, and everyone rides scooters. There's also laws about street signs, lights, what side of the road to drive on, etc. but no one follows them. They have the worst traffic I've ever seen.
Definitely a gourdian not
dculberson - If you don't like helmet laws because they're akin to the absurd security theater that we see from TSA screeners, say so. Stop trying to make it a question of liberty, and make it into one of effectiveness. Do some research. Look into how many crashes are fatal because a driver was wearing a helmet versus not.
We all put up with some restrictions on our personal liberty. Why is wearing a helmet so important. Explain. Have an actual point to make. Use fact. Argue calmly. When you take a fellow boing boinger down a peg, be funny, and explain what they did wrong.
1) Few people ride bikes for pleasure in Kano. It's usually because they cannot afford cars.
2) When the boss tells Jack to give you a ride on his bike to the work site, you can't say "but I don't have a helmet". Which 5 year old is going to say "erm ... dad, I'd rather not ride that bike since you haven't bought me a helmet". Mandatory helmet laws also protect those who do not choose to ride without helmets. Kids, wifes, employees.
3) Accidents do not have to be fatal. No helmet is going to save you from that 100kmh crash into a solid brick wall. But that does not mean they are completely useless in other circumstances. I used to ride bikes. I fell on some sand, and skidded on my face, on the rough road surface. Fortunately I was wearing a full-face helmet. Otherwise, I'll be wearing a prosthetic chin today.