Why Does Ben Roethlisberger Refuse to Do Public Safety Announcements?

  • Thread starter Rach3
  • Start date
In summary, Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger was involved in a motorcycle accident and has received criticism for not wearing a helmet. He has since been released from the hospital and has apologized for his actions, stating that he will wear a helmet if he ever rides a motorcycle again. There is an ongoing investigation into the accident and no charges have been filed yet. The Steelers have not given a timeline for Roethlisberger's return to the team.
  • #1
Rach3
I came across this story by chance - it's too funny not to share!

Some football player (the American kind) explains his decision not to be involved in a public-safety advertisement (nothing wrong with that in itself, of course):

PITTSBURGH (AP) -- Ben Roethlisberger doesn't plan on doing public safety announcements for motorcycle or helmet safety following his accident last month.

..."Some people feel that, you know, I probably should be doing that and being a big advocate for that," Roethlisberger said from Los Angeles. "But for me, I'm going to let people make their own decisions... So I don't think you'll see me doing any kind of billboards or advertisements."
Roethlisberger had seven hours of facial reconstruction surgery June 12 after ramming his motorcycle into a car that turned left in front of him on a Pittsburgh street.

Roethlisberger broke his jaw and nose when his head smashed into the car's windshield and he was thrown over the car onto the pavement. He was cited for riding without a license and not wearing a helmet.
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ap-roethlisberger-helmetads&prov=ap&type=lgns

Indeed, he makes his own decisions.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Crashing one's motorcycle into a car is probably not a good decision, especially when one is not wearing a helmet. :rolleyes: :biggrin:
 
  • #3
He sounds like a right twit, or did he suffer brain damage? it all ways makes me cringe when i watch American chopper and you see guys wearing bandanas riding 1200cc bikes.
 
  • #4
Rach3 said:
Some football player ...
Did you say "some" football player??! :bugeye:
 
  • #5
Probably he shouldn't be wearing a helmet while playing the game too. :biggrin:
 
  • #6
Gokul43201 said:
Did you say "some" football player??! :bugeye:
Some faceless football player. :rofl:
 
  • #7
It is the same with people who smoke, do drugs, eat only junk food, jump out of airplanes, box, play football, ride bulls etc.

All these things have danger in them.
Should they be illegal? I don't think so.

As far as I am concerned it should be the drivers responsibility. By not wearing a helmet one does not endanger anyone else, so why should we care if they don't want to wear it. What is bright about that?

I would be more concerned with things like talking on the cell phone while driving. That's, according to tests, just as dangerous as drunk driving. But that is legal, and that can harm other people.

So why bother about making wearing a helmet illegal while letting people call while driving?
What is bright about that? :confused:
 
Last edited:
  • #8
wolram said:
He sounds like a right twit, or did he suffer brain damage?
Before or after he crashed into the car - then the pavement? :rolleyes:
 
  • #9
neutrino said:
Probably he shouldn't be wearing a helmet while playing the game too. :biggrin:
Apparently, his coach tried making the same argument when trying to get him to wear a motorcycle helmet before the crash. His response to it was that he only wears one in football because the regulations require it. :eek: No, the accident didn't cause brain damage, he was like that before the accident.
 
  • #10
Gokul43201 said:
Did you say "some" football player??! :bugeye:
I thought exactly the same thing. Obviously the OP isn't from the US. Here is a long thread about this incident from the Thumpertalk dirtbike forums that I frequent:

http://www.thumpertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=384772

And here is a good bit more info about Ben and the accident:

Roethlisberger says he's ``fortunate to be alive'' after crash

By JOE MANDAK, Associated Press Writer


PITTSBURGH (AP) -- Ben Roethlisberger apologized to the Pittsburgh Steelers, fans and his family on Thursday, hours after being released from a hospital, saying he was fortunate to be alive and pledging to wear a helmet if he ever again rides a motorcycle.

"In the past few days, I've gained a new perspective on life," the Super Bowl-winning quarterback said in a statement released by the team. "By the grace of God, I'm fortunate to be alive ... "

ADVERTISEMENT


Roethlisberger, 24, who wrecked his bike and cracked his head on a car windshield on Monday, was discharged late Wednesday night.

The youngest quarterback ever to win a Super Bowl was not wearing a helmet when he crashed into a car that was turning left in front of his motorcycle. Pennsylvania's mandatory helmet law was repealed in 2003.

But Roethlisberger said in the statement that if he ever rides a motorcycle again "it certainly will be with a helmet."

Doctors have said two rounds of tests showed no brain injuries, although there was a mild concussion. Doctors used small titanium plates and screws to reassemble Roethlisberger's broken jaws and repaired other broken facial bones. He also lost two teeth and chipped several others, doctors said.

In the statement, Roethlisberger said that he realizes he has a responsibility to safeguard his health in the offseason so he can continue to lead the team.

The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, citing confidentiality laws, has refused to confirm media reports that Roethlisberger does not have a valid Pennsylvania motorcycle license.

Roethlisberger appeared to address those reports in his statement.

"I never meant any harm to others nor to break any laws," Roethlisberger said. "I was confident in my ability to ride a motorcycle and simply believed such an accident would not happen to me."

Cincinnati Bengals quarterback Carson Palmer said those criticizing Roethlisberger for not wearing a helmet should back off.

"He went through seven hours of surgery and the last thing he needs right now is guys banging on him for not wearing a helmet," Palmer said at Bengals' minicamp in Cincinnati.

Police were still investigating and will not release their findings until their accident reconstruction is complete, spokeswoman Tammy Ewin said. Police have finished inspecting Roethlisberger's Suzuki Hayabusa motorcycle and the car, but Ewin would not elaborate on that part of the investigation.

A secretary for District Justice Oscar Petite Jr., who has jurisdiction where the crash occurred, said no citations or other charges have been filed.

The car's driver, a 62-year-old woman, did not immediately return a telephone message Thursday.

The Steelers have not given a timetable for Roethlisberger's return, but hope he will be ready for their Sept. 7 opener against Miami. Players who visited Roethlisberger in the hospital believe he will return to action soon, with no ill effects.

"I look forward to being at training camp in Latrobe and winning football games this season," Roethlisberger said in the statement.

The Steelers are 27-4 with Roethlisberger at quarterback and have played in two AFC championship games and won a Super Bowl during his two seasons as a starter.

Bengals receiver Chad Johnson hopes the accident does not cause teams to impose more contractual limits on dangerous activities by players.

"They took away the (touchdown) celebrations. Now we can't enjoy ourselves outside of the facility? That's not fair," Johnson said.

"If you're going to do it, do it very cautiously. If you're going to ride a bike, ride it the right way. Don't speed. Do it for enjoyment. If you're going to bungee jump, have two cords in case one snaps. I don't ride anything. I just talk trash. That's it."

Although Roethlisberger was able to sneak out of the hospital Wednesday night, Mercy Hospital officials did not confirm his release until Thursday morning at the request of his family.

It was unclear where Roethlisberger went when he left the hospital. A bodyguard outside Roethlisberger's home did not say if the player was inside, but several vehicles were parked in the driveway and on the street nearby.

AP Sports Writer Joe Kay in Cincinnati contributed to this report.



Updated on Thursday, Jun 15, 2006 7:57 pm EDT
 
  • #11
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

"I never meant any harm to others nor to break any laws," Roethlisberger said. "I was confident in my ability to ride a motorcycle and simply believed such an accident would not happen to me."

I seem to know a person with such confidence with plenty of digs and dents
to prove it is ill found.
 
  • #12
wolram said:
"I never meant any harm to others nor to break any laws," Roethlisberger said. "I was confident in my ability to ride a motorcycle and simply believed such an accident would not happen to me."

Remember kids, it can happen to him.
 
  • #13
Gokul43201 said:
Did you say "some" football player??! :bugeye:

What, I've never heard of him. I have heard of the Steelers though, if that mitigates my offense somewhat...
 
  • #14
Touch down...quarterback...Justin Timberlake and Janet Jackson
 
  • #15
Ok, I got to ask.

How do you figure that adding 50% to the mass pushing your face into the windshield is a benefit.

Basic physics says it would make matters worse.

I looked one time and the only thing I found, related to helmet safety for motorcycles, was a comment that:
"No study has ever been done on the merits of helmet usage with motorcycles."

So are there any studies out there? References Please.

PS: I haven't rode a bike in over 30 years, so this is curiosity.

I do notice that in auto racing they are now requiring use of the Hans Device. Apparently, because the mass of the helmet was breaking too many necks. What additional good a helmet will do when you are already strapped into a padded roll cage escapes me.
 
  • #16
In similar news...

DENVER - Beer baron Peter Coors' driver's license has been revoked by a hearing officer who ruled the executive had been driving under the influence of alcohol, officials said.

...In one breath test, he registered a blood alcohol level of 0.073 percent.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060715/ap_on_re_us/coors_dui [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #17
NoTime said:
Ok, I got to ask.

How do you figure that adding 50% to the mass pushing your face into the windshield is a benefit.

Basic physics says it would make matters worse.

I looked one time and the only thing I found, related to helmet safety for motorcycles, was a comment that:
"No study has ever been done on the merits of helmet usage with motorcycles."

So are there any studies out there? References Please.

PS: I haven't rode a bike in over 30 years, so this is curiosity.

I do notice that in auto racing they are now requiring use of the Hans Device. Apparently, because the mass of the helmet was breaking too many necks. What additional good a helmet will do when you are already strapped into a padded roll cage escapes me.

First, there is a new tool called Google. Try it sometime, you might find it valuable. I googled motorcycle helmet safety study, and got lots of hits. Here's the hit list for your reading pleasure:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=motorcycle+helmet+safety+study

Second, you're right that wearing an open-face helmet will not help you in a face plant crash, and probably actually makes things worse. That's why beanie helmets are so worthless. That's why most responsible street riders wear full-face helmets. The ones that fit best give you a little bit of chipmunk cheeks -- they fit nice and tight around your whole head including your face and cheekbones and forehead. In a face plant, a lot of energy is absorbed by the padding in the forehead and cheeks. And in side and rear impacts, hopefully the padding makes sense to you.

I have about 150,000 miles of performance commuting (year-round) on my sportbikes, plus many miles on the local racetracks here in Northern California. No way I'd ride without a helmet. Same for my dirtbiking and MX riding. Gotta protect you biggest asset. :rolleyes:
 
  • #18
NoTime said:
Ok, I got to ask.

How do you figure that adding 50% to the mass pushing your face into the windshield is a benefit.

Basic physics says it would make matters worse.

you can't be serious...

smash your forehead into a wall, then try it wearing a helmet.
 
  • #19
slugcountry said:
you can't be serious...

smash your forehead into a wall, then try it wearing a helmet.
I think he was referring to a faceplant, not a forehead smack. For the faceplant case with an open-face helmet, I think his physics is correct.
 
  • #20
oh my mistake =P yeah i can't imagine why people even bother wearing helmets if they don't have face shields
 
  • #21
Gokul43201 said:
Did you say "some" football player??! :bugeye:

And it ain't even real football (pokes Gokul with a sharp stick). :biggrin:
 
  • #22
I don't think anyone suggested that big the benefit of wearing a helmet is that it will save your face. If you hit something at 60mph, you're pretty much bound to come out looking like you went through a meat-grinder.

What helmets do is make the one difference between living and dying: protecting the brain.
 
  • #23
berkeman said:
I think he was referring to a faceplant, not a forehead smack. For the faceplant case with an open-face helmet, I think his physics is correct.
The person that was the subject of this thread got a faceplant injury.

Except for motocross events, a full face helmet on the streets is a rarity.
Although, in the last couple years I have noticed more people using them.

Most of the items that came up in your link are quite new and weren't there the last time I looked a few years ago.
This is a personal opinion, but much of what I looked at seems to be a lot of data cooking.
As I pointed out I don't have a bike, so you can take that for what its worth.

I pulled the following statements from
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/inj...le/FlaMCReport/images/FloridaMCReportscr1.pdf

In 2001-2003, 101 motorcyclists under age 21 were killed, with 45 percent of them being unhelmeted.
You are more likely to die if you are wearing a helmet :eek:

Among motorcyclists who sustained incapacitating injury, 21 percent of those involved in 1999 crashes were unhelmeted while 50 percent of those involve in year 2001 crashes were not wearing helmets.
Looks like the odds for helmet wearers improved in 2001. :confused:
I got to wonder if they changed the rules on what constitutes "incapacitating injury"
Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a breakdown of types of injury and number of occurrences.

If I take up riding again, I don't think a helmet is going to be on my must have list.:mad:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #24
... brilliant.

by the way you won't see anyone riding a sport bike without a helmet (a real one)... a little odd considering cruisers aren't any safer don't you think?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #25
All I can say is, that if you don't wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle, don't be surprised if you get a Darwin Award.

It's STUPID not to improve your chances of survival by wearing a helmet. No, head injuries aren't the only cause of death from motorcycle accidents, most deaths come from internal injuries. Don't be stupid about it just because a helmet can't prevent other injuries. I know someone whose life was probably saved by his helmet, the outside of the helmet actually cracked, if that had been his bare head that hit the pavement, he wouldn't have been alive to look at it.
 
  • #26
Evo said:
All I can say is, that if you don't wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle, don't be surprised if you get a Darwin Award.

It's STUPID not to improve your chances of survival by wearing a helmet. No, head injuries aren't the only cause of death from motorcycle accidents, most deaths come from internal injuries. Don't be stupid about it just because a helmet can't prevent other injuries. I know someone whose life was probably saved by his helmet, the outside of the helmet actually cracked, if that had been his bare head that hit the pavement, he wouldn't have been alive to look at it.
Have it your way, I don't really care since it is unlikely I'll take up riding again.

OTOH, much(most) of physics is counterintuitive.
As far as the Darwin Award goes, I notice, in the same report, that since they repealed the helmet law in Florida the number of deaths per 10,000 riders went way down for helmeted users while it went up for non helmeted users.
The overall death rate stayed about the same.
There definitely seems to be some self selection going on there. :uhh:

One of the things that got me wondering about helmets was the friend of mine that leaned back in her chair and broke hers.
She weighs about 130.
Yea! Like that was a usefull piece of equipment.:grumpy:
 
  • #27
NoTime said:
One of the things that got me wondering about helmets was the friend of mine that leaned back in her chair and broke hers.
She weighs about 130.
Yea! Like that was a usefull piece of equipment.:grumpy:
Did she buy it at Toys R Us?

Unfortunately the helmet law didn't have stringent guidelines. There were idiots that were buying old WWII German helmets and wearing those, like that offered any type of protection.

You aren't trying to say that deaths went with helmets? Did you see this graph from the link you posted? It clearly shows that the number of deaths without helmets increased significantly.
 
Last edited:
  • #28
slugcountry said:
... brilliant.

by the way you won't see anyone riding a sport bike without a helmet (a real one)... a little odd considering cruisers aren't any safer don't you think?
Because they won't let you compete without one? :uhh:

When was the last time you saw a cruiser take 40' of air :tongue2: :rofl:
 
  • #29
Evo said:
Did she buy it at Toys R Us?
Don't know what brand it was, but neither her or her husband are particualy noted for buying junk.
 
  • #30
NoTime said:
Don't know what brand it was, but neither her or her husband are particualy noted for buying junk.
If it cracked just from leaning backwards, it was a toy.

You did re-read that graph and understand the increase in deaths without helmets?
 
  • #31
Evo said:
If it cracked just from leaning backwards, it was a toy.
Don't know about that. This was 7 or 8 years ago, and plastic can deteriorate after a few years of sun and whatnot.

Evo said:
You did re-read that graph and understand the increase in deaths without helmets?
Not sure what you are referring to here.
Looks to me like the crazies took themselves out of one group and put themselves in the other.
As I said, it looks like self selection.
Otherwise, I would think the rate per 10,000 randomly selected helmeted users would stay the same and you would just have a high rate for non helmeted users.

In aviation there is a saying that, there are old pilots, there are bold pilots, there are no old bold pilots.

As it is, I don't think the graph says anything about the value or lack there of for helmets.
 
  • #32
NoTime said:
In 2001-2003, 101 motorcyclists under age 21 were killed, with 45 percent of them being unhelmeted.
You are more likely to die if you are wearing a helmet :eek:
Basic fallacy - there nothing in there about the a priori distribution of helmets, you've misread what that statistic means.
 
  • #33
Rach3 said:
Basic fallacy - there nothing in there about the a priori distribution of helmets, you've misread what that statistic means.
Could be I am wrong, happens all the time, but there is a stated distribution.
Feel free to explain why it doesn't apply.

All in all given the accident/death differential between bikes an cars...:uhh:

Elsewhere in the report:
Observed helmet usage was 47%, No helmet was 47%, and how exactly they considered the remaining 6% kinda escapes me.
Personally, I would throw the 6% in with helmets for 53% since that is how they considered it for some other data.
 
  • #34
NoTime said:
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/inj...le/FlaMCReport/images/FloridaMCReportscr1.pdf[/URL]


You are more likely to die if you are wearing a helmet :eek:

Well not being able to view the link I'm guessing that the reason their were more helmet fatalities was that most people wear helmets, in order to do a real comparisson you'd have to compare years where more or less people wore helmets and then see if there were more fatalities over all. I know stating the obvious but helmets do save lives. :smile:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #35
Regarding the "helmetless" riders having fewer fatalities than "helmeted" riders, it's probably because the "helmetless" riders are mostly riding cruiser bikes like Harleys, and don't ride that often, and ride relatively slow, while the "helmeted" riders include a higher percentage of sport bikes with more milage, and also higher speeds.

I'm greatful for the helmet law in California, because it reduces the peer pressure for new Harley owners, most of which have little experience on motorcycles to ride without a helmet. Fortunately, as baby boomers age, the Harley fad is starting to fade away.

I own and ride the same brand motorcycle, a Suzuki Hayabusa. I'm surprised that they didn't mention the fact that these are one of the fastest bikes around (186mph with speed-limiter), along with the new Kawasaki ZX14 (even more power, 190hp versus the Busa's 175hp). At least the "killer" bike media reports have seemed to gone away.
 
Back
Top