Local man dies for freedom of choice

[patrick_g]

My wife's best girlfriend went for a walk down to a pond "shared" by 3 families yesterday evening and found a tractor upside down in the pond with her dead neighbor under it.

NO ROPS!

He operated his tractor the way his dad operated the tractor and he was not going to let anyone tell him how to operate a tractor. With his years of experience to keep him safe and the ability to jump free with no encumbrances in the way he was safer than those Johny come lately types with the "Guillotines" (roll bar thingies) on their tractors.

Seat belts...?? If you don't have a Guillotine on your tractor you don't need seatbelts to protect you from it. He had been operating tractors for decades and sure didn't need no roll bar or seatbelts in his way in the unlikely situation where he would need to jump free.

Members of his family, neighbors, and friends are saddened by his death from a "freak accident" that there was no way to prevent.

I was not a personal friend but regret the results of his application of freedom of choice. I am somewhat amazed and regret the fact that the general consensus of opinion is that it was a freak accident, impossible to prevent or survive and none of his fault. This sends a bad message. His death was most likely totally preventable with a ROPS.

Pat

 

[Reg]

For every one of these I read I seem to read another one asking how to disable or remove a safety feature or interlock that an owner finds mildly annoying or inconvenient.
Not that I'm a big fan of CPSC - e.g. the reflectors and warning label about helmet use that had to be put on my unicycle before I could leave the store with it.

Freedom of choice ?
Sure, we're also "free" to go out and play with bears and snakes.

 

[BlacknTan]

I see no cause of death mentioned..

Drowning? Wouldn't want a seatbelt holding me under if that was the case..

Heart attack?? Don't believe all the safety features would help in that instance.

I value my freedom of choice. I don't like the State telling me how to protect myself. If I need a ROPS, I'll use one.. If I need a seatbelt, I'll use one..
Life is still a dangerous place. Getting up in the morning involves risk. I'll take my chances with my own common sense rather than some government regulator who makes a living at writing inane rules for the rest of us to live by.

Just ask NJ Governor Corzine..

 

[patrick_g]

For every one of these I read I seem to read another one asking how to disable or remove a safety feature or interlock that an owner finds mildly annoying or inconvenient.
Not that I'm a big fan of CPSC - e.g. the reflectors and warning label about helmet use that had to be put on my unicycle before I could leave the store with it.

Freedom of choice ?
Sure, we're also "free" to go out and play with bears and snakes.

Oh, for sure, lots of misinformed folks out there. We make fun of rules whenever we can, it is a part of our rebellious nature. In California when my wife bought a couple AR7 "survival" rifles it was humorous to note that you HAD TO BUY a trigger lock with them. These are the little mag fed semi-auto .22 rifles originally developed as survival equipment for pilots. They break down and the action and barrel are stored in the hollow stock. Due to the close tolerances of the form fit of the interior of the stock it is totally impossible to configure the rifle for transport with ANY trigger lock in place. So the trigger lock you are forced to buy can't be used with the rifle without forgoing the feature of the rifle that is the only reason to buy it.

There are always exceptions not handled well in certain instances but that does not negate the general intent in the majority of cases.

I'm sure my neighbor had no intention of dieing in the name of personal freedom of choice. He died because he was blatantly ignorant as many others are.

Pat

 

[patrick_g]

I see no cause of death mentioned..

Drowning? Wouldn't want a seatbelt holding me under if that was the case..

Heart attack?? Don't believe all the safety features would help in that instance.

I value my freedom of choice. I don't like the State telling me how to protect myself. If I need a ROPS, I'll use one.. If I need a seatbelt, I'll use one..
Life is still a dangerous place. Getting up in the morning involves risk. I'll take my chances with my own common sense rather than some government regulator who makes a living at writing inane rules for the rest of us to live by.

Just ask NJ Governor Corzine..

The man was pinned under the tractor as he had no ROPS. I'm not sure if he succumbed to drowning or internal injuries. Doesn't much matter does it? If you are under a non-ROPS tractor under water or in the air you are likely to be severely crushed. As he wasn't discovered for a few hours it is likely he would have been dead even if not underwater.

He too was of the opinion that he would rather be free to jump clear unencumbered by ROPS and belt.

In most roll over accidents an operator with a ROPS wearing a seat belt will not be crushed to death. Most of the time a ROPS equipped tractor does not actually roll 180 degrees, just 90 due to the ROPS.

We could debate forever and never reach a conclusion satisfactory to the "I'd rather jump free" group but I suspect with a ROPS he would not have been severely injured and even if wearing a seat belt could have popped it off and got out of the water. I suspect the tractor would be on its side and if he were wearing a belt he would be less likely to have a body part pinned under part of the tractor.

This part is impossible to know with certainty. Would a seatbelt have helped or harmed? No way to know for sure but the odds favor belt use. If you knew in advance what sort of details would be involved in your accident and didn't choose to avoid the accident you could then choose whether or not to use the belt or not. I am still waiting for someone to explain the circumstances under which using a ROPS is more dangerous than not using it and what percentage of situations that covers. If a ROPS is a good thing most of the time, why forgo it? Are you betting that you will have some specific narrowly defined accident where the ROPS would be a problem?

I'm not a member of the safety police and am a strong believer in Darwinian selection. I think anyone who believes ROPS are bad should remove them from their tractor or if folding leave them down. Likewise seatbelts on tractors.

Pat

 

[daBear]

Any needless death is tragic. This is what caused Darwin awards to come to be.

 

[js5020]

Lets face it, we can discuss these types of incidents til the cows come home,, but safety is a mindset/way of life and no one or rule/law can keep anyone safe if they chose not to follow safe proceedures or use some sense,,,, hence safety is up to you. You can put anything and everything on a piece of equipment for safetys sake and someone some where will find a way to defeat it or find other ways to get hurt,,, honestly some people should not own or operate equipment of any type, some realize it and don't,, others make the papers, and some who maybe very experienced prove out the bumper sticker,,, stuff happens!

 

[BlacknTan]

I'm not a member of the safety police and am a strong believer in Darwinian selection. I think anyone who believes ROPS are bad should remove them from their tractor or if folding leave them down. Likewise seatbelts on tractors.

Pat

I'm a less experienced operator than alot of the folks here. I use my ROPS and usually my seat belt.

The difference between us is this... I'm not of the opinion that folks who do not believe in ROPS should remove them from their tractors.. I believe that both camps, those who believe in the safety equipment, and those that do not, should be able to make their choice being cognizant of the consequences, without government interference or second guessing by those "more enlightened"..

And... sometimes natural selection just has to do with "luck of the draw.."

 

[Bird]

those who believe in the safety equipment, and those that do not, should be able to make their choice being cognizant of the consequences, without government interference or second guessing by those "more enlightened"..

Yep, I don't like laws that require you to only protect yourself; not protecting anyone else. And that from a guy who has religiously used seat belts since 1962, both in cars and on the tractors. But of course, I also have even more hours on tractors that had no seat belt or ROPS. I felt the same way about helmets for motorcyle riders, but I've also seen a couple of studies showing the cost to the taxpayers for caring for the maimed and crippled who might not have been injured so badly had they used a seat belt or wore a helmet. So maybe there's a logical reason for requiring such. And I still don't like it.

 

[MikeD74T]

Pat, Since you live close how about some details? "Blatant ignorance" may be why he's dead, but why he was in the creek? MikeD74T