Plastic wrap injures motorcyclist
Susan (CobbersMom)
I hope they catch the a**holes who did this. These folks could have easily
been killed.
Sue
Northern Wisconsin
Invision Whirled Peas
Gary D
"Susan (CobbersMom)" <dittoh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Z79Kc.448$ac1...@nwrddc04.gnilink.net...
thing, but IIRC, no one got hurt. I can't find the story now. :-(
--
Gary
'01 SV650S
'04 GSX-R750
Previous bikes:
'88 GSX600
'87 GSX-R1100
'85 GS700ES
'86 SP200
'80 KLX250
Send to motorcyclist at cox dot net to reply directly
Joe
friends, but this is outright stupid... Even in my teenage terror years, I
tried stupid stuff, but never with plastic wrap across a roadway!
Glad to read these two survived... I'll tell you this. Plastic wrap is
MUCH stronger than people think. I moved thousands of lbs. of lumber on the
top of an old Toyota Camry using the stuff... Including a full-sized
ping-pong table down the highway at 65 MPH+
Joe - V#8013 - '86 VN750 - joe @ yunx .com
Northern, NJ
Ask me about "The Ride" on July 31, '04:
http://www.youthelate.com/the_ride.htm
Born once - Die twice. Born twice - Die only once. Your choice...
Free heavy canvas punching bag. Pick it up in Northern NJ or near Basking
Ridge and it's yours FREE. eMail me for details.
texdays
"Susan (CobbersMom)" <dittoh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Z79Kc.448$ac1...@nwrddc04.gnilink.net...
You can't control this crap, but you can wear a helmet to possibly prevent
gashes and broken bones on your face and head.
Tank U
news:Z79Kc.448$ac1...@nwrddc04.gnilink.net:
When I read about the stupidity of individual(s) I say to myself, "nothing
can top this," then I read an article the next day that does! The people
that put up the wrap between the poles should be wrapped to an electric
chair. It wouyld be funny to watch them chew their way out.
John P.
> http://www.jsonline.com/news/wauk/jul04/244241.asp
> I hope they catch the a**holes who did this. These folks could have
easily
> been killed.
I wonder what kind of helmet he was wearing. It didn't seem to do him much
good. It's amazing that one can go through all the trouble to protect their
own life by wearing a helmet, leather jacket, gloves & other safety gear,
then some punk can negate all that safety gear with a roll of saran wrap.
Maybe he should sue the helmet manufacturer.
Bob Mann
wrote:
Why does every incident have to turn into a fucking helmet thread?
--
Bob Mann
Some people just don't know how to drive...
I call these people "Everybody But Me,"
Susan (CobbersMom)
fucking helmet thread?
No kidding. Even though I wear one 90% of the time, when I want to go
sightseeing slowly along the backroads, I ride sans helmet. A helmet
certainly didn't save the woman riding in the U.P of Michigan who was
decapitated by a deer last year.
Michael R. Kesti
>I wonder what kind of helmet he was wearing. It didn't seem to do him much
>good. It's amazing that one can go through all the trouble to protect their
>own life by wearing a helmet, leather jacket, gloves & other safety gear,
>then some punk can negate all that safety gear with a roll of saran wrap.
>Maybe he should sue the helmet manufacturer.
Wisconson requires helmets be worn only by riders under the age of 18, so
he may very well have not been wearing one. Based on the photo and
description of his injuries I suspect that he was not.
He and his lady were victims of terrorism regardless of what they were
wearing. If caught and tried, I suspect that the terrorist's punishment
will be more severe than Janklow's.
--
========================================================================
Michael Kesti | "And like, one and one don't make
| two, one and one make one."
mke...@gv.net | - The Who, Bargain
John
wrote:
>Why does every incident have to turn into a fucking helmet thread?
Yebbut, it tooks five replies this time. Usually it is quicker, isn't
it?
--
John
Apple Valley, MN
'02 FZ1
'73 RD350
Phyloe
"Susan (CobbersMom)" > wrote in message
> Invision Whirled Peas
I believe you mean 'envision' > to imagine (something not yet in
existence). I could not even find such a word as Invision. Carry on.
Phyloe
mjt
> a fucking helmet thread?
... okay, where *is* the emphasis, exactly:
> *a fucking* helmet thread?
> a *fucking helmet* thread?
> a fucking *helmet thread*?
???
--
<< http://michaeljtobler.homelinux.com/ >>
Professor: "A toast to Leela. She showed us
it's wrong to eat certain things."
Susan (CobbersMom)
(something not yet in
> existence). I could not even find such a word as Invision. Carry on.
Ha, copied it from something I saw and never thought about it. Thanks, Sue
Northern Wisconsin
Envision Whirled Peas
mjt
> Ha, copied it from something I saw and never thought about it. Thanks, Sue
> Northern Wisconsin
> Envision Whirled Peas
... it's actually, originally, from a bumper sticker:
"Visualize Whirled Peas": an obvious play on, "Visualize World Peace"
.
--
<< http://michaeljtobler.homelinux.com/ >>
Basic Definitions of Science:
If it's green or wiggles, it's biology.
If it stinks, it's chemistry.
If it doesn't work, it's physics.
Ari Rankum
> Bob Mann wrote:
>
>
>>a fucking helmet thread?
>
>
> ... okay, where *is* the emphasis, exactly:
>
>
>>*a fucking* helmet thread?
>>a *fucking helmet* thread?
>>a fucking *helmet thread*?
>
The emphasis is properly on some inscrutable wildman howl gratuitously
tacked to the end, like this:
a fucking helmet thread? *YEOWWWWLLAAAAHAAAHOOOOOOEEEEEEEEEE*
Timberwoof
Tank U <Ple...@nOsPaM.nOt> wrote:
Especially if non-lethal but increasingly painful levels of current were
applied.
=:o Geeze, that's sadistic.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>
faq: http://www.timberwoof.com/motorcycle/faq.shtml
bike: http://www.timberwoof.com/motorcycle
Timberwoof
"Susan \(CobbersMom\)" <dittoh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Bob Mann" <> wrote in message > Why does every incident have to turn into a
> fucking helmet thread?
>
> No kidding. Even though I wear one 90% of the time, when I want to go
> sightseeing slowly along the backroads, I ride sans helmet.
My helmet has a new feature that helps tremendously in my sightseeing
trips. Instead of being solid all the way around it's got this big hole
in the front. It really looks like it was designed and manufactured that
way -- no ugly scars from a bandsaw or anything, and the edges are
nicely finished. There's even a piece of transparent plastic over the
hole, and it has a hinge so I can flip that up and down. It's really
very cool.
> A helmet
> certainly didn't save the woman riding in the U.P of Michigan who was
> decapitated by a deer last year.
Nobody pretends that a helmet will prevent every injury.
> Sue
> Northern Wisconsin
> Invision Whirled Peas
--
Timberwoof
"Michael R. Kesti" <mke...@gv.net> wrote:
> "John P." wrote:
>
> >I wonder what kind of helmet he was wearing. It didn't seem to do him much
> >good. It's amazing that one can go through all the trouble to protect their
> >own life by wearing a helmet, leather jacket, gloves & other safety gear,
> >then some punk can negate all that safety gear with a roll of saran wrap.
> >Maybe he should sue the helmet manufacturer.
>
> Wisconson requires helmets be worn only by riders under the age of 18, so
> he may very well have not been wearing one. Based on the photo and
> description of his injuries I suspect that he was not.
>
> He and his lady were victims of terrorism regardless of what they were
> wearing. If caught and tried, I suspect that the terrorist's punishment
> will be more severe than Janklow's.
Terrorism? No. That's criminal pranksterism.
Larry xlax Lovisone
> Why does every incident have to turn into a fucking helmet thread?
So riders will learn how to acknowledge the risk by donning a lid in
order to prevent helmet laws...
Larry L
94 RC45 #2
Have a wheelie NICE day...
Lean & Mean it in every corner of your life...
If it wasn't for us the fast lane would rust...
V4'S are music to the seat of my pants...
1952 De Havilland Chipmunk...
Yank and bank your brains loose...
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/-xlax-/
http://home.comcast.net/~netters2/
http://www.fox302.com/index.pl?s=vg&user=netters2
Bownse
Sounds like they weren't wearning any protective gear based on the
description of their injuries.
--
Mark Johnson, Ft Worth; IBA#288; CM#1; EOB, DoD#2021; LPR#50
2003 FJR1300 "E²"; http://www.bikes-n-spikes.org
Phyloe
"mjt" <mjtobler@removethis_mail.ru> wrote in message
news:l0dKc.5461$mL5....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Susan (CobbersMom) wrote:
>
> > Ha, copied it from something I saw and never thought about it. Thanks,
Sue
> > Northern Wisconsin
> > Envision Whirled Peas
>
> ... it's actually, originally, from a bumper sticker:
>
> "Visualize Whirled Peas": an obvious play on, "Visualize World Peace"
It can be found on tee-shirts. Check Northern Sun on line. They have all
sorts of those things.
Phyloe
John P.
> Why does every incident have to turn into a fucking helmet thread?
Let me see if I understand your question. Are you asking "Why is it that
every time some moron suffers a head injury because he wasn't wearing a
helmet, someone feel compelled to wonder why he cared so little for his own
life that he chose to not wear a helmet?"
Well... I guess the answer would have to be that some of us are confused by
those who care so little for their own life that they choose to not wear a
helmet. Do you know any skydivers that are anti-parachute?
John P.
> No kidding. Even though I wear one 90% of the time, when I want to go
> sightseeing slowly along the backroads, I ride sans helmet. A helmet
> certainly didn't save the woman riding in the U.P of Michigan who was
> decapitated by a deer last year.
And carrying a gun doesn't stop cops from getting killed in shoot outs...
but they carry them for the times when they *do* help.
John Hanson
<dittoh...@yahoo.com> wrote in rec.motorcycles:
>http://www.jsonline.com/news/wauk/jul04/244241.asp
>I hope they catch the a**holes who did this. These folks could have easily
>been killed.
BWAHAHAHA
I had some kids stretch electrical tape across a road near my house
one night about 10 years ago. I thought I could see something but it
was quite dark. I felt something hit and it made a slight THWACK
noise. When I got home, my door didn't want to open because it was
taped shut. LOL! Kids!
John P.
> Wisconson requires helmets be worn only by riders under the age of 18, so
> he may very well have not been wearing one. Based on the photo and
> description of his injuries I suspect that he was not.
Uh Huh. I suspect I was being sarcastic. ;-)
> He and his lady were victims of terrorism regardless of what they were
> wearing. If caught and tried, I suspect that the terrorist's punishment
> will be more severe than Janklow's.
I agree. Had that plastic not been across the road, perhaps he wouldn't have
crashed. But then, he did say he was going 5 mph under the speed limit
because he had seen several deer and the fog. No matter why you go skidding
down the road on your face, it's almost always going to come out a bit
better if you have something protecting your gourd.
I taught the MSF course at Little Creek Amphib Base in Norfolk for a couple
of years. I had a disk sander. Every time someone tried to explain to me why
helmets are useless, I offered to let them hold their face against the disk
sander. None took me up on it.
Odinn
>
>
>
>> Why does every incident have to turn into a fucking helmet thread?
>
>
> So riders will learn how to acknowledge the risk by donning a lid in
> order to prevent helmet laws...
>
If everyone donned a lid, the gov't would STILL try to enact a helmet
law because they can, and because they think they are doing it in our
best interests. Fuck helmet laws. If I want to ride lidless, I should
be allowed to. If I want to wear a lid, I should be allowed to, not
mandated to.
--
Odinn
'03 FLHTI ........... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/ElectraGlide
'97 VN1500D ......... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/VulcanClassic
Atlanta Biker Net ... http://www.atlantabiker.net
Vulcan Riders Assoc . http://www.vulcanriders.org
Fill in the blanks to reply
Odinn
Apples and oranges. Skydiving without a parachute is almost guaranteed
to kill, riding a motorcycle without a helmet doesn't even come close.
But then again, there are NO laws that require a skydiver to wear a
parachute either, so why should there be laws requiring a motorcyclist
to wear a helmet?
Odinn
Yeah, I heard about you. I took the course at Norfolk Naval Station in
82, and at least the instructors there didn't attempt to try to push
their agenda on the course, they only taught what was required of them.
Timberwoof
"John P." <pri...@notavailable.net> wrote:
That's good. That's so good I will put it in my FAQ.
Timberwoof
John Hanson <jha...@northernlinks.com> wrote:
One inch-wide stretch off electrical tape across the road may make a
thwack noise and even leave melted goo on your exhaust pipes. But a roll
of plastic wrap stretched across the road, several layers thick, could
hurt someone.
Do you know why the Marines are called leathernecks?
Bill Smith
wrote:
Invision sounds like some new, proprietary, video format.
Bill Smith
John Hanson
<timberw...@infernosoft.com> wrote in rec.motorcycles:
>In article <f23jf0hjlps5g9cjl...@4ax.com>,
> John Hanson <jha...@northernlinks.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 12:41:29 GMT, "Susan \(CobbersMom\)"
>> <dittoh...@yahoo.com> wrote in rec.motorcycles:
>>
>> >http://www.jsonline.com/news/wauk/jul04/244241.asp
>> >I hope they catch the a**holes who did this. These folks could have easily
>> >been killed.
>>
>> BWAHAHAHA
>>
>> I had some kids stretch electrical tape across a road near my house
>> one night about 10 years ago. I thought I could see something but it
>> was quite dark. I felt something hit and it made a slight THWACK
>> noise. When I got home, my door didn't want to open because it was
>> taped shut. LOL! Kids!
>
>One inch-wide stretch off electrical tape across the road may make a
>thwack noise and even leave melted goo on your exhaust pipes. But a roll
>of plastic wrap stretched across the road, several layers thick, could
>hurt someone.
>
>Do you know why the Marines are called leathernecks?
Of course. It was a leather band worn around the neck of US and Royal
Marines to protect against saber slashes. How did you know that war
history is my avocation?
John P.
> Yeah, I heard about you. I took the course at Norfolk Naval Station in
> 82, and at least the instructors there didn't attempt to try to push
> their agenda on the course, they only taught what was required of them.
Uh Huh. We were required to teach about wearing safety gear, including
helmets. Additionaly, as the course was a requirement to get your base
sticker, we were required to teach that you had to be wearing all safety
gear (Helmet, gloves, long pants, hard sole shoes) to get onto the base.
... so, you were just saying that you learned the same thing I taught,
right?
John P.
> That's good. That's so good I will put it in my FAQ.
I used to like the Bell helmet ads from the 70's. They had one that said "If
you have a $10 head, wear a $10 dollar helmet" ... used to make me wonder
about people who wore *no* helmet! ;-)
John P.
> If everyone donned a lid, the gov't would STILL try to enact a helmet
> law because they can, and because they think they are doing it in our
> best interests. Fuck helmet laws. If I want to ride lidless, I should
> be allowed to. If I want to wear a lid, I should be allowed to, not
> mandated to.
I agree, and was a member of ABATE for many years. I often wonder though,
why most people who agree with the right to choose to wear a helmet or not,
choose not to. (and seem to have an issue with those who choose to do so)
John P.
> Apples and oranges. Skydiving without a parachute is almost guaranteed
> to kill, riding a motorcycle without a helmet doesn't even come close.
> But then again, there are NO laws that require a skydiver to wear a
> parachute either, so why should there be laws requiring a motorcyclist
> to wear a helmet?
There shouldn't be laws requiring anyone to wear a helmet (or a seat belt).
I firmly believe that Darwin indicated such choices are made by natural law.
;-)
Odinn
> "Odinn" <odinn@atlantab_k_r.n_t> wrote in a message
>
>
>>Yeah, I heard about you. I took the course at Norfolk Naval Station in
>>82, and at least the instructors there didn't attempt to try to push
>>their agenda on the course, they only taught what was required of them.
>
>
> Uh Huh. We were required to teach about wearing safety gear, including
> helmets. Additionaly, as the course was a requirement to get your base
> sticker, we were required to teach that you had to be wearing all safety
> gear (Helmet, gloves, long pants, hard sole shoes) to get onto the base.
>
> right?
>
>
What I'm saying is, altho it's required to wear safety gear on base,
they didn't try to support helmet laws by attempting to force one to
wear a full-face helmet with such antics.
Odinn
I guess we run in different circles then. Almost everyone I know who is
against helmet laws is not against those who choose to wear lids,
they're just against those who don't want us to decide.
Odinn
Again, riding without a lid doesn't guarantee any injuries, much less
death. Riding with a lid doesn't guarantee one won't die anyway either.
The mere fact that you ride a motorcycle is dangerous enough for Darwin.
Mark Olson
Where are you getting your data from? I would venture to say that the
majority of motorcycle riders are against helmet laws, whether they
wear a helmet or not. FWIW I always wear a helmet but I am against
helmet[1] laws.
[1] I am also opposed to mandatory seat belt laws, though I always wear
mine, and insist that all passengers in a vehicle I am driving wear
theirs.
--
'01 SV650S '81 CM400T '99 EX250-F13
Turby
wrote:
>If everyone donned a lid, the gov't would STILL try to enact a helmet
>law because they can, and because they think they are doing it in our
>best interests.
It's worth remembering the "the gov't" is just people, namely
legislators. In California ,especially, it was one twit (from Carson,
IIRC,) who strongarmed the helmet law through the state legislature.
If it weren't for him, we wouldn't have the law. As I remember, a
mother who'd lost her son went to him and he promised her a law. Since
he gave it such high visibility, he was able to intimidate other
legislators. Without his pressure, it would have been a losing minor
issue.
Turby the Turbosurfer
Bob Mann
wrote:
It's obvious from the story that they must have been wearing helmets
but that isn't the point.
Some asshole booby traps the road and the first thing people come up
with is "I wonder if they had a helmet?"
Can't we just comment on assholes and booby traps without having to
constantly see a bunch of holier than thou posturing over helmet use?
And yes I do wear a helmet.
--
Bob Mann
Some people just don't know how to drive...
I call these people "Everybody But Me,"
Bownse
Yep.
I used to assert that seatbelts were of no help. The ambulance drivers
were too lazy to look for the bodies. Clearly a joke, yet I constantly
snagged NHTSA and FHWA engineers with it every time I used it. They'd be
red-faced in anger any time I said it.
Bob Mann
wrote:
>"John P." wrote:
>
>>I wonder what kind of helmet he was wearing. It didn't seem to do him much
>>good. It's amazing that one can go through all the trouble to protect their
>>own life by wearing a helmet, leather jacket, gloves & other safety gear,
>>then some punk can negate all that safety gear with a roll of saran wrap.
>>Maybe he should sue the helmet manufacturer.
>
>Wisconson requires helmets be worn only by riders under the age of 18, so
>he may very well have not been wearing one. Based on the photo and
>description of his injuries I suspect that he was not.
She landed on her head and got a minor facial injury.
He seems to have hit his head too but only required stitches.
I'm thinking they must have pretty hard heads.
>
>He and his lady were victims of terrorism regardless of what they were
>wearing. If caught and tried, I suspect that the terrorist's punishment
>will be more severe than Janklow's.
Anybody but Janklow would have been punished more than Janklow.
Larry xlax Lovisone
> If everyone donned a lid, the gov't would STILL try to enact a helmet
> law because they can, and because they think they are doing it in our
> best interests.
Hiya Odinn...
The government enacts laws because motorcyclist are for the most part...
our own worst enemies... things like perceived risk taking create
negative images in nonmotocyclists minds... now coupled that with a pic
of a rider in the hospital sporting preventable face injuries and you
can see why the majority of people on the highways support helmet laws...
Fuck helmet laws. If I want to ride lidless, I should
> be allowed to. If I want to wear a lid, I should be allowed to, not
> mandated to.
Only on private roads should you ride bare headed and rebel with an anti
helmet law attitude but on public roads it helps all of us if you don a
skid lid and think safety...
Larry L
94 RC45 #2
Have a wheelie NICE day...
Lean & Mean it in every corner of your life...
If it wasn't for us the fast lane would rust...
V4'S are music to the seat of my pants...
1952 De Havilland Chipmunk...
Yank and bank your brains loose...
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/-xlax-/
http://home.comcast.net/~netters2/
http://www.fox302.com/index.pl?s=vg&user=netters2
Tim Morrow
> on public roads it helps all of us if you don a
> skid lid and think safety...
I do more than that.... I drive my truck!
Holly
news:oldjf05ika2obh2b6...@4ax.com...
> Can't we just comment on assholes and booby traps without having to
> constantly see a bunch of holier than thou posturing over helmet use?
What's the fun in that? Jeez. You Canadians just don't get it, do you?
First they make us wear helmets, then they take away our guns, and next
thing you know, the Supreme Court is appointing presidents who attack our
civil liberties and launch utterly unprovoked wars in foreign countries.....
jim rozen
>It's obvious from the story that they must have been wearing helmets
Yep. And probably the man was wearing glasses under his.
Could we please have the photo of what happens in a crash
like this, with *no* helmets...?
Jim
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================
Holly
news:Z79Kc.448$ac1...@nwrddc04.gnilink.net...
> http://www.jsonline.com/news/wauk/jul04/244241.asp
> I hope they catch the a**holes who did this. These folks could have
easily
> been killed.
</Keanu>
Whoa!
<Keanu/>
This is like, spooky and stuff! I saw lots of plastic wrap last night but no
one got hurt. Plastic wrap is sorta like wearing a helmet when you haven't
got a head to put it on, if you know what I mean.
Ari Rankum
> "Susan (CobbersMom)" <dittoh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Z79Kc.448$ac1...@nwrddc04.gnilink.net...
>
>
>>http://www.jsonline.com/news/wauk/jul04/244241.asp
>>I hope they catch the a**holes who did this. These folks could have
>
> easily
>
>>been killed.
>
>
> </Keanu>
> Whoa!
> <Keanu/>
AHAHA. That's a perfect invocation of Keanu.
Ted
"Holly" <fastr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:IklKc.23396$Nw7....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...
This post is a good example of the cognitive abilities of one who
sustained injury in a motorcycle accident without using a helmet.
>
>
Holly
news:g5ednUGh0oR...@comcast.com...
> This post is a good example of the cognitive abilities of one who
> sustained injury in a motorcycle accident without using a helmet.
You mean the 1,2,3 facism argument used by the anti-helmet crowd?
John P.
> > I agree, and was a member of ABATE for many years. I often wonder
though,
> > why most people who agree with the right to choose to wear a helmet or
not,
> > choose not to. (and seem to have an issue with those who choose to do
so)
> Where are you getting your data from? I would venture to say that the
> majority of motorcycle riders are against helmet laws, whether they
> wear a helmet or not. FWIW I always wear a helmet but I am against
> helmet[1] laws.
Uhhhh... Since you said what I said, what is it you're disagreeing with? If
you're questioning whether most ABATE member wear helmets or not, stop by an
ABATE ride some time.
> [1] I am also opposed to mandatory seat belt laws, though I always wear
> mine, and insist that all passengers in a vehicle I am driving wear
> theirs.
Again, I believe I also said the same. Seems to me we agree.
John P.
> I guess we run in different circles then. Almost everyone I know who is
> against helmet laws is not against those who choose to wear lids,
> they're just against those who don't want us to decide.
When I was in ABATE in Virginia, most member were Harley riders. I'll
concede that I overstated in saying that most against helmet laws take issue
with those who choose to wear helmets. Honestly, as a helmet wearing rice
burner rider in ABATE (which was 95% Harley bikers in the chapter I was in),
most of them respected my right to choose (the helmet AND the rice burner).
There were a few who seemed to dislike one or the other... like the group of
guys that grabbed my bike (as in, the picked it up) and stood it up in a
phone booth. ;-)
John P.
> Again, riding without a lid doesn't guarantee any injuries, much less
> death.
Nope. But, if you *do* fall, even a slight bump to the noggin' is likely to
create some problems for you. For lack of of a $300 helmet, my cousin has
permanent scrambled eggs for brains because of a relatively minor accident.
It is probable that with a helmet, he'd have gotten up and went on with a
normal life. That is more often the case than not.
If helmets were not a vital piece of safety gear, I doubt every bike racer
would bother to wear one. Most of them come out of a spill in pretty good
shape (and they usually wreck somewhere in excess of 100 MPH)
> Riding with a lid doesn't guarantee one won't die anyway either.
Correct... but it certainly improves your chances of coming out alive. Going
head on at 150 MPH into a semi coming at you at 80 MPH, you'll probably get
pretty hosed no matter what you're wearing. In such a case, helmet or no
helmet, it's bet to avoid the front of semis all together. ;-)
> The mere fact that you ride a motorcycle is dangerous enough for Darwin.
Or anyone... but then, that's part of the thrill.
John P.
> What I'm saying is, altho it's required to wear safety gear on base,
> they didn't try to support helmet laws by attempting to force one to
> wear a full-face helmet with such antics.
Ahhh... but I don't support helmet laws. At the same time I was teaching
that course, I was a member of ABATE, remember? My "antics" were a teaching
tool designed to make a point. You said you heard of me in 1982... and you
still remember it. I guess I made an effective point. ;-)
Timberwoof
Odinn <odinn@atlantab_k_r.n_t> wrote:
> John P. wrote:
>
> > "Bob Mann" <wil...@hotmail.com> wrote in a message
> >
> >
> >>Why does every incident have to turn into a fucking helmet thread?
> >
> >
> > Let me see if I understand your question. Are you asking "Why is it that
> > every time some moron suffers a head injury because he wasn't wearing a
> > helmet, someone feel compelled to wonder why he cared so little for his own
> > life that he chose to not wear a helmet?"
> >
> > Well... I guess the answer would have to be that some of us are confused by
> > those who care so little for their own life that they choose to not wear a
> > helmet. Do you know any skydivers that are anti-parachute?
> >
> >
> Apples and oranges. Skydiving without a parachute is almost guaranteed
> to kill, riding a motorcycle without a helmet doesn't even come close.
> But then again, there are NO laws that require a skydiver to wear a
> parachute
I think you should ask a member of the USPA whether that's true ... or
whether any drop zone manager, pilot, or jumpmaster will let you get
away with it.
I have heard of one guy doing that, but he had a buddy jump with him and
carry his parachute for him.
> either, so why should there be laws requiring a motorcyclist
> to wear a helmet?
Because any idjit can get a motorcycle license without any training and
any idjit can buy and ride a motorcycle without even having a license.
So a lot of idjits go out and get themselves kilt.
Do you know any skydivers who are against the rules and regulations that
govern their sport?
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>
faq: http://www.timberwoof.com/motorcycle/faq.shtml
bike: http://www.timberwoof.com/motorcycle
Timberwoof
"John P." <pri...@notavailable.net> wrote:
I firmly believe that if God had intended us to rise up above morality
based on mere survival of the species, He would have had us evolve
brains and given us free will.
John P.
> but that isn't the point.
I thought it was obvious that they were not.
> Some asshole booby traps the road and the first thing people come up
> with is "I wonder if they had a helmet?"
Actually, it was probably the third thing... I just didn't post the first
two.
> Can't we just comment on assholes and booby traps without having to
> constantly see a bunch of holier than thou posturing over helmet use?
1) Apparently not.
2)
a) Assholes & booby traps need no comment. The facts speak for
themselves.
b) In a world with assholes and booby traps, one fares better when one
is prepared.
Being prepared mean, among other things, wearing safety gear.
3) Can't a person just comment on the foolishness of not choosing to sear a
helmet without
some holier than thou posturing over lack of helmet use?
> And yes I do wear a helmet.
Your choice.
Timberwoof
Odinn <odinn@atlantab_k_r.n_t> wrote:
> John P. wrote:
> > "Odinn" <odinn@atlantab_k_r.n_t> wrote in a message
> >
> >
> >>Yeah, I heard about you. I took the course at Norfolk Naval Station in
> >>82, and at least the instructors there didn't attempt to try to push
> >>their agenda on the course, they only taught what was required of them.
> >
> >
> > Uh Huh. We were required to teach about wearing safety gear, including
> > helmets. Additionaly, as the course was a requirement to get your base
> > sticker, we were required to teach that you had to be wearing all safety
> > gear (Helmet, gloves, long pants, hard sole shoes) to get onto the base.
> >
> > .... so, you were just saying that you learned the same thing I taught,
> > right?
> >
> >
> What I'm saying is, altho it's required to wear safety gear on base,
> they didn't try to support helmet laws by attempting to force one to
> wear a full-face helmet with such antics.
You are using the word "antics" in a new and unusual way with which I am
not familiar. I'm not used to someone using the word "antic" to describe
demonstrating the action of pavement on a face that's sliding along it.
Do you mean to imply that there's some factual error in John's implied
demonstration?
And please explain to me, if you can, how asking someone to stick his
face in a belt sander supports helmet laws.
John P.
> Hiya Odinn...
> The government enacts laws because motorcyclist are for the most part...
> our own worst enemies... things like perceived risk taking create
> negative images in nonmotocyclists minds... now coupled that with a pic
> of a rider in the hospital sporting preventable face injuries and you
> can see why the majority of people on the highways support helmet laws...
I disagree. Most people I know support neither helmet nor seatbelt laws. The
B.S. the government feeds us regarding the cost of non-usage is just that.
The only person hurt by someone not wearing a seatbelt or helmet is the
person not wearing the seatbelt or helmet. Both seatbelt and helmet laws are
the direct result of a very strong insurance lobby. Other than what it costs
insurance companies, there is no cost to the public if a biker gets killed
or maimed. Thus, it should be up to each individual to choose.
Conversely, it irks me to see some knucklehead cruising along with his 2
year old kid on the gas tank. Kids on bikes should always be in safety
gear... and I have no problem with a law stating that.
Timberwoof
"John P." <pri...@notavailable.net> wrote:
> "Timberwoof" <timberw...@infernosoft.com> wrote in a message
>
> > That's good. That's so good I will put it in my FAQ.
>
> I used to like the Bell helmet ads from the 70's. They had one that said "If
> you have a $10 head, wear a $10 dollar helmet" ... used to make me wonder
> about people who wore *no* helmet! ;-)
They obviously don't think their brains are worth protecting.
Timberwoof
John Hanson <jha...@northernlinks.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 21:15:14 GMT, Timberwoof
> <timberw...@infernosoft.com> wrote in rec.motorcycles:
>
> >In article <f23jf0hjlps5g9cjl...@4ax.com>,
> > John Hanson <jha...@northernlinks.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 12:41:29 GMT, "Susan \(CobbersMom\)"
> >> <dittoh...@yahoo.com> wrote in rec.motorcycles:
> >>
> >> >http://www.jsonline.com/news/wauk/jul04/244241.asp
> >> >I hope they catch the a**holes who did this. These folks could have
> >> >easily
> >> >been killed.
> >>
> >> BWAHAHAHA
> >>
> >> I had some kids stretch electrical tape across a road near my house
> >> one night about 10 years ago. I thought I could see something but it
> >> was quite dark. I felt something hit and it made a slight THWACK
> >> noise. When I got home, my door didn't want to open because it was
> >> taped shut. LOL! Kids!
> >
> >One inch-wide stretch off electrical tape across the road may make a
> >thwack noise and even leave melted goo on your exhaust pipes. But a roll
> >of plastic wrap stretched across the road, several layers thick, could
> >hurt someone.
> >
> >Do you know why the Marines are called leathernecks?
>
> Of course. It was a leather band worn around the neck of US and Royal
> Marines to protect against saber slashes.
Oh. According to a book I read in elementary school, Marines are called
that for the leather collars they wore during WWII to protect against
steel wires stretched across the road by the enemy.
> How did you know that war
> history is my avocation?
I did not know that.
Timberwoof
Turby <turbo...@beach.comber> wrote:
So what happened to the death rate of California motorcyclists after the
law went into effect? And what has been happening recently to the death
rates of motorcyclists in states where the law has been repealed?
Just this evening my roommate (a longtime rider) and a friend (who is
training to become an MSF instructor) were talking about helmets. My
roommate told the story of one of his cow orkers many years ago. This
guy would show up at work with his motorcycle leathers but no helmet,
and my roommate would nag him about not wearing a helmet. He gave all
kinds of fallacious reasons for not wearing a helmet, but what it came
down to was that he didn't like to wear one.
On the evening of the last day before Texas passed its mandatory helmet
law, this guy went on a "freedom ride" with his buddies -- without any
helmets. After the ride, he rode home. Half a mile from his house (I bet
you know where this is going) he rode into an accident. Concussion,
fractured skull, brain swelling, a stroke or two, and six months in
rehab. We hope his years of "freedom" when riding without a helmet were
worth the risk he paid at the end.
Timberwoof
"Ted" <Bi...@earthlink.com> wrote:
You don't need a helmet. You need crampons, climbing buddies, and a
ladder to get you out of that sarchasm you fell into.
Ed Chait
> "Bob Mann" <> wrote in message > Why does every incident have to turn into
a
> fucking helmet thread?
>
> No kidding. Even though I wear one 90% of the time, when I want to go
> sightseeing slowly along the backroads, I ride sans helmet. A helmet
> certainly didn't save the woman riding in the U.P of Michigan who was
> decapitated by a deer last year.
> Sue
Aha!!!
There's the justification I've been waiting for!!!!!!!!!!!
There are deer here too.
No more helmet for me.
Ed Chait
John P.
> I firmly believe that if God had intended us to rise up above morality
> based on mere survival of the species, He would have had us evolve
> brains and given us free will.
DOH! :-)
Mark Olson
>
> "Mark Olson" <ols...@tiny.invalid> wrote in a message
> > > I agree, and was a member of ABATE for many years. I often
> > > wonder though, why most people who agree with the right to
> > > choose to wear a helmet or not, choose not to. (and seem to
> > > have an issue with those who choose to do so)
> > Where are you getting your data from? I would venture to say that the
> > majority of motorcycle riders are against helmet laws, whether they
> > wear a helmet or not. FWIW I always wear a helmet but I am against
> > helmet[1] laws.
>
> Uhhhh... Since you said what I said, what is it you're disagreeing with? If
> you're questioning whether most ABATE member wear helmets or not, stop by an
> ABATE ride some time.
I don't think you understood my point. I did not say what you said.
I took your statement to imply that you believe a significant fraction
of people who choose to wear a helmet are in favor of helmet laws.
I don't think that is true. I strongly disagree that most people who
wear helmets have an issue with those who choose not to wear one. Most
riders I know are accepting of another rider's freedom to choose whether
they agree with their choice or not. I suppose there are a few riders
out there who want to impose their choice on everyone, but I sure don't
believe they are the majority, or that they are the majority of those
who choose to wear a helmet.
Please correct me if you don't agree, as I am not trying to put words
in your mouth.
As to ABATE and what they represent, most motorcyclists are not
members of ABATE. I am *sure* that ABATE members do not comprise
the majority of those riders who are opposed to helmet laws. I don't
care[1] what ABATE thinks about helmets, or what percentage of their
membership wears a helmet.
[1] In the context of this discussion. I happen to think that
when ABATE attempts to show that helmet use is harmful, they are
totally wrong and do their membership and their cause no good at all.
Helmets are proven to save lives and reduce injuries. Helmet laws
should be attacked strictly on the issue of personal choice and
freedom from unwarranted government intrusion.
--
'01 SV650S '81 CM400T '99 EX250-F13
GuitarMan
"Timberwoof" <timberw...@infernosoft.com> wrote in message
news:timberwoof.spam-F4...@typhoon.sonic.net...
> In article <QMhKc.116293$Oq2.56489@attbi_s52>,
> "John P." <pri...@notavailable.net> wrote:
>
> > "Odinn" <odinn@atlantab_k_r.n_t> wrote in a message
> >
> > > Apples and oranges. Skydiving without a parachute is almost
guaranteed
> > > to kill, riding a motorcycle without a helmet doesn't even come close.
> > > But then again, there are NO laws that require a skydiver to wear a
> > > parachute either, so why should there be laws requiring a motorcyclist
> > > to wear a helmet?
> >
> > There shouldn't be laws requiring anyone to wear a helmet (or a seat
belt).
> > I firmly believe that Darwin indicated such choices are made by natural
law.
> > ;-)
>
> I firmly believe that if God had intended us to rise up above morality
> based on mere survival of the species, He would have had us evolve
> brains and given us free will.
and helmets...
Sheep
wrote:
>
>If helmets were not a vital piece of safety gear, I doubt every bike racer
>would bother to wear one. Most of them come out of a spill in pretty good
>shape (and they usually wreck somewhere in excess of 100 MPH)
Helmets (and leathers) work pretty well in the situations you
encounter racing. In that you end up in low side slides. See how
good those boys will do if you put a car, tree, truck or wall in front
of them.
>> Riding with a lid doesn't guarantee one won't die anyway either.
>
>Correct... but it certainly improves your chances of coming out alive. Going
>head on at 150 MPH into a semi coming at you at 80 MPH, you'll probably get
>pretty hosed no matter what you're wearing. In such a case, helmet or no
>helmet, it's bet to avoid the front of semis all together. ;-)
Not riding improves it more. Try it at 30-60. Substitute car, wall,
tree, etc. for semi. Pretty much the same.
>> The mere fact that you ride a motorcycle is dangerous enough for Darwin.
Stay off of bikes or accept the risk.
>Or anyone... but then, that's part of the thrill.
Ride like you're naked because you are.
--
Dave (Dukes Sheep)
'03 FLHRI NAH#2 DOF #5 SENS
"Oh bother" said Pooh, as he was connected at 14.4kps
A: Because it disturbs the logical flow of the message.
Q: Why is topposting frowned upon?
Monique Y. Mudama
>
> I disagree. Most people I know support neither helmet nor seatbelt
> laws. The B.S. the government feeds us regarding the cost of non-usage
> is just that. The only person hurt by someone not wearing a seatbelt
> or helmet is the person not wearing the seatbelt or helmet. Both
> seatbelt and helmet laws are the direct result of a very strong
> insurance lobby. Other than what it costs insurance companies, there
> is no cost to the public if a biker gets killed or maimed. Thus, it
> should be up to each individual to choose.
Uh, say what?
One year, a bunch of us at my company discovered that our health care
plan would cover LASIK surgery. Maybe twenty folks took advantage of
this opportunity to make our eyes better. The next year, not only was
that loophole removed, but all of our premiums went up. A lot.
Insurance companies are not in the business of paying out. They are in
the business of making money. As soon as something costs them money,
they charge their customers more. So yes, the public does pay. In
cases where the victim doesn't have insurance, I believe that hospitals
must treat them in life or death cases. Either the hospitals pay for
this directly, in which case it comes out in all of our hospital bills,
or the govt pays for it, in which case it comes out in all of our taxes.
I don't know which it is, but medical care isn't free.
Now, I still believe in personal choice, as the same argument could be
made about everything from alcohol to sun exposure to playing sports
... in other words, there's no end to factors that might cause medical
trouble, and I don't want them all legislated. I do cluck my tongue
when I see people riding helmetless -- especially people wearing shorts,
t-shirt, sandles, two up with the girlfriend in back on what looks like
a launch platform in the event of a sudden stop. I choose to wear a
bicycle helmet, and I choose to wear a ski helmet. In both cases, I
wear them more because I'm afraid of other people's actions than my own.
The same applies to the motorcycle.
> Conversely, it irks me to see some knucklehead cruising along with his
> 2 year old kid on the gas tank. Kids on bikes should always be in
> safety gear... and I have no problem with a law stating that.
Sure, that falls under negligence. Kids can't be expected to make these
decisions for themselves.
--
monique
newbie rider
'96 bmw r1100r
Bob Mann
wrote:
>"Bob Mann" <wil...@hotmail.com> wrote in a message
>>
>> It's obvious from the story that they must have been wearing helmets
>> but that isn't the point.
>
>I thought it was obvious that they were not.
It said she landed on her head.
She suffered minor injuries.
I think that says it all.
>
>> Some asshole booby traps the road and the first thing people come up
>> with is "I wonder if they had a helmet?"
>
>Actually, it was probably the third thing... I just didn't post the first
>two.
Okay. Helmet use never even occurred to me.
>
>> Can't we just comment on assholes and booby traps without having to
>> constantly see a bunch of holier than thou posturing over helmet use?
>
>1) Apparently not.
So I see.
>
>2)
> a) Assholes & booby traps need no comment. The facts speak for
>themselves.
> b) In a world with assholes and booby traps, one fares better when one
>is prepared.
> Being prepared mean, among other things, wearing safety gear.
>
>3) Can't a person just comment on the foolishness of not choosing to sear a
>helmet without
> some holier than thou posturing over lack of helmet use?
>
>> And yes I do wear a helmet.
>
>Your choice.
>
Only in so much that I choose not to get a $130 ticket and 2 points on
my license.
--
Bob Mann
Some people just don't know how to drive...
I call these people "Everybody But Me,"
Bob Mann
wrote:
>"Larry xlax Lovisone" <nett...@comthespam.com> wrote in a message
>
>> Hiya Odinn...
>> The government enacts laws because motorcyclist are for the most part...
>> our own worst enemies... things like perceived risk taking create
>> negative images in nonmotocyclists minds... now coupled that with a pic
>> of a rider in the hospital sporting preventable face injuries and you
>> can see why the majority of people on the highways support helmet laws...
>
>I disagree. Most people I know support neither helmet nor seatbelt laws. The
>B.S. the government feeds us regarding the cost of non-usage is just that.
>The only person hurt by someone not wearing a seatbelt or helmet is the
>person not wearing the seatbelt or helmet. Both seatbelt and helmet laws are
>the direct result of a very strong insurance lobby. Other than what it costs
>insurance companies, there is no cost to the public if a biker gets killed
>or maimed. Thus, it should be up to each individual to choose.
I'm not so sure the Insurers are crying out for the helmet laws. In
fact I think they tend to stay right out of it. Somehow there are
never good statistics regarding costs with or without helmets.
I believe that is because accident victims in cases where the rider
had no helmet results in a significantly higher incidence of sudden
death and it actually ends up costing the insurer less.
They don't want to be seen as being more callous than they are so they
stay quiet.
>
>Conversely, it irks me to see some knucklehead cruising along with his 2
>year old kid on the gas tank. Kids on bikes should always be in safety
>gear... and I have no problem with a law stating that.
>
I'll agree with that.
me
personal choice!
window washers chemical workers iron workers demolition workers
airplane pilots policemen firemen the list goes on. Walking across
the street is a risk do you wear a helmet walking infront of cars n
trucks crossing a street they still can hit you its a personal choice
of the risks you take do you wear safety glasses frying food? rubber
gloves using drain cleaner in the sink or stool Everyone takes risks
some more than others How much risk do you accept?
Yes i have a helmet and leather jacket gloves and shoes but that is
my choice I evaluate the risk i want to take and wear what i think i
can except But i dont always wear everything riding down the block
at 20mph isnt the same as riding in I-80 at 65mph or on a dirt trail
John Hanson
<timberw...@infernosoft.com> wrote in rec.motorcycles:
The term leatherneck predates WWII by more than 100 years. Regarding
WWII, I've never heard that they wore them then and I find it highly
unlikely. The US Marines did all of their fighting in the Pacific
Theater. All combat was done on the ground by infantry troops as well
as with tanks. There would be little need for leather collars in that
situation. I suspect either the book is wrong or your memory isn't
quite right.
John Hanson
<timberw...@infernosoft.com> wrote in rec.motorcycles:
>In article <o6djf05le6ne4tab3...@4ax.com>,
And he hurt nobody but himself. I guess one could say that he cost
society in general for the huge medical bills that he wrung up which,
I assume, was absorbed by his insurance company. But, the same could
be said for helmeted riders who survive (instead of dying on the spot
from head injuries) and end up in the hospital for 6 months. I think
it's a wash in this case. So, why not let people decide for
themselves whether or not to ride with a helmet?
Bownse
Another anecdotal case to point to about the outcomes of not using a
helmet: Gary Busey
Susan (CobbersMom)
Timberwoof> wrote in rec.motorcycles:
> >Do you know why the Marines are called leathernecks?
>
> Of course. It was a leather band worn around the neck of US and Royal>
Marines to protect against saber slashes.
Well considering the boldness of your statement on legend being fact, I
guess we'd never have a clue that you actually studied history....
http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/blmarinelegends.htm
http://www.conciergesuggests.com/ARogue/LN/leathernecks.html
Sue
Northern Wisconsin
Envision Whirled Peas
Bownse
>>Apples and oranges. Skydiving without a parachute is almost guaranteed
>>to kill, riding a motorcycle without a helmet doesn't even come close.
>>But then again, there are NO laws that require a skydiver to wear a
>>parachute
>
>
> I think you should ask a member of the USPA whether that's true ... or
> whether any drop zone manager, pilot, or jumpmaster will let you get
> away with it.
I think you're confusing association policies with legal statutes.
Most people I know recommend the former to avoid the latter.
--
Mark Johnson, Ft Worth; IBA#288; CM#1; EOB, DoD#2021; LPR#50
2003 FJR1300 "E²"; http://www.bikes-n-spikes.org
John Hanson
<dittoh...@yahoo.com> wrote in rec.motorcycles:
>
>Timberwoof> wrote in rec.motorcycles:
>> >Do you know why the Marines are called leathernecks?
>>
>"John Hanson" <> wrote in message
>> Of course. It was a leather band worn around the neck of US and Royal>
>Marines to protect against saber slashes.
>> How did you know that war> history is my avocation?
>
>Well considering the boldness of your statement on legend being fact, I
>guess we'd never have a clue that you actually studied history....
Okay shitforbrains, thanks for citing those links that prove what I
have said above. Have you always been such a dumbfuck?
"For there can be no doubt of the origin, considering that U. S.
Marines of three generations wore leather collars."
>http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/blmarinelegends.htm
Origin of the Nickname "Leathernecks" for the Marines. It is
questionable whether the origin of the term "Leatherneck" can be
accepted as a legitimate member of the family of legends. More like a
tradition, it is. For there can be no doubt of the origin, considering
that U. S. Marines of three generations wore leather collars. It is as
obvious as the nickname "Red" for a recruit with carrot-colored hair
and freckles.
Now accepted by Webster as a synonym for Marine, the term
"Leatherneck" was derived from a leather stock once worn around the
neck by both American and British Marines--and soldiers also.
Beginning in 1798, "one stock of black leather and clasp" was issued
to each U. S. Marine annually.
This stiff leather collar, fastened by two buckles at the back,
measured nearly three and a half inches high, and was practical only
for full-dress wear. It could hardly be worn in battle as it prevented
the neck movement necessary for sighting along a barrel. It supposedly
improved military bearing, by forcing the chin high, although General
George F. Elliott, recalling its use after the Civil War, said it made
the wearers appear "like geese looking for rain."
The stock was dropped as an article of Marine uniform in 1872, after
surviving through the uniform changes of 1833, 1839, and 1859. But by
then it was a part of American vocabulary, a word preserved, like so
many words, beyond its original meaning.
>http://www.conciergesuggests.com/ARogue/LN/leathernecks.html
United States Marines have called themselves "leathernecks." since the
days of the Barbary pirates. Legend and lore have it that the term
leatherneck was derived from leather neckbands worn in the late 1700s
to protect Marines from the slash of the cutlass. Another more likely
reason is that the high stocks were worn for discipline to keep the
Marines' heads high and straight. Neither explanation has ever been
verified. Whatever the reason, the name leatherneck stuck and the
distinctive dress blue uniform blouse still bears a high stock collar
to remind Marines of the leatherneck legacy.
Hank Barta
>
> I'm not so sure the Insurers are crying out for the helmet laws. In
> fact I think they tend to stay right out of it. Somehow there are
> never good statistics regarding costs with or without helmets.
> I believe that is because accident victims in cases where the rider
> had no helmet results in a significantly higher incidence of sudden
> death and it actually ends up costing the insurer less.
> They don't want to be seen as being more callous than they are so they
> stay quiet.
I've often wondered if the insurance companies pay out anything
for a fatality. In the event of injuries they pay medical bills but
with the DRTs (Dead Right There) there are no medical costs beyond,
perhaps, an ambulance charge. I don't recall seeing anything about
a death benefit in my policy. I suppose that there would be a pay out
from liability for anyone who caused an accident that killed someone.
I understand a similar situation keeps cigarette smoking from being
a big monetary drain. It turns out the extra costs from caring for a
lung cancer victim before they die are offset by the fact that they
collect a lot less from Social Security and pensions.
--
Hank Barta
'95 K75RT "BABY K"
beautiful sunny Winfield, Illinois
Alan Moore
<jha...@northernlinks.com> wrote:
<snip tale of helmetless rider, crashing in protest of helmet laws>
>
>And he hurt nobody but himself.
Not so my cow-orker at Lockheed. Big beefy guy, mid 40s, good looking.
Good job, good family situation, but protective gear didn't fit with
his self image. He was rather severely disfigured when he ran his
harley through a barbed wire fence. I'd never realized just how
deeply self-image affects some people. A year later, he'd lost his
family, lost his job, and by now has probably committed suicide
because of his depression, although I don't know, and frankly, having
worked near him after the accident, don't much care. But it would be
a mistake to say that he was the only one injured. Wife and kids lost
out big-time, having gone from a healthy, happy family situation with
plenty of income to someplace not far from zilch.
Al Moore
DoD 734
Timberwoof
Bownse <bow...@swbell.net> wrote:
> Timberwoof wrote:
> >>Apples and oranges. Skydiving without a parachute is almost guaranteed
> >>to kill, riding a motorcycle without a helmet doesn't even come close.
> >>But then again, there are NO laws that require a skydiver to wear a
> >>parachute
> >
> >
> > I think you should ask a member of the USPA whether that's true ... or
> > whether any drop zone manager, pilot, or jumpmaster will let you get
> > away with it.
>
> I think you're confusing association policies with legal statutes.
>
> Most people I know recommend the former to avoid the latter.
Both have the effective force of law.
Alan Moore
<snip>
>
>I firmly believe that if God had intended us to rise up above morality
>based on mere survival of the species, He would have had us evolve
>brains and given us free will.
"If man were meant to fly, his bones would be as empty as his head..."
Al Moore
DoD 734
Timberwoof
"GuitarMan" <u...@yourface.com> wrote:
I think we invented those. God doesn't need one.
Timberwoof
Bob Mann <wil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> And yes I do wear a helmet.
> >
> >Your choice.
> >
> Only in so much that I choose not to get a $130 ticket and 2 points on
> my license.
> --
> Bob Mann
"I'll do it cause I want to and not because you told me to."
Or, in this case, "You can make me do it but you can't make me like it."
Timberwoof
John Hanson <jha...@northernlinks.com> wrote:
I think the book was wrong.
> >> How did you know that war
> >> history is my avocation?
> >
> >I did not know that.
--
Timberwoof
"John P." <pri...@notavailable.net> wrote:
> "Larry xlax Lovisone" <nett...@comthespam.com> wrote in a message
>
> > Hiya Odinn...
> > The government enacts laws because motorcyclist are for the most part...
> > our own worst enemies... things like perceived risk taking create
> > negative images in nonmotocyclists minds... now coupled that with a pic
> > of a rider in the hospital sporting preventable face injuries and you
> > can see why the majority of people on the highways support helmet laws...
>
> I disagree. Most people I know support neither helmet nor seatbelt laws. The
> B.S. the government feeds us regarding the cost of non-usage is just that.
> The only person hurt by someone not wearing a seatbelt or helmet is the
> person not wearing the seatbelt or helmet.
The only other people hurt are his family. If he's was the breadwinner,
then they are hurt financially. If he was a well-loved member of the
family, then they are hurt emotionally. If he had a job, then his
employer and co-workers are hurt in various ways.
> Both seatbelt and helmet laws are
> the direct result of a very strong insurance lobby. Other than what it costs
> insurance companies, there is no cost to the public if a biker gets killed
> or maimed. Thus, it should be up to each individual to choose.
There is the cost to the county of caring for someone who has no medical
coverage. That cost is pretty much the same for cagers as for
motorcyclists, but it is often used as justification for motorcycle
helmet laws.
> Conversely, it irks me to see some knucklehead cruising along with his 2
> year old kid on the gas tank. Kids on bikes should always be in safety
> gear... and I have no problem with a law stating that.
Timberwoof
Bob Mann <wil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not so sure the Insurers are crying out for the helmet laws. In
> fact I think they tend to stay right out of it. Somehow there are
> never good statistics regarding costs with or without helmets.
There are. Links are often posted on this newsgroup. But people who
disagree with their findings ignore them.
> I believe that is because accident victims in cases where the rider
> had no helmet results in a significantly higher incidence of sudden
> death and it actually ends up costing the insurer less.
That is another of the myths that gets debunked when links to studies
showing otherwise are posted on this newsgroup.
> They don't want to be seen as being more callous than they are so they
> stay quiet.
--
Timberwoof
John Hanson <jha...@northernlinks.com> wrote:
and his family, friends, co-workers, business associates, church
fellows...
> I guess one could say that he cost
> society in general for the huge medical bills that he wrung up which,
> I assume, was absorbed by his insurance company. But, the same could
> be said for helmeted riders who survive (instead of dying on the spot
> from head injuries) and end up in the hospital for 6 months. I think
> it's a wash in this case.
This is a provable assertion ... and it has been disproven.
> So, why not let people decide for
> themselves whether or not to ride with a helmet?
Because it's about more than just the money.
If someone has all the facts about helmets and then makes a
clear-headed, informed decision not to wear a helmet (and has whatever
approval he needs from his family) then that is really his business.
The problem is that with the state of rider and driver training in this
country, people are ignorant or even wrongly informed about helmet use.
It would be really great if the government could somehow set up really
good driver and rider schools for everybody, but for whatever reason, it
can't. So the next best thing for saving people's lives (which for
unknown reasons some wise guys in government seem to think is one of its
purposes) appears to be laws about having and using safety equipment in
motor vehicles.
Bownse
> In article <vIwKc.3540$Di4....@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com>,
> Bownse <bow...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Timberwoof wrote:
>>
>>>>Apples and oranges. Skydiving without a parachute is almost guaranteed
>>>>to kill, riding a motorcycle without a helmet doesn't even come close.
>>>>But then again, there are NO laws that require a skydiver to wear a
>>>>parachute
>>>
>>>
>>>I think you should ask a member of the USPA whether that's true ... or
>>>whether any drop zone manager, pilot, or jumpmaster will let you get
>>>away with it.
>>
>>I think you're confusing association policies with legal statutes.
>>
>>Most people I know recommend the former to avoid the latter.
>
>
> Both have the effective force of law.
>
Not at all. You can always leave the association if you disagree with
their policies.
John Hanson
<timberw...@infernosoft.com> wrote in rec.motorcycles:
No, only he gets killed. A scooter rider is at a far greater risk of
dying early than the general population anyway. His family and
friends know that and I'm sure his co-workers and business associates
could give a shit as he was probably easily replaced anyway.
A good friend of mine whom I train with rides a scooter too. He
always wears a helmet but he sometimes likes to ride in excess of 120
mph through small towns at night. What do you think his odds of
survival are if he hits a deer or some other object at that speed with
a helmet on his head?
>
>> I guess one could say that he cost
>> society in general for the huge medical bills that he wrung up which,
>> I assume, was absorbed by his insurance company. But, the same could
>> be said for helmeted riders who survive (instead of dying on the spot
>> from head injuries) and end up in the hospital for 6 months. I think
>> it's a wash in this case.
>
>This is a provable assertion ... and it has been disproven.
Show me the study that disproves it then.
>
>> So, why not let people decide for
>> themselves whether or not to ride with a helmet?
>
>Because it's about more than just the money.
Yes, it's about people like you who want to legislate stupidity. It
can't be done. Perhaps because of the high percentage of fatalities
involving motorcycle riders, we should just ban motorcycles. Maybe I
should give my Congressman a call tomorrow in an effort to get these
two wheeled coffins off the road.
John Hanson
<alan.s...@comcast.net> wrote in rec.motorcycles:
A helmet may have allowed the barbed wire to slip down off of his
helmet and may have decapitated him. If the guy was so hung up with
image and had a low self esteem, he probably would have done something
else detrimental to his family if he hadn't got disfigured in the
accident.
John P.
> I don't think you understood my point. I did not say what you said.
> I took your statement to imply that you believe a significant fraction
> of people who choose to wear a helmet are in favor of helmet laws.
> I don't think that is true.
I agree. I neither stated nor implied that I believed otherwise. Most people
I have come in contact with who choose to wear helmets are opposed to helmet
laws, as am I. (thus my membership in ABATE)
> I strongly disagree that most people who wear helmets have an issue with
those who
> choose not to wear one.
Actually, what I said (in that particular post) was the exact opposite. I
said that most people who choose *not* to wear helmets have an issue with
people who choose to wear helmets. No mention of helmet laws is involved. (I
also, in a later post conceded that I have overstated and the truth is the
only *some* people who choose to not wear helmets seem to take issue with
those of us that choose to wear them)
> Most riders I know are accepting of another rider's freedom to choose
whether
> they agree with their choice or not.
As I said, we are in agreement.
> I suppose there are a few riders out there who want to impose their choice
on everyone,
> but I sure don't believe they are the majority, or that they are the
majority of those
> who choose to wear a helmet.
My experience with riders who seem to want to push others to their way is
that they are generally A) Against wearing helmets and/or B) Harley riders.
Which is to say, they have a belief that if you wear a helmet and/or don't
ride a Harley, then you ain't shit. Which isn't to say that my experience
has been such with *all* non-helmet wearers or *all* Harley riders, but
rather that those whom I've run into with such a strong viewpoint generall
tend to fall into one or both of those categories.
As for anyone pushing the pro-helmet law agenda down anyones throat... In my
experience I have not met any bikers who advance such a position. On the
contrary, it seems helmet laws are pushed most by the insurance industry and
by people who've never ridden a bike in their life.
> Please correct me if you don't agree, as I am not trying to put words
> in your mouth.
Done. See... we agree. :-)
> As to ABATE and what they represent, most motorcyclists are not
> members of ABATE. I am *sure* that ABATE members do not comprise
> the majority of those riders who are opposed to helmet laws. I don't
> care[1] what ABATE thinks about helmets, or what percentage of their
> membership wears a helmet.
I take it that you are not familiar with ABATE? What ABATE thinks about
helmets is that riders should be free to choose whether or not they wear a
helmet & they are strongly opposed to helmet laws. I would tend to think
that this ideal mirrors your opinion (and mine) on these points.
> [1] In the context of this discussion. I happen to think that
> when ABATE attempts to show that helmet use is harmful, they are
> totally wrong and do their membership and their cause no good at all.
I agree, thus, I am no longer a member. Whereas *some* (a very few) ABATE
members tend to stick towards the realities of helmet use and freedom of
choice, I have found that too many members go to such ridiculous extremes as
to label helmet use as harmful. I agree that this harms their cause.
> Helmets are proven to save lives and reduce injuries. Helmet laws
> should be attacked strictly on the issue of personal choice and
> freedom from unwarranted government intrusion.
Agreed. I don't think there should be *any* laws that attempt to control
personal choice where the potential harm is limited to the person making
that choice.
An interesting (perhaps) side note: Regarding laws that impact motorcycle
enthusiasts: In preparing to become an MSF instructor, I made a trip to the
local library to look up any and all laws that might impact bikers
specifically. What I learned is that, in a manner of speaking, by getting on
your bike, you invite the potential to get a ticket.
As an example; Since many bikes can accelerate rather quickly, I was
wondering, this - You're sitting at a stop light at an intersection where
you will cross a 4 lane road (plus turn lanes). The speed limit on the road
you are on is 55 MPH. On my bike, without making an extreme attempt, in the
span of crossing that intersection, I could easily accelerate to 55 MPH by
the time I had cleared the other side of the intersection. Knowing that a
rapid acceleration such as this might invite attention from a law officer, I
wondered, if I didn't spin the rear tire and kept the front end on the
ground, could I still be ticketed for something.
As it turns out, that *exact* example was given, in specific regard to
motorcycles, and it turns out you could be ticketed for essentially making
an excessive and unneccesary amount of noise. (This was in the Hampton Roads
area of Virginia). I knew several Va Beach & Norfolk cops. None of them was
aware of this law, but all of them said the same thing - at any given time,
if a cop wants to write you a ticket, he can probably find at least one
thing to write you up for, no matter what you are doing.
Go figure. :-)
John P.
> Helmets (and leathers) work pretty well in the situations you
> encounter racing. In that you end up in low side slides. See how
> good those boys will do if you put a car, tree, truck or wall in front
> of them.
Except for the times where you go over the front end and land on the
pavement on your head, or when you take a nasty spill and the bike is
flipping and landing on top of you, or when there are multiple bikes
involved and you're getting hit or run over by other bikes...
I really initially came up with this point when another rider suggested to
me that helmets were useless and his proof was that Bell (or some other
manufacturer) only claimed that their helmets would protect you in crashes
up to 20 MPH (or some such very low number). Thus, his proof was that if you
crashed at any speed above that, the helmet was useless. My response was to
ask him how they managed to be so useful for racers going 100 or even 200
MPH.
> Not riding improves it more. Try it at 30-60. Substitute car, wall,
> tree, etc. for semi. Pretty much the same.
Cars ain't all that safe either. 40,000+/- deaths annually in the U.S....
staying home would be the next option, but then you have to look at all the
deaths related to bathtub falls, stairs, household chemicals... then I
suppose one could stay at work to avoid those risks, but then you'd have to
look at the number of work related deaths... Sheesh! :-)
> Ride like you're naked because you are.
Ride like everyone on the road is trying to kill you, because they are! (or,
at least it feels like that some days)
John P.
> Uh, say what?...
<Snipped>
> Insurance companies are not in the business of paying out. They are in
> the business of making money. As soon as something costs them money,
> they charge their customers more. So yes, the public does pay....
You've already said what I would have said in my response had you not
already said it. :-)
The "It makes premiums go up" argument can apply to many situations that are
not legislated.
However... this is still the action of the insurance company. They *choose*
to raise presmiums to increase profit. Take one look at an Allstate or State
Farm campus and you'll quickly see that these are not companies that are
hurting for money.
John P.
> It said she landed on her head.
> She suffered minor injuries.
> I think that says it all.
Perhaps you are right, and I need to concede that we just don't know one way
or the other.
The way I looked at it was based on his facial injuries... perhaps he was
wearing an open faced helmet or a half lid.
>>> Can't we just comment on assholes and booby traps without having to
>>> constantly see a bunch of holier than thou posturing over helmet use?
>>1) Apparently not.
> So I see.
That was easy. :-)
>>> And yes I do wear a helmet.
>>Your choice.
> Only in so much that I choose not to get a $130 ticket and 2 points on
> my license.
So, are you saying that if given the choice you'd choose not to wear a
helmet?
If so, even if we ignore the issue of safety in a crash, what about bugs and
birds and rocks thrown up from the vehicle in front of you and the wind
blowing in your eyes, etc.? I guess that's one thing I don't get about
people not wearing helmets... I've dealt with all of the above and can't
imagine sticking my face in a wind tunnel at 100+ MPH (or even 50 MPH).
John P.
> I'm not so sure the Insurers are crying out for the helmet laws...
I know some people in the insurance industry in Illinois both personally
(friends, relative) and as part of my job, as well as a few politicians. The
word I get is that Illinois has helmet laws solely because of lobbying by
the insurance industry.
John P.
> I've often wondered if the insurance companies pay out anything
> for a fatality. In the event of injuries they pay medical bills but
> with the DRTs (Dead Right There) there are no medical costs beyond,
> perhaps, an ambulance charge. I don't recall seeing anything about
> a death benefit in my policy. I suppose that there would be a pay out
> from liability for anyone who caused an accident that killed someone.
If the bike is covered, the payout would go to any beneficary. In a single
vehicle wreck, that be about it. If the bike damaged another vehicle or
property, or if the accident caused injury to others, there could be a
significant payout if the biker is deemed at fault. (and in Illinois, if you
hit something, even a car that pulled out in front of you, it is almost
automatically deemed your fault because the law says you have to drive in
such a manner so as to be able to avoid an accident)
John P.
> Yes i have a helmet and leather jacket gloves and shoes but that is
> my choice I evaluate the risk i want to take and wear what i think i
> can except But i dont always wear everything riding down the block
> at 20mph isnt the same as riding in I-80 at 65mph or on a dirt trail
Oddly enough, that may be all it takes to get you killed or seriously
injured.
I have 2 good low speed examples for you;
A father bought his kids a small dirtbike (70cc). Brings it home, decides to
take it out for a little spin to see if it is set up correctly. Takes it
through the field across from his house. Coming back, he approached the
driveway/curb at an angle. The bike slipped out from under him and he fell
to the ground. As luck would have it, he had just done some landscaping and
placed a large rock near the end of the driveway. He hit his head on that
rock and died. His speed at the time of the accident was approximately 5
MPH.
In another weird incident, a guy was having some people over for a cookout.
His bike was in the driveway, so he decided to move it to give them more
room to park their cars. He was wise enough to have a helmet - on he had
bought for $10 (or $20 or whatever they are) at K-Mart. You know those hip
looking red or blue metalflake plastic things? It was on the seat of the
bike so, for lack of anywhere else to put it, he stuck it on his head.
Sitting on the bike and without starting it, he rolled it into the front
yard and put the kickstand down. The bike fell over as he was getting off
it. In some very odd turn of events, he managed to end up with the brake
lever going through his helmet & skull. He died.
So, it's not always speed that kills. If you want to protect your melon, it
is best to do so with a quality helmet *every* time you're on the bike.