"John H." wrote in message
...
On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 20:30:25 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 15:19:33 -0500, John H. wrote:

On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 14:59:11 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
om...
On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 14:38:34 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
news:6626l35nu1auoptql7ll543hdd2l6l3o85@4ax .com...


I don't know. But I believe the number of severe head injuries due
to
motorcycle accidents would go down.


Of course they would.

Who's head?

Eisboch


You don't need a helmet!
--
John H


I asked you how much money you would save by forcing me to wear a
helmet.
You didn't know.

Thank you for your understanding.

Eisboch


Here are some results of the only extensive study of motorcycle
accidents
that I'm familiar with. Note #'s 45, 48, 49, and 53. Of side note is
number
26 for the anti-countersteering crowd.

Whoops: http://www.ibmwr.org/otech/hurt.html
--
John H


Ya know, why are we discussing this? The most obvious bikers are the ones
with the loudest bikes, and unbeknownst to them, everyone wants them dead.
Everyone. There are no exceptions, except the two or three of you who will
say you are the exceptions. Let them ride without helmets. Hell...let them
ride blindfolded. Who cares?


I don't believe anyone wants them dead. Quieter, yes. Dead, no. It's
funny,
but when I hear of a motorcycle accident on the beltway, there's an extra
twinge that doesn't happen when I hear of a car accident. I'm sure Marines
feel it for Marines, soldiers for soldiers and so on.

--
John H


The safety debate is not center to my opinion on this helmet subject, but in
the spirit of considering other points of view, here's something you may
find of interest.

http://www.bikersrights.com/statisti...goldstein.html

Eisboch