"Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in message
. ..
D.Duck wrote:
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 10:08:22 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

If a law went into effect tomorrow that mandated helmets in every
state, by
how much would your current taxes, vehicle insurance and health
insurance
premiums be reduced by?
I agree with you on this - it wouldn't make a whit of difference.

My argument is that the same logic behind no helmet laws should also
be applied to seat belts - personal choice.

And the odd thing is that the "safety" statistics for seat belt use
being more safe than not is highly fabricated and, frankly, false.
I really don't care one way or another. I have no idea what the data
shows.

Why are there such laws in place if it doesn't help?

Not trying to argue, just get some points of view.
I find it hard to believe that insurance companies, who actually know
the cost, would promote anything that would cost them more money. If
seat belts and helmets were not safer, insurance companies would
aggressively fight against the laws.

Insurance companies make more money when they pay out more money. Sounds
strange, but everytine they have to pay out more money they raise rates,
and they make a percentage of the rates as profit. Higher rates, higher
profit.

I guess they should be pushing to get rid of air bags, they could really
make some big time money.


Lose more payers.

"Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
"John H." wrote in message
...
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

My guess is the person who hit the ground with his helmet vs. his head.

It seems to me (with my limited medical background) that a head surrounded
by a helmet can take more abuse than a head alone.

Just keeps the mess retained.

On Dec 2, 3:33 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message

...







"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...

True, but a head injury could qualify him instantly. That, and a small
adjustment with a surgical icepiculum to the frontal lobes. Finally, a
few months with a speech pathologist to help with the fake accent, and
he'd be as good as elected.

Hmmm....

Starting to sound good.
How much does it pay?

Eisboch

Not enough to compensate for being shunned forever after you leave office.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ahhhh, those silly clintons...

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
m...
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

On Dec 2, 4:06 pm, John H. wrote:
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
m...
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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, you are talking about fundie-libs who indeed wish anyone dead
that does not facilitate their own self indulgent aspirations.

On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 09:19:02 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

Let's talk about "conditioned" vs. "unconditioned" lines. Unconditioned
lines could not be used for data transmission above 1200 baud but, a
conditioned line could go above 1200 baud. What is the difference
between the two? You paid more for a conditioned line. What happened in
1984 that as soon as ATT was broken up undonditioned lines could now
support up to 56Kbps? Absolutely nothing.

Modems started doing their own equalization under microprocessor
control and new modulation techniques were developed. A Florida
company called Paradyne was one of the leaders in both new modem
technology and fighting AT&T. Ironically they were bought out by
AT&T.

On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 12:49:03 -0500, HK wrote:

I don't know this for a fact, so it's pure speculation on my part, but I
suspect that the majority of people that support helmet laws .... don't
ride motorcycles.

Eisboch




It should be mandatory. Period.

So you believe that it is a proper role of government to protect
people from themselves?

What do you do when they take away your unsafe, low transom boat?

(for your own good, of course)

"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

wrote in message
...
On Dec 2, 11:25 am, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 10:08:22 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:
If a law went into effect tomorrow that mandated helmets in every state,
by
how much would your current taxes, vehicle insurance and health
insurance
premiums be reduced by?

I agree with you on this - it wouldn't make a whit of difference.

My argument is that the same logic behind no helmet laws should also
be applied to seat belts - personal choice.

And the odd thing is that the "safety" statistics for seat belt use
being more safe than not is highly fabricated and, frankly, false.

Every wreck I have been in I have seen seatbelts keep folks in place,
in the vehicle and away from the windows.. As a wrecker driver for
many years, the only ejections I ever saw were folks with no belts
on...

I was thrown through the windshield of an ambulance in a 1979 highway crash.
Shortly after that, this province had a seatbelt law. Not sure if I can
take any credit.

On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 13:54:07 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

married for 38 years or something ....

Um...didn't you say that Mrs. E read rec.boats once in a while? :)