Yet Another Tragic Case......
 

Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 14:13:22 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

There's a direct corollary to boating here. There are minority interest
groups constantly trying to restrict or ban boater's right to enjoy their
interests. Some are well founded, but many are simply attempts to restrict
boaters because "they" don't share the same interest.

Yes, and some boater offended their sensibilities in some way by
running with an open exhaust or throwing a wake over their seawall,
etc.


I am all for freedom of boating, as long as it matches my kind of
boating. Since i don't fish, I think all fishing should be restricted
to 7 days a year, and all fishing boats should be taxed 50% higher than
I am. This will substantially reduce our gas consumption, and will help
reduce wakes and busy traffic on the weekend. To make sure all
fisherman are included in the tax, I recommend we register all fishing
poles.

Eisboch and Wayne won't have to pay the tax, since I think their kind of
boating is the preferred boating style.

Yet Another Tragic Case......
 

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 18:03:38 -0500, HK wrote:

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)



Ever the a**, eh, Dwayne?

Just answer my question Hairy. I believe there's a legitimate
philosophical issue at stake:

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



Slight detour: Kids learn both good and bad habits from their parents. Even
the stupidest parents might wear seat belts if they were afraid of being
ticketed, and then their kids see them doing the right thing. I like the
law. And, the cops *do* write a lot of tickets here for failure to use
belts.

Yet Another Tragic Case......
 

Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 18:03:38 -0500, HK wrote:

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)


Ever the a**, eh, Dwayne?

Just answer my question Hairy. I believe there's a legitimate
philosophical issue at stake:

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



Sure. I ain't no loonitarian. I believe in helmet laws, seat belts, a
really effective, hard-working FDA (not a Bush FDA), a really effective,
hard-working OSHA (not a Bush OSHA), et cetera.

Yet Another Tragic Case......
 

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 14:13:22 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

There's a direct corollary to boating here. There are minority
interest groups constantly trying to restrict or ban boater's right
to enjoy their interests. Some are well founded, but many are simply
attempts to restrict boaters because "they" don't share the same
interest.

Yes, and some boater offended their sensibilities in some way by
running with an open exhaust or throwing a wake over their seawall,
etc.


I am all for freedom of boating, as long as it matches my kind of
boating.

No one wants to tax your playing with your rubber duckies in your tubby.

Yet Another Tragic Case......
 

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 18:03:38 -0500, HK wrote:

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)


Ever the a**, eh, Dwayne?
Just answer my question Hairy. I believe there's a legitimate
philosophical issue at stake:

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



Slight detour: Kids learn both good and bad habits from their parents. Even
the stupidest parents might wear seat belts if they were afraid of being
ticketed, and then their kids see them doing the right thing. I like the
law. And, the cops *do* write a lot of tickets here for failure to use
belts.




Here, too. I wish the land cops were more aggressive in nailing
litterers, and the water cops were more aggressive in nailing those
damned penis boats with the open exhaust pipes.

Yet Another Tragic Case......
 

HK wrote:
Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 18:03:38 -0500, HK wrote:

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)


Ever the a**, eh, Dwayne?

Just answer my question Hairy. I believe there's a legitimate
philosophical issue at stake:

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



Sure. I ain't no loonitarian. I believe in helmet laws, seat belts, a
really effective, hard-working FDA (not a Bush FDA), a really effective,
hard-working OSHA (not a Bush OSHA), et cetera.


Does the FDA and OSHA magically become good the day a Democrat is sworn
into the office of the president?

Yet Another Tragic Case......
 

BAR wrote:
HK wrote:
Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 18:03:38 -0500, HK wrote:

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)


Ever the a**, eh, Dwayne?

Just answer my question Hairy. I believe there's a legitimate
philosophical issue at stake:

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



Sure. I ain't no loonitarian. I believe in helmet laws, seat belts, a
really effective, hard-working FDA (not a Bush FDA), a really
effective, hard-working OSHA (not a Bush OSHA), et cetera.


Does the FDA and OSHA magically become good the day a Democrat is sworn
into the office of the president?


Nope. But they get better, and spend a bit more time protecting the
public, and not the GOP corporate benefactors.

Yet Another Tragic Case......
 

On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 12:46:19 -0500, Wayne.B wrote:


http://blogs.consumerreports.org/car...ycle-deat.html

"The fatality rates for cruiser and "standard" riders rank the lowest,
at 5.7 deaths per 10,000 registered motorcycles. Touring bikes, such as
the Harley example, averaged 6.5 deaths, with sport bikes totaling 10.7
deaths per 10,000."

That is a higher rate than I would have thought, and considering that it
is per registered motorcycle, not per mile, it is quite high. I'm
guessing, but I would think that the average motorcycle only averages a
couple of thousand miles per year.

Yet Another Tragic Case......
 

wrote:
On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 12:46:19 -0500, Wayne.B wrote:


http://blogs.consumerreports.org/car...ycle-deat.html

"The fatality rates for cruiser and "standard" riders rank the lowest,
at 5.7 deaths per 10,000 registered motorcycles. Touring bikes, such as
the Harley example, averaged 6.5 deaths, with sport bikes totaling 10.7
deaths per 10,000."

That is a higher rate than I would have thought, and considering that it
is per registered motorcycle, not per mile, it is quite high. I'm
guessing, but I would think that the average motorcycle only averages a
couple of thousand miles per year.


Evolution in action.

Yet Another Tragic Case......
 

On Dec 2, 7:32 pm, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 23:42:21 -0000, wrote:
On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 23:26:28 +0000, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

And then we got air bags anyway which caused a zillion injuries and
still do.

Not to mention severe allergic reactions as a result of the powder used
as a lubricant to aid inflation.

And I have yet to have an SAE qualified engineer tell me why, if seat
belts are so effective in reducing injuries, we need air bags as
additional restraints.

Remember the '50s cars? Metal dashboards, steering columns like spears,
metal door handles that would slice you like a knife, etc. etc. I'll
take the air bags and seat belts. Looking back, those old cars were
scary. Seat belts are not without problems. I've heard of broken
collarbones and even deaths caused by shock to the heart. Still, I'll
wear them.

Take JohnH as an example (not picking on you John, just making a
point). There's a guy with an abdominal aortic aneurism - does a seat
belt make him safer?

Cardiac aortic tears, hip/pelvis breakage, entrapment, broken
sternums, ribs, shoulders - oh, I could go on and on about the
inherent dangers of seat belts.

In my own case, I was trapped in a burning car after being rear ended
at high speed at a stop light and couldn't get out because both
shoulders were dislocated, dazed and confused and I couldn't get to
the release. Fortunately, there was a by-stander who managed to haul
my ass out of the car.

Haven't worn a seat belt since.

My complaint about seat belts have to do with how use is reported.
Statistics are developed by ambulance run forms and accident reports.
The hitch in the process is that is Fire/EMS/Police ask if seatbelts
were used and the patient says yes, then that is what is reported.
Doesn't matter if the windshield is starred or the victim ejected, it
goes down as yes.

That means that the system is flawed and use over reported.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, then show us some non-flawed statistics that would indicate that
NOT wearing a seat belt is safer than wearing one......