Yet Another Tragic Case......
 

"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
...

I'd be OK with a system where the guy who chooses not to wear a
motorcyle helmet or a pfd agrees that in any situation where his
choice to avoid mitigating his personal risk develops into an
emergency the paramedics, USCG, etc can elect *not* to respond. That's
what taking the risk means. As it is now, the people who refuse to
take basic safety precautions not only risk their own lives, but they
cost the rest of us $$$$$$$$$$ in S&R costs, publicly subsidized
medical care, welfare and Social Security payments made to orphaned
children, etc.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, following that logic emergency services should be optional for anyone
involved in an accident while driving a car in inclement weather, after
midnight (might get sleepy), or on busy highways at rush hour.

Not wearing a PFD while boating in rough seas is stupid, I agree.

I *do* have a problem with mandatory helmet laws. All the arguements about
beoming a burden to society due to medical costs and increased insurance
premiums for all just don't hold up under close scrutiny.

Sorry.

Eisboch

Yet Another Tragic Case......
 

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 18:51:03 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

I *do* have a problem with mandatory helmet laws. All the arguements about
beoming a burden to society due to medical costs and increased insurance
premiums for all just don't hold up under close scrutiny.

Not to take this in a different direction, but I'm of the opinion that
if I am required to wear a seatbelt under the dubious rational that it
will "save" my life and reduce medical costs, then helmets should also
be required along with full leathers and body armor for motorcycle
riders.

The stated rational for seatbelts is BS for a number of reasons, but
the most important is that seatbelt use is over stated and over
reported in vehicle accidents resulting in skewed "safety" statistics.

The same basic stats apply that MC riders use to validate their claim,
by extrapolation, can be used for automobiles.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it. :)

Yet Another Tragic Case......
 

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 18:51:03 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

I *do* have a problem with mandatory helmet laws. All the arguements
about
beoming a burden to society due to medical costs and increased insurance
premiums for all just don't hold up under close scrutiny.

Not to take this in a different direction, but I'm of the opinion that
if I am required to wear a seatbelt under the dubious rational that it
will "save" my life and reduce medical costs, then helmets should also
be required along with full leathers and body armor for motorcycle
riders.

The stated rational for seatbelts is BS for a number of reasons, but
the most important is that seatbelt use is over stated and over
reported in vehicle accidents resulting in skewed "safety" statistics.


Let's consider the opposite: In the subset consisting of people ejected
from their vehicles during an accident, what percentage survive?

Yet Another Tragic Case......
 

On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 01:32:55 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 18:51:03 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

I *do* have a problem with mandatory helmet laws. All the arguements
about
beoming a burden to society due to medical costs and increased insurance
premiums for all just don't hold up under close scrutiny.

Not to take this in a different direction, but I'm of the opinion that
if I am required to wear a seatbelt under the dubious rational that it
will "save" my life and reduce medical costs, then helmets should also
be required along with full leathers and body armor for motorcycle
riders.

The stated rational for seatbelts is BS for a number of reasons, but
the most important is that seatbelt use is over stated and over
reported in vehicle accidents resulting in skewed "safety" statistics.

Let's consider the opposite: In the subset consisting of people ejected
from their vehicles during an accident, what percentage survive?

If I were a betting man, I would say, proportionally, about the same
as a motorcycle rider's.

However, the more important question is how many major accidents
result in ejection? Probably about the same number as high speed
motorcycle accidents.

Yet Another Tragic Case......
 

On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 01:32:55 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 18:51:03 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

I *do* have a problem with mandatory helmet laws. All the arguements
about
beoming a burden to society due to medical costs and increased insurance
premiums for all just don't hold up under close scrutiny.

Not to take this in a different direction, but I'm of the opinion that
if I am required to wear a seatbelt under the dubious rational that it
will "save" my life and reduce medical costs, then helmets should also
be required along with full leathers and body armor for motorcycle
riders.

The stated rational for seatbelts is BS for a number of reasons, but
the most important is that seatbelt use is over stated and over
reported in vehicle accidents resulting in skewed "safety" statistics.


Let's consider the opposite: In the subset consisting of people ejected
from their vehicles during an accident, what percentage survive?

My best Navy buddy didn't when he flipped his car on the DC loop
and it cut his legs off. He was 21. That's when I started wearing a
belt. Aside from that, I found the belt holding me tight behind the
wheel gave me a better sense of control when maneuvering hard.
Not that I did much of that, but a hard corner can move you off
center, especially with a bench seat.

--Vic

Yet Another Tragic Case......
 

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 01:32:55 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 18:51:03 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

I *do* have a problem with mandatory helmet laws. All the arguements
about
beoming a burden to society due to medical costs and increased insurance
premiums for all just don't hold up under close scrutiny.

Not to take this in a different direction, but I'm of the opinion that
if I am required to wear a seatbelt under the dubious rational that it
will "save" my life and reduce medical costs, then helmets should also
be required along with full leathers and body armor for motorcycle
riders.

The stated rational for seatbelts is BS for a number of reasons, but
the most important is that seatbelt use is over stated and over
reported in vehicle accidents resulting in skewed "safety" statistics.


Let's consider the opposite: In the subset consisting of people ejected
from their vehicles during an accident, what percentage survive?

My best Navy buddy didn't when he flipped his car on the DC loop
and it cut his legs off. He was 21. That's when I started wearing a
belt. Aside from that, I found the belt holding me tight behind the
wheel gave me a better sense of control when maneuvering hard.
Not that I did much of that, but a hard corner can move you off
center, especially with a bench seat.

--Vic


Losing my legs would not fall under my personal definition of survival. But,
I'm funny that way. YMMV

Yet Another Tragic Case......
 

Chuck Gould wrote in news:98b13773-
:

If the boat was still floating, upside down,


Of course, we COULD force "them" to build boats that SELF-RIGHT
like a monohull sailboat, couldn't we? That's not rocket science
to do with a little scrap iron.

Maybe if we weren't so set on making the damned boats so light
and thin and cheap-as-possible with some old iron in the keel so
it COULDN'T stay upside down for more than an instance...these
guys and hundreds to thousands like them over the years would
still be alive.

Forget it. Brunswick profits is all that matters. Just look in
any hull made in the last 40 years.....

Larry
--
Isn't it ironic that the same ISPs that are telling you
you're downloads threaten their networks......
.....are testing 100Gbps TV to sell on the SAME systems?
http://tinyurl.com/27qx3v

Yet Another Tragic Case......
 

Chuck Gould wrote in news:0b23b105-
:

Then there's the old "it's my life, I'll risk it" BS.
Unfortunately,
society doesn't work that way.


It does or we'd bust anyone's ass that was caught with beer or
wine or other booze not sealed away in the trunk.....just like we
do to CARS.

We'd **** on the boat dealers' feet by making them all take a
competency boat DRIVERS LICENSE test BEFORE we allowed them to
drive off in a 55 ton Hatteras with 1500 HP diesels. Just having
money isn't a competency test, but that's all we got now.

At least SOME of the drivers on the road don't do the really
stupid things boaters do, like driving drunk on booze, for fear
of losing that LICENSE TO DRIVE. I know lots of boaters who
drink and wouldn't do so if they lost that Boat Driver's License,
or stood a chance of losing it...

Of course, if we really cared, we'd say:
NO PFD....NO BOATING
But, a thousand yachties will come to that aid.


Larry
--
Isn't it ironic that the same ISPs that are telling you
you're downloads threaten their networks......
.....are testing 100Gbps TV to sell on the SAME systems?
http://tinyurl.com/27qx3v

Yet Another Tragic Case......
 

Yet Another Tragic Case......
 

HK wrote:
wrote:
On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 01:42:14 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing

wrote:

On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 01:32:55 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 18:51:03 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

I *do* have a problem with mandatory helmet laws. All the
arguements about
beoming a burden to society due to medical costs and increased
insurance
premiums for all just don't hold up under close scrutiny.
Not to take this in a different direction, but I'm of the opinion that
if I am required to wear a seatbelt under the dubious rational that it
will "save" my life and reduce medical costs, then helmets should also
be required along with full leathers and body armor for motorcycle
riders.

The stated rational for seatbelts is BS for a number of reasons, but
the most important is that seatbelt use is over stated and over
reported in vehicle accidents resulting in skewed "safety" statistics.
Let's consider the opposite: In the subset consisting of people
ejected
from their vehicles during an accident, what percentage survive?

If I were a betting man, I would say, proportionally, about the same
as a motorcycle rider's.

However, the more important question is how many major accidents
result in ejection? Probably about the same number as high speed
motorcycle accidents.

FAR more people suffer tramatic brain injury or death from head
injuries in cars
than on motorcycles. If you aren't wearing a helmet when in a car, you
are
simply asking for it!




I always urge all rightwingers everywhere to ride their motorcycles in
as macho a fashion as possible and without helmets or other protective
gear, and, whenever possible, to make sure at least one of their fertile
family members is on the back seat. Oh. And make sure a handgun is in
the saddlebag.


Is that directed towards SWF? I think he would be considered a
rightwinger? He is definitely right of my political views. While I
disagree with many individual's politics and/or religious viewpoints, I
know I would wish ill will on them. I am glad you are not reflective
of most people I have meet.