Yet Another Tragic Case......
 

On Dec 1, 5:49�am, 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!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Twisted statistic. What percentage of automobile drivers or passengers
suffer brain injury in an accident vs the percentage of motorcyclists?

That's like saying, "Only one guy died while walking a tightrope
between
two skyscrapers in NYC last year, but 16 pedestrians were killed in
the same city while trying to use a crosswalk- therefore it can be
statistically proven that it's 16 times safer to walk a tightrope
several hundred feet in the air than to use a crosswalk." Not. :-)

Yet Another Tragic Case......
 

On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 02:15:30 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
.. .

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.

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

"Didn't" means he was ejected and didn't survive. The car rolled on
him, cutting his legs off. He quickly bled to death.
Other mates who were in the same car told me what happened.
They were not wearing belts either, but didn't get ejected, and none
were even hurt beyond sprains and contusions.
It was a '53 Pontiac, a tank. Of course it didn't even *have*
seatbelts.
His name was Warren McKinnon and we were like brothers. I got out 4
months before him, and we had plans go to the West coast together.
Two weeks before his discharge I called the ship in Portsmouth talk to
him and was told he had been killed the previous week.
In the Warren McKinnon subset the survival rate was 0%.
Seat belts are a no-brainer, and I suspect those who resist them have
no problem strapping on a tin foil hat.
The first time my uncle saw me buckle mine he looked at me like I was
an idiot and said,
"What the hell's gonna happen if you go in the river!?!?"
I didn't pay any attention to him on that. Maybe he was thinking
about his horse and buggy days along the Wabash.
And I don't care what others wear if it's not my car, or my family.
I wore mine before it was law, and demanded my passengers wear theirs
so their heads wouldn't mess up my windshield. My prerogative in my
car. I'd do the same law is revoked. Besides, when buckling up I
always momentarily fancy myself as Mario Andretti.

--Vic

Yet Another Tragic Case......
 

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 02:15:30 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
. ..

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.

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

"Didn't" means he was ejected and didn't survive. The car rolled on
him, cutting his legs off. He quickly bled to death.
Other mates who were in the same car told me what happened.
They were not wearing belts either, but didn't get ejected, and none
were even hurt beyond sprains and contusions.
It was a '53 Pontiac, a tank. Of course it didn't even *have*
seatbelts.
His name was Warren McKinnon and we were like brothers. I got out 4
months before him, and we had plans go to the West coast together.
Two weeks before his discharge I called the ship in Portsmouth talk to
him and was told he had been killed the previous week.
In the Warren McKinnon subset the survival rate was 0%.
Seat belts are a no-brainer, and I suspect those who resist them have
no problem strapping on a tin foil hat.
The first time my uncle saw me buckle mine he looked at me like I was
an idiot and said,
"What the hell's gonna happen if you go in the river!?!?"
I didn't pay any attention to him on that. Maybe he was thinking
about his horse and buggy days along the Wabash.
And I don't care what others wear if it's not my car, or my family.
I wore mine before it was law, and demanded my passengers wear theirs
so their heads wouldn't mess up my windshield. My prerogative in my
car. I'd do the same law is revoked. Besides, when buckling up I
always momentarily fancy myself as Mario Andretti.

--Vic


I'm A.J. Foyt. Nice to see you again.

Yet Another Tragic Case......
 

wrote in message
...


There is, in fact, a national motorcycle helmet law in
effect already. It only applies to people with something worth protecting.


Please provide a cite.

A while back the Fed refused money for road system maintenance if the state
did not have a helmet law .... similar to the 55 mph speed limit of the
70's. But that is changing.

Every year more states are changing the law or modifying it based on real
data.
Florida is a good example and reflects some common sense. There *is* a
helmet law, but you are not required to wear one if over 21 years of age and
can prove that you have at least some minimum amount of personal health
insurance.

There are more states that riding without a helmet is legal today than there
were 20 years ago.

Eisboch

Yet Another Tragic Case......
 

Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message
...


There is, in fact, a national motorcycle helmet law in
effect already. It only applies to people with something worth protecting.


Please provide a cite.

A while back the Fed refused money for road system maintenance if the state
did not have a helmet law .... similar to the 55 mph speed limit of the
70's. But that is changing.

Every year more states are changing the law or modifying it based on real
data.
Florida is a good example and reflects some common sense. There *is* a
helmet law, but you are not required to wear one if over 21 years of age and
can prove that you have at least some minimum amount of personal health
insurance.

There are more states that riding without a helmet is legal today than there
were 20 years ago.

Eisboch




More regression.

Yet Another Tragic Case......
 

"HK" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message
...


There is, in fact, a national motorcycle helmet law in
effect already. It only applies to people with something worth
protecting.


Please provide a cite.

A while back the Fed refused money for road system maintenance if the
state did not have a helmet law .... similar to the 55 mph speed limit of
the 70's. But that is changing.

Every year more states are changing the law or modifying it based on real
data.
Florida is a good example and reflects some common sense. There *is* a
helmet law, but you are not required to wear one if over 21 years of age
and can prove that you have at least some minimum amount of personal
health insurance.

There are more states that riding without a helmet is legal today than
there were 20 years ago.

Eisboch




More regression.


Why? If some moron wants to ride a motorcycle without a helmet, who cares?
If you're stupid enough to think you're immune to head injuries, the gene
pool is better off without you. Give this 200 years and the 54% might shrink
a bit.

Yet Another Tragic Case......
 

"HK" wrote in message
...


More regression.

Isn't it awesome?

Eisboch

Yet Another Tragic Case......
 

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"HK" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message
...


There is, in fact, a national motorcycle helmet law in
effect already. It only applies to people with something worth
protecting.


Please provide a cite.

A while back the Fed refused money for road system maintenance if the
state did not have a helmet law .... similar to the 55 mph speed limit
of the 70's. But that is changing.

Every year more states are changing the law or modifying it based on
real data.
Florida is a good example and reflects some common sense. There *is* a
helmet law, but you are not required to wear one if over 21 years of age
and can prove that you have at least some minimum amount of personal
health insurance.

There are more states that riding without a helmet is legal today than
there were 20 years ago.

Eisboch




More regression.


Why? If some moron wants to ride a motorcycle without a helmet, who
cares? If you're stupid enough to think you're immune to head injuries,
the gene pool is better off without you. Give this 200 years and the 54%
might shrink a bit.


To quote a famous NG participate .....

"Damn straight!"

Eisboch

Yet Another Tragic Case......
 

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"HK" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message
...


There is, in fact, a national motorcycle helmet law in
effect already. It only applies to people with something worth
protecting.


Please provide a cite.

A while back the Fed refused money for road system maintenance if the
state did not have a helmet law .... similar to the 55 mph speed limit
of the 70's. But that is changing.

Every year more states are changing the law or modifying it based on
real data.
Florida is a good example and reflects some common sense. There *is* a
helmet law, but you are not required to wear one if over 21 years of
age and can prove that you have at least some minimum amount of
personal health insurance.

There are more states that riding without a helmet is legal today than
there were 20 years ago.

Eisboch




More regression.


Why? If some moron wants to ride a motorcycle without a helmet, who
cares? If you're stupid enough to think you're immune to head injuries,
the gene pool is better off without you. Give this 200 years and the 54%
might shrink a bit.


To quote a famous NG participate .....

"Damn straight!"

Eisboch


Right arm!

Yet Another Tragic Case......
 

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 16:02:10 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


wrote in message
. ..


There is, in fact, a national motorcycle helmet law in
effect already.


Please provide a cite.


Humorus wisecracks rarely are supported with cites.

"It only applies to people with something worth protecting."

Jeeze!

Ok. The "Duh" is on me. Tired and have a cold.

Eisboch

Yet Another Tragic Case......
 

On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 20:33:24 GMT, wrote:



I can tell your uncle what happens if you go in the river. If he's not wearing a
seatbealt, he's gonna hit his head very hard on the windshield and be knocked
out cold. He'll get out when they recover the car with a winch.

If he's wearing a seatbelt, he may at least have a possibility of unbuckling it
and making an escape. It's a better chance than without the belt.

He probaly thinks he's going to open the door underwater, too!


They've done a number of shows on Discovery-type channels about
how Floridians - who are always driving into canals - should carry a
center punch to shatter windows when caught underwater.
Damn, life can get complicated.

--Vic

Yet Another Tragic Case......
 

On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 16:19:04 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

Why? If some moron wants to ride a motorcycle without a helmet, who
cares? If you're stupid enough to think you're immune to head injuries,
the gene pool is better off without you. Give this 200 years and the 54%
might shrink a bit.


To quote a famous NG participate .....

"Damn straight!"

Holy smokes - I'm famous!!!

WHOO HOO!!

Yet Another Tragic Case......
 

On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 16:17:43 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"HK" wrote in message
...


More regression.

Isn't it awesome?

Regression is a tool of the right wing hegemonic cabal in convert with
the left wing facists in charge of Hollywood to control the
proletariat.

Or not.

Yet Another Tragic Case......
 

Don White wrote:
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 16:19:04 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

Why? If some moron wants to ride a motorcycle without a helmet, who
cares? If you're stupid enough to think you're immune to head injuries,
the gene pool is better off without you. Give this 200 years and the 54%
might shrink a bit.

To quote a famous NG participate .....

"Damn straight!"
Holy smokes - I'm famous!!!

WHOO HOO!!


I would have said 'infamous', but I guess it's all in the eye of the
beholder. ;-)




Or...the nose of the inhaler! :}

Yet Another Tragic Case......
 

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 16:19:04 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

Why? If some moron wants to ride a motorcycle without a helmet, who
cares? If you're stupid enough to think you're immune to head injuries,
the gene pool is better off without you. Give this 200 years and the 54%
might shrink a bit.


To quote a famous NG participate .....

"Damn straight!"

Holy smokes - I'm famous!!!

WHOO HOO!!


I would have said 'infamous', but I guess it's all in the eye of the
beholder. ;-)

Yet Another Tragic Case......
 

Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message
...


There is, in fact, a national motorcycle helmet law in
effect already. It only applies to people with something worth protecting.


Please provide a cite.

A while back the Fed refused money for road system maintenance if the state
did not have a helmet law .... similar to the 55 mph speed limit of the
70's. But that is changing.

Every year more states are changing the law or modifying it based on real
data.
Florida is a good example and reflects some common sense. There *is* a
helmet law, but you are not required to wear one if over 21 years of age and
can prove that you have at least some minimum amount of personal health
insurance.

That is meaningless. When you are in an ambulance being rushed to the
hospital with your with your massive head injury they are not going to
refuse you emergency treatment due to the fact that you are under 21 or
that you don't carry a minimum amount of insurance. If you become a
vegetable what difference does it make whether you had insurance?

There are more states that riding without a helmet is legal today than there
were 20 years ago.

Personal choice. I like NH's law on seat belts. If you are over 18 you
have the choice to wear a seatbelt or not wear a seatbelt.

Yet Another Tragic Case......
 

BAR wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message
...


There is, in fact, a national motorcycle helmet law in
effect already. It only applies to people with something worth
protecting.


Please provide a cite.

A while back the Fed refused money for road system maintenance if the
state did not have a helmet law .... similar to the 55 mph speed limit
of the 70's. But that is changing.

Every year more states are changing the law or modifying it based on
real data.
Florida is a good example and reflects some common sense. There *is*
a helmet law, but you are not required to wear one if over 21 years of
age and can prove that you have at least some minimum amount of
personal health insurance.

That is meaningless. When you are in an ambulance being rushed to the
hospital with your with your massive head injury they are not going to
refuse you emergency treatment due to the fact that you are under 21 or
that you don't carry a minimum amount of insurance. If you become a
vegetable what difference does it make whether you had insurance?

There are more states that riding without a helmet is legal today than
there were 20 years ago.

Personal choice. I like NH's law on seat belts. If you are over 18 you
have the choice to wear a seatbelt or not wear a seatbelt.


I certainly have no objection to people like you not wearing helmets or
seatbelts. Go for it, and drive like the macho man you think you are.

Yet Another Tragic Case......
 

HK wrote:
BAR wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message
...


There is, in fact, a national motorcycle helmet law in
effect already. It only applies to people with something worth
protecting.


Please provide a cite.

A while back the Fed refused money for road system maintenance if the
state did not have a helmet law .... similar to the 55 mph speed
limit of the 70's. But that is changing.

Every year more states are changing the law or modifying it based on
real data.
Florida is a good example and reflects some common sense. There *is*
a helmet law, but you are not required to wear one if over 21 years
of age and can prove that you have at least some minimum amount of
personal health insurance.

That is meaningless. When you are in an ambulance being rushed to the
hospital with your with your massive head injury they are not going to
refuse you emergency treatment due to the fact that you are under 21
or that you don't carry a minimum amount of insurance. If you become a
vegetable what difference does it make whether you had insurance?

There are more states that riding without a helmet is legal today
than there were 20 years ago.

Personal choice. I like NH's law on seat belts. If you are over 18 you
have the choice to wear a seatbelt or not wear a seatbelt.


I certainly have no objection to people like you not wearing helmets or
seatbelts. Go for it, and drive like the macho man you think you are.

Harry, I didn't know you cared.

Yet Another Tragic Case......
 

BAR wrote:
HK wrote:
BAR wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message
...


There is, in fact, a national motorcycle helmet law in
effect already. It only applies to people with something worth
protecting.


Please provide a cite.

A while back the Fed refused money for road system maintenance if
the state did not have a helmet law .... similar to the 55 mph speed
limit of the 70's. But that is changing.

Every year more states are changing the law or modifying it based on
real data.
Florida is a good example and reflects some common sense. There
*is* a helmet law, but you are not required to wear one if over 21
years of age and can prove that you have at least some minimum
amount of personal health insurance.

That is meaningless. When you are in an ambulance being rushed to the
hospital with your with your massive head injury they are not going
to refuse you emergency treatment due to the fact that you are under
21 or that you don't carry a minimum amount of insurance. If you
become a vegetable what difference does it make whether you had
insurance?

There are more states that riding without a helmet is legal today
than there were 20 years ago.

Personal choice. I like NH's law on seat belts. If you are over 18
you have the choice to wear a seatbelt or not wear a seatbelt.


I certainly have no objection to people like you not wearing helmets
or seatbelts. Go for it, and drive like the macho man you think you are.

Harry, I didn't know you cared.



D'oh.

Yet Another Tragic Case......
 

wrote in news:83a75517-a723-4e23-
:

Yep, I got that. The phone and cable companies have been doing
this
for a long time so they could bring in services as "extras" or
upgrades and charge more. When we had DSL in one location, I
knew a
guy that worked at the local NOC where our line met the others.
He
went down the street one day and "flipped a switch" and our DSL
went
ballistic with speed, anything we could throw at it;)



If "they" find him, "they" will fire him, maybe prosecute him.

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......
 

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 07:57:14 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould
wrote:

This time it was three guys from NJ.

Apparently they thought the primary purpose of having PFD aboard a
small boat was to palacate the USCG in case of inspection.

What a shame. Considering wives, kids, friends, coworkers, employers,
employees, and family members there are maybe hundreds of people
affected by each of these deaths, so it isn't entirely or solely a
personal decision.

We can only hope their possibly needless deaths will serve as
instructional examples

The water up there is so freakin cold this time of year, it is
doubtful that a life jacket would have done more than prolong the
inevitable in my opinion. The *real* issue is what were these guys
thinking of, being off the NJ coast in November, in a 25 footer?
There are plenty of 40s, 50s and 60s that get in trouble in the NJ
inlets when things are rough. In a 25 kt nor'easter you can see the
surf breaking in and near those inlets from 3 miles out. Been there,
done that.

Yet Another Tragic Case......
 

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 11:34:09 -0600, lid wrote:

On Fri, 30 Nov 07, Chuck Gould wrote:
A boat capsized about five miles from
shore, killing the three fishermen on board, authorities said

No word on what caused the boat to capsize???

Ten to 15 foot breaking waves are common off the Jersey coast this
time of year. They can capsize a 25 footer in a heartbeat.

Yet Another Tragic Case......
 

Wayne.B wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 07:57:14 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould
wrote:

This time it was three guys from NJ.

Apparently they thought the primary purpose of having PFD aboard a
small boat was to palacate the USCG in case of inspection.

What a shame. Considering wives, kids, friends, coworkers, employers,
employees, and family members there are maybe hundreds of people
affected by each of these deaths, so it isn't entirely or solely a
personal decision.

We can only hope their possibly needless deaths will serve as
instructional examples

The water up there is so freakin cold this time of year, it is
doubtful that a life jacket would have done more than prolong the
inevitable in my opinion. The *real* issue is what were these guys
thinking of, being off the NJ coast in November, in a 25 footer?
There are plenty of 40s, 50s and 60s that get in trouble in the NJ
inlets when things are rough. In a 25 kt nor'easter you can see the
surf breaking in and near those inlets from 3 miles out. Been there,
done that.



The water temp in Chesapeake Bay already is under 50F, which means if
you fall in and don't get out quickly, you're oyster bait.

Yet Another Tragic Case......
 

Wayne.B wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 11:34:09 -0600, lid wrote:

On Fri, 30 Nov 07, Chuck Gould wrote:
A boat capsized about five miles from
shore, killing the three fishermen on board, authorities said
No word on what caused the boat to capsize???

Ten to 15 foot breaking waves are common off the Jersey coast this
time of year. They can capsize a 25 footer in a heartbeat.


As well as a 49' RV.

Yet Another Tragic Case......
 

On Dec 1, 1:27�pm, Gene Kearns
wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 07:57:14 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould penned the
following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

This time it was three guys from NJ.

Apparently they thought the primary purpose of having PFD aboard a
small boat was to palacate the USCG in case of inspection.

Moot point, since it took all night to find them.

If you want to champion something, it should be immersion suits. At 50
degrees, they only had about 2-3 hours to live... with or without a
PFD.

I guess PFDs would make it easier to find the bodies, though.

--

Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC.

Homepagehttp://pamandgene.idleplay.net/� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �

Rec.boats at Lee Yeaton's Bayguidehttp://www.thebayguide.com/rec.boats� � � � � � � � � � � � � � �

Assuming that at the time of the accident you have no idea how long it
will take resuce to find you, would you rather have a 5 minute or a
2-3 hour potential lifespan.

In what way would wearing a lifejacket have *diminished* the
possibility of survival?

Yet Another Tragic Case......
 

On Dec 1, 5:21�pm, Wayne.B wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 07:57:14 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould

wrote:
This time it was three guys from NJ.

Apparently they thought the primary purpose of having PFD aboard a
small boat was to palacate the USCG in case of inspection.

What a shame. Considering wives, kids, friends, coworkers, �employers,
employees, and family members there are maybe hundreds of people
affected by each of these deaths, so it isn't entirely or solely a
personal decision.

We can only hope their possibly needless deaths will serve as
instructional examples

The water up there is so freakin cold this time of year, it is
doubtful that a life jacket would have done more than prolong the
inevitable in my opinion. �The *real* issue is what were these guys
thinking of, being off the NJ coast in November, in a 25 footer?
There are plenty of 40s, 50s and 60s that get in trouble in the NJ
inlets when things are rough. �In a 25 kt nor'easter you can see the
surf breaking in and near those inlets from 3 miles out. �Been there,
done that.

The best decision, in conditions like you describe, is not to go at
all.

Once out there in a small boat, wearing a pfd is only one of the
precautions one should be taking.

Yet Another Tragic Case......
 

Don White wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...
Wayne.B wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 07:57:14 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould
wrote:

This time it was three guys from NJ.

Apparently they thought the primary purpose of having PFD aboard a
small boat was to palacate the USCG in case of inspection.

What a shame. Considering wives, kids, friends, coworkers, employers,
employees, and family members there are maybe hundreds of people
affected by each of these deaths, so it isn't entirely or solely a
personal decision.

We can only hope their possibly needless deaths will serve as
instructional examples
The water up there is so freakin cold this time of year, it is
doubtful that a life jacket would have done more than prolong the
inevitable in my opinion. The *real* issue is what were these guys
thinking of, being off the NJ coast in November, in a 25 footer?
There are plenty of 40s, 50s and 60s that get in trouble in the NJ
inlets when things are rough. In a 25 kt nor'easter you can see the
surf breaking in and near those inlets from 3 miles out. Been there,
done that.


The water temp in Chesapeake Bay already is under 50F, which means if you
fall in and don't get out quickly, you're oyster bait.

It dropped quickly the last few days here... buoy at harbour mouth says 36.5
F right now.





Now that's cold!

Yet Another Tragic Case......
 

"HK" wrote in message
...
Wayne.B wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 07:57:14 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould
wrote:

This time it was three guys from NJ.

Apparently they thought the primary purpose of having PFD aboard a
small boat was to palacate the USCG in case of inspection.

What a shame. Considering wives, kids, friends, coworkers, employers,
employees, and family members there are maybe hundreds of people
affected by each of these deaths, so it isn't entirely or solely a
personal decision.

We can only hope their possibly needless deaths will serve as
instructional examples

The water up there is so freakin cold this time of year, it is
doubtful that a life jacket would have done more than prolong the
inevitable in my opinion. The *real* issue is what were these guys
thinking of, being off the NJ coast in November, in a 25 footer?
There are plenty of 40s, 50s and 60s that get in trouble in the NJ
inlets when things are rough. In a 25 kt nor'easter you can see the
surf breaking in and near those inlets from 3 miles out. Been there,
done that.



The water temp in Chesapeake Bay already is under 50F, which means if you
fall in and don't get out quickly, you're oyster bait.

It dropped quickly the last few days here... buoy at harbour mouth says 36.5
F right now.

Yet Another Tragic Case......
 

On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 22:20:48 -0400, "Don White"
wrote:

It dropped quickly the last few days here... buoy at harbour mouth says 36.5
F right now.

48.7 F in Buzzard's Bay - 44.1 F at Newport Harbor bouy.

That doesn't sound right to me, but that's what the bouy system is
reporting.

Yet Another Tragic Case......
 

On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 17:39:14 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould
wrote:

On Dec 1, 5:21?pm, Wayne.B wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 07:57:14 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould

wrote:
This time it was three guys from NJ.

Apparently they thought the primary purpose of having PFD aboard a
small boat was to palacate the USCG in case of inspection.

What a shame. Considering wives, kids, friends, coworkers, ?employers,
employees, and family members there are maybe hundreds of people
affected by each of these deaths, so it isn't entirely or solely a
personal decision.

We can only hope their possibly needless deaths will serve as
instructional examples

The water up there is so freakin cold this time of year, it is
doubtful that a life jacket would have done more than prolong the
inevitable in my opinion. ?The *real* issue is what were these guys
thinking of, being off the NJ coast in November, in a 25 footer?
There are plenty of 40s, 50s and 60s that get in trouble in the NJ
inlets when things are rough. ?In a 25 kt nor'easter you can see the
surf breaking in and near those inlets from 3 miles out. ?Been there,
done that.

The best decision, in conditions like you describe, is not to go at
all.

Once out there in a small boat, wearing a pfd is only one of the
precautions one should be taking.

Back when I was on the Regional Dive Team, we did an ice rescue drill
and I volunteered to be the victim.

Put on one of those fancy cold water survival suits and after a hole
was cut in the ice, jumped in.

After about a half hour, I was cold.

The odd thing is that I've been under the ice in a wet suit for the
same amount of time and never was that cold.

Weird.

Yet Another Tragic Case......
 

"HK" wrote in message
. ..

Don White wrote:

It dropped quickly the last few days here... buoy at harbour mouth says
36.5 F right now.



Now that's cold!


Climate change. Global cooling.

Eisboch

Yet Another Tragic Case......
 

"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Don White wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...
Wayne.B wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 07:57:14 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould
wrote:

This time it was three guys from NJ.

Apparently they thought the primary purpose of having PFD aboard a
small boat was to palacate the USCG in case of inspection.

What a shame. Considering wives, kids, friends, coworkers, employers,
employees, and family members there are maybe hundreds of people
affected by each of these deaths, so it isn't entirely or solely a
personal decision.

We can only hope their possibly needless deaths will serve as
instructional examples
The water up there is so freakin cold this time of year, it is
doubtful that a life jacket would have done more than prolong the
inevitable in my opinion. The *real* issue is what were these guys
thinking of, being off the NJ coast in November, in a 25 footer?
There are plenty of 40s, 50s and 60s that get in trouble in the NJ
inlets when things are rough. In a 25 kt nor'easter you can see the
surf breaking in and near those inlets from 3 miles out. Been there,
done that.


The water temp in Chesapeake Bay already is under 50F, which means if
you fall in and don't get out quickly, you're oyster bait.

It dropped quickly the last few days here... buoy at harbour mouth says
36.5 F right now.



Now that's cold!

Not compared to the air temp. My outdoor thermometer says 15F with high
winds and light snow. Took the dog out for a run this afternoon and didnt
last long because of a mini snow squall and very high gusts of frigid air.
Gotta dig out my ear muffs.

Yet Another Tragic Case......
 

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"HK" wrote in message
. ..

Don White wrote:

It dropped quickly the last few days here... buoy at harbour mouth says
36.5 F right now.



Now that's cold!


Climate change. Global cooling.

Eisboch

Not this year...
http://en.epochtimes.com/news/7-12-1/62505.html

Yet Another Tragic Case......
 

On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 20:26:14 -0500, HK wrote:

Ten to 15 foot breaking waves are common off the Jersey coast this
time of year. They can capsize a 25 footer in a heartbeat.


As well as a 49' RV.

If they can capsize a 65 ft commercial fishing boat in the middle of
Barnegat Inlet, and they have, a low transom Parker would be easy
prey.

Yet Another Tragic Case......
 

Don White wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Nice try, a**hole.

No, it is not directed at SW, Eisboch, or any of the other responsible
righties here.

But nice try.

Oh. Whatever your politics, it is directed at you.


Boy... JohnH & Waylon sure act like the Bobsy twins.
They are desperate to drag the more moderate posters into their foolishness.
Maybe they need someone to hold their hands while they do their instigating,
facilitating etc.



Stupid puppy dog reply...

Yet Another Tragic Case......
 

Don White wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
BAR wrote:
HK wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
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.

Nice try, a**hole.

No, it is not directed at SW, Eisboch, or any of the other responsible
righties here.
What is your definition of a "responsible rightie?"

Why are you afraid of calling out SWS and Eisboch when they express the
same views as others that you choose to attack because of their same
views?

But nice try.

Oh. Whatever your politics, it is directed at you.

You'll find the answer you seek by bending over, putting your head between
your knees and looking up.

That'd be an inprovement from what greets him in the mirror every morning!



And yet another. I can't believe this guy has an adult child living at
home. He responds like a teenager.

Yet Another Tragic Case......
 

HK wrote:
Don White wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Nice try, a**hole.

No, it is not directed at SW, Eisboch, or any of the other
responsible righties here.

But nice try.

Oh. Whatever your politics, it is directed at you.


Boy... JohnH & Waylon sure act like the Bobsy twins.
They are desperate to drag the more moderate posters into their
foolishness. Maybe they need someone to hold their hands while they do
their instigating, facilitating etc.





Don't you just love it when they play, "Who, me?"

I'm sure he does. What else does he have to do?

Yet Another Tragic Case......
 

"Don White" wrote in message
...

"HK" wrote in message
. ..
BAR wrote:
HK wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:

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.


Nice try, a**hole.

No, it is not directed at SW, Eisboch, or any of the other responsible
righties here.

What is your definition of a "responsible rightie?"

Why are you afraid of calling out SWS and Eisboch when they express the
same views as others that you choose to attack because of their same
views?

But nice try.

Oh. Whatever your politics, it is directed at you.


You'll find the answer you seek by bending over, putting your head
between your knees and looking up.

That'd be an inprovement from what greets him in the mirror every morning!


Do you ever consider what you post?

Yet Another Tragic Case......
 

"BAR" wrote in message
. ..
wrote:
On Dec 1, 11:29 am, Larry wrote:

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


I remember the phone companies telling us they could not boost the
speed of our dialups because there was copper wire running from our
homes, to the poles and they could not take the speed. Then cable
came, and dsl, and guess what, for dsl they did not have to replace
any of the wiring from my pole out front to the modem,,, hummmmmm...


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.


Actually the difference was a lot. They implemented Quadrature in figuring
out what went down the line. Depends on phase angles. The lines are only
designed for 4400 cycles. What the mas voice transmitted was.

Yet Another Tragic Case......
 

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 12:58:17 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Nov 30, 1:56*pm, Chuck Gould wrote:
On Nov 30, 10:15?am, wrote:

On Nov 30, 12:34 pm, wrote:

On Fri, 30 Nov 07, Chuck Gould wrote:
A boat capsized about five miles from
shore, killing the three fishermen on board, authorities said

No word on what caused the boat to capsize???

The usual suspects will blame it on
1. Stupidity
2. Alcohol
3. Ignorance

All without any evidence of such.

There is nothing in the story to indicate alcohol was a factor.

Stupidity? Ignorance? *Maybe extreme........but carelessness can be
inferred from the fact that they were out in a small boat in the North
Atlantic, during late November, and not a single one of them thought
to put on a PFD.

You know, everyone takes a risk once in awhile, and it doesn't make
them necessarily careless. Do you walk around all of the time with a
radioactive proof suit on in case of nuclear fallout?

Tom does. Or is it just on his head? Does tin foil count?
--
John H