On Dec 2, 6:26 pm, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 23:15:42 -0000, wrote:
On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 13:30:30 -0500, Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:

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.

The push for mandatory seat belt laws didn't come from insurance
companies, it came from the auto industry. In 1984, the Secretary of
Transportation ruled that air bags would not be required if more than 2/3
of the population resided in states with mandatory seat belt laws. All
of a sudden, Detroit began lobbying for mandatory seat belt laws. It's
not about safety, it's about money.

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.

Simple. Whiplash and other spinal injuries are reduced.
http://www.spineuniverse.com/display...rticle835.html

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that the
combination of an air bag in addition to a lap and shoulder belt
reduces the risk of serious head injury by 81 percent, compared with
60 percent reduction for belts alone.

On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 13:12:50 -0500, HK wrote:


Evolution in action.

We are all going to die, Harry, and personally, I'd like to have a little
fun in this life. If you don't want to ride a motorcycle, don't.

"Eisboch" wrote in message
news

"John H." wrote in message
...


The safety debate is center to my opinion, as I don't sell helmets.
Therefore we are approaching this from totally different perspectives. I
suggest we agree to disagree.
--
John H


Ok, but let me leave you with one final thought.

I don't disagree that wearing a helmet is safer. Leaving the motorcycle in
the garage is even more safe. My thinking, however, is that life is a
gift to be lived within reasonable limits. There are responsibilities
that go with it .... providing for a family, contributing to society,
paying taxes for the common good, etc.

But there's also an aspect of life that involves your personal interests,
sources of enjoyment and choice. In them there are risks, but you should
have the right to evaluate those risks and make personal decisions in
terms of what they mean to you.

It seems to me that if we continue to allow ourselves to be regulated to
death by governments influenced by organizations or groups with their own
agenda and accept being told what risk you can take and how like a bunch
of lemmings, we will end up with a very boring and limited existence.

Eisboch

Extremely well said.

On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 13:12:50 -0500, HK wrote:

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.

You picked the right word to talk about how Harleys are getting better!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_engine
--
John H

On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 12:53:34 -0500, "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. 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.

Whoa, what about us fishing guys that don't fish on weekends? Where's my
lobbyist again?
--
John H

On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 12:59:40 -0500, HK wrote:

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

We agree on that. I'd like to see boat ramp managers empowered to
nail noisy boats and/or prevent launching

John H. wrote:
On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 12:53:34 -0500, "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. 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.

Whoa, what about us fishing guys that don't fish on weekends? Where's my
lobbyist again?

Screw you. I don't fish, so you have to pay a excise tax. Now if you
want to change your boating style into something I agree with, well we
might be able to add you into the preferred boating tax schedule.

On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 07:39:48 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 12:53:34 -0500, "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. 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.

Whoa, what about us fishing guys that don't fish on weekends? Where's my
lobbyist again?

Screw you. I don't fish, so you have to pay a excise tax. Now if you
want to change your boating style into something I agree with, well we
might be able to add you into the preferred boating tax schedule.



Yo a mean-assed dude, man.
--
John H

wrote in message
news
On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 10:18:36 -0800 (PST), wrote:

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that the
combination of an air bag in addition to a lap and shoulder belt
reduces the risk of serious head injury by 81 percent, compared with
60 percent reduction for belts alone.

Just imagine how safe it would be if you also had a helmet on.
Race car drivers prove that.
Helmets for all car passengers too!

Where does it stop?


George Carlin has the answer to your last question. If you'd like, I can
email you a 4.9 mb audio file in which he explains it.

On Dec 3, 9:39 pm, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 12:59:40 -0500, HK wrote:
I wish the land cops were more aggressive in nailing
litterers, and the water cops were more aggressive in nailing those
damned boats with the open exhaust pipes.

We agree on that. I'd like to see boat ramp managers empowered to
nail noisy boats and/or prevent launching

And marina owners should be able to nail those live aboards before
they dump **** and pee into the rivers on a regular basis... But I
guess the noise of a passing boat is much more disruptive