|
Yet Another Tragic Case......
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... Why do mandatory bicycle helmet laws exist? Largely, because of head injuries. So, assuming that is true, then how does that not also apply to motorcycles? It would seem to me that if head injuries on bicycles (max speeds - 15/17 mph) occur from low speed impacts, then they would also occurr in higher speed accidents involving motorcycles. Do bicycle helmet laws apply to adults? Also, I think those laws are set by the town you are in, not the Fed or state. I don't want to argue the injury issue, but data indicates, including the report I cited, that although a motorcycle helmet lessens the chance of severe head injury, that advantage is offset by an increased chance of neck/spine injury due to whiplash. So, choose your method. Eisboch Eisboch |
Yet Another Tragic Case......
"Eisboch" wrote in message
... "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... Why do mandatory bicycle helmet laws exist? Largely, because of head injuries. So, assuming that is true, then how does that not also apply to motorcycles? It would seem to me that if head injuries on bicycles (max speeds - 15/17 mph) occur from low speed impacts, then they would also occurr in higher speed accidents involving motorcycles. Do bicycle helmet laws apply to adults? Also, I think those laws are set by the town you are in, not the Fed or state. I don't want to argue the injury issue, but data indicates, including the report I cited, that although a motorcycle helmet lessens the chance of severe head injury, that advantage is offset by an increased chance of neck/spine injury due to whiplash. So, choose your method. Eisboch Eisboch Only a complete idiot needs data to understand that helmets reduce head injuries in motorcycle accidents. Let's see who raises their hand and admits to being a complete idiot. |
Yet Another Tragic Case......
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "Eisboch" wrote in message ... I am just in an ornery mood. Somehow I caught a humdinger of a cold and feel really lousy. I can't remember the last time I was sick and it's something I don't tolerate very well. Eisboch Time to make your blood inhabitable to germs. Jack Daniels. I suspect it's from hanging around 5 walking Petri dishes (my grandkids) over Thanksgiving. Eisboch |
Yet Another Tragic Case......
"Eisboch" wrote in message
... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "Eisboch" wrote in message ... I am just in an ornery mood. Somehow I caught a humdinger of a cold and feel really lousy. I can't remember the last time I was sick and it's something I don't tolerate very well. Eisboch Time to make your blood inhabitable to germs. Jack Daniels. I suspect it's from hanging around 5 walking Petri dishes (my grandkids) over Thanksgiving. Eisboch HEY!!!!!!!!!!! "walking Petri dish" is my line. Where'd you get that from? You'll be hearing from my team of lawyers. |
Yet Another Tragic Case......
On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 18:40:32 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message .. . 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? :) Loose lips sink ships I guess. I am just in an ornery mood. Somehow I caught a humdinger of a cold and feel really lousy. I can't remember the last time I was sick and it's something I don't tolerate very well. You and me both. I am a horrible patient. |
Yet Another Tragic Case......
On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 00:00:30 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote: "Eisboch" wrote in message m... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "Eisboch" wrote in message ... I am just in an ornery mood. Somehow I caught a humdinger of a cold and feel really lousy. I can't remember the last time I was sick and it's something I don't tolerate very well. Eisboch Time to make your blood inhabitable to germs. Jack Daniels. I suspect it's from hanging around 5 walking Petri dishes (my grandkids) over Thanksgiving. HEY!!!!!!!!!!! "walking Petri dish" is my line. Where'd you get that from? You'll be hearing from my team of lawyers. Larry, More and Curly? |
Yet Another Tragic Case......
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
... On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 00:00:30 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Eisboch" wrote in message om... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "Eisboch" wrote in message ... I am just in an ornery mood. Somehow I caught a humdinger of a cold and feel really lousy. I can't remember the last time I was sick and it's something I don't tolerate very well. Eisboch Time to make your blood inhabitable to germs. Jack Daniels. I suspect it's from hanging around 5 walking Petri dishes (my grandkids) over Thanksgiving. HEY!!!!!!!!!!! "walking Petri dish" is my line. Where'd you get that from? You'll be hearing from my team of lawyers. Larry, More and Curly? Yeah! |
Yet Another Tragic Case......
|
Yet Another Tragic Case......
On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 18:46:12 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:
So, choose your method. Phasers, 500 feet at dawn. :) |
Yet Another Tragic Case......
On Dec 2, 7:00 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message ... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "Eisboch" wrote in message om... I am just in an ornery mood. Somehow I caught a humdinger of a cold and feel really lousy. I can't remember the last time I was sick and it's something I don't tolerate very well. Eisboch Time to make your blood inhabitable to germs. Jack Daniels. I suspect it's from hanging around 5 walking Petri dishes (my grandkids) over Thanksgiving. Eisboch HEY!!!!!!!!!!! "walking Petri dish" is my line. Where'd you get that from? You'll be hearing from my team of lawyers.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Yeah, and Madonna's profession... |
Yet Another Tragic Case......
On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 16:20:15 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:
"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 news:s036l3l3ssaffo3bd3qh4iomab16mrvdtn@4ax. com... On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 14:38:34 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: "John H." wrote in message news:6626l35nu1auoptql7ll543hdd2l6l3o85@4a x.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 You don't suppose those folks may have been biased, do you? How many accidents did they actually visit? The Hurt folks visited some 900. Also, I simply don't believe this statement: "Previous studies simply divide accident victims into a helmeted group and non-helmeted group. As a result all differences in fatality rates, injury rates and injury severities between groups are erroneously attributed to helmet use." I don't believe that an amputated leg where the driver wasn't wearing a helmet was blamed on the lack of a helmet. 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 |
Yet Another Tragic Case......
On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 23:01:21 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote: "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 news:s036l3l3ssaffo3bd3qh4iomab16mrvdtn@4ax. com... On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 14:38:34 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: "John H." wrote in message news:6626l35nu1auoptql7ll543hdd2l6l3o85@4a x.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. I believe you're wrong. People who intentionally make their bikes louder do it to be a pain in the ass. Normal people notice this and respond accordingly. I think you're wrong. I think some folks actually believe the argument that loud bikes are safer bikes. They've been fed this by Harley magazines for years. Finally, the American Motorcycle Association is taking a stand against overly loud pipes. I have somewhat louder mufflers on my Guzzi. I didn't do it to **** anyone off, but because I like the sound of the pipes. No, they're not straight-thru. -- John H |
Yet Another Tragic Case......
|
Yet Another Tragic Case......
"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 |
Yet Another Tragic Case......
On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 23:57:43 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:
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. Amen. |
Yet Another Tragic Case......
On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 23:57:43 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:
"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 It has been left with me. Two amens. -- John H |
Yet Another Tragic Case......
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. |
Yet Another Tragic Case......
On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 13:39:19 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:
But you have to realize that for every death or serious injury, there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, that never crash or have an accident. Not to be argumentative but I think that motorcycle accident and death rates are way higher than that. We average about one motorcycle death per week here in SWFL. 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." |
Yet Another Tragic Case......
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? |
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...... |
Yet Another Tragic Case......
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. |
Yet Another Tragic Case......
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. |
Yet Another Tragic Case......
"Eisboch" wrote in message ... "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. |
Yet Another Tragic Case......
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 |
Yet Another Tragic Case......
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 |
Yet Another Tragic Case......
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 |
Yet Another Tragic Case......
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. |
Yet Another Tragic Case......
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 |
Yet Another Tragic Case......
wrote in message
... 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. |
Yet Another Tragic Case......
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;) |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:26 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com