Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
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. :-) |
#42
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Yet Another Tragic Case......
On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 02:15:30 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote: "Vic Smith" wrote in message news 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 |
#43
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
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 news 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. |
#44
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#45
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#46
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#47
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Yet Another Tragic Case......
"HK" wrote in message ... More regression. Isn't it awesome? Eisboch |
#48
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#49
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
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! |
#50
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Tragic and Difficult Boating Lesson... | General | |||
Tragic and Difficult Boating Lesson... | General | |||
local tragic news | ASA |