On Nov 30, 12:58Â*pm, wrote:
On Nov 30, 1:56Â*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? Â*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? Do you wear
steel toed boots all of the time in case someone or yourself drops
something on your foot?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I would indeed wear a radiation suit if working around nuclear waste.
I would wear steel toed boots if working in an industrial environment
where heavy objects were being hoisted about. And I would wear a PFD
in a 25-foot boat bouncing around in 50-degree ocean water in
November, (at least an inflatable or maybe a float coat) as would
nearly almost all professional mariners.

What is the "upside" of the risk assumed by eschewing the PFD?
Sustaining a more "macho" appearance? How fricking macho do these guys
look stretched out on a slab in the morgue, fer crissake?

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

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

"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
...

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry.

Eisboch

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

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

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

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

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

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

"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?

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




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

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

wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




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


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

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. :-)

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

On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 13:49:47 GMT, 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!


Proportionally? I've never heard that.
--
John H