Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,649
Default Yet Another Tragic Case......

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. :)
  #2   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,515
Default Yet Another Tragic Case......

"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?


  #3   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,649
Default Yet Another Tragic Case......

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.
  #4   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
HK HK is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: May 2007
Posts: 13,347
Default Yet Another Tragic Case......

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.

  #5   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,557
Default Yet Another Tragic Case......

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.


  #6   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
HK HK is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: May 2007
Posts: 13,347
Default Yet Another Tragic Case......

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
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.



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.
  #7   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,557
Default Yet Another Tragic Case......

HK wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
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.



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.


What makes someone a responsible righties?

  #8   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
BAR BAR is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,728
Default Yet Another Tragic Case......

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.

  #9   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 8,995
Default Yet Another Tragic Case......


"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.


  #10   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 3,117
Default 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. :-)


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Tragic and Difficult Boating Lesson... thunder General 1 March 20th 06 03:45 PM
Tragic and Difficult Boating Lesson... DSK General 0 March 20th 06 01:33 PM
local tragic news gonefishiing ASA 1 October 19th 04 03:19 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:43 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 BoatBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Boats"

 

Copyright © 2017