| Author |
Message |
    
Fasteddieb
| | Posted on Friday, August 09, 2002 - 10:28 am: | 
|
The rally was in April, but earlier - the accident was on 4/8.
Doing it again next year if you're in the area. |
Mikej
| | Posted on Friday, August 09, 2002 - 10:58 am: |
|
"One could argue that motorcyles are 12 times more dagerous (as measured by their accident/fatality rate) than cars when expressed in terms of "miles traveled" "
Be carefull with the statistics. We have to know the average number of miles rode by each motorcycle accident victim compared against accident victims in cars with similar annual car driven miles. Simple fact that most motorcycles are rode less than 2,000 miles a year on an average, and it can be assumed that most motorcycle accidents are happening to those low mileage riders. Granted that there are high mileage riders who get into accidents (me for one last year), but I think one can show a positive coorelation between miles driven/rode to accident ratios.
Want to improve your chances of not being in a bike accident? Ride more. 
Now, if safety is really your concern, then mandate that all cars be equipped with an automatic sensor that disables the car 5 minutes after passing through a Drive-Thru restaurant, and another sensor that upon noting an active cell phone in the vehicle an aggitating voice comes on to state "pull over or hang up now".
There, drive-thru eating and cell phones. "scuse me whilst I go glue a McDonalds coffee cup to the top of my helmet and epoxy the cell phone to the side of it".
(Where's a pot stirrin' emoticon when you want one? )
ps, and another thing, why is the past tense of ride so confusing, rode? ridden? oh well. |
Djkaplan
| | Posted on Friday, August 09, 2002 - 11:16 am: |
|
Quote:
"As a side note on safety: why is it that seat belts aren't required on school busses? All these safety laws on the books, and no seat belts on busses for kids. Things that make you go hmmmmm."
Seatbelt laws for school bus occupants are decided by each state and not federal regulations. Some states do specify seatbelt use for children on school buses.
The logic of not using them is that very young children could be trapped or impeded from leaving the bus in an emergency. |
Jim_M
| | Posted on Friday, August 09, 2002 - 11:34 am: |
|
When I started riding, I never wore a helmet. Then I was in a 45 mph accident (my own stupidity at play), I was lucky to walk away with scrapes and bruises, mostly on my hip, my knee, and my head. My body basically froze up for the next 2 days from shock, where I couldn't walk at all, and had to crawl on my elbows to get to the little boys room. Would a helmet and gear have prevented the shock, bruises and road rash? I would say yes.
Now, whenever I ride, no matter the distance, I wear a helmet, gloves, and a jacket (the riding pants are next on my list). I was very lucky the first time. I don't believe that my luck will hold out forever though.
I think it should be your right to choose to wear a helmet, but, for me, I feel naked without one now. I've even talked my buddy (who has never liked helmets becasue they [fill in the excuse you've heard about not wearing helmets])into getting one, and wearing it 95% of the time. Hopefully, he'll never get into an accident, but if he did, the odds will be a little more in his favor now. |
Sarodude
| | Posted on Friday, August 09, 2002 - 11:34 am: |
|
OT, but here in Ca, the logic I heard against School Bus Seat Belts had to do with cost to implement vs number of lives saved... I remember the cost to implement being less than $10M and the number of lives saved being around 1 per year.
There ya go - litterally a price on a child's head.
-Saro |
Jmartz
| | Posted on Friday, August 09, 2002 - 11:37 am: |
|
One interesting item on the laws of the empire state of the south is that pickup trucks are exempt from our mandatory seat belt law. I have yet to obey it and in the several years since it was passed it has cost me 30 $'s or two infractions.
I wish I could violate the helmet law as fragrantly but with a maximum penalty of $1000 and one year in jail I don't dare do it. |
Jmartz
| | Posted on Friday, August 09, 2002 - 11:45 am: |
|
Mikej:
Those #'s I read somewhere, they are not made up. There is little doubt even in my right-wing ultraconservative mind that motorcycles are more dangerous than cars. The number of times based either per mile traveled or some other statistic is not a fact I like to question, but it could be.
Stistics are easily manipiulated.
Take for instance our local hometown hero Haank Aaron, absolute homerun king of baseball, or is he? Yes he has more HR than the babe, but the # itself is meaningless w/o being adjusted for the # of times he had at bat. When that correction is applied babe ruth still reigns. |
Jmartz
| | Posted on Friday, August 09, 2002 - 11:48 am: |
|
Risk assesment is responsible public policy. |
Court
| | Posted on Friday, August 09, 2002 - 12:28 pm: |
|
This is all terribly complicated.....
Is it ok if I just wear a helmet without an explanation and with no plausible reason?
If anyone asks, I am too stupid not to know better.
Court
P.S. - whenever I am acting as Pilot in Command of an aircraft, I confess to wearing a seatbelt even though I have no intention of ground planting the craft....I have to be the world's biggest chicken! |
Leeaw
| | Posted on Friday, August 09, 2002 - 01:07 pm: |
|
Court,
Good point. I don't wear adult diapers even though there is a risk of soiling myself in the event of getting drunk and not making it to the batrhoom, and I sometimes not wear socks on purpose even though I know I can get blisters on my heels.
Life is a risk... |
S2no1
| | Posted on Friday, August 09, 2002 - 01:31 pm: |
|
This simple enough?
Helmet GOOD. No Helmet BAD.
Leathers GOOD. No Leathers BAD.
Boots GOOD. No boots BAD.
Gloves GOOD. No Gloves BAD.
Going to play my ExplodePhone now.
I don't wear adult diapers (yet) but that's not really relavant or equivalent to hitting the pavement at 60 mph. Of course, I'm sure there are a few people who hit the pavment at 60 MPH and now need the diapers. Think about that the next time you ride. Hmmm, I think safety may not be such a bad idea.
'Sides when you all are finished with this argument again I'll have another K on a bike, with a helmet gloves boots and leather.
Arvel |
Jmartz
| | Posted on Friday, August 09, 2002 - 01:51 pm: |
|
The problem lies in the very simple fact that those of us who want to always wear protective gear are unaffected by our particular state's laws. Those of us who never want to wear any and happen to live in a mandatory helmet law state are forced to act against out will and desires.
Ga.'s helmelt law changed the way and type of motorcycles I rode. From BT HD choppers and posing to sportier frames and risk taking. Why? Because its no fun to putt around in a poorly controllable chassis at moderates speeds if your hair is not blowing around you face. |
Blake
| | Posted on Friday, August 09, 2002 - 04:38 pm: |
|
On school bus seat belts... little ones not able to unbuckle is a valid concern. Also ameliorating the seemingly negligent situation is that in any multi-vehicular collision, a more massive vehicle like a school bus inflicts the vast majority of punishment onto the other vehicle. That logic works for collisions with automobiles, but fails miserably with trains and freighters (tractor-trailer rigs).
JMartz,
I strongly support a person's right to choose to ride helmetless. But on the issue of statistics, please understand that if all motorcyclists stopped wearing helmets, the frequency of moto related head injuries/deaths would likely boil over into the realm of the horrific. The fact that many/most cyclists do wear head protection keeps the stats within an artificially moderate and debatable range. |
Libnosis
| | Posted on Friday, August 09, 2002 - 06:14 pm: |
|
Damn Blake, I had to look that one up. Thanks.
a·mel·io·rate Pronunciation Key (-mly-rt)
tr. & intr.v. a·me·lio·rat·ed, a·me·lio·rat·ing, a·me·lio·rates
To make or become better; improve
lib |
Fontx1rs
| | Posted on Monday, August 12, 2002 - 01:11 pm: |
|
Jmartz, (and other helmetless riders)
Are you willing to either:
A) Pay higher insurance premiums for riding helmetless
or
B) Have a rider in your insurance contract which allows the insurance co to deny payment for any head/neck/spinal injuries incurred while riding helmetless
I don't care if you wear a helmet or not. I just don't want to pay increased insurance premiums because you don't.
JustJoe |
Jmartz
| | Posted on Monday, August 12, 2002 - 01:49 pm: |
|
JustJoe:
I am not allowed to go lidless and never violate that law. I won't even go down my street w/o a helmet for fear of a maximum penalty of $1000 and/or 1 year in jail. Were the fine to be a dollar quantity under $500 you bet I'd take my chances but not in Georgia. The state goverment here wants to "protect" you, or as you believe the collective insurance rates.
On the issue of insurance it would be interesting to find out what is happening in the 30 states that allow one form or another helmetless riding. I haven't heard people in TX, for example, complaining about this. "Gee, the state just revoked the helmet law and now I'm paying more to street my bike". Not a peep... |
Jmartz
| | Posted on Monday, August 12, 2002 - 01:58 pm: |
|
Blake:
I can't confirm that most riders wear hemelts. That is a freedom of choice state issue as all riders in GA, 100% of us all operate our bikes, mopeds, gopeds, skates and bycicles with lids on as it is the law of the land.
I will tell one thing in states like SC, WI or Il where lidless riding has been legal for many years my personal observations lead me to belive that about 40% of the riders are encased. About 95% of these are not riding Harleys.
On a recent visit to Daytona, as a matter of fact the 1st lidless year, those who were weraing helmets were more often than not from states with helmet laws, as evidenced by their license plates.
The public is pretty gullible and gets "used" to this activity by force of habit and belief, whether consdered and reserached or not. You might have to give TX a little time to see helmet use drop a bit. |
Fontx1rs
| | Posted on Monday, August 12, 2002 - 03:45 pm: |
|
Jmartz,
I happen to live in a state that does not have a helmet law (CT). However, you will NEVER see me riding without one. The low speed low side I had two seasons ago convinced me personally that helmets are a good thing. I went down doing no more than about 15 mph. Some very nice scrapes on the shield of my Shoei, but no damage to my noggin.
My next door neighbor and his girlfriend both ride Harleys and niether wear I helmet. Do I think they should? Yes. Especially the girlfriend since she is a relatively new rider (<1 year) Do I think CT should enact a helmet law? ABSOLUTELY NOT! If they want to take that risk, it's fine by me.
Most insurance companies give discounts for rider training courses. I'd like to see the same type of discuount for wearing a helmet. Since there is no way an insurance company can determine who does and doesn't wear a helmet, I'll never see that. So yes, I believe I pay more because of that. I'd like to see the state-to-state comparisons of insurance costs to see if the states without helmet laws have higher premiums.
Even with that said, I'd rather pay more for my insurance than have another law to protect me.
But I also think people should be smart enough to wear a helmet without the government telling them to do so. |
Blake
| | Posted on Monday, August 12, 2002 - 06:06 pm: |
|
JMartz,
 y
This graphic provided by http://www.cgcweb.com/helmet.htm .
It appears that the entire west coast is comprised of mandatory helmet law states. Add to that most of the east coast and gulf states, then PA, MO, MI, NV, NH, NE, WV, and TN... then add the majority of off road riders and the helmet wearing street riders in the helmet choice states, I think that covers the vast majority of the American population.
Blake |
Jmartz
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 13, 2002 - 08:19 am: |
|
Blake:
When the ratio was 25/25 my calculations indicated 2/3 of the nation's people were in the mandatory 25. With the entrance of TX and FL thanks to the Bush brothers (about 45 million people total?) I think we are now closer to 50/50 in the present 30/20 ratio.
I don't think it would be germain to include the off roaders but you may, and while you are at it, also include the pedal bikers, skaters, jet skiers, hanggliders, skyjumpers and horsemen like Mr. Reeves.
By the way, you do know that after about 30 years of laws the mandatory group has a statistically insignificant (a bit higher) fatality rate than the freedom of choice group. This fact can be easily dismissed by claiming that the states with helmet laws are all the "urban" ones with bigger cities and heavier traffic. |
Sonomacyclone
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 13, 2002 - 02:34 pm: |
|
blake,
what's the difference between 'age exemption' and 'age discrimination'?
might as well put in my two cents while i'm here...
i recently switched from wearing a beanie (not d.o.t.) helmet to a full face snell appoved. figured if anything were to happen, i want my son to know my face as it's supposed to be. i'll wear the beanie now and again to putt up into town center or run other local errands, but always wear the full face for daily commuting and carving the twisties on weekends. sometimes i miss the wind in my face, but more often find the full face more comfortable on long rides.
i do not support the government's interference with our choices and would vote to repeal the helmet laws. however, if we were given the option in california, i'd probably keep wearing the full face. i figure it gives a slight edge in safety, and the *inconvenience* of wearing it is a small price to pay for the extra insurance.
bryan |
Blake
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 13, 2002 - 04:57 pm: |
|
JM,
Are you actually proffering that riding helmetless is safer than riding with head protection? 
Make no mistake, I'm vehemently opposed to helmet laws including one's like in Texas, where a helmetless rider must have proof of medical insurance. But please don't pull out some vague statistics in support of helmetless riding being safer. You and I both know that is total BS. I know too many people, myself included that were saved from severe injury and possibly death by through the use of a full face helmet. I don't know anyone who was saved from severe injury or death through their non-use of head protection. |
Jmartz
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 14, 2002 - 08:06 am: |
|
No Blake I am not, that would be foolish. If you wipe out your chances of injury are significanly reduced if you are dooded up. The statistic of an insignificant difference between the fatality rates of the helmet vs free states suggests that goverment regulation is not having an effect doing what it intends, reduction of liabilty and citizen protection. That is why I strongly favor the application of such laws where they would be most effective, in cars.
By the way, a study of 1000 injury cases of kids on bycicles and roller skates showed that there was no significant difference in hospital stay time for lidded versus "in the flesh". Another piece of evidence sugesting the ineffectiveness of such requirements. |
Blake
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 14, 2002 - 04:28 pm: |
|
I didn't think so.
Careful! Comparing lengths of hospital stay is not any type of valid measure of the effectiveness of head protection. Rather the number of head injuries, cases of brain damage, and/or deaths due to head trauma would be pertinent. I'm sure those statistics would strongly support the effectiveness of head protection.
Don' buy in to the manipulated statistics the anti helmet crowd uses to profer their agenda. Such statistics lack integrity to say the least. |
Jmartz
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 06, 2002 - 08:51 am: |
|
After 130 years of domination by the Democrats (aka. those who want to protect you by making you a criminal if you don't do what they want) republican Sonny Perdue is now Georgia's new governor-elect. The clock has begun to tick for Georgia's mandatory lid law.
Even Tom Murphy our "house-speaker-for-life" is out of office after occupying his west Georgia seat for over 40 years.
A night of historic proportions took place last night, even our flag might be restored. |
|
