SuzukiSavage.com - Print Page

SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl
General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> Helmet vs No Helmet.
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1403389731

Message started by MnSpring on 06/21/14 at 15:28:51

Title: Helmet vs No Helmet.
Post by MnSpring on 06/21/14 at 15:28:51

Recently a member here said if you wanted to ride with him, and if you have a certain kind of helmet, you will ride alone.
That’s Just Fine. That is that person’s individual decision!. It’s called: “Freedom”.
(The reasons that person gave, who cares, it’s that persons Freedom)
Agree with it, or not agree with it, it just doesn’t matter.
It is, YOUR Choice. NOT Someone else’s.

Is that decision right or wrong? Many opinions, with evidence on both sides.
And many people say, Yes & No, and split hairs saying, ‘yes to this kind, no to that kind’.

What is wrong,
is a group of people saying;
“You MUST, do, ’this or that’” and make a LAW about it.

I have always felt, the basic difference between, Conservatives, and Liberals is:
Conservatives, don’t like something, they just don’t do it.
Liberals don’t like something. NO ONE CAN DO IT !
and Pass a LAW Saying So!

So, Let’s get back to the regularly scheduled program,
of sharing information on the Savage LS650/Suzuki S-40.
I for one, am no stranger to ICE’s
Yet, on this, Particular, one, (even though it is a 2006)
have to roll the clock back 28 years. And treat it as such.
And ALL the ‘fast curve’ knowledge, has come from this site.

Of course, if your a fan of: “King Bama”.
Keep, ’TRYING” to tell me ‘What’ to do !

And good luck, ’Trying’, to remove the 1st Amendment,
of the Constitution of the United Stated Of America.
And, again, if you, actually , believe, the ‘King Bama” Puppets.

READ The Proposed Law !!!!! READ it !!!!!!!! (S.J. Res 19)
Now, you tell me !

Title: Re: Helmet vs No Helmet.
Post by pgambr on 06/21/14 at 18:09:33

http://www.capoliticalreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/nanny-state-bloomberg.jpg

Title: Re: Helmet vs No Helmet.
Post by WebsterMark on 06/22/14 at 06:12:29

I have always felt, the basic difference between, Conservatives, and Liberals is:
Conservatives, don’t like something, they just don’t do it.
Liberals don’t like something. NO ONE CAN DO IT !
and Pass a LAW Saying So!

I have a man-crush on you, whoever you are!. Amen, liberals are the worst at imposing their will on you.

They are right up there with the ATGATT crowd. There's not much difference between them and TV evangelists .....

Title: Re: Helmet vs No Helmet.
Post by oldNslow on 06/22/14 at 06:51:04

Quote:

Agree with that 100%

I don't like helmet laws - I don't like a lot of laws to tell the truth :)

But I do have pretty strong fellings about wearing vs. not wearing helmets or other safety gear.

My first exposure to motorcycles was motocross. I raced for quite a few years before I ever even rode - much less owned - a street bike. Protective gear is as natural to me as my underwear. I am completely in the ATGATT camp.

Don't want to wear a helmet. Want to ride in a tee shirt, shorts and flip - flops. Go for it.
Absolutely your right to do that. I don't care. But I reserve the right to think that anyone who refuses to wear the stuff that has been proven to provide protection in the event of a crash is stupid.

Motocross racing is SAFER than riding on the street. I've never seen anyone on a race track without a helmet.

Title: Re: Helmet vs No Helmet.
Post by old_rider on 06/22/14 at 11:12:20

It is what it is.... opinion and choice...
My thing is, those that adamantly (religious fanatical almost) on the ATGATT side of the house post nasty gross pictures of limbs and bodies that have been ground to the bone to prove their point.
I have quit many a site for that and facebook spots also... been asked to come back by those that appreciate my assistance, but I have told them to just email me for help.
There is a limit I think to posts and some cross it with no sense of morals and decency, but then this is the internet, a faceless era of communication where one can vent whatever one wants with no fear of retaliation.
I will still ride with you no matter what you wear or don't wear, its your choice, not mine.
I also choose my choice and would expect an "I told you so" if something happens.
Hey, I wasn't wearing knee pads last year on the way up to the Dragon run, and I dumped in a small parking lot and skinned up my knee.
I still don't wear knee pads while riding.... my choice....not yours.
And I won't insult your intelligence, if you don't agree, by calling you names.... its your choice.

Title: Re: Helmet vs No Helmet.
Post by mpescatori on 06/22/14 at 14:15:20

Don't insult my intelligence !

I don't need a helmet !

I'm smarter than you folks and a LOT better driver/rider !

http://media.motoblog.it/u/usa/usa-il-casco/helmet_stupid_01.jpg

OK, ok, now somebody please clean up his drool... :P

You want to know what a broken jaw looks like at 35mph?

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b87/klauzja/FJR%20Pics/Misc/motorcycle-accident-gross.jpg

:-X

No helmet, right ? Civil liberties and all that... yuh, right...

-While I respect your right to inform, those pic's are gross.
and given most pic's can be photoshopped or just plain misrepresented
I wouldn't give them any credence. -V1

Ahhh,... so glad that pic is down..- Serow

Title: Re: Helmet vs No Helmet.
Post by MnSpring on 06/22/14 at 15:51:37

44594C5A4A485D465B40290 wrote:

Don't insult my intelligence !
I don't need a helmet !
I'm smarter than you folks and a LOT better driver/rider !
No helmet, right ? Civil liberties and all that... yuh, right...

Title: Re: Helmet vs No Helmet.
Post by Serowbot on 06/22/14 at 16:18:20

That,.. is one gross pic.. :P...

...(not sure it's real)... hope not...
I've seen it elsewhere on the net, claiming to be a shotgun blast or a blasting cap gone awry...
I'm guessing Photoshop...:-?...

I do however wear a helmet... (I ain't that pretty, but I sure ain't that ugly)... :-?...

Title: Re: Helmet vs No Helmet.
Post by shorty on 06/22/14 at 18:00:25

I wear a helmet 90% of the time, but in my past only goggles..

Without question it is personal choice, right or wrong we are free to choose and that is more important than any debates regarding risk..

the govt can't even balance their checkbook so I have zero respect for their decisions, zero :P

Title: Re: Helmet vs No Helmet.
Post by WebsterMark on 06/22/14 at 18:38:24

I think mnspring's point was 'I've already been to church once this week, I don't need to be preached to again.' Looking for the bloodiest sickest pictures is another version of fire and brimstone from the pulpit. Give it a rest Mpes.

Note: like many others on here, I always wear a helmet (open face) and proper footwear. 90% of the time I wear my protective jacket and 50% of the time, I put knee/shin pads under my jeans. I do not have riding pants, but I plan to get some more for the rain protection and multiple pockets than anything else.

Note #2: I ride a BMW now and some BMW riders look down on other BMW rider who aren't' wearing the entire $1500 "officially sanctioned" gear in the exact same matter they look down on Harley riders and their leather costumes. I don't give a sh!t; f' em. I'll wear what I want and no amount of blood splattered pictures is going to convince me otherwise.

Part of the make up of those of us who own and ride motorcycle is we, as a group, tend to make our own way in the world more than the next person. Although, as I think about it, that sentiment only applies to those who ride for years, to the point that it's more than a hobby or a way to get laid.

Title: Re: Helmet vs No Helmet.
Post by BalingWire on 06/23/14 at 04:24:53

Freedom? What about clothes? :o

"Humans are the only species to have invented immodesty." ~a former neighbor of mine who taught aerospace engineering

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtzoUu7w-YM[/media]

;D

Title: Re: Helmet vs No Helmet.
Post by MnSpring on 06/23/14 at 09:31:04

0A292421262F1F213A2D480 wrote:

... What about clothes? :o

A-Yep !!! Sore is funny ! ;D ;D ;D

Of course a little thing call, 'Common Sense', is perhaps in order.

We don't yell, 'Fire' in a crowed theater.
Don't say, 'Hi-Jack" on a airplane in flight when you see some one, (named Jack), you haven't see in a long time.

BUT, their Are places, you can be in, 'public', with no cloths on! ;)

Title: Re: Helmet vs No Helmet.
Post by old_rider on 06/23/14 at 21:30:16

Yup,,, I didn't ride to ride.... I started riding to get laid! I like that! I think i'll make that a T-shirt! :)

Title: Re: Helmet vs No Helmet.
Post by Pine on 06/24/14 at 07:41:08

I have always felt, the basic difference between, Conservatives, and Liberals is:
Conservatives, don’t like something, they just don’t do it.
Liberals don’t like something. NO ONE CAN DO IT !
and Pass a LAW Saying So!

Nice thought. The problem comes into play in thinking that one party or the other is either conservative or liberal... when the truth is...

they are both bought. Both parties have "used and abused" the ideals of liberals or conservatives. To the point where nearly everyone agrees that the notion of party truly representing the ideal is far gone. Thus I have no allegiance to any party, though I do have conservative ideals.

I am not at all in agreement to call Obama names. he is no better nor worse than the past 3 presidents... none were unaffected by the powers that placed them... and I don't mean voters.

Welcome the fray that is TT. 8-)

Title: Re: Helmet vs No Helmet.
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/24/14 at 16:43:22

First bike I totaled if I Had been wearing one, I woulda died. Second time, no helmet, didnt matter,, didnt hit my head, 3rd time, my face bent the cab corner of a pickup. My HJC flip face saved the day.

Moraal?

Ya pays yer money & ya takes yer chances.

Title: Re: Helmet vs No Helmet.
Post by MnSpring on 06/27/14 at 16:23:06

" ... RIDE A BIKE To Get LAID ..."

Love it when I am in a bar, sipping a cold one, and the 'ALL LEATHER' "PEOPLE", come in. "Expecting Something" LLOLOOLOLO

Couple of years ago, I was on my Yamaha, XT-225, at a gas station.
I was standing their minding my own business, putting in 2 gal of Non-Oxy gas in.
When in came a dozen, 'HOG', riders. (From the local bar across the steet).
All in the 50's, all wearing, Leathers, (that probably cost more than the bikes. Right down to the 'CHAIN', boots) And all with, 'Dew' rags. The 'fellow', next to me on the pump said: " What ya doing with that little pip-of a MC.".
I put my gas tank cover on. Walked up to him, (Belly to Belly), and said: (In a LOUD Voice)
"I Didn't Know I Needed, YOUR, Fe'n Permission to Buy a Fe'n Motorcycle".
The rest of his group, all, laughed.

I went in and paid. The, 'Hog', riders all paid at the pump,
(for 2-3 gal of gas with their CC's)
When I walked out, the last of them were, 'roaring' out of the gas station!!!!!

When riding down the, 'Big' State HWY. (No Super Slabs close),
Always get the, Down 'V', wave from 90% of the 'Metric' riders.
20%, from the, 'Harley', Riders. and .001% from the 'Crotch Rockets', riders.

A While after that, I went to a, 'Party', to honor a friend, who had just passed, (Agent Orange). Went their with the 'Little' XT-225. Their were 30,000.00 - 40,000.00 DELUXE TOT-LAY Custom bikes their.
(Assume Eye-Candy).
Not a WORD was spoken, about, what one came their with !!!!!!

To ETO, and YMMV.
(Each to Own - Your Millage may very)
As said many times , by very experienced people, on this forum !

Gust gotta say: "... Getting Laid, cause you got a MC..."
Talk about: "Mid Life Crises" ;D ;D ;D ;D

Title: Re: Helmet vs No Helmet.
Post by old_rider on 06/30/14 at 22:09:32

LOL! well a center stand motorcycle in a wooded area with no one around, is a fun place to get laid! :o :o
She talked about it with her "group of girls", and I had fun three more times...with different girls from the group! ;D ;D ;D
Was an old boyscout camp off of a two lane blacktop outside town a few miles. We would go camping there a few times each year, some times we would take a riding mower out there an mow it out to make camping less buggy.

Title: Re: Helmet vs No Helmet.
Post by mpescatori on 07/01/14 at 02:03:13

7C5F624143585F56310 wrote:

[quote author=44594C5A4A485D465B40290 link=1403389731/0#5 date=1403471720]Don't insult my intelligence !
I don't need a helmet !
I'm smarter than you folks and a LOT better driver/rider !
No helmet, right ? Civil liberties and all that... yuh, right...

Mpescatori.

I believe you completely missed the point.
This is not about, "to, or not to", wear a helmet.
Their are other places to state your view about that one way or another.

This is about the, FREEDOM, to CHOOSE.

Personally I wear a helmet, and leather.
(And most probably always will)
That, is MY Choice! NOT Yours !
Do Not Tell Me, I, HAVE to.
I have Fire Extinguishers in the house and sheds.
(MY Choice, not yours)
I Have a gun. (MY Choice, not yours)
I drive defensively, MC or Cage. (MY Choice, not yours)
Etc, Etc, Etc. ...

It is a FREEDOM or CHOICE.
If someone 'chose' badly, and suffered a horrific accident.
Well then sorry.
But it just cleaned up the gene pool!

Wait. No Where, absolutely NO where,
does the, 'government' who issues Driving Licenses,
say: "You Have to drive with your Eyes Open".
So, If I ever get in a accident, Can I SUE the Government,
because, because I say, "I had my eyes closed".
And the Government who issued me a License,
did so, without EVER saying:
"You Must drive with your eyes open".

LOL ;D Gee how far do you think that will go ?

I see you are from Italy.
What does, Freedom, mean in Italy?

[/quote]

Hello MNSpring, whoever you are... ::)

Allow me to reply to your post:

Your "Freedom to choose" stop exactly where your "The Freedom not to be hurt" starts.
Do you wear shoes when you go out? Really? Why?
I see no prickly thorn bushes littering your streets... what's the point of wasting good money on shoes? Foot protection, maybe ?
No gov't law forcing you to wear shoes.. so why make such a fuss on "Liberty" when there is a law expecting you to wear "head protection" ?

Let me tell you why: because passing a law and enforcing it will cost YOU, the TAXPAYER, less money than it would to pay for YOUR rehabilitation just in case you were to become a vegetable on wheels...
...and I don't care what you think of yourself, how high your self-esteem, the day a drunk/high driver slams into you, you might well think "well, there goes my head..."
...not to mention the uninsured lil'ol'lady from across the street...

At the "ripe old age" of 54, I have been hit enough times and have banged my head more than enough... and regularly got up and slipped off my helmet and told off the other driver...
...not once was I hospitalized - although I did hit my head against the kerb or the pavement every single time.

What does this tell me?
Ancient adage "Experience is the sum of all the times things went wrong and you learned a lesson"
My lessond learned is that you need a helmet just as much as you need shoes for walking.

May I quote from your post:

Quote:

No Where, absolutely NO where,
does the, 'government' who issues Driving Licenses,
say: "You Have to drive with your Eyes Open".
So, If I ever get in a accident, Can I SUE the Government,
because, because I say, "I had my eyes closed".
And the Government who issued me a License,
did so, without EVER saying:
"You Must drive with your eyes open".

:-?

"Nobody can pass a law saying I must drive with my eyes open"
Yes, they can.
It's the Neurology Ward from your local hospital.
They have nice quiet rooms for you to rest and nice friendly staff with elegant white frocks...
You can talk to the voices in your head for as long as you wish.
Eyes open, eyes closed, Homer Simpson style too...

I dare any Forum member to claim they are perfectly at ease with a lunatic claiming it is his constitutional right to drive through the neighborhood with their eyes closed.
What about the children's safety ??? :-?
Jeez... it is my constitutional right to pepper spray that driver, right? After all, what could you care, your eyes are shut, right ?

Last, my comment on your very poor rhetorical question "What does, Freedom, mean in Italy?"

Let me tell you what Freedom really means.

Freedom means my son can go out and enjoy a pizza with his friends downtown and be safely back at midnight, on public transport, without the fear of being robbed at knifepoint.
(Last night)

Freedom means my wife can do her rounds (she's a family physician) after dark in the winter (that means after 5p.m.) without the fear of being beaten and raped.

Freedom means I can go out to the movies downtown with my family, have a burger at the Hard Rock Cafe and walk back to the car without the fear of meeting the local neighborhood gang (there isn't one)
and without the fear of finding my car stolen or even the window smashed.

Freedom means I have no fear for that odd noise coming from the living room at 3 a.m., because burglary rates and petty crime in Italy are eons better than in the US.

Freedom means we do not have road rage drive-by shootings.

Freedom means I can go to my doctor or to hospital for treatment regardless of my social position or how well I earn, because the Constitution says I am entitled to good health and proper medical treatment.

Freedom means I do not have to sport a foreign flag when I go out to a foreign Country as a tourist, Italy has not started a war since 1939...
...nor do we support puppet governments which are sooo popular with the locals.
I do not have to "pretend I'm somebody else" and ... nobody hates the "Italian infidel".

Freedom means that WE are not afraid of ourselves because our military missions overseas open schools and hospitals, not jailhouses.

We don't create problems, we solve them.
We don't harrass the local population, we help them.
OUR flag is synonimous to "safe haven".
We don't need private contractors to do the dirty work.

Freedom means that when our veterans return home they are NOT in fear of losing their job, because we don't fire our veterans, we make the most of them as veterans training the younger soldiers.

Italy boasts among the lowest casualty rates in Afghanistan, in Somalia, and in Iraq, as long as we were there.
Certainly not because we are in "low intensity" areas, but because we evidently have good negotiation skills and [b]we keep our word.

Any time you wish to come and visit, do not worry with your personal safety.
You are safer here, walking the streets at night, than you are in broad daylight walking the halls of your local high school.

Your call.

Title: Re: Helmet vs No Helmet.
Post by WebsterMark on 07/01/14 at 05:26:36

Let me tell you why: because passing a law and enforcing it will cost YOU, the TAXPAYER, less money than it would to pay for YOUR rehabilitation just in case you were to become a vegetable on wheels...

All riders need to clearly understand the dangers of mpes's argument, especially during these Obama days we are living in, where the slightest opening is all Uncle Sam needs to control yet more of our lives.

The argument by helmet nazis that helmet laws save taxpayers money is a slippery slope all two wheelers should avoid. By this same logic, many cagers push for more regulations against motorcyclist in general. We had a recent mini-bike park construction plan stopped in part because "uninsured kids could be injured and all taxpayers would foot the bill."

Don't fall for this. Don't let helmet-nazis inadvertently allow a foot in the door.... You want to wear ATGATT, fine, go ahead. You want to ride around with a bandana tied around your head, fine, go ahead. But don't get on a soapbox and preach your view safety to everyone else and definitely don't bring the taxpayer argument into it.

Title: Re: Helmet vs No Helmet.
Post by MnSpring on 07/01/14 at 14:16:03

Mpescatori. Said:
... Let me tell you why: because passing a law and enforcing it will cost YOU, the TAXPAYER, less money than it would to pay for YOUR rehabilitation just in case you were to become a vegetable on wheels...

Again you completely missed the point. And the above statement, you made, tells it all.
It is clear, that you are so used to living in a, 'nanny' country, that you think it is Normal, and Expected for YOU, to pay for someone else.
Or, perhaps, it is because you have been, TOLD you MUST, be responsible, for someone else.

You also said, that I said: "Nobody can pass a law saying I must drive with my eyes open"
Well I didn't. And people that actually, read the posts, know that.

Oh, do you spend a lot of time in Sicily?
Last time I was in Italy, I wanted to go their, and was TOLD, BY the Natives, Over and over again. "Only go their, if you never want to be seen again".

Well, one could just go to certain areas in the US as well. Same thing !

So, You just do, what you are, 'TOLD', to do.
I'll do what I, 'CHOOSE" to do.

Title: Re: Helmet vs No Helmet.
Post by mpescatori on 07/02/14 at 01:30:48

MnSpring:

1) I wanted to go to Sicily... I was told by the natives...
If you were told by the natives, you were already there; else, you spoke to somebody who has a friend whose cousing said... blahblahblah
I was in Sicily last summer with on a 4x4 Tour, never enjoyed better hospitality and seeing Mt. Etna erupt at night is a sight that can only be equalled if you live in Hawaii.

(By the way, Al Capone was a Brooklyn born American citizen who didn't speak a single word of Italian, nor were his parents Sicilian)

Strike one.

2) "Last time I was in Italy, I wanted to go their"

Learn your spelling before giving me that "holier than thou" thing.

Strike two.

3) Your own words
So, If I ever get in a accident, Can I SUE the Government,
because, because I say, "I had my eyes closed".

Strike three.

Sorry, kid, you're out.

Title: Re: Helmet vs No Helmet.
Post by WebsterMark on 07/02/14 at 04:12:08

Classy move mpes.... Picking out minor grammatical errors and avoiding the topic.

Bottom line, protect your overly inflated melon however you want, but give others the leeway to decide for themselves.

Title: Re: Helmet vs No Helmet.
Post by Paraquat on 07/02/14 at 06:13:11

425F4A5C4C4E5B405D462F0 wrote:

[quote author=7C5F624143585F56310 link=1403389731/0#6 date=1403477497][color=#0000ff][quote author=44594C5A4A485D465B40290 link=1403389731/0#5 date=1403471720][i][b]
I dare any Forum member to claim they are perfectly at ease with a lunatic claiming it is his constitutional right to drive through the neighborhood with their eyes closed.
What about the children's safety ??? :-?

Oh, I'm fine with it.
At the risk of sounding like WD my neighborhood could use a "cleansing".

This came up in a discussion with a friend. We started talking about measles and whatever ip opping up in Cali from the anti-vaxer's.
"I hope a super virus wipes out half the planet."
"What if it killed you, too?"
"Cost of doing business. 'For the greater good'"

--Steve

Title: Re: Helmet vs No Helmet.
Post by mpescatori on 07/02/14 at 07:31:00

http://https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRt9PnAKy6lJily2PVhyGvAoa_EmuGfL6bEQ-LHEBvwd_BXQvEh

If you're happy the way you live, fine. If you aren't, try to improve it.

Funny how you all complain of "a Nanny State" and then assume you can ~~teach~~... bully the rest of the world with your own version of "Democracy".

"The Fast Show".

Look it up, it's in English.

Title: Re: Helmet vs No Helmet.
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 07/02/14 at 08:39:18

You know as well as anyone our foreign policy isn't what the masses want. The fools among us can still be conned into supporting war through the media mouthpieces who spout the lies for th goobs over and over, till the masses are brainwashed into supporting another globalist wet dream. The number who can be swayed is dropping.

Title: Re: Helmet vs No Helmet.
Post by MnSpring on 07/02/14 at 18:28:51

To: Maurizio Pescatori, Esq.

OK, Last post on this subject for me.
Not worth the effort to spend the time, ’Splaining’ something,
(Splaining, is NOT proper English, it is a reference to a popular US, 60’s TV show)

Kinna reminds me of the statement:
“Never mind the facts, my mind is made up” !!!

(I’ll do the last one first)
Your Reference to Baseball: I, personally think, Baseball is Boring.
But if you think Baseball is great, and know all the States/Players/Ect.
GREAT. Wonderful. That is YOUR thing, not mine.
And YOU can do WHAT YOU want !

(I also, don’t care for, Soccer, Golf, or Cricket)
All tremendously Popular things.
But if you do, Great ! I am NOT going to, TELL YOU, what to do!

Next. Is not ’Sicily’ a part of Italy ?
Would it not be the same If I said:
“Talking to a native, about Hawaii”
could one then say, Oh, That is NOT part of the USA?
Also, When I visited, I was on foot, on my own, I did NOT,
have a ‘guided Tour’, with all the amenities.
And I really do not understand, What, a person named, ‘Al Capone’,
(where he was born, and what language he spoke),
has ANYTHING to do with this conversation.
(What exactly were YOU conferring on that information?)

Reference to spelling:
Nope, am NOT writing a book. Did NOT pay some to, ‘proof’, the grammar. My Apologies !!!!

Next, ‘Eyes Closed’.
Nope, Re read, and reread again. Even with my incredible,
lack of knowledge about spelling and grammar,
It STILL Does NOT say, what you said it does!

And finally the, ‘Kid’, reference.
In lew to that, I am older than you.
(According to your reference, of how old you are)
But, just to be fair, I AM, younger than most people my age !

Anyway, to the point.
Which is the, CHOICE, to do a helmet or not.
If you have ridden a MC for 100,000 miles,
with a dew rag, shorts and sandals.
Of a FF and Leather, and heavy boots.

If you have experienced a event,
to give credence to, one way or the other.

I don’t Care, that is, YOUR, Choice, Not mine.

I will NOT tell YOU, what to do. Do Not tell ME what to do.
I, will make the choice, NOT you !

So, now it is time, for, YOUR, last word !!!!!

Title: Re: Helmet vs No Helmet.
Post by mpescatori on 07/02/14 at 23:50:13

Dear MnSpring, there is a fine line between “one in the know” and a “know-it-all”.

You mention Sicily, slam it, then expect me to be happy about it and even to believe any American is knowledgeable about Hawaii and can legitimately be called “a native”.
Your own words
“Next. Is not ’Sicily’ a part of Italy ?
Would it not be the same If I said:
“Talking to a native, about Hawaii”
could one then say, Oh, That is NOT part of the USA?”
According to your line of thought, I could come across a Bostonian or a New Yorker, ask him about Hawaii and take his word as “the facts”.

I disagree.

“Also, When I visited, I was on foot, on my own, I did NOT,
have a ‘guided Tour’, with all the amenities.”
So much for the better, you still have not explained the Forum where you were, when you went, what you saw and how you self-catered.
I was not on a guided tour, read again, I was on a 4x4 tour and as many Forum members know I drive a 4x4 truck. It was a 4x4 tour of Sicily, most of it offroad, and according to your innuendos it would have been jolly simple to haphazardly stumble into a mafia execution. Pity, we were walking the streets of Noto (ancient city dating to 2200BC) well past midnight and met plenty of people, not one person glanced at us sideways.

The truth of the matter is Americans live far too many stereotypes of Europeans, and Italians and Greeks in particular.

Who knows, maybe it’s because our ways and customs are rooted so far back in history, it’s simply beyond many people’s grasp.
Maybe it’s because anything that’s older than 100 years is “ancient” and is automatically stored in the “history” department, when it should be filed under “culture”.
Maybe it’s because you are geographically so incredibly isolated from the rest of the world, even 60 years into the jet age you still consider yourselves at the center of the world, “all the others” being periphery.

The world is round, the world goes on regardless of who shouts loudest or who bangs his fist hardest on the (Tall) table.

You resent my calling you “kid”. Very well, excellent, it means I struck the right chord.
How should I feel when someone slams my Country (or part of it) on the mere grounds of innuendos and hearsay?

As for baseball, “strike three you’re out” is an idiomatic expression typical of American English. Odd how I should know, and you didn’t notice.
I’m not here to enter a spitting contest (British English idiomatic expression: it means “I’m not here to quarrel over futile matters")
I joined this discussion because I read remarks to which I strongly disagree, and made my point with explicit photographs.
So explicit, the moderators censured them.
Sorry, Mods, that’s life, you’re free (in some places) to run the risk of bashing your face beyond recognition, but I wouldn’t brag about it.

Just like we all wear shoes (and there is no law about it) I see nothing wrong with a helmet law.

Or many other laws.

And before you and others pine away over your “Nanny State”, be grateful it IS a nanny State (well, almost, you still have to pay for medical expenses).

The alternative is not a “free state”, as some might think, but either “absolute deregulation”, i.e. the Democratic Republic of Congo, or absolute control over everything, i.e. North Korea.

You’re quite free, actually. Freer than most, and more than you're made to believe.

Peace.

Title: Re: Helmet vs No Helmet.
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 07/03/14 at 04:58:12

Nothing is free. You pay for medical. Tax on tax.
One problem is that we ARE each able to cost our neighbors by getting injured. When you have a vested interest in my life,suddenly you think you should be able to tell me what I can do. Typing on this is a great pain. So,I'm not able to explain in-depth.

Title: Re: Helmet vs No Helmet.
Post by Paraquat on 07/03/14 at 06:19:39

6B76637565677269746F060 wrote:

Funny how you all complain of "a Nanny State" and then assume you can ~~teach~~... bully the rest of the world with your own version of "Democracy".

"The Fast Show".

Look it up, it's in English.

Is that a dig?
I'll have you know I watch a lot of BBC! While they are speaking English it's like a whole 'nother dialect sometimes.

I must side with JoG. We're not all like this.
My idea of foreign policy is leaving everyone alone. We've got so many fingers in so many pies we're using toes.

This topic; rather, a similar one, was presented to me started with sky diving.
Sky diving is a risk. In the event of a parachute failure the sky diver probably won't have to pay for his own arrangements, leaving the burden on the citizens (either upright or trickle down from the state).
So do we ban sky diving?
That's silly - Land of the free, home of the brave...
Do we enforce some type of insurance policy?
Violates the 14th amendment.

But... if it didn't... imagine a world where you'd pay to take the risk.
Those who don't want to sky dive don't have to and aren't liable to pay for it.
Those who want to may, but will have to pay $x amount of dollars in the event something goes wrong.

Slide down this slippery slope, make a stop at Obamacare, and where do you end up?
Someone who eats veggies may continue living.
Someone who wants the risk of eating a cheese burger and drinking a milkshake has to pay a special tax or fee because the burger and shake could negatively affect their health, making their insurance rates rise.

Back to the sky diving...
Helmets save lives. I won't argue. I've seen the statistics. I've seen the crash reports showing impact zones. I've had friends who have perished as a result of not wearing helmets.
I still elect to ride without a helmet. It's my choice.

--Steve

Title: Re: Helmet vs No Helmet.
Post by mpescatori on 07/03/14 at 09:44:42

Hi, Paraquat, I take your point, but it's not necessarily about skydiving.

You mind your own business, behave, live by the rules, and live a lifestyle you can afford...

OK, fine, so do I. It's calle "good husbandry".

Then comes one and drives into you. Uninsured. Lives on unemployment and all that. Won't pay you a dime because he's flat broke. "At least in jail it's one warm bed and 3 meals/day"... :-/

Your insurance policy will be happy to see you on a luxury wheelchair for the rest of your life, pity you wouldn't pay that little extra for "bad luck clause"
so they won't pay your medical flight to Boston to be operated by that Nobel-prize winner neurosurgeon...

Or your newborn granddaughter is diagnosed a heart malformation which definitely requires that $750,000 operation.

You know what I mean.

We all chip in our little bit, but people do get treatment. It's the price you pay for living in a society, as opposed to a conglomerate of reciprocally unconnected individuals.

My son had a slight malformation of the palate which caused his lower teeth to shut overlapping his upper teeth - the opposite of what it's supposed to be.
Imagine a 3 y.o. kid with a bulldog smile :(
We went to the Orthodontist in hospital, 7 (seven!) years with progressive braces, he would qualify as a teenage supermodel now 8-)

How much did I pay ? €50 / visit, for the visit - braces were on the system.

Title: Re: Helmet vs No Helmet.
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 07/03/14 at 09:55:26

First time I totaled a bike I would have died if I had a helmet on.
Second one, I didn't and it didn't matter.
Third time, I had one and it saved either my life or at least certain extremely serious facial injuries. I bent the radius of a cab corner of a pickup truck. It ,the chin cover, folded in enough my upper lip needed stitches. The strap pushed into my throat so much I was still feeling it when I swallowed 3 weeks later.

As Popeye says,
Ya pay yer money and Yahoo takes yer chances...

Title: Re: Helmet vs No Helmet.
Post by Paraquat on 07/03/14 at 11:10:47

I'm not without reason; I understand certain laws and rules and their necessity.

I agree that, if operating a motor vehicle on the road, you should be required to have insurance.
You can directly affect someone else. The decision to wear, or not wear, a helmet is a decision of the individual without consequence to another party.
The right to swing my fist in the air ends where the next person's jaw begins.

If a SCUBA diver runs out of air, only they are affected.

If a sky diver falls out of the sky, only they are affected (unless they land on someone)

If a motorcyclist, with no helmet, launches off the bike and Superman's it without a helmet that is their own business.

However, if a motorcyclist, without a helmet, bounces off a car and Superman's it into another car their insurance should cover both cars.

And if a motorcyclist, this time with a helmet, bounces off a car and lives to tell the tale then insurance pays for it and he walks with a limp if he's lucky.

--Steve

Title: Re: Helmet vs No Helmet.
Post by WD on 07/03/14 at 11:16:37

5465766575716570040 wrote:

Pretty much. You should hear me on another forum, I'm tame compared to many of the other sustaining members there... I actually got sponsored because I'm the "voice of reason" on a white nationalist site. :-?

Scary, isn't it? An open officer of the American SS is the voice of reason, restraint and common values...

Title: Re: Helmet vs No Helmet.
Post by Paraquat on 07/07/14 at 06:09:51

I don't find it scary.
I find it logical.
You need to suppress emotion and make the tough decisions based on logic.
You get a bleeding heart liberal democrat out there saying everyone needs health insurance and welcoming in immigrants with driver's licenses (in my state anyway) with no regard for the people here.

Donate to starving kids over seas!
Why not donate to starving Americans?

In life there are winners and there are losers. You can't give every kid a gold medal. You need to be able to cut through the emotion and make the hard decisions. You make decisions and live with the consequences. We need men of mettle, not limp wristed panderers who cave at the slightest adversity.

Like celebrities in the news. They issue a statement (as if anyone cares in the first place) and then issue a retraction.
crappity smack. YOU.
I'd have more respect for that person if they didn't retract their statement and owned it.
Not "I'm Sorry I feel this way" but "Sorry. I feel this way."

--Steve

Title: Re: Helmet vs No Helmet.
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 07/07/14 at 08:56:57

If someone wants me to support vaccinations all they need to do is stop putting poison and cancer viruses in them.

Title: Re: Helmet vs No Helmet.
Post by JonBiddle on 07/16/14 at 19:14:06

What if a head injury incurred while not wearing a helmet was exempt from health insurance, or you had to pay a higher premium to have it covered?

Title: Re: Helmet vs No Helmet.
Post by BalingWire on 07/17/14 at 03:19:42

"Unhelmeted riders cost more to treat at the hospital, spend a longer time in rehabilitation, and are more likely to require some form of public assistance to for pay medical bills and rehabilitation. In 1991, prior to enacting its helmet law, California's state medical insurance program paid $40 million for the treatment of motorcycle-related head injuries. That figure dropped to $24 million after enactment of a universal helmet law [...] when a crash happens, the freedom to ride unhelmeted is paid for in different ways, by different sources. The motorcyclist pays and the public pays through taxes, insurance rates, and health care costs." ~National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/pedbimot/motorcycle/safebike/costs.html)

Personal responsibility (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/responsibility-personal-and-individual-or-how-to-do-political-theory-by-watching-girls/) means staying off the dole. Wearing a helmet is a great way to avoid taking a taxpayer handout (http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/pedbimot/motorcycle/safebike/taxpayers.html).

Title: Re: Helmet vs No Helmet.
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 07/17/14 at 06:05:17

Shall we ban skydiving,mountain climbing,and ice cream? ALL have risk and are of no real value.
The problem IS the fact that we have allowed a system to be built up around us that makes YOUR Stupid choice MY responsibility to pay for.
Aaaand that tends to make me believe I should have some say in how YOU act..See how people want to control others? Ohhhh,but it's only for their own good,of course,CoffCoff,
Give it time. Your Loyalty Card will be required for all purchases. If you're diabetic,you better have a real good reason for buying ice cream.

Title: Re: Helmet vs No Helmet.
Post by Paraquat on 07/17/14 at 06:12:59

2E2B2A262D20202821440 wrote:

What if a head injury incurred while not wearing a helmet was exempt from health insurance, or you had to pay a higher premium to have it covered?

I swear I've argued this...
Not only does it violate the 14th Amendment and Equal Protections Clause it's a slippery slope.

Veggies are good for you and won't add to your health insurance.
If you want a greasy cheese burger though... that's bad for you and you have to pay a higher premium to be able to eat cheeseburgers.

Fast forward some more down the slope and you have "Fat police" telling you what you can and cannot eat like you're an elementary school student again. (Which I don't agree with there, either).

--Steve

Title: Re: Helmet vs No Helmet.
Post by old_rider on 07/17/14 at 10:36:37

I don't agree with the statement "the public pays"..... I pay my motorcycle insurance...which pays the public service of EMT and Hospitalization... how is the public paying for that?
Do our taxes pay for all motorcyclists who don't wear helmets? How?
Does the "public" pay for car accidents?
Its just the big insurance rate argument..... the insurance companies do not raise car insurance rates because motorcycles are in accidents.... or cars are involved in car accidents....
Its the amount of accidents that cause the rates to go up....that's why they ask you where you live.
Although I suppose non-helmet areas "could" raise the insurance rates....and probably do...
But to say "the public" pays for it.... if I don't drive a car...how am I paying for those non-helmet wearing states?
:-?

Title: Re: Helmet vs No Helmet.
Post by BalingWire on 07/17/14 at 15:53:04

7E6167607D7A4B7B4B73616D26140 wrote:

Shall we ban...

Wrong question. To be clear, I'm not advocating any legal policy. To wear a helmet, such in the great State of Ohio where it is voluntary, is a personal decision to take care of one's self, which people should do as far as is possible.

Tellingly, recent statistics in Michigan give evidence that those who demonstrate a lack of personal responsibility in one aspect of riding, such as wearing helmets, also demonstrate more lack of personal responsibility in other areas—such as being at fault for accidents at a rate 17% higher than helmeted bikers.

Does irresponsibility beget irresponsibility? Seems so...

MLive analysis: See who's more at fault in Michigan motorcycle crashes; riders with or without helmets? | July 26, 2012
http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2012/07/mlive_analysis_see_whos_more_l.html
http://media.mlive.com/news_impact/photo/helmet-cautiousjpg-5a63c38a93031730.jpg

Title: Re: Helmet vs No Helmet.
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 07/17/14 at 16:34:20

Your point is well taken and a valid and interesting point.
My point,well,its made in my post.

Title: Re: Helmet vs No Helmet.
Post by verslagen1 on 07/17/14 at 22:38:46

The stats are meaningless w/out knowing how many total bikers with and w/out helmets.

I can also say 265 helmetless vs. 854 helmeted riders.
helmetless are less prone to be in accidents than helmeted.

Stats can be made to prove whatever I want. Don't believe them until you have the full picture.

Title: Re: Helmet vs No Helmet.
Post by Paraquat on 07/18/14 at 06:11:32

More likely to be at fault, but it happens 1/3 of the time.

As stated, without knowing the size of the sample the stats are irrelevant.

--Steve

Title: Re: Helmet vs No Helmet.
Post by WD on 07/18/14 at 08:17:59

Wore a 3/4 shell with flip down full riot shield yesterday instead of my 1/2 shell with shorty face shield. Bad weather, hate having to pull off and dry my glasses... Almost got run over four times, lack of peripheral vision prevented me seeing cars trying to share my lane spot until they were right next to me and pulling past. Also could not hear them.

That helmet got retired last night, permanently. Next dry day that I can get to my smithy, the helmet is getting introduced to my anvil and a sledge hammer.

Raining today, I'm taking the C10 instead of the bike. >:(

Title: Re: Helmet vs No Helmet.
Post by BalingWire on 07/18/14 at 09:59:30

Personal responsibility includes not swallowing liberal (i.e., "worldview founded on ideas of liberty (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism)") excuses.

Myth: Helmets impair hearing and sight

Fact: "The helmet affects my peripheral vision" and "I can't hear as well" are two common myths neither of which is supported with scientific data. Normal peripheral vision is between 200° and 220°. Federal safety standards require that helmets provide 210° of vision. Over 90 percent of crashes happen within a range of 160° (with the majority of the remainder occurring in rear-end collisions), so it's clear that helmets do not affect peripheral vision or contribute to crashes. Hearing is not affected either. Helmets reduce the loudness of noises, but do not affect the rider's ability to distinguish between sounds. The University of Southern California conducted 900 on-scene, in-depth investigations of motorcycle crash scenes, and could not uncover a single case in which a rider could not detect a critical traffic sound. Some studies indicate that helmets are useful in reducing wind noise and protecting hearing.

Common Myths About Motorcycle Helmets
www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/pedbimot/motorcycle/safebike/myths.html

And juries don't swallow such liberal excuses, on the day you try to sue somebody for your possible CNS injuries that could have been prevented with a crash helmet.

If you were involved in a motorcycle crash and you weren’t wearing a helmet, you can still bring a lawsuit for your personal injuries. However, not wearing a helmet can make a difference in how much money you receive, if it can be shown that not wearing your helmet was also a partial cause (or aggravating factor) to your injuries.

Motorcycle accident injuries such as traumatic brain injury and spinal injuries are the most common examples in which a defense lawyer or auto insurance company will argue that the motorcyclist was at fault for choosing not to wear a helmet. A jury in a motorcycle accident trial would be asked to allocate the amount of comparative negligence they feel the motorcyclist is responsible for. (Comparative negligence reduces the amount of damages a plaintiff can recover, based upon the degree the plaintiff’s own negligence contributed to the cause of the injury.)

Too many juries have been less than forgiving in this regard. Experienced motorcycle accident attorneys will tell you of countless examples in which juries awarded compensation to a seriously injured motorcycle rider for a fractured arm, for instance, but gave nothing for TBI or back injuries because they were punishing the motorcycle rider for going without a crash helmet.

Motorcycle Accident – No Helmet | Michigan Auto Law
http://www.michiganautolaw.com/motorcycle-accident/helmet-laws/

Liberals just can't learn the hard won lesson that a jury of your hard-working peers will expect you to demonstrate personal responsibility before you can just go suing everybody—for the problems you heaped upon your own head.

http://i59.tinypic.com/259x184.jpg
Edit: I had a little fun with the old painting, 'The Jury' by John Morgan 1861, Bucks County Museum, England
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wasps

Title: Re: Helmet vs No Helmet.
Post by verslagen1 on 07/18/14 at 12:57:59

Quote:

Fact: "The helmet affects my peripheral vision" and "I can't hear as well" are two common myths neither of which is supported with scientific data. Normal peripheral vision is between 200° and 220°. Federal safety standards require that helmets provide 210° of vision. Over 90 percent of crashes happen within a range of 160° (with the majority of the remainder occurring in rear-end collisions), so it's clear that helmets do not affect peripheral vision or contribute to crashes.

If a helmetless cager can not look out his window and see me riding shoulder to shoulder a half dozen times over the past 10 years... how do expect a helmeted riders vision not to be impaired?

The biased response to a rider not wearing a helmet is just that, biased and misinformed response from a jury of not our peers. True, head injuries would be the result of not wearing a helmet, but spinal injuries occur regardless.

Title: Re: Helmet vs No Helmet.
Post by BalingWire on 07/18/14 at 15:28:23

Automobile blind spots (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_spot_%28vehicle%29) are caused by obstructions such as the A-pillar and B-pillar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pillar_%28car%29), which has nothing to do with peripheral vision.

Title: Re: Helmet vs No Helmet.
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 07/18/14 at 16:43:57

I'm frustrated. I've totaled 3 bikes,my post explains it all,quite clearly. There is nothing other than stats to use to determine whether a helmet is an Odds On good bet. BUT,we have to ask ourselves if we are being given ALL the info we need,info that's available, just not as well disseminated as it should be. Like the number of times someone uses a gun to shut a crime down..

Title: Re: Helmet vs No Helmet.
Post by WD on 07/20/14 at 00:38:53

Tried that same 3/4 helmet again today, without any rain or thunderstorms interfering. In my half shell a quick 1/4 turn to the side lets me see what is coming up at the 4 and 8 positions, in the 3/4 shell it requires almost a 90 degree swiveling.

The helmet in question sucks, it is getting demolished. Fulmer AF S75 purchased in December of 2007.

I've owned over 100 street motorcycles in the past 27 years, if I have a working bike, I do not drive, anywhere, any weather conditions except ice. I've put 4900+ mostly commuter miles on my 2003 Savage since mid-April of this year. Would have been higher if my metal lined shoulder hadn't forced me into a car (with front wheel drive and slushomatic no less) for about 3 weeks. Combined commuting and fun riding saw 44K miles in 18 months on my next to last real motorcycle (VN800A). That is after 2 surgeries to remove chunks of bone and disc at 2 different levels (both times) in my lumbar spine.

I'll stick with half shells until the temps dip into the 20s or lower for the ride home (between 2300 and 0000 hours). Since I'm forced to wear a lid in this state.

Title: Re: Helmet vs No Helmet.
Post by tcreeley on 08/03/14 at 09:23:42

Visibility is always a trade off. Without my full face flip up Nolan 100, my eyes would always tear up and interfere with what I was seeing. With the Nolan on I relaxed and visibility was improved. I lost some peripheral on the edges, but that was compensated for by no tearing up.
Drizzle/rain meant that I had to wipe the shield off a lot. That's a pain, but it was not on my face.
I'll take a helmet, and especially at 40 and below temps.