Author Topic: Drugs kill! (Read 8325 times)

gofaster · « **Reply #120 on:** November 24, 2003, 02:47:12 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
90% or so of all motorcyle injuries are to the lower extremities... It would be far preferable to simply insist that all motorcyclists be insured.

That's Florida's approach. If you can get $10,000 worth of insurance, you don't have to wear a helmet.

On the other hand:

Quote

According to "Motorcycle Accident Cause Factors and Identification of Countermeasures" (the Hurt Report). This study examined nearly 4,500 crashes occurring in the Los Angeles area and was sponsored in part by NHTSA in 1981.

1. The most deadly injuries to the accident victims were injuries to the chest and head.

2. The use of the safety helmet is the single-most critical factor in the prevention or reduction of head injuries.

... and there were more points here.

lazs2 · « **Reply #121 on:** November 24, 2003, 03:23:09 PM »

gofaster... that is how the busybodies lie... think about it .... where would you say the "most deadly injuries" on a human body would be? would it surprise you that the "most deadly injuries" to automobile accident victims are to the head and chest areas?

very few people die from finger and toe injuries.

lazs

lazs2 · « **Reply #122 on:** November 24, 2003, 03:30:09 PM »

It would appear that your chances of survival are about 10-30% greater if you wear a helmet in a motorcycle crash about the same as if you were wearing a helmet in a car crash.

so why make bikers wear helmets and not automobile drivers? because they can.
lazs

Maverick · « **Reply #123 on:** November 24, 2003, 09:21:32 PM »

FWIW,

I used to get asked at times by bikers why I didn't tell them they should wear a helmet. I figured they knew the price of their head and if they didn't think it was worth more than a helet I didn't either. Unless they were under 18, that was mandatory by law. Another reason was one of the major trauma hospitals in town was also the transplant center. There are lots of folks who could use the parts.

Personally I think that seatbelts should be similar to helmets and that both should be grounds for loss of coverage for insurance. Not liability, just coverage for your loss and injuries. Harvesting could be done for transplants and the state should not be obligated for "heroic" measures to maintain a vegetable if they were not using a belt or helmet. Organs tend to drop in ability to be used for transplants after a while on life support, so once that time has passed, pull the plug. But that is just my cynical feeling after having responded to more than a few collisions. For those under 18 the state still has an obligation to be responsible for your "welfare" so helmets and belts would be mandatory for juviniles.

Airhead · « **Reply #124 on:** November 24, 2003, 10:27:51 PM »

Maverick great concept, but the problem is that most people who don't like to wear helmets are crusty old dudes like Lazs and their organs are shot already.

lazs2 · « **Reply #125 on:** November 25, 2003, 09:40:51 AM »

this is true... mav... no problem but it is not the cost of the helmet. It is the difference in the experiance. Why climb mountains or snow ski? why not wear a helmet snow skiing? believe me that is next... as for the insurance? well.... I bet I can allways find a company that will cover me without a helmet or a seatbelt. They may be able to soak a little more out of me but.. they will cover me. I also have health insurance that will cover me even if I am into alligator wrestling or bull riding. They will cover anything that my car insurance won't.

I agree on the under 18 rule tho.

lazs

Maverick · « **Reply #126 on:** November 25, 2003, 09:49:22 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
this is true... mav... no problem but it is not the cost of the helmet. It is the difference in the experiance. Why climb mountains or snow ski? why not wear a helmet snow skiing? believe me that is next... as for the insurance? well.... I bet I can allways find a company that will cover me without a helmet or a seatbelt. They may be able to soak a little more out of me but.. they will cover me. I also have health insurance that will cover me even if I am into alligator wrestling or bull riding. They will cover anything that my car insurance won't.

I agree on the under 18 rule tho.

lazs

Laz,

No matter how good of a MC or car driver you are, you still have to share the road with other folks. No one is good enough to avoid every collision. There are too many people out there driving that are oblivious to their surroundings and the law of averages will eventually catch up to you. It's your choice however, but I don't feel te public should pony up the money to cover you if you do get tagged without using equipment to mitigate injuries.

lazs2 · « **Reply #127 on:** November 25, 2003, 09:58:06 AM »

the public has never got tagged with my bill. there is no reason they should. if you can't afford insurance you shouldn't be on the road. I have been in more than a few motorcycle wrecks and have never has any kind of a head injury.. I have been hospitalized and allmost die from motorcycle wrecks. there were no head injuries involved. I would say that the public is far more likely to pay for non fatal but extensive maiming like limb loss or paralized than they are for head injuries.

lazs

mora · « **Reply #128 on:** November 25, 2003, 10:28:31 AM »

Graphic evidence of a rare head injury.

-Concho- · « **Reply #129 on:** November 25, 2003, 11:59:13 AM »

I've tried to ride with a helmet, it just dosen't work for me. I get to dee alot of m/c wrecks due to the San Antonio urbanites making a day ride that goes into dark, after the deer come out. Only seen one fatailty in 5 yrs and he had a helmet on. A deer tried to seperate him and the passenger.

lazs2 · « **Reply #130 on:** November 26, 2003, 10:09:22 AM »

thing is.... they didn't use fatalities to get the women to vote to kill the mens freedom... they used.... head injuries that all of us have to pay for.... the millions of brain dead bikers being kept alive on life support in luxury suites in hospitals everywhere that we are all supossedly footing the bill for. Those "millions" ended up to be a lot closer to zero than 100.

it is the way of the left and the women (basicly, government)... demonize a small group... come up with some believable theory that they are costing yu money out of your pocket and then ban em or take as much enjoyment out of what they do as you can knowing that eventually they will roll over and give in saying "it's just not worth it anymore".

lazs

lazs2 · « **Reply #131 on:** November 26, 2003, 10:11:16 AM »

my cousin died recently after hitting a deer. He was wearing a helmet and had no head injuries. Mostly broken ribs and scraped up arms and legs. he died from a blood clot 3 days latter in the hospital.
lazs

Wlfgng · « **Reply #132 on:** November 26, 2003, 10:27:52 AM »

Quote

why not wear a helmet snow skiing?

um.. most of us now do but I don't think it should be mandantory.. veg yourself if you want

and children are required to wear them to attend ski school

lazs2 · « **Reply #133 on:** November 26, 2003, 10:33:53 AM »

see... told ya. how long before it is a law that you wear a helmet to snowski. Thing is... I don't snow ski... no interest in it at all.. in fact, if people didn't do it it would make my life easier traffic wise on 880. but....

I won't vote to ban it or to make free adults wear helmets while doing it.

I have noticed that in hard hat areas... you hit your "head" constantly... the hard hat is allways scratched up... you never hit your head tho when not wearing a hard hat.

helmets cut down on your hearing, vision and neck mobility but I will not vote to ban em.... I say... wear em if you want. None of my business.
lazs

-Concho- · « **Reply #134 on:** November 26, 2003, 10:51:36 AM »

Laz for president!!