raider179 was right...

[Jackal1]

Preventing lawnmower accidents can save lives

"The temperatures are rising and everyone is getting ready to spend the summer outdoors. Mixed in with the fun and sun should be some safety precautions, especially if there are lawnmowers nearby.

Shriners Hospitals for Children treat a number of children each year who have been seriously injured as a result of power lawnmower incidents. Many of these incidents result in the loss of fingers, toes, limbs and even eyes. Tragically, some lawnmower accidents can result in permanent brain damage or even death. In 2001, about 275,000 people were treated in hospital emergency rooms for injuries related to lawn and garden tools, and about 35,000 of those injured were under 15 years of age.

According to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, each year about 75 people are killed and about 20,000 are injured on or near riding lawnmowers and garden tractors. One out of every five deaths involves a child. The commission estimates that most of the deaths occur when a child is in the path of a moving mower. Although tragic, these unfortunate situations could have been avoided, if adults had taken the proper precautions.

To prevent injuries to children and adults from lawnmowers, please follow these safety tips from Shriners Hospitals and the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission: "
-------------------------------------------------

  These were figures from 2001. They have surely risen since then.
  275,000 injuries! Who are paying for these hospital bills? The funeral expenses?
  Surely, based on what we have seen expressed in this thread by some, we must act on this immediately. I think a total Nanny ban of these horrendous machines must be passed a.s.a.p.
  At the very least we should pass a mandatory law requiring a suit of armor to be worn at all times while mowing the lawn. We certainly can`t carry the expense of such proportions as these.

[Hangtime]

Six and Beet are 'stuck on stupid'. They don't get it. Never will.

Great examples of the nanny state in action, Jackal !

[Jackal1]

These figures from 1995.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
 Accident Statistics

 
The following list of items found in and around the home was selected from the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission's National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) for 1995. The NEISS estimates are calculated from a statistically representative sample of hospitals in the United States. Injury totals represent estimates of the number of hospital emergency room-treated cases nationwide associated with various products; however, product involvement may or may not be the cause of the accident.

 
   PRODUCTS    TOTAL NUMBER OF INJURIES
   Misc. Workshop Equipment    
46,407
   Power Home Tools (except saws)    
31,742
   Workshop Manual Tools    
125,780
   Small Kitchen Appliances    
43,453
   Glass Doors & Window Panels    
216,193
   Cooking Ranges & Ovens    
53,401
   Irons & Clothes Steamers    
17,266
   Miscellaneous Household Appliances    
34,941
   Washers & Dryers    
22,590
   Fans (except Stove Exhaust)    
17,050
   Heating Stoves & Space Heaters    
37,805
   Television Sets & Stands    
42,000
   Razors, Shavers & Razor Blades    
43,365
   Sewing Equipment    
29,814
   Chain Saws    
38,692
   Hatchets & Axes    
16,760
   Lawn & Garden Care Equipment    
51,324
   Lawn Mowers (All Types)    
85,202
   Trimmers & Small Power Garden Tools    
14,635
   BBQ Grills, Stoves & Related Equipment    
16,087
   Washers and Dryers    
22,590
   Exercise Equipment    
95,127

   
   

*This is just a partial table of products which have injured thousands and thousands of people. There are many more categories/injuries which are no t listed here. Information was provided by the National Safety Council, as listed in the 1995 Edition of Accident Facts.
---------------------------------------------------

  I think you can see we have some serious issues here to deal with.
  The most glaring examples would be workshop manual tools and glass doors and window panels. Who is paying these medical bills?
  If what has been used as backing supporting other nanny laws in this thread, then we should surely call for an immediate outlawing of workshop manual tools. An emergency should be declared and all windows and glass doors should be removed from homes in the U.S. This  certainly should be a mandatory law. We cannot continue the cost of medical bills to support these careless people using such clearly dangerous items such as tools and glass. Can we?

[beet1e]

Originally posted by Toad
Obviously, you should have the two questions at the same time.

1. Would you wear a seat belt even if there were no law?

and

2. Do you think there should be a law with a fine/punishement?

If you want to run that poll, there's nothing to stop you from registering and doing just that. Email me and I'll send you the URL.

It is true, the board consists almost entirely of driving enthusiasts, ie. not people who dislike driving and view it as a means to an end. However, one of the 3 naysayers in my poll so far was Skuzzy's counterpart - the board moderator himself.

My hypothesis is that nearly everyone in your test group will say they would wear a belt even if there were no law. I think you're 80% is off by about 75% overage.

In this particular group,  it's a possibility, because they're probably not a representative sample of the motoring public at large. But before there was a law, only about 10% of the British motoring public as a whole used belts.

The real purpose of the poll I'm doing is not to find out who would wear belts even if there was no law, but to discover whether the people on that board regard the seat belt law as a nannying issue.

1. You're in favor or State legistlators being coerced by the Federal government?

Couldn't give a fork. I don't live there or pay taxes there.

2. Police Chiefs aren't princes here. Their opinion on this subject is no more valid than anyone else's.

I know that - but they still have an opinion, which is as valid as yours or jackal's or Lazs's.

Jackal! - thanks for that info. Unbelievable! I had no idea!


Now, I should get out with my secateurs and prune one of the shrubs outside my front door - just in case the shrub police are on patrol.

[Jackal1]

U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission's National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) for 1995.

 Just thought I would bring this gem out.
  This being from 1995 NEISS reports, I wonder if the NEFSS has been implemented as of now. (National Electronic Flatuation Surveillance System)
  Methane poisining must be dealt with now. Frijoles surely must be outalwed. We can`t afford the expense.

[Sixpence]

Originally posted by Toad
I'm starting to think there are no males in Massachusetts.

Well, us women spanked the chiefs last year

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Sixpence
Well, us women spanked the chiefs last year

Hiring men from out of state does not count. Tom Brady is from California.

[Sixpence]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Hiring men from out of state does not count. Tom Brady is from California.

California, same thing

[lazs2]

if 80% of the brits on beets poll think seatbelts are a good thing then by all means... they should wear em... I would never stop em... I even agree that it is a good idea.   If the 20% figure that it is their choice.... well... they are correct... it should be their choice..

As far as accidents go... I have never seen the emergency personel leave before the ambulance get's there in any case so all wrecks take the same amount of time for them.  

But, like I said... if we use financial harm as a rule then everything on jackals list would be banned or heavily regulated.... plus... swimming..

You never did say how you liked the lifejackets for swimming law in kalifornia sixpense?  you agree with that one?

If that is good... then you are gonna love the safety harness requirement for all new tub/shower stalls sold in kalifornia law they are considering....  naaa.... none of that stuff is costing us money is it?

I would even bet that if we did away with crumple zones the money we saved on car repairs would more than equal the extra medical for not having em.... and air bag going off can cost between $1500-$10,000    

at any rate.... I think that six and beet are making my point for me.... the point of the whole origin of this thread...

lazs

[beet1e]

Originally posted by lazs2
if 80% of the brits on beets poll think seatbelts are a good thing then by all means... they should wear em... I would never stop em... I even agree that it is a good idea.   If the 20% figure that it is their choice.... well... they are correct... it should be their choice..

No, that's not quite what the poll is about. It is possible for someone to believe in seatbelts but not to believe their use should be mandatory.

My poll is purely to ascertain whether the subscribers to that board feel that making them mandatory is a good thing, or whether that's a case of nannying.

[lazs2]

not sure I understand... are you saying that 80% think it is good idea to lose the freedom of choice if it saves the lives of people who.... who what?  don't wish for you to tell them what to do?  or.. who are grateful because without a law to make em they would not do anything to assure their own safety?

or.... perhaps the 80% are doing it out of financial reasoning?   they believe that the carnage is costing them money and that is enough reason to take away choice?  

So... did all your taxes (commie medicine) and insurance (auto) go down since the seat belt laws?

Perhaps if it is the money you should ask em if they would be in favor of banning motorcycles to save a buck?   or....to save their ignorant and foolish friends?

How would helmets and nomex go over with em?

lazs

[Toad]

Originally posted by beet1e

The real purpose of the poll I'm doing is not to find out who would wear belts even if there was no law, but to discover whether the people on that board regard the seat belt law as a nannying issue.

[/b]

Nah, I don't think I'll bother. I'm not the kind of person that could actually pretend that such a poll of 7 seven actual people represents anything at all.

Perhaps the real purpose of the poll is to gather meaningless data from a limited sample in the hope that you can then post here pretending it means something and then have some dolt believe it does.

 

 I know that - but they still have an opinion, which is as valid as yours or jackal's or Lazs's.

[/b]

Yes... as valid as say... the New Hampshire one-armed Lumberjack Association. But if it makes you feel you've made some sort of point because they are police chiefs... well.....  

[Toad]

Originally posted by Sixpence
Well, us women spanked the chiefs last year

What position do you play for the Pats?

[beet1e]

Originally posted by Toad


Nah, I don't think I'll bother. I'm not the kind of person that could actually pretend that such a poll of 7 seven actual people represents anything at all.

Perhaps the real purpose of the poll is to gather meaningless data from a limited sample in the hope that you can then post here pretending it means something and then have some dolt believe it does.

It's not 7, that was yesterday. It's now 12. Like I said, the poll will run for 7 days. I'm not the kind of person that could actually pretend that such a poll that's only been running a few hours represents anything at all.

However, you can pretend that this thread is all about knickerwettingly important issues like freedom/rights/constitution, over which wars have been fought,  because there are 4 people in the same thread who would agree with you.

[beet1e]

Originally posted by lazs2
not sure I understand... are you saying that 80% think it is good idea to lose the freedom of choice if it saves the lives of people  

Yes. And given that it's such a high proportion, that indicates that the hardship/inconvenience of the seatbelt law is not that great.

But that's tonight's figure. Let's wait to see the final result. According to what the result is and whether that's what you'd like it to be, you and Toad will be able to judge whether the poll was valid or not.