BF2S Forums Talk About Irony.

I give priority to the other people who pay for emt services. The ones who are at least making an effort to protect themselves.

I believe they call those lawyers ambulance chasers. And yes, we have a ridiculously litigious society.

lowing wrote:

Shahter wrote:

lowing wrote:

How is a person flying out of a car on a roll over endangering public safety?

he doesn't. i wasn't replying to seatbelt point, but rather the OP and the whole helmet discussion.

yeah that is a great point and as I said before I can not argue against it, I am just not sure how often that the situation arises where a biker gets knocked off a bike by a June bug and kills someone else

yeah, i get it. but, all things considered, between government infringement on personal freedom of a biker to act like a careless idiot and additional safety provided to both the biker and people around him by the helmet, i'd definitely vote for the latter.

Always plenty of rubberneckers standing around to do that. Besides odds are the accident happened when they were on the cell phone thus the phone is probably no longer in reach anyway even if it did still work.

umm... no. i don't find it funny. at all. my brother's only alive because after the lesson tought to him by that bug he started to take his safety a lot more seriousy. and when shit actually hit the fan - he got in real accident at the speed of about 140 kmph - the only thing that kept him alive was his protective equipment. the bike had to be sold for parts, helmet, gloves, boots and other stuff he wore were all completely trashed - and not a single fucking scratch on his body. oh, and there was nobody on the highway when it happened.

Shahter wrote:

lowing wrote:

Shahter wrote:

he doesn't. i wasn't replying to seatbelt point, but rather the OP and the whole helmet discussion.

yeah that is a great point and as I said before I can not argue against it, I am just not sure how often that the situation arises where a biker gets knocked off a bike by a June bug and kills someone else

yeah, i get it. but, all things considered, between government infringement on personal freedom of a biker to act like a careless idiot and additional safety provided to both the biker and people around him by the helmet, i'd definitely vote for the latter.

Always plenty of rubberneckers standing around to do that. Besides odds are the accident happened when they were on the cell phone thus the phone is probably no longer in reach anyway even if it did still work.

umm... no. i don't find it funny. at all. my brother's only alive because after the lesson tought to him by that bug he started to take his safety a lot more seriousy. and when shit actually hit the fan - he got in real accident at the speed of about 140 kmph - the only thing that kept him alive was his protective equipment. the bike had to be sold for parts, helmet, gloves, boots and other stuff he wore were all completely trashed - and not a single fucking scratch on his body. oh, and there was nobody on the highway when it happened.

You are proving my point, whatever happened to your brother, he did to himself, and if you wanted to argue what might happen to someone else because of a bikers actions, the 140 mph is more plausible. Honestly, I would be more concerned about 140 mph over the helmet.

Shahter wrote:

140kmph, man. it was a little above the allowed speed, but not by much. scratch that, he just told me it was way above. >.<

My apologizes, I  mis-read mph. So you are talking to your brother now? Ask him how often a biker gets knocked off a bike by rocks or bugs etc...

Shahter wrote:

lowing wrote:

Shahter wrote:

140kmph, man. it was a little above the allowed speed, but not by much. scratch that, he just told me it was way above. >.<

My apologizes, I  mis-read mph. So you are talking to your brother now? Ask him how often a biker gets knocked off a bike by rocks or bugs etc...

i did yesterday. most of what i've been posting here were his opinions.

Ok, so as a biker, getting knocked off a bike by flying debris occurs often enough to warrant a real concern then?

lowing wrote:

Shahter wrote:

lowing wrote:

My apologizes, I  mis-read mph. So you are talking to your brother now? Ask him how often a biker gets knocked off a bike by rocks or bugs etc...

i did yesterday. most of what i've been posting here were his opinions.

Ok, so as a biker, getting knocked off a bike by flying debris occurs often enough to warrant a real concern then?

Rain. Sand. Dust. Leaves. Bugs.

All of the above can fly into the face of a biker and impair their riding. Isn't that reason enough?

And its ridiculous to equate road safety laws with a nanny state.

FEOS wrote:

In Russia, road rides on you.

that's kinda true, actually. the roads here suck ass.

lowing wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

Ok, so as a biker, getting knocked off a bike by flying debris occurs often enough to warrant a real concern then?

Rain. Sand. Dust. Leaves. Bugs.

All of the above can fly into the face of a biker and impair their riding. Isn't that reason enough?

And its ridiculous to equate road safety laws with a nanny state.

Look, bikers ride for the freedom of the road, wind in their hair etc.. a helmet takes that freedom away from them and reduces the experience. They are fighting for the choice, they know what they want and what they are asking for. I see no problem letting them have it since it really does not affect anyone else.

It does affect everyone else when debris hits them in the face and they fall off the bike.

I not sure what lowing is arguing here.

On one hand he's saying people are dumb for not wearing a helmet, and yet he's vigorously defending their right to be stupid, and potentially endanger other people.

lowing - championing idiocy since 2006

Jay wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

I not sure what lowing is arguing here.

On one hand he's saying people are dumb for not wearing a helmet, and yet he's vigorously defending their right to be stupid, and potentially endanger other people.

lowing - championing idiocy since 2006

They arent endangering anyone but themselves.

Well, potentially they could. All sorts of random scenarios happen on the road, and something that could affect a rider's ability to focus/see/concentrate on the road ahead could cause them to endanger another motorist's life.

Y'all know why we have seat belt laws? Insurance companies lobbied for the requirement in order to lower their average payout. It's about the insurance companies bottom line, not because some politician cared terribly about saving people from themselves.

It's the same reason we ended up with 55 mph speed limits.

Last edited by Jay (2011-07-07 05:31:18)

Dilbert_X wrote:

Jay wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

I not sure what lowing is arguing here.

On one hand he's saying people are dumb for not wearing a helmet, and yet he's vigorously defending their right to be stupid, and potentially endanger other people.

lowing - championing idiocy since 2006

They arent endangering anyone but themselves.

Yeah they are, an out of control bike flying through your windscreen isn't a joke.
I've seen a biker lose control, let go of his bike and it went on to total a car.

And it was caused by him not wearing a helmet?