parents

I can vouch for my nolan n102 (flip front) taking quite a beating to the
front recently when I did a faceplant at about 80km/h.. definitely saved
me a busted nose and 15K in false teeth.. didn't protect the bike itself
any, sadly.

Only fallen like that once, and that's plenty.


atec77 wrote:
> Helmets might save as well I guess but I only ever
>
> fell once wearing one and it was a nice open face ( on a sprotster)
>
 >> Stay informed about: parents 

Yeebers wrote:
> OK Consider this scenario :
> I am in a room with a gun.
> You're outside, told this, handed a bullet proof vest and told to go in.
>
> Not putting it on first would be rather silly. May not protect where you
> got shot *if* I fired, eg in the leg, but a safety garment was available
> and not used, regardless of whether it was legally required to do so or
> not - it was available, but not used.
>
> Theo Bekkers wrote:
>> Yeebers wrote:
>>> In that one instance it was not safe otherwise Dad wouldn't have
>>> gotten hurt. Whether there's ever going to be an instance where doing
>>> that is safe or not, I am not going to say but I have doubts.
>>
>> Dad got hurt because he wasn't wearing a helmet? What were
>> motorcyclists doing before 1960? All those riders without helmets, and
>> all those cars without seat-belts, it's a wonder that generation
>> survived to spawn us.
>>
>> Theo
>>
Even with a vest you are vulinerable , and if shot may still die or
suffer severe bruising.. and trust me vests don't protect you from the
pain of impact.. physics youknow..
Not a great simile but sorta ok .
 >> Stay informed about: parents 

In aus.motorcycles on Thu, 27 Dec 2007 07:13:18 GMT
Yeebers <yeeb RemoveThis @yeeb.yeeb> wrote:
>
> Not putting it on first would be rather silly. May not protect where you
> got shot *if* I fired, eg in the leg, but a safety garment was available
> and not used, regardless of whether it was legally required to do so or
> not - it was available, but not used.

So you come in with a vest, the guy kneecaps you, then shoots you in
the gut under it and leaves you to die.

Whereas if you had come in without one, maybe he'd have waited long
enough for you to get him talking.

THe garment didn't save you and might have set him off.

Analogies are a flawed debating tool.

Zebee
 >> Stay informed about: parents 

"CrazyCam" <crazycam.TakeThisOut@upturnet.com.au> wrote
>
> Back in the mists of antiquity, I worked as a journo for a couple of
> years.
>
> Well, I had to do something while I was waiting for the mini-computer to
> be invented.
>
> Back then, being a journalist was a fairly simple task. There were all
> these blank bits in between the adverts, and we had to fill them up with
> words.
>
> If the words made any kind of sense, or perhaps were entertaining in some
> way, that was good, but not essential 'cos there was a lot a blank bits to
> fill.
>
> But, in those days, there was a finite amount of blank space to fill.
> Now, through the wonders of modern technology, the blank space is
> infinite.
>

My father was a journo for Channel 10 (and Channel 0 before it became 10) in
Melbourne for quite a few years during my youth, and these days he lectures
here and there at schools and universities about news reporting. One of the
main thing he impresses on his students......News is more about
entertainment than anything else.

Cheers,
Dale.
 >> Stay informed about: parents 

Yeebers wrote:
> OK Consider this scenario :
> I am in a room with a gun.
> You're outside, told this, handed a bullet proof vest and told to go in.
>
> Not putting it on first would be rather silly. May not protect where you
> got shot *if* I fired, eg in the leg, but a safety garment was available
> and not used, regardless of whether it was legally required to do so or
> not - it was available, but not used.

That might be useful analogy if you're the type of rider who gets on
their bike, puts on a blindfold and then fires themselves off into
oblivion without due care.
How about something more realistic. There are 100 almost identical
rooms. You _may_ be in one of the rooms with a gun. I am outside the
rooms, and I don't know which room you're in, and inside each room there
is furniture and other fittings which would provide protection from a
bullet. There is a small window in each door that I can look through
before I choose to enter. You hand me a bullet proof vest. I make an
appropriate risk assessment.

Nev..
'04 CBR1100XX
 >> Stay informed about: parents 

In article <fkvqtv$5cj$1@aioe.org>, atec77 <atec77.DeleteThis@hotmaul.com> wrote:

> We agree then , nothing like ripping down a fairly agricultural strip of
> back road on a sprung hub flat out at 105 mpg with the wind in ones Da

And some people reckon modern bikes are better than old ones - a
Hayabusa is lucky to get 60 miles per gallon while going flat out these
days! Even modern scooters only just get 100 miles per gallon, and
they'll barely do that at much part walking pace!

grumpy-old-big

--
"Everything you love, everything meaningful with depth and history,
all passionate authentic experiences will be appropriated, mishandled,
watered down, cheapened, repackaged, marketed and sold to the people
you hate." Mr Jalopy quoting Hooptyrides (on jalopyjunktown.com)
 >> Stay informed about: parents 

On 27 Dec 2007 00:59:24 GMT, Zebee Johnstone <zebeej RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote:

>In aus.motorcycles on Thu, 27 Dec 2007 09:29:03 +0900
>Theo Bekkers <tbekkers RemoveThis @bekkers.com.au> wrote:
>> Yeebers wrote:
>>> In that one instance it was not safe otherwise Dad wouldn't have
>>> gotten hurt. Whether there's ever going to be an instance where doing
>>> that is safe or not, I am not going to say but I have doubts.
>>
>> Dad got hurt because he wasn't wearing a helmet? What were motorcyclists
>> doing before 1960? All those riders without helmets, and all those cars
>> without seat-belts, it's a wonder that generation survived to spawn us.
>>
>
>sorry to break it to you Theo, but lots of them did get killed.
>
>If you ride wearing a helmet, you will survive some crashes uninjured or less
>injured than if you were not.
>
>You will survive some smaller number of crashes (much smaller, how
>much isn't clear at all) not wearing a helmet that would injure you if
>you were wearing one.
>
>
>There are a number of crashes where wearing one won't help. There are
>a number where wearing one will make no difference.
>
>The guy who got hurt might have been less injured if he'd been wearing
>a helmet. We don't know that, although I suspect it is likely given
>that the speeds were not going to be high.

I agree. I don't think anyone can argue that it will throw the odds
your way. There will be no guarantee though. My mum was in a car
accident in the 60s where she probably would have died if she HAD been
wearing a seatbelt. But she certainly wears one all the time now.
 >> Stay informed about: parents 

In aus.motorcycles on Fri, 28 Dec 2007 07:36:33 +1100
Kevin Gleeson <kevingleeson.TakeThisOut@imagine-it.com.au> wrote:
> On 27 Dec 2007 00:59:24 GMT, Zebee Johnstone <zebeej.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>The guy who got hurt might have been less injured if he'd been wearing
>>a helmet. We don't know that, although I suspect it is likely given
>>that the speeds were not going to be high.
>
> I agree. I don't think anyone can argue that it will throw the odds
> your way. There will be no guarantee though. My mum was in a car
> accident in the 60s where she probably would have died if she HAD been
> wearing a seatbelt. But she certainly wears one all the time now.

It will throw the odds your way in a low speed crash where the head
hits something.

In a high speed crash it is unlikely to make a difference unless you
scrub off plenty of speed somehow before your head hits the solid
object.

There's also the problem that it's only going to be of use if you
don't get some other fatal injury. In urban crashes I believe the
usual injury is to the legs which isn't usually fatal but isn't about
helmets either. Rural crashes I don't know, I guess it depends on
whether it's a lowside or a high side or a head on or someone going
farming.

I dunno if any stats are available about the number of crashes
involving heads. The only one I know of is a comparison study done in
Vic some time ago which couldn't draw any conclusion about full vs
open face because the number of crashes involving damage to helmets
was so low.

The counter-argument is that wearing a lid is not that much of an
imposition so why not? I've ridden lidless and lidded, and for
some riding lidless is more pleasant, but not enough to really worry
about.

On the other hand, there have been times when I've pulled the pushbike
helmet off because it *is* too unpleasant wearing it.

<note: I have had a crash where I hit my head while wearing a helmet,
and sustained a head injury. I have no way to know if the injury
would have been worse or not without it as I do not plan to re-do the
incident to gain that data. And unless I do, I *can't* know. I can
only guess.>

Zebee
 >> Stay informed about: parents 

Mr_Hankey RemoveThis @qnr.com.au wrote:

> There's a bigger picture that's a bit more scary though. It's true
> that newspapers/TV/etc need to sell advertising in order to make their
> billions. Where is the advertisers' marketplace though?
> Suburbia, that's where.
> Inane populist pap is fed into suburbia as audience bait for the
> sellers of inane populist goods. The fight for the attention of the
> bored eye-glazed consumer is fierce, often desperate. Intelligent
> comment is the last thing that's needed here. Weapons of choice are
> more likely to be sensationalist foot in the door infotainment, shock
> jocks pursuing populist agendas, or incarnations ad nauseam of the
> likes of Big Brother and its ilk. There is no need for intelligence or
> accuracy here. The facts by themselves just don't bring the dollars
> home eg our own Mr Murdoch's success with the one-time prestigious
> Pommie media.
> I think this cycle of lowering of the point of aim, followed by the
> dumbing down expectations followed by further lowering of the sights
> is the scariest aspect of society today.

Long before I got to the end of this my eyes glazed over.

It's a conspiracy, right?

I think it is just laziness on the part of the reporter, teamed with an
overwhelming desire to get the story out there first. It's never been much
different.

Theo
 >> Stay informed about: parents 

atec77 wrote:

> We agree then , nothing like ripping down a fairly agricultural strip
> of back road on a sprung hub flat out at 105 mpg with the wind in
> ones Da

Aye, I've ridden sprung hubs but it was my brother who had a Triumph, I had
a BSA A7, and it never went over 100 mph, or 80 mpg. Ahh, when you could go
the ton without breaking some stupid law.

Theo
 >> Stay informed about: parents 

Yeebers wrote:
> OK Consider this scenario :

Why?

> I am in a room with a gun.
> You're outside, told this, handed a bullet proof vest and told to go
> in.
> Not putting it on first would be rather silly.

No, going in would be silly. I would rather a) walk away or b) roll a
grenade in the door or c) use the American method, go 1000 miles away and
fire a million dollar cruise missile at you.

You're working on the premise that 'accidents' aren't avoidable. I start
with the presumption that they are, and I actively work towards making sure
that they are avoided. On the rare ocassion that I have an unexpected close
call, I ask why and how I got myself into that situation.

Zebee can explain this much better than I, but you're probably too young and
stupid to get the message.

(it's still harsh week, isn't it?)

Theo
 >> Stay informed about: parents 

Yeebers wrote:
> I can vouch for my nolan n102 (flip front) taking quite a beating to
> the front recently when I did a faceplant at about 80km/h..
> definitely saved me a busted nose and 15K in false teeth.. didn't
> protect the bike itself any, sadly.
>
> Only fallen like that once, and that's plenty.

So what stupid thing did you do to cause you to fall? Maybe it was some-one
else's fault?

Theo
 >> Stay informed about: parents 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: parents