In article <47c356eb$0$6140$4c368faf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
pws <pwshelton@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
> Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>
>> Taking a step up, you have cars and trucks and the exact same can be
said.
>> And based on the number of car/truck accidents around here almost none
>> resulting in injury to the truckdriver while the car drivers are either
>> killed or at the least seriously injured maybe we need to consider not
>> driving cars anymore either.
>
> "We" don't need to do anything. I choose not to ride a motorcycle, but I
> am not trying to make the choice of which vehicle to drive for you or
> anyone else except perhaps my daughter.
That's funny..... Actually, it was my daughter (29 years old) who got
me back into riding after a more than 30 year hiatus. And I now ride
more than she does and plan in the near future to make it my primary
way of getting back and forth to work for a substantial savings, even
over my Miata!!
>
>> Which fails to take int o account the notion that I have a better
chance
>> of avoiding the accident at the very last minute with my bike which I
>> don't have in a car, even my Miata.
>
> I mentioned hitting a deer at 60 mph in my last Miata. I would not have
> seen or been able to avoid this animal in any vehicle at that speed, it
> was a perfect jump, and a helmet would have made it harder to notice if
> anything.
The anti-helmet crowd always seem to cite visibility problems, but I
have failed to see (sic) any of this.
> I would probably still be recovering from my injuries had I been on a
> motorcycle,
No doubt, if you were riding your motorcycle in a crosswalk when the
"Walk"
light was lit. :-)
> assuming that I lived. Instead, both myself and my daughter
> were shaken up but completely unhurt.
If you carry your daughter on one of those rolling deathtraps while riding
in traffic, you should have your head examined. They are dangerous (and
obnoxious, but that's another matter).
>
>> One takes reasonable and prudent actions. That does not necessarily
mean
>> giving up our life so someone else can enjoy theirs more.
>
> Lots of different perceptions on what is reasonable and prudent, and I
> am not suggesting that people quit doing fun and dangerous things.
> As long as it does not harm others, I say go for it.
>
>> More hype than reality. Standard seatbelts are seldom 100% effective
>> and the kind that would be (6 point racing harness) are illegal in
>> street cars almost everywhere at this poiknt and in some locales can
>> be used as prima facie evidence of street racing. And I believe that
>> Ontario Province has even gone so far as to ban Roll Bars in the last
>> year or so!!
>
> Seldom 100% effective? That is a hell of a lot better than never
> effective at all because they are not there.
Certainly, but shouldn't the driver be allowed something better? In
every state I am aware of (and worse in Canada) they are not.
> One lady from Houston that posts on here would absolutely be dead
> without her safety belt and airbag.
And people here are killed all the time with seatbelts and airbags.
They offer little protection when being struck by truck weighing
more than 29 ton doing 90mph. Happens on the Interstates here sevral
times a month.
>
> I have a racing harness but I seldom wear it. No problem with roll bar
> bans, I can't see that happening anytime soon.
Read what I said. They have already been banned in Ontario Province (I
am a member of a British Car Club in Kingston and this was big news when
iyt happened as many people with MG's and Triumphs have them.) And I do
not know of any state in the US that allows the use of a racing harness
in a street car. Not sure of current law but at one time if you were
SCCS and raced your sgtreet car on weekends (for things like Gymkanna)
you had to remove the racing harness to get the car inspected.
>
>> Funny, that's what the truck drivers in PA say about car drivers.
>>
>> bill
>
> I have a feeling that Texas has more trucks than PA. One of them ran
> into my rear bumper years ago. I was in a car a little bigger than a
> Miata and was pushed forward and had a sore neck for a while.
It really has nothign to do with the number of trucks, it has to do
with how they drive which is more based on law enforcement than numbers.
There is no enforcement against trucks in PA, the drivers know it and
drive accordingly. And, if all you got was a sore neck your truck was
not like ours as he had to be doing somewhat below their usual 90mph.
>
> Had I been on a motorcycle, I probably would have ended up underneath
> his truck.
Or possibly gotten out of his way, unless you don't pay attention to
traffic around you. I always watch behind me, wether on the bike or
in the car.
> That is at least twice that I would have been seriously injured and
> possibly killed on a motorcycle, with no amount of skill or experience
> possibly saving me.
Sorry, but if you got rearended while stopped, I don't agree that you
could not do anything about it. Guess it depends on driving style.
>
> Instead, a little sheet metal surrounding me took care of the problem
> each time.
All the sheet metal in the world wouldn't save you in opur usual truck/car
collisions. And the truck driver always walks away.
bill
--
Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
billg999@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton |
Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include <std.disclaimer.h>
|
