On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 08:34:47 -0800, Eric R Snow
wrote:

On 7 Feb 2005 19:43:36 -0800, wrote:

I agree that 10 g's is a small shock. But think about it this way.
160 lb man drops 16 feet onto his neck. He hits at about 32 feet per
second or about 20 mph. If he decelerates at 10 g's, the force is 1600
lb force. The energy is 2560 ft lbs.

You want me to believe that a helmet will protect me at higher speeds.
Now if I had to be involved in an accident at a higher speed, I would
want a helmet. I am just not sure it would be enough to be of any real
help if I went over the handlebars and hit something halfway hard head
first.

Now with a bit of luck, the man drops 16 feet and lands on his back,
and the helmet only has to adsorb the energy his head has.

Dan
Not to support helmet laws, which I don't, even smacking a helmet at
10 mph or faster can avoid major brain damage. I don't know where
exactly the cutoff point is, but I do know that a helmet striking a
truck at about 25 mph can protect the wearer from even a concussion.
Surprisingly, I didn't think I had hit my head at all. After I saw the
damage to the helmet there was no doubt. I'm sure that there are ways
to hit a helmet in such a way that the energy is concentrated to a
small area but most of the time it is spread out enough to save not
only the brain but the spine too.
ERS

An aqqaintence of mine, an engineer , family man with 3 kids, beloved
husband, and a long term bike rider of some note, who had survived 3
tours in Vietnam, bought a brand new Goldwing.

About two weeks after getting the bike, he apparently pulled up at a
stop sign and with both feet on the ground, his left foot slipped on
those little balls of asphalt that sometimes hang out there..and he
and the bike fell to the left. Its happened to all of us. Unfortunatly
in his case he was not able to recover, his foot slipped again and he
went down with the bike, slapping the side of his unhelmeted head on
the pavement. This was about 15 yrs ago. Everyday his keepers change
his diapers, feed him with a spoon, wipe his chin and turn on the TV
for him because he likes the bright colors and movement and he gurgles
happily all day long.
His wife has long since remarried and his now grown kids come visit
maybe once a year, but he really doesnt notice.


Gunner

Rule #35
"That which does not kill you,
has made a huge tactical error"

On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 17:40:16 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On 8 Feb 2005 15:54:06 -0800, the inscrutable jim rozen
spake:

I think there are a lot of folks here who think that good
govenment is govenment that does the least neccesary to
accomplish the collective goals.

A Freakin' Men!


The more nanny-stuff that gets perpetrated does not really
make folks safer in the long run. Air bags, seat belts,
ABS, traction control in cars simply encourages folks to
drive like nuts. They figure that because they paid a lot
for some big SUV they're invulnerable and can drive around
with impunity, not paying attention to what they're doing.

Obviously, that's a bad attitude. Soccer Moms are the worst,
but this guy is right up there with 'em.


This is what happens sometimes:

http://www.priceless420.com/Pr020505shortstop1.jpg
http://www.priceless420.com/Pr020505shortstop2.jpg
http://www.priceless420.com/Pr020505shortstop3.jpg
http://www.priceless420.com/Pr020505shortstop4.jpg

Did all the nanny-state stuff save that guy's bacon?
I doubt it. It probably contributed to the crash,
because he felt invulnerable.

Eez pozzible.

That is ABSOLUTELY the wrong way to load lumber into a pickup.
He can't see his right rearview mirror and there's no red flag
on the tail end of his load.


Thats absolutly the wrong way to tow a pickup with a logging truck,
too.

Gunner

Rule #35
"That which does not kill you,
has made a huge tactical error"

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Ed Huntress says...

Something is sure helping the situation. Here are the death rates/100MM
miles, per the US Dept. of Transportation:

1965 5.30
1970 4.85
1975 3.43
1980 3.35
1985 2.47
1990 2.08
1995 1.73
2000 1.53

(Transportation Indicators for Motor Vehicles and Airlines:
http://www.census.gov/statab/www/minihs.html) That's down from over 45 in
1909, BTW. g

Ah, statistics. Then you of *all* posters here should know that
there's a multitude of reasons for those numbers. Not all of
the reasons are related to helmets, airbags, and seatbelts.

Some of the reasons have to do with things that make cars work
better and faster.

I hear you, Jim, but the things that made cars "work better and faster," in
the early '60s, actually drove death rates *up*, particularly between 1960
and 1965. That's why Congress started grumbling about the horsepower race,
and, when the big-block engines came in, the manufacturers started
*underrating* their horsepower. A Golden Commando 426 hemi was "rated" at, I
think 425 hp, which was a joke. They typically dyno'd at 475+ NET hp.

Over that span of years we saw some improvements in highway safety, and some
modest increases in testing and requirements for drivers, but the big change
was mandated safety improvements in cars: seat belts, then shoulder straps,
mandates to wear them, air bags, structural improvements for controlled
crush, side-impact structure...a lot of little things. Any unimpassioned and
reasonable evaluation would first recognize the parallels between those
mandated safety improvements and the decline in highway deaths per mile.

And then you might go looking for other things. What might those be, Jim?
And what's your basis for judging that those, if there are any significant
ones, are the important factors? We have mountains of testing and data to
show how survivability has improved with the mandated safety requirements.
What do you have to demonstrate that it's something else?

--
Ed Huntress

In article , Ed Huntress says...

And then you might go looking for other things. What might those be, Jim?

Mostly improved highways, improved tires, improved brakes.

The cars of 1960 are a *lot* different then the cars of 2000
in terms of handling. I think that a lot of the big Ford
Exploders and Lincoln navigators are basically built on
1960s vintage chassis, which is why one tends to see a lot
of them in the ditches around here, rolled over.

Seatbelts were *available* the late 60s. So you can
rule them out as the improvement, eh? GG

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article , Gunner says...

His wife has long since remarried and his now grown kids come visit
maybe once a year, but he really doesnt notice.

Yes. The anecdote I related from the M/C newsgroup was somewhat
similar, it was basically a parking lot tip-over (two bikes
actually bumped into each other) and the results, while a
good deal more favorable to the operator over the long run,
were similar.

Gunner it's a shame what happened to your friend - but remember
that the exact same thing can happen falling down the cellar
steps, or slipping and falling in the shower. The head injury
could just as easily have happened to him that way.

Should we all wear helmets while walking around during the
day. Honestly, seeing how fragile the human head is, I'm
not sure the answer isn't "yes."

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On 9 Feb 2005 08:23:50 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

His wife has long since remarried and his now grown kids come visit
maybe once a year, but he really doesnt notice.

Yes. The anecdote I related from the M/C newsgroup was somewhat
similar, it was basically a parking lot tip-over (two bikes
actually bumped into each other) and the results, while a
good deal more favorable to the operator over the long run,
were similar.

Gunner it's a shame what happened to your friend - but remember
that the exact same thing can happen falling down the cellar
steps, or slipping and falling in the shower. The head injury
could just as easily have happened to him that way.

Should we all wear helmets while walking around during the
day. Honestly, seeing how fragile the human head is, I'm
not sure the answer isn't "yes."

Jim

Quite true. Which is why I made no suggestions.

I personally made the choice years ago to never even think about
scooters without putting on a decent full face brain bucket, proper
boots and leathers. They have allowed me to survive some nasty
go-downs over the years relatively unscathed. But that's my choice
and not one Id care to force on others.

Gunner

Rule #35
"That which does not kill you,
has made a huge tactical error"

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Ed Huntress says...

And then you might go looking for other things. What might those be, Jim?

Mostly improved highways, improved tires, improved brakes.

I mentioned mandated improvements to highways. What information do you have
to indicate that tires and brakes have had a measureable effect on the death
rates? I'm not saying they didn't, only that I think you're fishing around
on the margins when the obvious things, mostly protection in collisions, are
staring you right in the face.


The cars of 1960 are a *lot* different then the cars of 2000
in terms of handling. I think that a lot of the big Ford
Exploders and Lincoln navigators are basically built on
1960s vintage chassis, which is why one tends to see a lot
of them in the ditches around here, rolled over.

Seatbelts were *available* the late 60s. So you can
rule them out as the improvement, eh? GG

A significant percentage of people started wearing them right away, as soon
as they were mandated in '63. I wore mine every day, for example, from the
day I started to drive in March 1963, in my brand-new Corvair. Death rates
started to go down as cars with seat belts began to make up a significant
proportion of the cars on the road, around the mid-'60s.

Then some states started to mandate them, and I recall several states,
including NJ, which showed IMMEDIATE drops in the death rates. These
mandates were effected at different times during the years listed; with
time, more were mandated. And, with time, death rates declined.

Again, what do you have on tires and brakes?

BTW, there is a spectacular amount of research on the subjects you're
discussing, primarily from DOT and from the insurance industry. You really
don't need to speculate; this is not a place where we have to withdraw into
"opinions."

But finding the facts is not easy. Whether you want to do the research
depends on whether you really want to know, or if you'd rather cocoon
yourself in speculations that reinforce your pet peeves and attitudes. g

Personally, I wish we didn't need any laws on these things. But my safety
and that of my family, and the social costs of deaths and disabilities
caused by irresponsible driving by others, have led me to see the sense in
them and to support them. That's really the whole story from my end.

--
Ed Huntress

In article , Ed Huntress says...

BTW, there is a spectacular amount of research on the subjects you're
discussing, primarily from DOT and from the insurance industry.

Ed, I take *anything* from private insurance companies with a
large grain of salt. This includes the IIHS which is one
of the worst I think. Basically most of their findings
have the subtle sub-text "we need to make more money" in
there.

Personally, I wish we didn't need any laws on these things. But my safety
and that of my family, and the social costs of deaths and disabilities
caused by irresponsible driving by others, have led me to see the sense in
them and to support them. That's really the whole story from my end.

The issue of your safety, and your family's, are easily resolved.
Simply wear, and require them to wear, seatbelts. If you are worried
about societal costs, I suggest you target your concern in other
areas, as you can save more money that way, faster.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Ed Huntress says...

BTW, there is a spectacular amount of research on the subjects you're
discussing, primarily from DOT and from the insurance industry.

Ed, I take *anything* from private insurance companies with a
large grain of salt. This includes the IIHS which is one
of the worst I think. Basically most of their findings
have the subtle sub-text "we need to make more money" in
there.

Before you can take the grain of salt, you first have to look at what you're
taking it with. I don't think you'd find much in that research to quibble
with.

Look at the motives, Jim. The insurance industry's motive is to find ways to
reduce claims and, thus, their costs. They have no incentive to promote some
safety feature that won't put money in their pocket. When it comes to
getting to the truth on safety issues, they have greater incentive to find
it and to tell it than anyone around. They are very good at it -- better
than the government, which also does a good job of it.

The figures are no mystery, BTW. You could do a spot-check on them yourself.
People have.


The issue of your safety, and your family's, are easily resolved.
Simply wear, and require them to wear, seatbelts. If you are worried
about societal costs, I suggest you target your concern in other
areas, as you can save more money that way, faster.

It appears to me that you're avoiding looking at the actual research and
data because the facts would undermine your preconceived ideas. g

Of course you're welcome to your opinions, Jim. I haven't seen much in them
that looks like a fact, but the bottom line is that the public highways are
nobody's playground, and that a very large majority supports safety
regulations that reduce carnage and costs. Since this is a democracy, that's
how the issue will be decided in the end. This isn't a civil rights issue at
all, by any stretch of the imagination. That's really all there is to it.

--
Ed Huntress

I missed the staff meeting but the minutes show Gunner
wrote back on Wed, 09 Feb 2005 16:56:08 GMT
in rec.crafts.metalworking :

Quite true. Which is why I made no suggestions.

I personally made the choice years ago to never even think about
scooters without putting on a decent full face brain bucket, proper
boots and leathers. They have allowed me to survive some nasty
go-downs over the years relatively unscathed. But that's my choice
and not one Id care to force on others.

I'm a mixed bag on it. On my first Motorcycle ride, I wore the helmet
offered. Tim was "You ride with me, you wear it." [That might first ride
was up a mountain road at night ... says something, I'm not sure what :-)

Later, when we went from Tucson to San diego, once into California, the
helmets came off. At highway speeds, so the rational went, it wouldn't
matter.

A decade later, on my own bike I wore the helmet, except for two
occasions. Both of those was to put-put a quarter mile on a "closed
course" to the front gate, and back, when I was pulling a shift at the
gate.

"Whoo-eee! we are living large! Tomorrow, we're gonna pull off the
tags on all the mattresses in the house! Might even carry scissors point
up!"


tschus
pyotr

--
pyotr filipivich.
as an explaination for the decline in the US's tech edge, James
Niccol wrote "It used to be that the USA was pretty good at
producing stuff teenaged boys could lose a finger or two playing with."

In article , Ed Huntress says...

but the bottom line is that the public highways are
nobody's playground,

Nobody is disputing that. A state which does not have a
mandatory helmet law is not declaring 'our highways are
playgrounds.' Suggesting this is a bit over the top I think.

and that a very large majority supports safety
regulations that reduce carnage and costs.

Yep. And as you have said before, exactly where the line
is scribed is to some large degree influenced by that 'large
majority' in whatever state you are discussing.

Since this is a democracy, that's
how the issue will be decided in the end. This isn't a civil rights issue at
all, by any stretch of the imagination.

Agreed. I've *never* said anything about it being a 'civil rights
issue' during this thread. I don't think *anyone* has. I can however
draw a conclusion from the fact that some states do, and others
do not, have mandatory helmet laws. And that conclusion is the
issue is a gray area. The benefits are not overwhelming by comparison
to the restrictions that a law imposes, for the country as a whole.

Some do, some don't. It's not a slam dunk that the majority of
folks want a law about this issue, when you poll the entire country.
My point here is that nanny-state laws are not without their
problems. The more you legislate safety, sometimes the stupider
citizens act.

The general tenor of this particular newsgroup is 'nannystate laws
are bad.' I tend to waffle back and forth on this to some degree,
but feel decidedly in the 'they're bad' camp when it comes to
things like seatbelt, helmet laws.


Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

I missed the staff meeting but the minutes show Gunner
wrote back on Wed, 09 Feb 2005 14:56:05 GMT
in rec.crafts.metalworking :
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 17:40:16 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On 8 Feb 2005 15:54:06 -0800, the inscrutable jim rozen
spake:

I think there are a lot of folks here who think that good
govenment is govenment that does the least neccesary to
accomplish the collective goals.

A Freakin' Men!


The more nanny-stuff that gets perpetrated does not really
make folks safer in the long run. Air bags, seat belts,
ABS, traction control in cars simply encourages folks to
drive like nuts. They figure that because they paid a lot
for some big SUV they're invulnerable and can drive around
with impunity, not paying attention to what they're doing.

Obviously, that's a bad attitude. Soccer Moms are the worst,
but this guy is right up there with 'em.


This is what happens sometimes:

http://www.priceless420.com/Pr020505shortstop1.jpg
http://www.priceless420.com/Pr020505shortstop2.jpg
http://www.priceless420.com/Pr020505shortstop3.jpg
http://www.priceless420.com/Pr020505shortstop4.jpg

Did all the nanny-state stuff save that guy's bacon?
I doubt it. It probably contributed to the crash,
because he felt invulnerable.

Eez pozzible.

That is ABSOLUTELY the wrong way to load lumber into a pickup.
He can't see his right rearview mirror and there's no red flag
on the tail end of his load.


Thats absolutly the wrong way to tow a pickup with a logging truck,

That was on the paved roads.

I've seen a similar picture, but in New Zealand. The Pickup driver was
going way too fast on a dusty road. (How fast is too fast? when you can't
see the poles sticking off the back of the logging in front of you in time
to avoid them)
Fortunately, he didn't get hit by the logs coming in the passenger
side, and bailed out of the pickup, mostly unhurt. But it was a few miles
before the log truck realized he had an addition. Dirt roads, dry season,
lots of dust - not likely to notice a pickup back in the midst of all that.


--
pyotr filipivich.
as an explaination for the decline in the US's tech edge, James
Niccol wrote "It used to be that the USA was pretty good at
producing stuff teenaged boys could lose a finger or two playing with."

On 9 Feb 2005 05:00:14 -0800, the inscrutable jim rozen
spake:

In article , Larry Jaques says...

That is ABSOLUTELY the wrong way to load lumber into a pickup.
He can't see his right rearview mirror and there's no red flag
on the tail end of his load.

Oddly, there *is* a red flag there, visible in one of the
photos. Lotta good it did the SUV driver.

The flag was on the big truckload, not the pickup's new load.
And if that idiot couldn't see a large dark truck with red flags
in a bright white countryside, he just wasn't paying -any-
attention at all. He got what he deserved.


-
They who know the truth are not equal to those who love it. -Confucius
---
http://diversify.com Comprehensive Website Programming Services

On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 14:56:05 GMT, the inscrutable Gunner
spake:

On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 17:40:16 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

That is ABSOLUTELY the wrong way to load lumber into a pickup.
He can't see his right rearview mirror and there's no red flag
on the tail end of his load.

Thats absolutly the wrong way to tow a pickup with a logging truck,
too.

True. True.

Hey, I finished UC today at noon. WOW, what a book! How accurate
were Ross' writings about the gun laws? It 'felt' accurate but I
haven't studied them like you have.


-
They who know the truth are not equal to those who love it. -Confucius
---
http://diversify.com Comprehensive Website Programming Services

On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 14:57:44 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 14:56:05 GMT, the inscrutable Gunner
spake:

On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 17:40:16 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

That is ABSOLUTELY the wrong way to load lumber into a pickup.
He can't see his right rearview mirror and there's no red flag
on the tail end of his load.

Thats absolutly the wrong way to tow a pickup with a logging truck,
too.

True. True.

Hey, I finished UC today at noon. WOW, what a book! How accurate
were Ross' writings about the gun laws? It 'felt' accurate but I
haven't studied them like you have.

Ross is 100% accurate.

the chapter towards the end, about the woman in the Florida trailer
park. Seemed fitting, no?

So did you have any fundamental changes in your thinking after reading
the book?

Gunner



-
They who know the truth are not equal to those who love it. -Confucius
---
http://diversify.com Comprehensive Website Programming Services

Rule #35
"That which does not kill you,
has made a huge tactical error"

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 04:09:24 GMT, the inscrutable Gunner
spake:

On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 14:57:44 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

Hey, I finished UC today at noon. WOW, what a book! How accurate
were Ross' writings about the gun laws? It 'felt' accurate but I
haven't studied them like you have.

Ross is 100% accurate.

the chapter towards the end, about the woman in the Florida trailer
park. Seemed fitting, no?

The lady the President acceded to Ray's "clients" as a personal thing?
I couldn't figure out who that was.


So did you have any fundamental changes in your thinking after reading
the book?

No, I made that leap a couple years ago when you nudged me into
reading more about it and finding the truth about guns. But the
book did clarify and strengthen feelings I already had about freedom.

DAMN, I wish it had made the top 10 list and stayed there for a couple
years. That's one hell of a book for a first-time author.

As I replaced the dust jacket, I took a closer look at the cover
picture. That was no plain and sultry woman the jackbooted thug was
kicking, that was Lady Justice herself! I hadn't noticed that when
I got the book, but it sure changes my perspective on the feeling the
artist was trying to convey. The book reviewer (obviously NOT a part
of the gun culture) entirely missed the point with this blurb:

From Publishers Weekly
"The dust jacket of this first novel nearly sums it up: a storm
trooper-like American federal agent holds an automatic weapon to the
throat of a semi-naked, buxom young woman as a giant copy of the
Constitution burns in the background."

Yeah, a few hundred sure beats a few tens or hundreds of thousands of
deaths, and I sure hope the next U.S. civil war is as bloodless. Let's
hope there's someone as tactically superb as Henry guiding it, eh?


-
They who know the truth are not equal to those who love it. -Confucius
---
http://diversify.com Comprehensive Website Programming Services

Larry, What is this book you and Gunner are discussing? It sounds
like I should read it.
...lew... ( lost your e-mail when I replaced my computer )

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 13:54:10 GMT, the inscrutable Lew Hartswick
spake:

Larry, What is this book you and Gunner are discussing? It sounds
like I should read it.
...lew... ( lost your e-mail when I replaced my computer )

"Unintended Consequences" by John Ross. I had trouble putting it
down, and the 861 page hardcover weighs a ton!


--
STOP LIVING LIKE VEAL
-----------------------
http://diversify.com Veal-free Websites

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 05:42:12 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 04:09:24 GMT, the inscrutable Gunner
spake:

On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 14:57:44 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

Hey, I finished UC today at noon. WOW, what a book! How accurate
were Ross' writings about the gun laws? It 'felt' accurate but I
haven't studied them like you have.

Ross is 100% accurate.

the chapter towards the end, about the woman in the Florida trailer
park. Seemed fitting, no?

The lady the President acceded to Ray's "clients" as a personal thing?
I couldn't figure out who that was.

Which tall, sparse manlike woman with glasses was in charge of killing
the children at Waco?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janet_Reno



So did you have any fundamental changes in your thinking after reading
the book?

No, I made that leap a couple years ago when you nudged me into
reading more about it and finding the truth about guns. But the
book did clarify and strengthen feelings I already had about freedom.

DAMN, I wish it had made the top 10 list and stayed there for a couple
years. That's one hell of a book for a first-time author.

As I replaced the dust jacket, I took a closer look at the cover
picture. That was no plain and sultry woman the jackbooted thug was
kicking, that was Lady Justice herself! I hadn't noticed that when
I got the book, but it sure changes my perspective on the feeling the
artist was trying to convey. The book reviewer (obviously NOT a part
of the gun culture) entirely missed the point with this blurb:

From Publishers Weekly
"The dust jacket of this first novel nearly sums it up: a storm
trooper-like American federal agent holds an automatic weapon to the
throat of a semi-naked, buxom young woman as a giant copy of the
Constitution burns in the background."

Yeah, a few hundred sure beats a few tens or hundreds of thousands of
deaths, and I sure hope the next U.S. civil war is as bloodless. Let's
hope there's someone as tactically superb as Henry guiding it, eh?

There will be.

Gunner

Rule #35
"That which does not kill you,
has made a huge tactical error"

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...


As I replaced the dust jacket, I took a closer look at the cover
picture. That was no plain and sultry woman the jackbooted thug was
kicking, that was Lady Justice herself!

Damn! Who would have thought that Lady Justice had tits like that?

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1888...11#reader-link

....makes me wish I'd become a lawyer. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

Hmmmm. We all seem to have different places where we draw the line. I
think that requiring seat belts and requiring their use has been proved
to reduce deaths and injuries. Of course I believed in seat belts and
used them before they were required ( had to install them myself ).
But I draw the line at air bags. Seat belts are cheap and effective.
Air bags are not cheap and can cause injury. I have not tried to
research the benefits of air bags if one is wearing seat belt including
a shoulder harness. So they may reduce injuries, but I think that
antilock brakes are more cost effective in reducing injuries. And
where are the laws requiring tires rated A or better for traction.
Pete said he could tell you the stopping distance of cars based on the
tires they had.

Dan
jim rozen wrote:

I tend to waffle back and forth on this to some degree,
but feel decidedly in the 'they're bad' camp when it comes to
things like seatbelt, helmet laws.


Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 12:09:48 -0500, the inscrutable "Ed Huntress"
spake:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .

As I replaced the dust jacket, I took a closer look at the cover
picture. That was no plain and sultry woman the jackbooted thug was
kicking, that was Lady Justice herself!

Damn! Who would have thought that Lady Justice had tits like that?

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1888...11#reader-link

...makes me wish I'd become a lawyer. d8-)

Nah, that gal's got enough breast meat for 3 women. I'm with
Confucius. He say "More than mouthful wasted."


--
STOP LIVING LIKE VEAL
-----------------------
http://diversify.com Veal-free Websites

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...

Damn! Who would have thought that Lady Justice had tits like that?


http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1888...5560753-123291
1#reader-link

...makes me wish I'd become a lawyer. d8-)

Nah, that gal's got enough breast meat for 3 women. I'm with
Confucius. He say "More than mouthful wasted."

'Think they're real? I mean, could Lady Justice have silicone boobs?

sob Is nothing sacred?

--
Ed Huntress

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 16:35:29 GMT, the inscrutable Gunner
spake:

Which tall, sparse manlike woman with glasses was in charge of killing
the children at Waco?

Ohhhhhh! Gotcha.

Is this her? (Check your email box)


Yeah, a few hundred sure beats a few tens or hundreds of thousands of
deaths, and I sure hope the next U.S. civil war is as bloodless. Let's
hope there's someone as tactically superb as Henry guiding it, eh?

There will be.

g


Rule #35
"That which does not kill you,
has made a huge tactical error"

I like it!


--
STOP LIVING LIKE VEAL
-----------------------
http://diversify.com Veal-free Websites

In article .com,
says...

Hmmmm. We all seem to have different places where we draw the line. I
think that requiring seat belts and requiring their use has been proved
to reduce deaths and injuries. Of course I believed in seat belts and
used them before they were required ( had to install them myself ).
But I draw the line at air bags. Seat belts are cheap and effective.
Air bags are not cheap and can cause injury. I have not tried to
research the benefits of air bags if one is wearing seat belt including
a shoulder harness. So they may reduce injuries, but I think that
antilock brakes are more cost effective in reducing injuries. And
where are the laws requiring tires rated A or better for traction.
Pete said he could tell you the stopping distance of cars based on the
tires they had.

There's one of those 'unintended consequences' effects. Airbags
are mandated for cars (nannystate regulation) because folks won't
wear their seatbelts. Turns out that because of the need to
prevent unbelted occupants from hitting the hard parts inside the
cars, the bags have to inflate rapidly with great force. This
causes small passengers to be injured or killed.

New round of nannystate regulations requiring weight sensors on
seats, etc. which then have their own spin-down of unintended
consequences.

Wouldn't have been better to simply say, "here are the seat belts.
Use 'em or not. If you don't use them, you'll probably die in
crash." No laws, no airbags, just the application of reason.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article .com,
says...

Hmmmm. We all seem to have different places where we draw the line. I
think that requiring seat belts and requiring their use has been proved
to reduce deaths and injuries. Of course I believed in seat belts and
used them before they were required ( had to install them myself ).
But I draw the line at air bags. Seat belts are cheap and effective.
Air bags are not cheap and can cause injury. I have not tried to
research the benefits of air bags if one is wearing seat belt including
a shoulder harness. So they may reduce injuries, but I think that
antilock brakes are more cost effective in reducing injuries. And
where are the laws requiring tires rated A or better for traction.
Pete said he could tell you the stopping distance of cars based on the
tires they had.

There's one of those 'unintended consequences' effects. Airbags
are mandated for cars (nannystate regulation) because folks won't
wear their seatbelts. Turns out that because of the need to
prevent unbelted occupants from hitting the hard parts inside the
cars, the bags have to inflate rapidly with great force. This
causes small passengers to be injured or killed.

You'd better do some more research before drawing such conclusions. You're
off base.


New round of nannystate regulations requiring weight sensors on
seats, etc. which then have their own spin-down of unintended
consequences.

Wouldn't have been better to simply say, "here are the seat belts.
Use 'em or not. If you don't use them, you'll probably die in
crash." No laws, no airbags, just the application of reason.

If people could be relied upon to apply reason, no one would ride
motorcycles. You're four to five times more likely to die on one than you
are in a car.

Next example of "reason"? g

--
Ed Huntress

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 20:57:01 -0500, the inscrutable "Ed Huntress"
spake:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .

Damn! Who would have thought that Lady Justice had tits like that?


http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1888...5560753-123291
1#reader-link

...makes me wish I'd become a lawyer. d8-)

Nah, that gal's got enough breast meat for 3 women. I'm with
Confucius. He say "More than mouthful wasted."

'Think they're real? I mean, could Lady Justice have silicone boobs?

She looks to have a sturdy enough frame that they could be real.
Poor gal. Surely she has back problems from carrying those around.


sob Is nothing sacred?

AFAIK, just cows.


--
STOP LIVING LIKE VEAL
-----------------------
http://diversify.com Veal-free Websites

In article , Ed Huntress says...

prevent unbelted occupants from hitting the hard parts inside the
cars, the bags have to inflate rapidly with great force. This
causes small passengers to be injured or killed.

You'd better do some more research before drawing such conclusions. You're
off base.

The original airbags did indeed kill a few kids because of their
design. Hence the requirement now that infants in rear-facing
car seats be placed in back seats.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On 11 Feb 2005 04:53:08 -0800, the inscrutable jim rozen
spake:

There's one of those 'unintended consequences' effects. Airbags
are mandated for cars (nannystate regulation) because folks won't
wear their seatbelts. Turns out that because of the need to
prevent unbelted occupants from hitting the hard parts inside the
cars, the bags have to inflate rapidly with great force. This
causes small passengers to be injured or killed.

Have they determined what percentage of your hearing you retain
after one of those bags goes off? I understand that they're LOUD.


New round of nannystate regulations requiring weight sensors on
seats, etc. which then have their own spin-down of unintended
consequences.

Wouldn't have been better to simply say, "here are the seat belts.
Use 'em or not. If you don't use them, you'll probably die in
crash." No laws, no airbags, just the application of reason.

Amen. No belts/bags/helmets, no insurance coverage. Your life, your
choice.


--
STOP LIVING LIKE VEAL
-----------------------
http://diversify.com Veal-free Websites

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...

Amen. No belts/bags/helmets, no insurance coverage. Your life, your
choice.

Reality check time, Larry. Your buddy, who isn't the sharpest knife in the
drawer, is riding a bike without a helmet and gets in a crash. He's flopping
on the ground with a brain injury. Along comes the ambulance. "Eh, no
helmet," they say. "Let him lie." They get back in the ambulance and drive
home. Your buddy dies.

Or not. They take him to the hospital, as they're now required to by law. He
lives, after $120,000 worth of brain surgery.

Your buddy's assets amount to $623 net. The hospital has to raise its rates
for the rest of us, to cover people like your buddy. According to the State
of Illinois, roughly 85% of motorcycle-accident hospital costs are not
covered by insurance. The state winds up eating about 40% of the cost, with
the other 45% born directly by the hospital. You pay both ways.

Now, you have to change the law in some way to effect what you're proposing.
Either you let the sucker lie on the ground and die, or the hospital pushes
him into the street on a gurney when he's reached his insurance limit.

Questions: Do you handle it all up-front, letting him lie on the ground, and
let the highway cleanup crew remove the carcass after a few days, or do you
just push him out to die when he's run out of money? And, regardless of
which you choose, do you really want to live in a society that would allow
either situation? How about if YOU simply forgot to fasten your seat belt
one day, and got in a crash? When the EMTs saw you weren't wearing a belt
and turned around to walk away, might you change your mind?

Serious questions, they need a serious answer.

--
Ed Huntress

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Ed Huntress says...

prevent unbelted occupants from hitting the hard parts inside the
cars, the bags have to inflate rapidly with great force. This
causes small passengers to be injured or killed.

You'd better do some more research before drawing such conclusions.
You're
off base.

The original airbags did indeed kill a few kids because of their
design. Hence the requirement now that infants in rear-facing
car seats be placed in back seats.

That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the whole paragraph.
And while you're at it, look up the number of kids' lives saved, versus
those that were killed. Also, notice the solution that quickly became
apparent, and that you've identified above. That obviates your original
complaint.

This information is all available. There's no need to speculate about it.

--
Ed Huntress

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 18:03:31 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 16:35:29 GMT, the inscrutable Gunner
spake:

Which tall, sparse manlike woman with glasses was in charge of killing
the children at Waco?

Ohhhhhh! Gotcha.

Is this her? (Check your email box)

GACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Yeah, a few hundred sure beats a few tens or hundreds of thousands of
deaths, and I sure hope the next U.S. civil war is as bloodless. Let's
hope there's someone as tactically superb as Henry guiding it, eh?

There will be.

g


Rule #35
"That which does not kill you,
has made a huge tactical error"

I like it!

Rule #35
"That which does not kill you,
has made a huge tactical error"

In article , Ed Huntress says...

That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the whole paragraph.
And while you're at it, look up the number of kids' lives saved, versus
those that were killed. Also, notice the solution that quickly became
apparent, and that you've identified above.

And what happens when one of those sensors fails, and the airbag
fails to deploy, and somebody gets hurt?

They'll sue the car manufacturer, of course.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article , Ed Huntress says...

Reality check time, Larry. Your buddy, who isn't the sharpest knife in the
drawer, is riding a bike without a helmet and gets in a crash. He's flopping
on the ground with a brain injury. Along comes the ambulance. "Eh, no
helmet," they say. "Let him lie." They get back in the ambulance and drive
home. Your buddy dies.

Or not. They take him to the hospital, as they're now required to by law. He
lives, after $120,000 worth of brain surgery.

Nope. Because he's uninsured, they take him to the hospital that
accepts indigents. That's 20 miles farther away than the one right
across the street.

By the time he gets there, he's dead. The ambulance company bills
him or his estate the cost of his ride.

This is the most likely outcome of the scenario you envisioned. There
a huge chance that with a head injury like that he will die, and die
fairly soon after the accident.

If you really want to have your man rack up some impressive medical
bills, have him survive, and stay in the hospital for three weeks, and
then go to rehab for another month after that. The best way to get
your man to survive the initial impact is to put a helmet on his
head, we both agree on that point at least, Ed.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 09:51:53 -0500, the inscrutable "Ed Huntress"
spake:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .

Amen. No belts/bags/helmets, no insurance coverage. Your life, your
choice.

Reality check time, Larry. Your buddy, who isn't the sharpest knife in the
drawer, is riding a bike without a helmet and gets in a crash. He's flopping
on the ground with a brain injury. Along comes the ambulance. "Eh, no
helmet," they say. "Let him lie." They get back in the ambulance and drive
home. Your buddy dies.

Right. HIS choice. And that's the way it should be.


Or not. They take him to the hospital, as they're now required to by law. He
lives, after $120,000 worth of brain surgery.

$120k barely gets him in the door and stabilized today. Make it 1/2 a
mil to do surgery to save his life, but in a completely vegetative
state. THAT bothers me on both counts. A lot.



Your buddy's assets amount to $623 net. The hospital has to raise its rates
for the rest of us, to cover people like your buddy. According to the State
of Illinois, roughly 85% of motorcycle-accident hospital costs are not
covered by insurance. The state winds up eating about 40% of the cost, with
the other 45% born directly by the hospital. You pay both ways.

That's precisely what I'm against.


Now, you have to change the law in some way to effect what you're proposing.
Either you let the sucker lie on the ground and die, or the hospital pushes
him into the street on a gurney when he's reached his insurance limit.

Questions: Do you handle it all up-front, letting him lie on the ground, and
let the highway cleanup crew remove the carcass after a few days, or do you
just push him out to die when he's run out of money? And, regardless of
which you choose, do you really want to live in a society that would allow
either situation? How about if YOU simply forgot to fasten your seat belt
one day, and got in a crash? When the EMTs saw you weren't wearing a belt
and turned around to walk away, might you change your mind?

Nope, I'd deserve the fate I got if I forgot to buckle up. EMTs
shouldn't resuscitate the Opt Outers, but should merely make them
more comfy for their impending death.

Since hospitals are geared toward the dying, toting the bodies there
for a day or two there with minimal fuss and accelerated disposal
would probably be the easiest route since bodies (living and dead) are
already going there now. Doctors should NOT be kept from putting
people out of their misery if these people WANT that. (Along that
line, suicide watch on Death Row is one of the most assinine things in
this country, second only to some of Shrub's moves.)


Serious questions, they need a serious answer.

If it's me dying, please promptly put me out of my misery. 1 shot to
the temple, like a horse in a western movie. (Yes, I'm serious and
need to update my Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care statement
for Oregon. I'm a fatalist and don't want to be kept alive by machines
as a vegetable, thanks.)

Those who opt out could get small tattoos on the inside of their
wrists. DNR for "Do Not Resuscitate." This would alert EMTs and
hospitals before the fact that the party had made other choices.


--
STOP LIVING LIKE VEAL
-----------------------
http://diversify.com Veal-free Websites

In article , Larry Jaques says...

Since hospitals are geared toward the dying, toting the bodies there
for a day or two there with minimal fuss and accelerated disposal
would probably be the easiest route since bodies (living and dead) are
already going there now.

Ed and I both agree that the body is much less likely to be
*admitted* to the hospital if it was a motorcycle rider sans
helmet. In the majority of those cases, they scrape up what's
left on the road and sent it right to the undertaker's.

In most of those cases, the ticket to even get *in* the door
of the hospital, is a helmet.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On 11 Feb 2005 12:40:07 -0800, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Larry Jaques says...

Since hospitals are geared toward the dying, toting the bodies there
for a day or two there with minimal fuss and accelerated disposal
would probably be the easiest route since bodies (living and dead) are
already going there now.

Ed and I both agree that the body is much less likely to be
*admitted* to the hospital if it was a motorcycle rider sans
helmet. In the majority of those cases, they scrape up what's
left on the road and sent it right to the undertaker's.

Yup. It's too bad, too, because young males are such good
organ donor material, but if the helmet isn't on the body,
the chance of getting a warm body into the hospital isn't
as good.

In most of those cases, the ticket to even get *in* the door
of the hospital, is a helmet.

Yup, even if they don't survive, the organs might. Saves us
time at the scene, too, not having to hose as much matter off
the road.

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Ed Huntress says...

That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the whole paragraph.
And while you're at it, look up the number of kids' lives saved, versus
those that were killed. Also, notice the solution that quickly became
apparent, and that you've identified above.

And what happens when one of those sensors fails, and the airbag
fails to deploy, and somebody gets hurt?

They'll sue the car manufacturer, of course.

Well, since you ask, why shouldn't they? If you buy an airbag to save your
life, and the car manufacturer sells you one, whose fault is it when it
doesn't work?

--
Ed Huntress

One bit of the information is that smart air bags are expected to cost
$173 per car. That must come to 1.x billion dollars per year. What I
don't have is the number of deaths saved by air bags when the person
was wearing a seat belt. I am not even sure there is anyway one can
find out if an air bag saved the life of a person who was wearing a
seat belt.

Dan
Ed Huntress wrote:


That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the whole
paragraph.
And while you're at it, look up the number of kids' lives saved,
versus
those that were killed. Also, notice the solution that quickly became
apparent, and that you've identified above. That obviates your
original
complaint.

This information is all available. There's no need to speculate about
it.

--
Ed Huntress

But if you did not want to buy an air bag, but the government mandated
that you shall if you buy a new car..............You really ought to
sue the government..............


Dan