HELMETS, unkewl, or COOL!

LMAO - we aren't talking about "overall" severity. We are talking
about trauma to the skull, brain, face, etc. - the head in other
words. If you wear a helmet and no other gear (as I often have seen)
and go down and have road rash over 70% of your body, then yes I agree
that the helmet didn't do you much good for your back.

You are assuming that there is brain injury regardless of helmet so of
course there wouldn't be a difference between the two. Gotta read
between the lines on that one.

That's an interesting one and I'd like to know what figures that is
based on. Does it cost $1000 to cut off the helmet? Is it because
sport bike riders (that wear helmets) typically have a more severe
impact than, say, riders of cruisers? I could buy that. Especially
seeing the morons that I do on the streets all the time.

That's interesting because you just stated two facts above - one
indicating that it DOES have an impact and one that it doesn't. So
which is it? Or is it more wording trickery? I mean, sure if the
injury as already occurred, what good is a helmet going to do?

That's one I'd probably agree with, especially if you base it on
per-capita statistics.

--Fullstate

Me and Mah 'Priller!

 

LOL.. that one kinda sticks in your "craw", doesn't it ?? I've shown you
that "door".. you can walk through it anytime .. You can have your "say" and
participate in some of the decisions about what Bills are being supported,
or NOT..

Your interpretation of what this Bill is all about, is not representing the
Bill, with all due respect.. You are not old enough to remember, but this
same opposition has been made during the presentation of any civil rights
legislation in our history..

I've offered the reasons and the purposes for this Bill, in a variety of
examples and you have chosen to ignore them all..

Be that as it may, my friend.. I may just have to come over there and slap
your old sore leg around just a bit, to get the blood circulating in it
again.. LOL..

Your friend in Irving
Bill Walker

 

Are you sure that you are on the same planet, with everyone else..?? Since
... I've never raced a motorcycle or car in any organized event.. I'd assume
they do it because of the competitive event's dangerous nature.. Since
you've obviously participated in many racing events on your motorcycle,
perhaps you can enlighten all of us, just a bit more.. Thanks..

Comparing an organized motorcycle racing event, to a sunday afternoon cruise
on a street bike is like comparing a ski boat to a fishing barge.. But .. it
sounds good and reads well.. very impressive..

Bill Walker
Irving, Tx..

 

Hey "weirdo".. I'd like to recommend a freakin' helmet and make you wear
it.. You are undoubtedly a lame dick little wimp with nothing to offer.. Go
**** yourself and take your goddam helmet with you..

Your been trolling an fishing for a fight on this newsgroup for the past
several weeks.. Your little flame throwing bullshit has gone unchallenged
long enough..

This final slap at TMRA II and Mike Alvey is proof positive that you are
nothing more than a self serving shit head .. There is no circumstances or
situation that can be imagined, that you can even be classified in the same
category of this man..

Bill Walker
Irving

 

As I said in another thread.. I just can't think of anyone who needs to wear
a helmet, more than you.. LOL

Hmmm... As far as I know, no one from TMRA II has twisted your arm for
membership or "respect" from you.. Matter of fact.. I know of quite a few,
who would discourage accepting your application.. myself included..

A very good example of this, is your conception that someone from TMRA II
has mislead a LEGISLATOR about the helmet issue.. There is the ultimate in
"stupidity"..

It may come as quite a blow, Albert.. some of your posts have assured one
and all, that you are silly..

Bill Walker
Irving, Tx.

 

Sorry, Stephen - I had to laugh at that one. Quite and amusing way to
phrase it.

Hey now! That's my argument! ;-)

I would not say it's faulty... there is a reason they are required to
wear the gear and that reason is that it protects them. It's not
common sense in this case, or a preconceived notion, it's science.

And how would that be ridiculous? I mean, are you going to say that
statistically speaking guys racing bikes would have the same injuries
or non-injuries wearing helmets as those that don't?

If that is not the case, then it's a pretty profound argument for
wearing a helmet.

Hold up a sec.... I didn't say WOULD be fatal, I said could
potentially be fatal. The environment has a lot to do with this, and
that's true. For instance, the guys not hitting walls or other solid
objects has a big role in this - and good tracks are designed with
enough run-off so that it rarely happens. That does not negate
high-siding your bike and being thrown 60 feet onto hard concrete at
100+ mph.

On this, we both agree!


--Fullstate

Me and Mah 'Priller!

 

I've never advocated the use or the non-use of any safety devices.. Helmets
and seatbelts, included.. As you have pointed out, there are pros and cons
on both sides of the issue.. Assuming that your own opinion, and not that of
a working police officer, is what you express in this post.. we are pretty
much on the same page.. When you number is called, you are GOING.. No helmet
or any other protective gear is going to save you..

When I applied for the endorsement on my drivers license, I had been riding
a motorcycle for a number of years.. During the written test, questions were
asked that lead me to believe that my mental capacity was being tested,
also.. I'm well past the age of twenty one years.. (no kid, that's for sure)
Since I am well past the maturity age, have no mental defects which appear
on any tests, that I know of.. met the other exemption requirements.. I am
proud to be able to make decisions that give me a degree of control of my
life..

If one of these days, I have made a bad decision, then I can't complain and
it has been one hell of a party..

When I commence to lobby to take their helmets away from them, or forbid
them to wear helmets, these helmet advocates have no reason to declare and
advocate that I wear one.. For the most part, IMO.. these guys desperately
need to wear helmets or any other safety equipment that is technologically
available..One the one hand, two of these guys are declaring that anyone not
wearing a helmet is mentally deranged.. On the other hand, they declare that
they don't want to see legislation that mandates a rider to wear a helmet..
Hmmm.. One of two observations, here.. Either they are blowing smoke or they
just don't have the courage of their convictions..

That's my two cents and I stand behind it.. Thanks for the input Stephan..

Your friend in Irving
Bill Walker

 

Yes, and no. While the situations may be different the same physics
apply to both the ski boat and fishing barge. Same with a bike. On
or off the track a motorcycle and it's rider are subjected to the same
laws of physics.

Now, might you say that it's less dangerous to be on sunday cruise
than on a track? Ok, I'll bite.... I say a track is far safer. Why
might you ask?

Well let's see here, no cars, no unknown obstacles, a smooth surface,
good runoff areas, etc.

I'm playing devil's advocate a bit, but my point is that no matter how
you ride your bike the same laws of physics apply. One might be more
or less inherently risky than the other but that doesn't change what
happens to you if you go down.


--Fullstate

Me and Mah 'Priller!

 

Yeah, it does a bit.... I do admit.

And, I HAVE been having my say....right here on this forum. You guys
are listening and we are debating it. Just because I am not down at
the American Legion during a TMRA 2 meeting does not mean that I am
not involved.

I haven't ignored them, Bill....I simply disagree with them and will
do what i can to sway you to my point of view, as you would do the
same. That's a healthy engagement so long as we are not reduced to
being imbeciles and calling each other names like a bunch of five year
old kids..

Civil rights should not extend to trampling on the rights of others.
Sometimes it does, and in those situations I don't agree with it.

Hehe....bring it on! I'll crutch whip you so bad you won't know what
hit you.


--Fullstate

Me and Mah 'Priller!

 

The conditions are considerably different.. As in all competitive sports
events.. you are stressing the motorcycle to the max.. You exceed the
competition.. Although those conditions are controlled, there is no control
over the stress of that machine.. It may react in ways far different than
would ever be expected from a motorcycle, like a cruiser on a quiet street
or highway..

The accidents on track or competitive events are likely to be more violent,
even though controlled.. My cruiser would never compete on a race track.. It
isn't designed to do that.. I don't race my bike.. even though I demand the
most from it.. on a street or highway.. as you know..

When.. If or Where I have that one accident, the helmet won't make the
difference of whether I survive or not.. Meantime.. I have made my choices..
All these miles and all these years, I think I've made the right choices..
At least, I've done something right.. That's a lot of miles and a lot of
years..

I believe that I have learned all I could about handling my bike.. I believe
I have concentrated on continually learning more survival skills.. I believe
that accounts for all these years and miles.. with no serious accidents..
The way I ride, no amount of safety equipment or a helmet is going to be a
factor..

Your friend in Irving
Bill Walker

 

**** that.. I ain't taking on no silly asshole that wants to hit me with a
damn crutch.. We are talking "imposing on someone" here... LOL

 

I wonder how much different the accelerations of the brain endures
with/without a helmet. Anyone seen any figures on that somewhere?

 

Nah.. I doubt it.. I've got no problem with helmets.. Matter of fact.. I
just bought two new ones before I went on the run down in Mexico.. Of course
... my old Bieffe is sitting in my closet, right now, as well..

You have to consider, Waco.. some of these guys really need all the armor
plate and helmets, they can come up with.. Some of them, I'd think.. need to
stay as far from motorcycles as they can get..

Seems to me, that some make all these elaborate preps for that
"crash"..Whereas, if they'd just develop the skills to avoid that crash,
they'd be better off.. Instead of developing THOSE skills, they'd prefer to
make all the preparations for it..

That's ok.. if it makes them comfortable.. When they commence to call people
names because they have the confidence and skills to avoid these accidents,
they've crossed a line there, somewhere.. When they use that helmet thing to
criticize someone that has been injured in an accident, that's way over the
line..

I've said before, ride 'em like you just stole it.. but.. know your own
limitations.. Take care Waco.. Be seein' ya..

Your friend in Irving
Bill Walker

 

You, of all people, should know that as much as I disagree with you I
respect your right and your decision.


--Fullstate

Me and Mah 'Priller!

 

Interesting question. Since the same physics apply we aren't really
talking about acceleration so much as deceleration and net force or
kinetic energy at impact.

I bet if we look long enough we can find some models to represent all
this, but we don't have to. There are plenty of models indicating how
various types of padding reduce the effects of sudden impact and
absorb the energies that would otherwise be transferred to whatever
lies behind that padding.

--Fullstate

Me and Mah 'Priller!

 

http://www.smf.org

snell memorial foundation. one of the best sources for unbiased helmet
info and testing. read the helmet FAQ and the 2000 standard for
motorcycle helmets. These guys know what they are doing, probably the
best resource out there. hell, read the whole site, it's all good info.
you will understand why a good helmet will save you while the decorative
beanies are merely decorative.

science, not hype.

 

That's a fact.. I do know that.. you've rode with me.. All my years on a
motorcycle and all the tight spots I've been in and out of.. plus .. all the
years behind all this grey hair.. I've done something right..

LOL.. you've just got that streak of yuppie poser that accounts for that
GUCCI taste in jackets and "bling" helmets... Sheesh.. can't even talk to
you on the road.. gotta get all those plugs and tunes out of your ears..
LMAO..

Hey Waco.. git 'im.. He's pissin' me off .. again..<chuckle>

Your friend in Irving
Bill Walker

 

How 'bout if we dedicate more to learning how to avoid hitting that
"immovable" object ?

I touched on it briefly, not in detail.. but.. that was a little experience
that I had Saturday night.. Worked out just fine.. May not work worth a
shit, next time.. But.. I pulled it off again..

Your friend in Irving
Bill Walker

 

Better get him before he's healed up. I won't be able to get him if he makes
it to his bike.

 

Very interesting site. The standard for motorcycle helmets lists a figure of
300G's as a rejection point of a helmet during testing. How a guided weight
that they use for testing can generate 300G's is a bit suspect. It's only
dropped a short distance.

Which brings up another point. If you limit injures to those that aren't
penetration wounds, I would think that you would be able to survive an
impact like that Snell uses for testing helmets if you stuck your head in
the testing machine.

And another thing. I am in support of a Bill to require helmet use for the
following: use of ladders over 2 feet high, use of stepstools over 1 foot
high, operation of a vehicle that can exceed 5 mph, use of showers where
water is introduced, walking down the street near hard objects, children
under 21..and any activity involving large crowds, gatherings, parties,
meetings, fiestas, get-togethers, and bees.