NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/rec/motorcyc/39798

Text File | 1992-11-19 | 8.7 KB | 166 lines

Newsgroups: rec.motorcycles
Path: sparky!uunet!news.claremont.edu!ucivax!megatek!randy
From: [e-mail] (Randy Davis)
Subject: Re: HELMETS
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Randy Davis)
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Megatek Corporation, San Diego, California
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 20:01:05 GMT
Lines: 153

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mike Serafin) writes:
|Oh horse shit!  If you don't want to wear a helmet then that is your
|preference,

  Actually, not wearing a helmet is NOT a choice that I have.  Neither do
you, since both our states feel it necessary to protect us from ourselves.

| but don't try to justify your position by arguing the same tired
|old vision and hearing theories.  A helmet does not limit your forward or
|perpherial vision.  DOT requires all helmets to meet a minimum p-vision of 105
|degrees, I don't know to many folks that have p-vision beyond 90 degrees.

  Really.  Are you really this stupid?

  OK, do this for me.  Put your helmet on and without turning your *head*,
just turn your eyes all the way to one side or another, and tell me that you
can't see the edge of your viewport quite plainly.

  Can't see your viewport?  If I were you, then, I'd make an appointment with
my opthomologist ASAP before you hurt yourself.  If you CAN see your viewport
edges, then how do YOU define "peripheral vision"?  *I* get a non-trivial
amount of information from that 10 degrees or so of lost vision area - perhaps
you are such an unaware rider that *you* don't, but for you to make such
judgements about *my* vision is pretty clueless.

  Its amazing the people who don't know anything about what they repeat as if
they were an expert.  I would have expected better of you, Mike.  If you are
going to flame someone, it might be nice to FIRST make sure that you might be
able to back up your quaint ideas.

  I can see the viewport edge in this exercise, AND in actual riding, as can
everyone I know.  And no, these are NOT cheap helmets - rather top-of-the-line
offerings from the major helmet manufacturers such as Shoie, Bell, etc...
Perhaps YOU don't look around very much, OR perhaps you have never ridden
without a helmet, and thus don't know anything about what you are talking about
and how much better you CAN see without one, when the speeds are low enough
to take advantage of it...  (Please remember that I'm NOT advocating this
at higher speeds).

  DOT requirements are for only forward facing vision, and fail to take into
account that your eyes MOVE!!! (WHAT a concept, huh?).  Well, at least MY eyes
move, Mike, I guess I can't make that assumption about yours...  I've ridden
for over ten years in areas where I sometimes did NOT wear a helmet (and the
last five years in Texas and California where I was required to wear a helmet,
and I would have most of the time, anyway).  During this time of sometimes
helmetless riding, I also had a intermittant back problem limiting how far
my neck would turn.  When the back problem was in force AND I was wearing a
helmet, I often physically could not turn my neck far enough to see traffic
coming at intersections that were less than 90 degrees, without turning my
whole body, and also requiring me, in some instances, to take one hand off
the handlebars.  I had no such problem without the helmet on.

  For that matter, I can turn my eyes a lot FASTER than I can turn my whole
head when my eyesight is being limited by the viewport on the helmet.  When
you are traveling at lower speeds, the angle that danger is likely to approach
you is much larger than when you are traveling at high speeds.  Being able to
scan your whole vision area quickly is more and more important at low speeds.

   Ever wondered why it is illegal in most states to WEAR a helmet while
driving a car?  Your wonderfully intelligent legislators at work.  Legislators
that are obviously just as smart as you, Mike, and just accept something
without THINKING about it and actually *trying* it.

|  As
|for the noise, by wearing the helmet you are afforded protection from hearing
|damage so you don't need to remove it to hear.

  Hearing damage?  From traveling at 20 to 30 mph on a faired motorcycle?
Riiiiight.  You WILL remember that I said LOW speed traveling, won't you?
I do agree with this for high-speed, however that was not what *I* was
discussing.  If you feel the need to take my words out of context to "prove"
your point, then I guess I shouldn't be too surprised.

  Concerning hearing acuity in a helmet - you ARE full of yourself, aren't
you?  Ever tried to carry on a conversation while wearing a helmet?  Doesn't
limit your hearing in the least, does it?

|  Even wearing a helmet I hear
|much more of what's going on around me than I ever do in the cage.

  Perhaps.  Of course, you aren't as vulnerable and are much more visible in
a cage, so you don't have to watch out for idiocy from others sharing the road
as much.  If you feel that it is a good idea to limit your hearing in favor of
the definite protection a helmet offers you if you go down, that is your
choice.  Actually, if it was *just* hearing involved, I think I would agree
with you, and this whole subject would be moot.

| And as for
|your statement about not needing one below 40 mph, that is absolute and utter
|bull (cow?) shit.  The only time I ever dumped a bike I was doing 35-40 and if
|it weren't for the helmet I would not have been able to pick the bike up and
|ride home.

  If you would bother reading my posting a LITTLE closer, instead of being
such a knee-jerk asshole, you might notice that I said I would like to have
a helmet on if I went down, as would you.  However, I've been down three times
- each time wearing the same helmet.  The helmet has not received a scratch
from any of those three instances.

  I hate to tell you this, but a helmet is not the end-all in safety equipment
- it only protects one's head (I know this is a surprise to you, Mike, but
you'll figure it out, someday).  Sure, it's a good thing to protect, although
in your case it may be doubtful.  However, damage to many other parts of your
body can be JUST as fatal (like your neck, spine, etc), or debilitating.  So,
just between you and I, I would just rather avoid having an accident in the
FIRST place.  Perhaps you feel differently - as I said before, your choice...
 That means, to me, being as completely aware of my surroundings as I can,
weighed with the advantages and disadvantages of the safety equipment I choose
to wear.  At low speeds and depending on the area in which I am riding, I
sometimes consider a helmet more of a liability than a help.

|If you want to ride without a helmet, fine.  Get the leg. to repeal the helmet
|laws and go splatter your brains on some highway, I won't stop you.

  Interesting - I don't believe I ever proponed not wearing a helmet on a
highway, since I assume you would be doing somewhere close to highway speed,
right?  Are you really this big of an asshole, Mike, just because I don't
agree with your idea of how a helmet can help AND hinder someone?   I've got
a novel idea for you: you are not as smart as you clearly think you are if
you can't recognize that, whether you agree with it or not, I do have a
point...

  If you choose to believe that a helmet is God's gift to safety equipment,
and that there is no drawback at ALL to its use, then you are free to feel
that way, since the only one you are affecting is yourself.  I think a helmet
is a good idea most of the time, yet I am aware of drawbacks to it.

| But quit
|trying to justify the fact that you are not being the most intelligent person
|in the world.

  Sorry, I should know that that person is you.  Please accept my most
insincere apologies.  Oh, MIKE, you are just SO much more intelligent than I...
I must supplicate myself to your superior intelligence...  I'm SO ashamed...

|  I really don't know why the government insists on protecting
|the less intelligent from themselves any.  I say leave it up to natural
|selection, Darwin WAS right, you know.

  If Darwin was right, how do you explain *your* existance?  Can't even
question things that *seem* to be correct?  The mind boggles at your stupidity
for flaming me on this topic.

  Tell you what, when you get a clue as to how to not read YOUR preconceptions
into my words, then perhaps you will also learn how to have an intelligent
conversation to match your incredible wisdom about the world...

  Have a nice life, Mike...

Randy Davis                            Email: [e-mail]
ZX-11 #00072 Pilot                            megatek![e-mail]
DoD #0013                                     ucsd!megatek!randy