NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/rec/motorcyc/39873

Text File | 1992-11-20 | 12.1 KB | 227 lines

Newsgroups: rec.motorcycles
Path: sparky!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!csc.ti.com!tilde.csc.ti.com!cauldron!epcot!serafin
From: [e-mail] (Mike Serafin)
Subject: Re: HELMETS
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Nntp-Posting-Host: epcot
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 22:34:59 GMT
Lines: 214

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>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.

If p-vision were defined as the total area you can see to both sides by moving
your eyes in each direction you would have a point.  BUT, it is only the vision
to your sides that you can see with your eyes focus straight ahead.  Maybe if
you would go visit your proctologist he could remove your head from your ass so
that you would be able to turn it and aid your side vision.

>  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

And the DOT requirements are minimums, now, aren't they.  Talk to your friendly
neighborhood helmet maker about changing the design why don't you.

>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.

Maybe you shouldn't be riding at all if you have a physical disability that
prevents you from moving your head.  Don't tell me that you can see around
parked cars, bushes and trees with your superior vision, without moving your
head.  I say it is just another rationalization.  Like I said originally, I
ain't gonna stop you if you want to change the law, as a matter of fact I'll
help.  I don't like infringements on individual rights any more than the next
person.  BUT, I am not going to buy your sorry rationalizations.

Oh.  And if we're keeping score, I've been riding for the past 20 years in CA
and TX.

>  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.

I didn't take anything out of context.  Based on personal experience the level
of noise increases significantly, even at LOW speeds, without a helmet.
Maintain this increased noise level for a little while and you will suffer a
temporarily increased threshold of hearing.

>  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?

Yes, I can carry on a conversation with a helmet.  While it may reduce the
volume, it doesn't bother me.

>|  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.

Let's see, you would like to wear a helmet if you went down, part of the risk
of motorcycling involves the chance you will go down, you don't seem to be THAT
stupid, therfore you wear a helmet all the time anyway.

>  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.

I never said a helmet was an end-all piece of safety equipment.  You are
obviously as good as making presuppositions as anyone else.  You seem to have
missed the whole point behind my post.  I really don't give a shit if you wear
a helmet or not.  In fact I don't like the helmet laws, seatbelt laws, or any
other passed under the auspices of my protection.  I am just sick of hearing
all of you jokers try to make justification for why YOU don't want to wear a
helmet.  Quit whining about the damn laws and work to get them changed.

>|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...

The only point that you have is that you should be allowed to wear a helmet
when you want to wear one, and with that I agree fully.  As for your reasons,
well they are just so much bullshit.  For every person that you can find that
claims a hinderence, I can find one that claims none.

> 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
>
>  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...
>

The only really stupid thing I see is YOU.  You insist on basing your reasons
for not wanting to wear a helmet on questionable-at-best safety issues, when in
reality it is ONLY a personal desire with know basis in fact.  You seemed to
have missed that entirely.

>  Have a nice life, Mike...
>

You can bet I will.

******************************************************************************
Mike Serafin             [e-mail]       Texas Instruments
DoD #0742  AMA #671922  HOG #                            Dallas, Texas
1967 Firebird 326              1982 Honda CM250C
1969 Barracuda Formula 340S    1993 H-D FLHS
1988 Ford F250 4x4             1964 Cessna 310I (FOR SALE)
1991 Ford Escort GT
******************************************************************************