Better to look cool, than be safe?
#121
03-28-2007, 02:21 PM
RE: Better to look cool, than be safe?
ORIGINAL: Philt
Exactly!
Phil
ORIGINAL: toprofile
I take exception to the "Better to look cool" comment tho . . .
I think saying the choice is to "look cool" is kinda cheap - no offense intended - just my op.
I take exception to the "Better to look cool" comment tho . . .
I think saying the choice is to "look cool" is kinda cheap - no offense intended - just my op.
Phil
#122
03-28-2007, 02:23 PM
RE: Better to look cool, than be safe?
ORIGINAL: hambone
I make whatever I'm wearing look "Cool". Not the other way around.
I make whatever I'm wearing look "Cool". Not the other way around.
#123
03-28-2007, 02:27 PM
RE: Better to look cool, than be safe?
ORIGINAL: GAGirl
Okay, I'll concede that "look" was a poor choice of words, although I do suspect it applies to some, but "Be Cool" or "Choose Comfort" over safety would have been more appropriate.
ORIGINAL: Philt
Exactly!
Phil
ORIGINAL: toprofile
I take exception to the "Better to look cool" comment tho . . .
I think saying the choice is to "look cool" is kinda cheap - no offense intended - just my op.
I take exception to the "Better to look cool" comment tho . . .
I think saying the choice is to "look cool" is kinda cheap - no offense intended - just my op.
Phil
Phil
#124
03-28-2007, 02:30 PM
RE: Better to look cool, than be safe?
ORIGINAL: GAGirl
Can I call you Stud Muffin?
ORIGINAL: hambone
I make whatever I'm wearing look "Cool". Not the other way around.
I make whatever I'm wearing look "Cool". Not the other way around.
#125
03-28-2007, 07:33 PM
Tourer
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: SRQ (Sarasota)
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Better to look cool, than be safe?
Falls from elevated surfaces injure more than 20,000 people per year.
As I recall that lamp replacement safety protocol, when using extreme high-risk tools such as ladders, called for this as the base outfit, a padded surface underneath, and a full face helmet with HANS or Hutchins device(neck-lash limiting straps)
Kinda surprising that folks might forego safety concerns and prefer convenience, comfort, and personal preference huh?
okay - okay - I just had to stir it up with more off-topic obnoxious comedic relief . . .
This thread is fun! PITA huh??
Seriously tho - falls take lives - don't take a chance!! (Or do - Your call!!)
As I recall that lamp replacement safety protocol, when using extreme high-risk tools such as ladders, called for this as the base outfit, a padded surface underneath, and a full face helmet with HANS or Hutchins device(neck-lash limiting straps)
Kinda surprising that folks might forego safety concerns and prefer convenience, comfort, and personal preference huh?
okay - okay - I just had to stir it up with more off-topic obnoxious comedic relief . . .
This thread is fun! PITA huh??
Seriously tho - falls take lives - don't take a chance!! (Or do - Your call!!)
#126
03-29-2007, 12:39 AM
Intermediate
Join Date: May 2006
Location: VT
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Better to look cool, than be safe?
HI GaGirl,
go check out the "face plant" section on Adventure Rider (www.advrider.com) and do some reading....you can do a few searches and find pics of helmets destroyed by pavement.
I always wear FF helmet, jacket (check out Fox Creek, they make jackets that weigh a ton, unlike the crap HD sells) and gloves; and sometimes over-pants (Motoport/ Cycleport, NOT lined with polyuathane that would melt in a slide, so I can wear shorts under them).
I may look like a Nasa re-ject when I ride, and I quit the local HOG chapter after getting one too many comments about all the gear.....but who was the last to put up the bike in the fall, and first to take it out in this spring? I"m not a biker, I'm a motorcyclist.
and, I'll pass along the best advice I ever got: "ride your own bike"
go check out the "face plant" section on Adventure Rider (www.advrider.com) and do some reading....you can do a few searches and find pics of helmets destroyed by pavement.
I always wear FF helmet, jacket (check out Fox Creek, they make jackets that weigh a ton, unlike the crap HD sells) and gloves; and sometimes over-pants (Motoport/ Cycleport, NOT lined with polyuathane that would melt in a slide, so I can wear shorts under them).
I may look like a Nasa re-ject when I ride, and I quit the local HOG chapter after getting one too many comments about all the gear.....but who was the last to put up the bike in the fall, and first to take it out in this spring? I"m not a biker, I'm a motorcyclist.
and, I'll pass along the best advice I ever got: "ride your own bike"
#127
03-29-2007, 01:12 AM
RE: Better to look cool, than be safe?
ORIGINAL: Maniac
Just out of curiosity, would you then consider the thought regardless of age that your insurance rate would be based on expected outcomes of your car against other cars in a collision so that folks who drive a Ford Focus for example would have to pay five times higher premiums than those who own say a Ford Excursion? This of course is assuming that what you meant are those riders who are injured as a result of the negligence of others.
Because for your theory to become plausible, the folks driving the Ford Focus are at much greater risk of injury or death matched against a Ford Excursion therefore should pay higher premiums commensurate with that risk regardless of who was at fault.
I think that if we used your philosophy in regard to insurance rates based on risk that boys and girls between the ages of 16 through 25 and older people beyond the age of 70 would have to have premiums of at least $25,000 a year as they are by far the riskiest and have the highest claim amounts of any group. Would that be fair?
Ask any insurance agent of the facts. Given the population as a whole, are more claims paid out each year for idiot teenage boys who have wrapped their dads Chrysler around a telephone pole or some other car or property or those few bikers who have fallen and suffered brain injury.
To take it a step further, how about we deny coverage for those individuals who were simply out joyriding rather than having legitimate business for being on the road regardless of fault? The simple fact that you are out there for no reason other than enjoying the ride puts you at a higher risk so you should pay more, right?
The point that I’m trying to make is that it is a shared burden for all of us on the road. In my opinion, the insurance companies are already doing a fine-and-dandy job of using any excuse to exploit those who may fit a certain “profile” based on sex, age, location, or type of vehicle to increase their profit margin. We don’t have to help out by providing them another vein of untapped revenue.
Paul
ORIGINAL: bobg1253
I also believe the choice carries a responsibility. You should carry enough insurance to protect yourself and your family from financial devastation in the event you are involved in a serious accident. You should not expect other taxpayers to pay for your medical care resulting from your choice. That applies to anything too,not just riding motorcycles.
I also believe the choice carries a responsibility. You should carry enough insurance to protect yourself and your family from financial devastation in the event you are involved in a serious accident. You should not expect other taxpayers to pay for your medical care resulting from your choice. That applies to anything too,not just riding motorcycles.
Because for your theory to become plausible, the folks driving the Ford Focus are at much greater risk of injury or death matched against a Ford Excursion therefore should pay higher premiums commensurate with that risk regardless of who was at fault.
I think that if we used your philosophy in regard to insurance rates based on risk that boys and girls between the ages of 16 through 25 and older people beyond the age of 70 would have to have premiums of at least $25,000 a year as they are by far the riskiest and have the highest claim amounts of any group. Would that be fair?
Ask any insurance agent of the facts. Given the population as a whole, are more claims paid out each year for idiot teenage boys who have wrapped their dads Chrysler around a telephone pole or some other car or property or those few bikers who have fallen and suffered brain injury.
To take it a step further, how about we deny coverage for those individuals who were simply out joyriding rather than having legitimate business for being on the road regardless of fault? The simple fact that you are out there for no reason other than enjoying the ride puts you at a higher risk so you should pay more, right?
The point that I’m trying to make is that it is a shared burden for all of us on the road. In my opinion, the insurance companies are already doing a fine-and-dandy job of using any excuse to exploit those who may fit a certain “profile” based on sex, age, location, or type of vehicle to increase their profit margin. We don’t have to help out by providing them another vein of untapped revenue.
Paul
#128
03-29-2007, 11:18 AM
RE: Better to look cool, than be safe?
ORIGINAL: Hitecrednek
HI GaGirl,
go check out the "face plant" section on Adventure Rider (www.advrider.com) and do some reading....you can do a few searches and find pics of helmets destroyed by pavement.
I always wear FF helmet, jacket (check out Fox Creek, they make jackets that weigh a ton, unlike the crap HD sells) and gloves; and sometimes over-pants (Motoport/ Cycleport, NOT lined with polyuathane that would melt in a slide, so I can wear shorts under them).
I may look like a Nasa re-ject when I ride, and I quit the local HOG chapter after getting one too many comments about all the gear.....but who was the last to put up the bike in the fall, and first to take it out in this spring? I"m not a biker, I'm a motorcyclist.
and, I'll pass along the best advice I ever got: "ride your own bike"
HI GaGirl,
go check out the "face plant" section on Adventure Rider (www.advrider.com) and do some reading....you can do a few searches and find pics of helmets destroyed by pavement.
I always wear FF helmet, jacket (check out Fox Creek, they make jackets that weigh a ton, unlike the crap HD sells) and gloves; and sometimes over-pants (Motoport/ Cycleport, NOT lined with polyuathane that would melt in a slide, so I can wear shorts under them).
I may look like a Nasa re-ject when I ride, and I quit the local HOG chapter after getting one too many comments about all the gear.....but who was the last to put up the bike in the fall, and first to take it out in this spring? I"m not a biker, I'm a motorcyclist.
and, I'll pass along the best advice I ever got: "ride your own bike"
#129
03-29-2007, 12:46 PM
RE: Better to look cool, than be safe?
ORIGINAL: bobg1253
How in the world did you read all that into my post. Your condescending reply is insulting. Believe it or not, we are not all a bunch of idiots. I'll try to summarize whatImeant since youmis-understood. I'm referring to those who ride without insurance or absolute minimum coverage and then when something does happen, theydevastate their family financially or they expect the hospitalto provide taxpayer supported indigent care.If you are not at fault, then the at fault drivers insurance will hopefully take care of you, but sometimes they carry minimum coverage too.I want my insurance to protect me and my family!!!
ORIGINAL: Maniac
Just out of curiosity, would you then consider the thought regardless of age that your insurance rate would be based on expected outcomes of your car against other cars in a collision so that folks who drive a Ford Focus for example would have to pay five times higher premiums than those who own say a Ford Excursion? This of course is assuming that what you meant are those riders who are injured as a result of the negligence of others.
Because for your theory to become plausible, the folks driving the Ford Focus are at much greater risk of injury or death matched against a Ford Excursion therefore should pay higher premiums commensurate with that risk regardless of who was at fault.
I think that if we used your philosophy in regard to insurance rates based on risk that boys and girls between the ages of 16 through 25 and older people beyond the age of 70 would have to have premiums of at least $25,000 a year as they are by far the riskiest and have the highest claim amounts of any group. Would that be fair?
Ask any insurance agent of the facts. Given the population as a whole, are more claims paid out each year for idiot teenage boys who have wrapped their dads Chrysler around a telephone pole or some other car or property or those few bikers who have fallen and suffered brain injury.
To take it a step further, how about we deny coverage for those individuals who were simply out joyriding rather than having legitimate business for being on the road regardless of fault? The simple fact that you are out there for no reason other than enjoying the ride puts you at a higher risk so you should pay more, right?
The point that I’m trying to make is that it is a shared burden for all of us on the road. In my opinion, the insurance companies are already doing a fine-and-dandy job of using any excuse to exploit those who may fit a certain “profile” based on sex, age, location, or type of vehicle to increase their profit margin. We don’t have to help out by providing them another vein of untapped revenue.
Paul
ORIGINAL: bobg1253
I also believe the choice carries a responsibility. You should carry enough insurance to protect yourself and your family from financial devastation in the event you are involved in a serious accident. You should not expect other taxpayers to pay for your medical care resulting from your choice. That applies to anything too,not just riding motorcycles.
I also believe the choice carries a responsibility. You should carry enough insurance to protect yourself and your family from financial devastation in the event you are involved in a serious accident. You should not expect other taxpayers to pay for your medical care resulting from your choice. That applies to anything too,not just riding motorcycles.
Because for your theory to become plausible, the folks driving the Ford Focus are at much greater risk of injury or death matched against a Ford Excursion therefore should pay higher premiums commensurate with that risk regardless of who was at fault.
I think that if we used your philosophy in regard to insurance rates based on risk that boys and girls between the ages of 16 through 25 and older people beyond the age of 70 would have to have premiums of at least $25,000 a year as they are by far the riskiest and have the highest claim amounts of any group. Would that be fair?
Ask any insurance agent of the facts. Given the population as a whole, are more claims paid out each year for idiot teenage boys who have wrapped their dads Chrysler around a telephone pole or some other car or property or those few bikers who have fallen and suffered brain injury.
To take it a step further, how about we deny coverage for those individuals who were simply out joyriding rather than having legitimate business for being on the road regardless of fault? The simple fact that you are out there for no reason other than enjoying the ride puts you at a higher risk so you should pay more, right?
The point that I’m trying to make is that it is a shared burden for all of us on the road. In my opinion, the insurance companies are already doing a fine-and-dandy job of using any excuse to exploit those who may fit a certain “profile” based on sex, age, location, or type of vehicle to increase their profit margin. We don’t have to help out by providing them another vein of untapped revenue.
Paul
#130
03-29-2007, 01:25 PM
Road Master
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Union City, California
Posts: 820
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Better to look cool, than be safe?
I use the "Layered Clothes Technique". I'll peel off items as the day grows hotter. Well...At a 100 degrees don't be surprised seeing me in a tanktopand some Hawaiian flowered shorts.