Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Perfect Line and Other Riding Myths' started by Anywhereness, Dec 9, 2012.
Sharing your weird opinions does not make someone smart.
Sign me up.
I used to work in a refinery that was attached to a paper mill. When someone died in the mill, we had to bury a roll of paper - there was no body as such to recover. The usual reason for death in the mill was failure to attach a line to the gantry. To explain: If you did not secure yourself to the scaffolding above the machinery, you could fall off of it and into the machines, or the pulper, or whatever you were working on. It may seem perfectly obvious to you and I that one should take the brief second to click that carabiner onto the steel, but for a surprisingly large number of people, the thought never occurs. Because "I will only be up there for a minute" or ""I can reach it no problem" or any number of other reasons. It's not just OSHA that sets those regs, it's the employers who have to pay out when an employee dies in a preventable accident, and then have to train new workers to that level of expertise. I fully assure you, that if someone you know died in a preventable industrial accident, you'd be clamouring for regs. I've seen the hardest-core non-union people turn on a dime when someone's hand got crushed in a press or someone fell on a slick surface or quite a few other such "accidents". "Someone should have done something to prevent that!!!" is the usual call to arms. Well, someone did do something: we call it OSHA.
Back to the traction control argument.....
Driving a large vehicle with a high center of gravity is more difficult than driving a small vehicle with a low center of gravity (GSA ). In fact, the act of driving one of these vehicles could be said to be dangerous. In the case of the Ford Explorer and many other less-publicised cases, it was downright dangerous, and the general public said "there ought to be a law". However, rather than require better training or simply restricting the use of the vehicles, the government chose to err on the side of greater good - people can still have them - and instead make them easier to drive by mandating TC. So which slippery slope did you want to go down - the ban or significantly restrict the dangerous vehicles slope, or the mandate safety features slope?
Effectively, enforcement of CDL for driving all vehicles classified as "trucks" (hello PT Cruiser), or pay extra for TC and dumbed-down suspension and live with the restrictions it puts on use of the vehicle (no more srs muddin' in your family hauler).
Regardless of which way you go, you are going down a "slippery slope". Ironically, I could care less either way - I wear a helmet anyway, and I love to do trainings. So I would have my cake both ways. But hundred dollar helmets are far more accessible to the general public than thousand dollar training courses are. In the interest of raising the number of motorcyclists in the US, I'm comfortable with the less-expensive to the rider solution - the $100 helmet.
Rider courses around here don't typically cost anywhere near $1000. In Illinois, they were free. Not everybody clamors for regs after somebody else does something stupid either. That may be how things are done in Germany, but many people in this country prefer considerably less government involvement in their lives. These people tend to be the part of the population who can think for themselves and don't have to believe everything that marketing campaigns tell them.
Considering that I've lived most of my life in the States, I would say that I have plenty of experience with how Americans react to things. Most being 40+ years, in five states, and six SMSAs. With three states' worth of driver's licenses to go with my shiny German one. Due to work, I've had the pleasure of working in industrial settings in about 45 states.
A basic rider course is very nominally priced. A rider course that would be comparable to a CDL is not. Last time I looked at CDL schools, a course was running around $3500, comparable to a week of Superbike school or Skip Barber for the car peeps. It's almost twice what I paid for my German license. Name me one soccer mom who is going to pony up that kind of bread, time and hassle to drive an SUV.
So, which slippery slope did you pick, anyway?
Who cares? To most of us freedom-proponent Americans, people like you appear to be brainwashed to the German way of doing things...make a law for every little issue in society. Unfortunately, due to relentless fear-mongering, a number of Americans now seem to have a similar mindset.
There are different ways to accomplish the same objective. Throwing away more and more freedom in this country is NOT the answer. Many people have died (violent deaths ahead of their time) to secure the few freedoms we have left, as well as the ones we've already lost, and the precedent of fear-manipulated citizens so easily relinquishing former freedoms has endangered the rest of our freedoms. We are now "less American" for it, with fear mongers leading the way.
I just sold a Ford E-350 van with a 4WD conversion and a 6" suspension lift. It had a higher CG than any of the SUVs you're referring to, and I never came close to having a problem with it. Traction control would have done nothing for stability, and would have been a PITA that limited the usefulness of the vehicle.
I think you're falling into the Euro mindset that everything should be designed with the least intelligent beings in mind and therefore will be completely safe. The reason we're seeing vehicles on their roof is simple. People aren't paying attention to their driving, and tend to try to avoid a collision by swerving hard at the last instant. SUVs aren't the only vehicles that end up upside down. We regularly see ordinary sedans on their roofs as well, even on dry straight roads with the sun shining. What's needed is higher standards for licensing, similar to those in Germany. We have a driver problem, not a vehicle problem. And we need to absolutely prohibit the use of cell phones and texting in moving vehicles. Distracted driving needs to be an offense that is treated the same as reckless driving or drunk driving. I'd be in favor of confiscating the driver's license and tags of a violator along with their phone and towing the vehicle to impound, then notifying their insurance company. Trial and sentencing would come later.
$100 helmets of today are the equivalent of $10 helmets available 50 years ago. No thanks. Mine cost more and are of far better quality.
Wow, that's ad hominem and a straw man all in one. Claiming that there is a "euro mindset" is just as accurate as claiming there is a uniform "American" mindset. There isn't.
Laugh all you want at Germany, but every single car, truck, and motorcycle that is sold in most of the world is brought here for testing. It's the only place you can do some of it. I consider speed limits a personal liberty infringement - but most Americans accept them blindly.
Regarding OSHA, if you think OSHA makes the US a "nanny state", look around you and think for a bit about what dangers you are not faced with today. there is no comparison.
Near every OSHA reg is written in blood. Behind every helmet law is a lot of emotional suffering and terrble, avoidable injuries.
Anyone who does not understand that--simply put-- does not want to understand that.
Whoever it was who said that German vehicles are designed with the dumbest people in mind has clearly never owned a vehicle made in Munich.
But I do appreciate the laugh.
Everything in and on a German motor vehicle has to sport a TUV stamp, and that's nanny state crap at its worst. It stifles individuality. I have no use for Socialism.
I never addressed OSHA, but I have no problem with it.
Americans accepting speed limits blindly is a bit far-fetched. When you get back, take a Sunday morning ride to Lansing on I-96. I usually run 80-85, and there are many people passing me at 90-95 or better.
As is behind everyone who doesn't want beloved ones to ride a motorcycle at all. Face it.
First, that's not the achievement of a free mindset, but of a powerful automobile lobby. Second, while wearing a helmet or not is no one elses fucking business than the rider's, there's at least a theoretical possibility to do harm to other people by driving fast.
And third, of course there are Germans who are not happy with the German mindset. Some of us really adore the americon love for freedom. But still, there are these differences in how people here and there think. On a German forum this discussion would be completely different and everyone standing up for such a personal freedom would be flamed harshly. That's not good, but it is a fact.
That's because the average person has been thoroughly brainwashed into believing that personal freedom must be subordinated to the "public good", whatever that is. It's a product of the form of government. What surprises me is how quickly people forget the past.
Life is not fair
The people who love us will suffer for our poor decisions
Bad things happen to good people for no reason
Anyone who does not understand that--simply put-- does not want to understand that.
The problem is not a lack of laws or monetary costs to the taxpayers. The problem is the mandate that society insulate him and his family from the consequences of his decision.
Happy New year to all!
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The 10th
Exactly one year ago today the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th were "repealed" or more accurately transgressed by a treasonous legislative and executive (NDAA). So yes, the precedent has been set. Up to half of the people are willing to acquiesce if polls are to be believed.
A camper rode his 50 cc a quarter mile to the showers at 3 mph and got whacked for $250 plus license suspended and car insurance raised. Another, while taking his scoot out of winter storage, rolled down his driveway to bump start it. The moment the front tire past the curb a leo wrote ticket for no no helmet then impounded for no insurance.
A young man crossed the boundary of his farm. His lights were off mid-day in a clear field. A leo who had been spying on him with binoculars from half a mile away felt it necessary to shoot the un-armed rider who protested the harassment.
Risk taking associated with the dangers of freedom such as riding helmet-less can to some extent be offset with better toilet training. Perhaps de-emphasizing the baby-sitting function of public schools and a parent licensing would serve us better.
"Is it safe?"
Find out here (1:43)
I did not in any way argue against being safe. As with the helmets, where I advocate wearing one for safety, but not the forcing of it upon people who wish to choose otherwise -- I think that taking good safety precautions at work is very important, but that government mandates are not the best way to do this. I've seen a lot of stupidity created, and even dangerous situations created, by safety regulations that get passed and must be enforced under all circumstances, whether or not they really are best applicable to any given circumstance.
I bolded the part up there that makes more sense. If the employer creates a dangerous situation, and does not make the appropriate safety precautions, it can and should be held liable. If the safety precautions are available and the worker declines to make use of them, the employer is not liable, although they are still out the costs of hiring/training, etc., so the employer has every right to require workers to use the safety provisions, and to discipline workers who don't.
I have spent the last 20 years working in an industry (medical manufacturing) in which safety is taken extremely seriously, and is practiced routinely (and voluntarily) at levels far higher than OSHA mandates, because it makes sense to do that when you are working with products to be implanted or injected into people, or live viruses and pathogens, or genotoxic or cytotoxic compounds, etc. We do this because it's smart. And sometimes the government and OSHA actually get in the way. One example was a facility being designed and built that was to work with and contain some quite dangerous compounds. It was to have a complex series of cascading room pressure to keep any airbourne contaminants from entering OR leaving the facility, with door interlocks to ensure these pressures were maintained under all conditions, and so on. However, fire regulations prohibited the door interlocks -- they demanded that in case of fire, people be allowed unimpeded exit regardless. Well, if you've got what we had in there, quite frankly, the risks of someone burning to death in a fire due to the door interlocks making it harder to get out was a FAR smaller risk than what could happen with an accident of containment.
I saw similar hazards created by safety legislation that woudl allow of no exceptions 25 years ago when I was working in the nuclear industry as well.
Part of what makes this so hard an issue to figure out well is that we have become SO accustomed to government being involved in everything that a great many people no longer can even imagine anything getting done without government force being applied. When a libertarian argues against government force in a situation or issue, it deson't mean we are advocating against the issue being done at all -- just that we don't think coercion is the best or most ethical way to do it.
I agree with this. Sadly, that's not what we're discussing here. Not at all.
And I know you're not arguing laws haven't been enacted that have saved countless-- literally countless lives.
philb i've said it before on this thread. clear concise thinking. i only wish i could express my thoughts as eloquently as you. i just tend to get mad at people too stupid to see what is happening around them and to ignorant of history to know why it makes a difference.
somewhat on topic. according to mn. dmv. mn. had 42 mc. deaths in 2012 and 40 pedestrian deaths. should the state mandate helmets for anyone walking near a street or highway?
For every small and anecdotal reference to OSHA being a somewhat awkward and cumbersome agency, there are overwhelming numbers of OSHA helping to protect the rights of the workers.
Quite honestly, it appears as if you're government phobic. Even in instances when people won't protect themselves from a clear, easily avoidable danger or the industry might be shown to be so dangerous that outide pressure has to be exerted to keep people safe.
Anyone who thinks OSHA isn't overwhelmingly beneficial, as I said before, doesn't want to believe it. Based on ideology and not lived experiences, data, or even common sense.
I hope that's not you.
PS. the forum would be a lot easier to read if you didn't quote the entire post of the person you're going to '+1' if you really feel the need to use bandwidth by posting '+1's.
Did you employ the Supreme Courts proof test about whether requiring helmets for every pedestrian would be overly burdensome or haven't you read that part of the thread?
Your post is simply an inflammatory waste time and makes the author look foolish.
Really? How many motorcycly riders in a given year vs. how many pedestrians?
That's just intentionally sloppy or abdication of reason and logic all together.