Motorcycle Forum

Motorcycle Forum (
-   MO vs. World (
-   -   Maxim Magazine Helmet Question (

devil_clown 10-30-2000 07:33 PM

Loud Pipes
I'm kinda stunned by the apposal of loud pipes. Now Harley, that's a different story all together. Yes, they should be banned. (Simply because I don't have nor would I ever spend that kinda money on such an over rated, underpreforming casket on wheels.) But as far as the pipes are concerned, I feel pipes save lives. Period. Face it, motorcycling is dangerous. Most people don't see us, they sure as hell don't look for us and most don't give a rats ass if they drag us for 10 miles after hitting us if it means being late for brunch. Does the sound irritate a few? Good. See me, know that I'm there and get the **** away from me if you don't like the noise. That's the whole purpose. What is the advantage of being stealthy on a motorcycle? To get a good laugh out of Cletus's awe stricken face as you become his next hood ornament as he's shifting lanes and doesn't know you're there because, like I said, he's not looking for us. On top of that, they just put out a greatest hits volume of my wife left me and my dog is dead and he can't stop the urge welling within him to blast his sterio that costs more than his double wide before he sold it for the Harley and yodaling his ass off? Not me. I'ld be happy if I could crack his windshield with the sound of my exhuast alone. The point is to be seen. And sometimes to be seen, you need to be heard.

Devil Clown

Colorado_F4 10-30-2000 07:42 PM

Loud Stereos Save Lives
Hey, Cletus is only pumping up his *****in stereo cuz he's got a little Geo Metro that isn't very visible to other cars and he just wants to be heard cuz mebbe it'll save his life. Mebbe if you would have heard his loud stereo you wouldn't have gotten in his way. And why should he care if the stereo is annoying if you don't care about the pipes?


Colorado_F4 10-30-2000 07:45 PM

The Big Question: How Lame is Maxim?
So first when I tried to access the big question it didn't even have a question. Just TODAY'S QUESTION and then a submit button.

Okaaayyy.... so I go back a few minute later and even though the main page still asks about helmets being for cowards, it seems that actually today's big question is Would you ever do it with a porn star?

I think we need to start a thread on this. Personally, I'm all for making it illegal to do it with a porn star, cuz you might get AIDS and maybe you don't have insurance and then I'd have to pay your medical bills!


Gabe 10-30-2000 09:14 PM

You missed my point...
Which was merely a legal one. To save you the trouble of re-reading my somewhat long-winded post, I will sum it up for you:

For a right to be totally unabridged by the gubernment, it must be a right fundamentally recognized as important and unabridgeable without a compelling state interest.

I agree with you- we are more than just dollar signs, and some things have no monetary value. One of the great flaws of our legal system is that money is used as the medium for righting all wrongs- there are expert witnesses whose only function is to calculate the monetary value of human life! It''s sick.

However, I just don''t understand how riding helmetless is such a compelling right that it overcomes society''s right to keep costs from preventable injury to a minumum. Nobody has made a case for it yet, although you came close.

Now let them try to ban motorcycles, which, as I''ve metioned, nobody ever has. I feel that, as an American citizen, I have a right to responsibly pursue the types of activities that make me happy, as long as I do them responsibly and don''t burden society too much.

If motorcyclists were dying like smokers, then I might support a ban on them, as well, but with only 5,000 deaths a year compared to smoking cashing in 300,000 Marlboro Men per annum, I think motorcycles will be here to stay. Conversely, if only 5,000 smokers a year died from their stinky habit, I wouldn't cheer the zillion-dollar verdicts against the tobacco companies.

Just everybody wear your ****ing helmet, and we can all shut up about this!

Gabe 10-30-2000 09:31 PM

Re: Allow me to point out a bit of hypocrisy in your essay
Well, I don''t know if a small omission of the obvious constitutes hypocricy, but I agree. The safetycrats are tasked with decreasing society''s cost in injuries and death caused by helmetless motorcyclists. Thoses costs are measured in greenbacks because it''s easier than calculating, say, the gallons of tears from bereaved love ones, or hours of nursing time, or whatever.

Funny how you mention the Gulf War. I was arguing with a guy about the causes of the Civil War Friday night. I said slavery, and he said Northern Banks squeezing the South. That takes a lot away from the many thousands of Americans who died there. When the Civil War started, thousands and thousands of volunteers mobbed the recruiting stations of both sides. Did these men join up to save the banks, or so rich guys could make more money? No! They signed up because they believed in something.

I fought in the Gulf War, and was almost killed. For you to suggest I risked myself so my Mom could enjoy filling her Volvo with $.99 gasoline is kinda insulting, as well as absurd.

The same goes for the safety nazis. I'm sure there's a lot of self-seeking people who don't care about people. But there's also a lot of beauracrats and safety advocates who work long hours, for not a lot of personal gain, because they believe they are doing a good thing. Please name one safetycrat who got rich advocating traffic safety. Ralph Nader? He has like one suit and sleeps in his office!

Your idea for subsidizing helmets is a great idea, and I wonder if there are government funds availiable for helmet R&D. In California, there is a program like that for child safety seats for low-income motorists.

The flaw in your plan is that you assume that 50% of riders in no-helmet-law states go helmetless because they can''t afford a helmet. That''s just ridiculous. If you can buy a motorcycle, you can afford the $200 to buy a good helmet. But, I support such a scheme for low-income motorcylists. In fact, I think motorcyclists should get tax breaks because they impact roads, parking and traffic less and use less fuel.

Thanks for not insulting me!


Gabe 10-30-2000 09:35 PM

VFR vs. Biker Smackdown!
I would put my money on the sportbike guys, since they are more likely to be physically fit, as well as younger. Many of the Harley guys I see are overweight and kinda old.

Now, if this was 1966, that would be a different story.

Gabe 10-30-2000 09:44 PM

It's sad assholes like you are taught how to type...
The guy you insulted had a perfectly good point, and you attack him personally. Why? It sad, because it's people like you that chill intelligent discourse.

And yes, everytime you get on your bike you should assume you're gonna crash. (or assume to hit our dead as you so eloquently put it.) As you say, with surprising clarity in your last line, Life is about taking risks, managing risks and hopefully living through risks. Right. So wear your ****ing helmet!

Gabe 10-30-2000 09:49 PM

Re: You have been duped by the insurance companies
Good point. But still, if I think helmet laws are a good idea, just because Aetna agrees with me doesn't make it a bad one. Does a bad motive rule out a good one?

Also, your floodgate argument doesn't pan out. Laws are passed, in general, when there's a compelling need for them, not just at the whim of a few people. No, really.

GboroGoose 10-31-2000 03:40 AM

Re: Maxim Magazine Helmet Question
Jack was known as the Wizard He was sharp, intelligent, fun to be around. I haven''t seen him in years since the accident. He got to drinking too much at the bar (another of my major peeves nowdays), was evidently paranoid that somebody was chasing him on his XL350 when he didn''t make the turn on White Oak in Raleigh and cracked open his brand new Bell helmet on the church steps. The blood stains are still in the brick. The EMT''s estimated he had been dead 5 minutes when they got him going again and his short term memory isn''t what it needs to be to do computer programming after that, but he''s still alive and got married. The Bell rep that analyzed the damaged helmet said he''d never seen one with so much damage where the rider came out alive. Cracked from the hair line on the front to a similar point on the back. Sorry to bother you with this story, and it still affects me emotionally after 15 years, but if you don''t like it, take that peanut shell helmet and use it for a suppository. (i.e. Shove it, for those of you less literary).

Point is: You don''t have to force me to wear a helmet. I''ve seen enough people live because of them and even if I do die, maybe they can still have an open casket funeral.

Just my opinion

worn_patella 10-31-2000 04:52 AM

Re: Maxim Magazine Helmet Question
Well, if I show up with my helmet ... don''t hit me in my head ... it might hurt your hand. Therefore, I have to go with the Honda hoot.

If there was a fight between Jet Li and any one from Sturgis who would win? ... the guy from Sturgis right? ... Assuming he could catch him right? ... Assuming that guy from Sturgis was quick enough right? ... Assuming he'd be able to keep his eyes open right?

You make alot of assumptions everytime you get on that bike ... that guy in the school bus see's me right? ... that 70 year old coming down the wrong way is gonna turn ... right? ... OH **** a Dragonfly just hit me in the cheek ... go ahead and make not wearing a helmet seem aluring ... here this Crack is the best I ever tried ... have some ...

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:29 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.