The biggest reason DoC goes along with almost anything ICANN proposes is that largely, DoC is tehcnically illeterate. Since they have little technical background, they go on the assumption that the members of ICANN know what they are talking about.
How do you expect DoC to question ICANN if they don't even know which questions to ask?
I've got a better deal, FFFish. Why don't you try reading the ENTIRE post before you show your ineptness at comprehension of topic. I specifically said that I DO wear a helmet. Furthermore, my post was not about being knocked unconscious, only that I personally do not believe that helmets either save or take lives. I don't think they play a major role either way. Additionally, I stated in an earlier reply that I feel helmets do offer some benefit after the initial impact. And finally, I have never once recommended anyone NOT wear a helmet. If you wear one, great, if you don't, that's your choice as well.
So over half of all motorcyclists in helmets die each year? You better learn to read before posting this crap.
Trust me, reading is no problem. Perhaps I was mistaken in hoping there was enough intelligent life out there to know the statistics were speaking of the fatality rate of motorcyclists involved in accidents, not that everyone who wears a helmet and rides a bike will die.
What the document said was that, of all fatalities, 54% were helmeted. It also says that 67% of riders use helmets and that over 300 more lives would have been saved if all motorcyclists wore helmets.
And how do you think they arrived at the number "54%"? Take the total number of motorcycle fatalities from states with mandatory helmet laws, divide by the total number of motorcycle fatalities, and that is approximately then nuber you come to. As for the 67% saved if they had been wearing helmets, their own numbers do not support this claim.
More B.S. There is nothing in the report that is based on assumptions. They used "reported" helmet use for the fatality figures, not "assumed" helmet use.
Of course they are using assumptions. They are taking. Even in your earlier example, it is an assumption...er...excuse me, to use their words...an estimation, but not a definite factual number.
I've been riding 21 years. When I was 19, I crashed at 60mph, going over the handlebars and hitting head-first -- and my helmet saved my life. If I had hit the pavement with my bare head, I would be dead now. If you want to be an organ-doner, go for it, but don't distort statistics to try to make others believe that helmets don't save lives.
I am very pleased you survived the accident. But in all honesty, you can't state that the helmet saved your life. You can believe that it did, but unless you are willing to set up that whole scenario and take another trip over the bars, this time without the helmet, then we won't know. I'm NOT saying that the helmet didn't save your life. I'm just saying that there are so many factors and dynamics in every accident that it would be very hard to prove either way. I've went down too. It was not a terribly serious wreck, but there was plenty of embedded gravel in my body. The helmet did not save my life, but (yes, I was wearing it) it did reduce the damage. I also know several friends who have had serious accidents, some with helmets, some without. Some died, some survived. But of those I have known who were fatally injured, there is little difference on the survival rate with or without the lid. As for me distorting statistics, I emphatically deny this. I gave you the document, I showed you where their math was derived. I used their own numbers. And I must state again, I DO wear my helmet most of the time. While I don't necessarily believe that they save lives, I also don't believe they are the cause of harming, either. What I do feel they accomplish is keeping my face from getting any uglier, and keeping my long locks in place for as long as they want to hold on to the top of my head. I fully belive that, if you survive the accident, the helmet will keep your head and facial injuries less severe. And that alone is enough for me to wear the lid. I just don't think they are going to be the key ingredient in your rate of survival. While yes, the m/c fatality rate is slightly higher in states with helmet laws, let's face it it's about 50/50. If you can live through the initial impact, you have a chance.
What is needed is not mandatory helmet laws, but mandatory education programs. Both for riders and automobile operators. The public, by and large, are not aware of motorcycles. Bikes are not part of standard driving instruction. They are largely ignored by motorists. A certain mentality comes into play, whether conscious or unconscious, of "I'm bigger than him, he can't hurt me." and automobiles tend to drive with this attitude. I fully believe that if public awareness of motorcycles became a priority, both the motorcycle accident rate and motorcycle fatality rate could be reduced dramatically.
According to the All Harley Drag Racing Association, the current record was set 03/2001 by Doug Vancil, with a time of 6.616 in the quarter-mile, and a speed of 210.18mph. That's in the "Top Fuel" class, and doing it on only 2 cylinders in a standard internal combustion engine. Of course, these bikes are definitely NOT street legal, but who cares? That's still one fast ride!
When the company first started, their original name was Boss Hogg. Harley-Davidson, Inc. threatened to sue the company for trademark infringement over the use of the word "hog" related to motorcycles. To avoid the potential legal battle, Boss Hoss caved. Harley-Davidson is one company that actively and aggressively protects their image, some critics say, to the extreme.
No, I see a bright light (when I'm not blinking). A bright light that may or may not be coming straight towards me. I don't even see the road ahead of me, or any potential obstacles. Is that really all that much safer for either of us?
So you are then saying that even though you see the light, you will just go ahead and pull out in front of the source of the light (motorcycle or otherwise) anyway? Wonderful. That not only makes you uninformed, but just another run of the mill idiot. Furthermore, if you honestly expect anyone to believe that a single headlight in DAYLIGHT is blinding you to the extent that you can't see other potential obsticals, then we should all be scared that you are on the road at all. Making us all safer? Look, the vast motorcycle public doesn't CARE if the people surrounded by a steel cage are safer. You are more than safe enough. If that bright light in your eyes causes you to (hopefully) slow down a bit and pay closer attention to the road, then, YES it makes us all safer.
Interesting. Any links? More importantly, is there anything showing that this is cause/effect and not just circumstancial?
From the NHTSA's own document, try this. This is a PDF document that sumarizes the report. Go to the fifth page, fifth paragraph. By their own admission, 54% of riders wearing helmets died in 1998, and 57% in 1997. On the sixth page, it goes through the stats, state by state. I won't ask so much of you to do the math yourself, so I did it for you. This 54% is from only 22 states and D.C. where states have mandatory helmet laws. To try to impress upon you the significance of this, it means that 45% of the states account for 54% of the deaths. Even worse is that we don't have statistics for the fatality rate in states without helmet laws. The NHTSA assumes that those riders in states without mandatory helmet laws were helmetless, in an effort to better their position of "helmets save lives." But anyone that actually rides will tell you that many riders wear them anyway, even if it isn't mandatory, which would add to the number of fatalities of helmeted riders.
Forward velocity of motorcycle at time of impact != downward velocity of head towards ground after impact.
No, you are correct, forward velocity at time of impact does not equal downward velocity of head on ground. But what about head against side of object being struck? The impact of body to ground is usually the second blow the rider receives, not the first. And even at the second blow, while I have no statistical data to back me up, my own common sense tells me that the force of head to ground on the second blow will be greater than 12mph, given that forward velocity on a highway would be between 45 and 70mph (depending on road being traveled), combined with the velocity of object being struck (read big steel car/truck), also at the same speed, the combined momentum alone would exceed that standard.
But that neither means that the helmet will help you "win" in your earlier example nor that it's a hinderance in this example.
Exactly my point, good sir. My position is neither for nor against helmets. What your original post concentrated on was your belief that all riders should be forced to wear helmets. I am only pointing out the fact that it is a fallacy to assume that a helmet will save the life of a rider. Maybe it will, maybe it won't. But it should be up to the individual rider to make that choice for him/herself. The last damn thing we need is a government agency playing the part of mother-knows-best. Wear it if you want to, your choice. Please understand, I am not criticizing you for your belief that riders should wear the brain buckets. I merely took offense at the unsaid implication that helmet use should be mandatory. And the furthering of the misconception that helmets save lives, a position that cannot be readily defended, even by the main government agency that wants to enforce this.
I'm assuming that now you're going to try to tell me about how you're safest riding your bike in shorts and a t-shirt?
Nothing could be further from the truth. Actually, it is a rare circumstance when I do not wear, at a minimum, a denim jacket or vest. Only on the hottest of days do I forsake my leather/denim. And never do I wear shorts on a bike. I agree with you on this point, wearing shorts on a bike is just stupid. But I still wouldn't outlaw the practice. However, you have to admit that Warning: potential sexist comment ahead! the biker babes look damn good in those tight shorts and halter tops. Look, you have your views, I have mine, and most likely we will have to agree to disagree.
Your friendly long-haired, Harley-riding computer geek...
As a motorcycle enthusiast, I will tell you that according to the Motorcycle Safety Foundation, which is the most respected motorcycle instruction course in the USA, one of the best things you can do to improve your visibility to others is to ride with the high beam on in day time, and when no traffic is near at night. I'm sorry to inform you, but YES blinding you with a headlight is the way to keep you from hitting us, since by your own admission, you SEE us.
As for the helmet, you must be one of those misinformed people who actually believe helmets should be mandatory by law. Before I begin, I admit that I wear my helmet on a regular basis. However, let me tell you why many states are repealing their mandatory helmet laws recently. The official statistics from the biggest proponent of helmet laws is the National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)contradict their own viewpoint. Their data shows that states WITH mandatory helmet laws have a HIGHER motorcycle fatality rate than states without such laws. In order to pass a Department of Transportation (DOT) certification test, helmets must be able to withstand an impact of 12 miles per hour. When is the last time you saw a fatal motorcycle wreck at 12mph? The DOT certification is a joke. For that matter, so is SNELL (higher standards than DOT, but just as useless). In a controlled environment, such as a motorcycle race where everyone is on similar machines and going the same direction, yes, helmets are a valuable asset. But take a 400 pound motorcycle and put it on an interstate highway where a sleepy trucker veers his 18 ton semi into the oncoming lane, and I will guarantee you, helmet or no helmet, the motorcycle will lose that dogfight.
Check your statistics before you go off on a diatribe on something you obviously know nothing about.
Section 1 and the uptime guarantee can be thrown out entirely. 99.9% over what period of time?? Generally, Uptime guarantees are yearly, but this must be stated. And then further reading provides that he is not responsable if A) There is Scheduled Maint. B) The downtime is due to a "Third-Party Hardware or Software" problem. OS crash?? Not our problem. Blown power supply?? We can't be held responsable. Heck, he's not even on the hook to refund your money if they cut his power off for non-payment.
He does not define the parties involved. "You" as it is used denotes noone. And "We"?? No corporate name that you are entering an agreement with??
(Police: Did you get the name of the mugger?
Victim: Yes, his name was "me".
Police: "Me"??
Victim: That must be his name, he said "Give "me" all your money!"
3. Credits will be applied within ten (10) days of your credit request. As a courtesy to our month-to-month customers, an in-house credit to your account shall be your sole and exclusive remedy in the event of an outage.
The above section states that if you are MtM, and your site is down for an entire month (for resons not shot down earlier) you will recieve a credit fo the next month of crappy service only. No refund check would ever be cut. This is courtesy.
Anyone who signed this deserves to lose their second car.....
Hmmmmm..... Maybe I should get into web hosting.....
Now that the HST is back online, perhaps NASA might use it to examine the recent failed probe. I hope SOMEONE has thought to at least consider using it to look for the lost probe. If nothing else to see if it was destroyed on impact. I know it is normally used for deep space observing, but hey, I know I for one am at least curious as to the condition of the failed probe.
Slashdot Mirror
...But I'll wait for the DVD release and pop my own popcorn.
The biggest reason DoC goes along with almost anything ICANN proposes is that largely, DoC is tehcnically illeterate. Since they have little technical background, they go on the assumption that the members of ICANN know what they are talking about.
How do you expect DoC to question ICANN if they don't even know which questions to ask?
So over half of all motorcyclists in helmets die each year? You better learn to read before posting this crap.
Trust me, reading is no problem. Perhaps I was mistaken in hoping there was enough intelligent life out there to know the statistics were speaking of the fatality rate of motorcyclists involved in accidents, not that everyone who wears a helmet and rides a bike will die.
What the document said was that, of all fatalities, 54% were helmeted. It also says that 67% of riders use helmets and that over 300 more lives would have been saved if all motorcyclists wore helmets.
And how do you think they arrived at the number "54%"? Take the total number of motorcycle fatalities from states with mandatory helmet laws, divide by the total number of motorcycle fatalities, and that is approximately then nuber you come to. As for the 67% saved if they had been wearing helmets, their own numbers do not support this claim.
More B.S. There is nothing in the report that is based on assumptions. They used "reported" helmet use for the fatality figures, not "assumed" helmet use.
Of course they are using assumptions. They are taking. Even in your earlier example, it is an assumption...er...excuse me, to use their words...an estimation, but not a definite factual number.
I've been riding 21 years. When I was 19, I crashed at 60mph, going over the handlebars and hitting head-first -- and my helmet saved my life. If I had hit the pavement with my bare head, I would be dead now. If you want to be an organ-doner, go for it, but don't distort statistics to try to make others believe that helmets don't save lives.
I am very pleased you survived the accident. But in all honesty, you can't state that the helmet saved your life. You can believe that it did, but unless you are willing to set up that whole scenario and take another trip over the bars, this time without the helmet, then we won't know. I'm NOT saying that the helmet didn't save your life. I'm just saying that there are so many factors and dynamics in every accident that it would be very hard to prove either way. I've went down too. It was not a terribly serious wreck, but there was plenty of embedded gravel in my body. The helmet did not save my life, but (yes, I was wearing it) it did reduce the damage. I also know several friends who have had serious accidents, some with helmets, some without. Some died, some survived. But of those I have known who were fatally injured, there is little difference on the survival rate with or without the lid. As for me distorting statistics, I emphatically deny this. I gave you the document, I showed you where their math was derived. I used their own numbers. And I must state again, I DO wear my helmet most of the time. While I don't necessarily believe that they save lives, I also don't believe they are the cause of harming, either. What I do feel they accomplish is keeping my face from getting any uglier, and keeping my long locks in place for as long as they want to hold on to the top of my head. I fully belive that, if you survive the accident, the helmet will keep your head and facial injuries less severe. And that alone is enough for me to wear the lid. I just don't think they are going to be the key ingredient in your rate of survival. While yes, the m/c fatality rate is slightly higher in states with helmet laws, let's face it it's about 50/50. If you can live through the initial impact, you have a chance.
What is needed is not mandatory helmet laws, but mandatory education programs. Both for riders and automobile operators. The public, by and large, are not aware of motorcycles. Bikes are not part of standard driving instruction. They are largely ignored by motorists. A certain mentality comes into play, whether conscious or unconscious, of "I'm bigger than him, he can't hurt me." and automobiles tend to drive with this attitude. I fully believe that if public awareness of motorcycles became a priority, both the motorcycle accident rate and motorcycle fatality rate could be reduced dramatically.
According to the All Harley Drag Racing Association, the current record was set 03/2001 by Doug Vancil, with a time of 6.616 in the quarter-mile, and a speed of 210.18mph. That's in the "Top Fuel" class, and doing it on only 2 cylinders in a standard internal combustion engine. Of course, these bikes are definitely NOT street legal, but who cares? That's still one fast ride!
An interesting fact about the Boss Hoss bikes:
When the company first started, their original name was Boss Hogg. Harley-Davidson, Inc. threatened to sue the company for trademark infringement over the use of the word "hog" related to motorcycles. To avoid the potential legal battle, Boss Hoss caved. Harley-Davidson is one company that actively and aggressively protects their image, some critics say, to the extreme.
No, I see a bright light (when I'm not blinking). A bright light that may or may not be coming straight towards me. I don't even see the road ahead of me, or any potential obstacles. Is that really all that much safer for either of us?
So you are then saying that even though you see the light, you will just go ahead and pull out in front of the source of the light (motorcycle or otherwise) anyway? Wonderful. That not only makes you uninformed, but just another run of the mill idiot. Furthermore, if you honestly expect anyone to believe that a single headlight in DAYLIGHT is blinding you to the extent that you can't see other potential obsticals, then we should all be scared that you are on the road at all. Making us all safer? Look, the vast motorcycle public doesn't CARE if the people surrounded by a steel cage are safer. You are more than safe enough. If that bright light in your eyes causes you to (hopefully) slow down a bit and pay closer attention to the road, then, YES it makes us all safer.
Interesting. Any links? More importantly, is there anything showing that this is cause/effect and not just circumstancial?
From the NHTSA's own document, try this. This is a PDF document that sumarizes the report. Go to the fifth page, fifth paragraph. By their own admission, 54% of riders wearing helmets died in 1998, and 57% in 1997. On the sixth page, it goes through the stats, state by state. I won't ask so much of you to do the math yourself, so I did it for you. This 54% is from only 22 states and D.C. where states have mandatory helmet laws. To try to impress upon you the significance of this, it means that 45% of the states account for 54% of the deaths. Even worse is that we don't have statistics for the fatality rate in states without helmet laws. The NHTSA assumes that those riders in states without mandatory helmet laws were helmetless, in an effort to better their position of "helmets save lives." But anyone that actually rides will tell you that many riders wear them anyway, even if it isn't mandatory, which would add to the number of fatalities of helmeted riders.
Forward velocity of motorcycle at time of impact != downward velocity of head towards ground after impact.
No, you are correct, forward velocity at time of impact does not equal downward velocity of head on ground. But what about head against side of object being struck? The impact of body to ground is usually the second blow the rider receives, not the first. And even at the second blow, while I have no statistical data to back me up, my own common sense tells me that the force of head to ground on the second blow will be greater than 12mph, given that forward velocity on a highway would be between 45 and 70mph (depending on road being traveled), combined with the velocity of object being struck (read big steel car/truck), also at the same speed, the combined momentum alone would exceed that standard.
But that neither means that the helmet will help you "win" in your earlier example nor that it's a hinderance in this example.
Exactly my point, good sir. My position is neither for nor against helmets. What your original post concentrated on was your belief that all riders should be forced to wear helmets. I am only pointing out the fact that it is a fallacy to assume that a helmet will save the life of a rider. Maybe it will, maybe it won't. But it should be up to the individual rider to make that choice for him/herself. The last damn thing we need is a government agency playing the part of mother-knows-best. Wear it if you want to, your choice. Please understand, I am not criticizing you for your belief that riders should wear the brain buckets. I merely took offense at the unsaid implication that helmet use should be mandatory. And the furthering of the misconception that helmets save lives, a position that cannot be readily defended, even by the main government agency that wants to enforce this.
I'm assuming that now you're going to try to tell me about how you're safest riding your bike in shorts and a t-shirt?
Nothing could be further from the truth. Actually, it is a rare circumstance when I do not wear, at a minimum, a denim jacket or vest. Only on the hottest of days do I forsake my leather/denim. And never do I wear shorts on a bike. I agree with you on this point, wearing shorts on a bike is just stupid. But I still wouldn't outlaw the practice. However, you have to admit that Warning: potential sexist comment ahead! the biker babes look damn good in those tight shorts and halter tops. Look, you have your views, I have mine, and most likely we will have to agree to disagree.
Your friendly long-haired, Harley-riding computer geek...
As a motorcycle enthusiast, I will tell you that according to the Motorcycle Safety Foundation, which is the most respected motorcycle instruction course in the USA, one of the best things you can do to improve your visibility to others is to ride with the high beam on in day time, and when no traffic is near at night. I'm sorry to inform you, but YES blinding you with a headlight is the way to keep you from hitting us, since by your own admission, you SEE us.
As for the helmet, you must be one of those misinformed people who actually believe helmets should be mandatory by law. Before I begin, I admit that I wear my helmet on a regular basis. However, let me tell you why many states are repealing their mandatory helmet laws recently. The official statistics from the biggest proponent of helmet laws is the National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)contradict their own viewpoint. Their data shows that states WITH mandatory helmet laws have a HIGHER motorcycle fatality rate than states without such laws. In order to pass a Department of Transportation (DOT) certification test, helmets must be able to withstand an impact of 12 miles per hour. When is the last time you saw a fatal motorcycle wreck at 12mph? The DOT certification is a joke. For that matter, so is SNELL (higher standards than DOT, but just as useless). In a controlled environment, such as a motorcycle race where everyone is on similar machines and going the same direction, yes, helmets are a valuable asset. But take a 400 pound motorcycle and put it on an interstate highway where a sleepy trucker veers his 18 ton semi into the oncoming lane, and I will guarantee you, helmet or no helmet, the motorcycle will lose that dogfight.
Check your statistics before you go off on a diatribe on something you obviously know nothing about.
This entire contract is meaningless.
Section 1 and the uptime guarantee can be thrown out entirely. 99.9% over what period of time?? Generally, Uptime guarantees are yearly, but this must be stated. And then further reading provides that he is not responsable if A) There is Scheduled Maint. B) The downtime is due to a "Third-Party Hardware or Software" problem. OS crash?? Not our problem. Blown power supply?? We can't be held responsable. Heck, he's not even on the hook to refund your money if they cut his power off for non-payment.
He does not define the parties involved. "You" as it is used denotes noone. And "We"?? No corporate name that you are entering an agreement with??
- (Police: Did you get the name of the mugger?
- Victim: Yes, his name was "me".
- Police: "Me"??
- Victim: That must be his name, he said "Give "me" all your money!"
3. Credits will be applied within ten (10) days of your credit request. As a courtesy to our month-to-month customers, an in-house credit to your account shall be your sole and exclusive remedy in the event of an outage.The above section states that if you are MtM, and your site is down for an entire month (for resons not shot down earlier) you will recieve a credit fo the next month of crappy service only. No refund check would ever be cut. This is courtesy.
Anyone who signed this deserves to lose their second car.....
Hmmmmm..... Maybe I should get into web hosting.....
~Hammy
Now that the HST is back online, perhaps NASA might use it to examine the recent failed probe. I hope SOMEONE has thought to at least consider using it to look for the lost probe. If nothing else to see if it was destroyed on impact. I know it is normally used for deep space observing, but hey, I know I for one am at least curious as to the condition of the failed probe.