Accidents?

[free2ride]

Wow -- what a summer up here! 2 or 3 motorcycle deaths -- not just injuries -- a week this summer. In almost every case, speed a factor. Yesterday, a 27 year old, not wearing a helmut; today, no details but another rider leaves this earth. RIP



I don't blame anyone for this [some already are -- fingers pointing at the rider's speed or at his[?] being cut off by a driver -- who knows?] -- just know that every report gives "Mrs. Free" shivers and she then tries to disuade me from riding at all. And most of these were "accidents" in town!

[sgtslag]

Statistics show an increasing number of riders, every year, for several years now.  There is no guarantee of safety, but there are things each rider can do to improve their odds/chances of avoiding, and/or surviving accidents:

1)  Take the Basic Skills Course in your area (should be required by law, but they only require you pass the test);

2)  Take an advanced skills riding course after your first year, or two, of riding, to improve your skills;

3)  Read some of the available, good books on riding skills, and tactics (Total Control, Twist of the Wrist, Proficient Motorcycling, etc.), then put them into practice, on the road, every time you ride;

4)  Check out, or buy, some riding skills DVD's, watch, practice, and then employ those skills on the street (Ride Like a Pro, by Jerry Palodino, is superb);

5)  Wear full, protective gear (full-face/modular helmet, armored jacket, riding pants/chaps, gloves, boots), as often as is humanly possible (I tend to avoid riding in temperatures so hot I cannot wear my full gear -- I take the car, then, as it is not worth the risk, to me, personally, YMMV);

6)  Ride like you're invisible, and throw your 'Road Rage' attitude in the ditch/storm sewer, or gutter -- it will get you killed...

Even with all of that, riding will still be a risk.  All you can do is to 'improve' your odds, but you cannot turn it into a 'sure thing', ever.  It may sound cavalier, but, everybody dies.  Enjoy life, while you can.  Cheers!

[TOOLS1]

Sarg. I agree with everything, you stated. Except the "should be required by law". This is America, (however Free2ride lives in Canada) it was founded because of oppression from a tyrannical government. So that citizens would be free to live as they chose. Although the riding courses are excellent training. I do not want my government dictating that I pay a fee, and take the course before I am allowed to ride my motorcycle on roads that my tax's pay for! The government already dictates to me more then I feel it should. It says I must wear a helmet, wear a seat belt, and buy insurance. Although all are very good things to do, and I would never tell anyone not to. I would rather it be my choice! Once, you start letting the government dictate small things. They will dictate everything! In some country's motorcycles are limited to the number of cc's they can have. Usually 250 cc. I know even Germany which has no speed limit on some of it's major highways, has a limit on the cc's of a motorcycle engine. Some country's (I know Denmark is one) will not allow, you to make any modifications to a motorcycle, other then some minor cosmetic ones.  I just hope that America does not follow suit.  
I enjoy, and love my freedom, and rights I have in this country. I do understand though that my rights end where another man's rights begin. However my being forced to pay, for, and take a riding course has nothing to do with another man's rights.
TOOLS

[sgtslag]

Agreed.  I see a lot of idiots out riding, but, in the end, it is their life they risk, usually, unless they cross someone else's path.  But, this is America, and we've already lost so many rights...  Thanks for reminding me.  Cheers!

[free2ride]

While I agree witih what you say, TOOLS, some [and I would be one of them] would remind us that there is a difference between a right and a privilege. I think it is a privilege to ride the roads provided, and that there are responsibilities that come with those privileges. I think a rider course should be a pre-requisite to a license [I also think that a driver's course should be a prerequisite to that license . . . I didn't feel that way until I took the riders course and discovered what a more aware driver/rider I became!].

I consider myself mostly libertarian [I have certain ethical veiwpoints but don't foist them upon people, they need to decide and live for themselves] but when it comes to involvement with others [texting while driving for wexample] I become pretty dogmatic!

[TOOLS1]

Free
I never said, or meant to imply that my being able to ride on the road was a right, not a privilege. I feel that if the government did dictate that a course be taken, then the government should assume all responsibility's for the cost of such action. However along the same lines of dictating that a course must be taken before riding a motorcycle, what would come next? A course before going swimming? Then maybe a course before getting married, or having a baby? I know! How about lets just make it a law that since the majority of people think the same way about certain things, that everybody must conform! For instance how we dress, what we eat, and my favorite how we worship!!
TOOLS

[free2ride]

Hey, TOOLS, are we actually allowed intelligent conversation and discussion/debate on this here interweb?

I realize where you're coming from, and I agree . . . and I disagree.

If the government dictates a course be taken then they should bear some or all of the cost. Of course, they'd just say a first-time license is $1,000 to help underwrite the cost [and to add a bit more to their graft -- hmm, did I use my outside voice on that?]. The course was a benefit to me and helped improve my driving skills all around while at the same time lowering my insurance rates.  Lots of ways to "encourage" taking the course. Some people need it, for others it'd just be a refresher.

Swimming? Strongly encouraged [I'm waiting for our govts to close public beaches and come up with some by-law for private swimming pools -- lots of deaths every year]. Married? Not a bad idea -- most ministers won't perform the ceremony without pre-marital counselling [and still the divorce rate is 50%]. Then of course there's the NYC by-law forbidding the sale of soda pop [seems strange rolling off my tongue] in cups over 16oz.

The government is indeed just too intrusive. Up here we have "Premier Dad" -- our elected provincial leader has actually embraced the insult and smiles because he does know better than us.

As to worship . . . I actually have an idea where

For the record, I agree with mandated helmets [sorry, Piute] but that's about as far as I go.

[free2ride]

btw, the rider was going 140kmh in a 60kmh residential zone [87mph in 37mph zone]

[shinyribs]

I wouldn't touch this discussion with a ten foot pole.But I cracked up over your sig,Free! HAHA!

[TOOLS1]

"Hey, TOOLS, are we actually allowed intelligent conversation and discussion/debate on this here interweb? "

Of course it is, and strongly encouraged, as long as it does not become unintelligent name calling.

TOOLS

[MarkPBG]

I'm from the side that believes if the Gov't takes some of my money in the form of taxes to provide something like roads, then I should have a RIGHT to access it. I don't think driving is a privilege. That argument might fly in countries whose infrastructure "grew up" before cars and there's good public transportation and pedestrian friendly cities. Here in the USA the country was built around the rail and the road, you just can't get most places without one of the two, so i think the movement that driving is a right is gaining momentum...though it's unlikely it will ever come to pass since the majority doesn't see it this way, but I think the point is valid.

I've read of several individuals who wanted to prove the point by attempting to walk cross country....most were ticketed and even arrested, sometimes several times. There's just no way to get anywhere, even on foot, without using the roadways.

[TOOLS1]

You are right Mark. I also feel as you do. Did, you know that, you must maintain insurance, even if, you do not have a vehicle? A few years ago I was staying with family, and did not have a vehicle of my own there, so I did not have any insurance. When I did go to re-insure/license my vehicle. The insurance was going to be sky high, because I had not had insurance for over 90 days. I asked why, I did not have a licensed vehicle during that time. The insurance agent said that I might have driven another persons vehicle, and been in an accident. I said that if I was driving another persons vehicle it would have had insurance on it, and insurance followed the vehicle, not the driver. They said it did not matter. It was a law that as long as I had a drivers license I had to have insurance, and I could have gotten a "Non Owners policy" (wish I had a smiley, for this one). Any way since Toolbabe had had insurance on her vehicle, it had me covered, and saved me from the sky high premiums. One of the few times being married came in handy.
TOOLS

[shinyribs]

What?! You have to have car insurance EVEN if you dont have a car?!?! That's insane.

If thats the case,why cant I just insure myself,rather than having a separate policy(read:fees!) on each vehicle I own.  Thinking about that just made me mad.

[TOOLS1]

I asked about that also. They just said that is not possible.
TOOLS

[free2ride]

MarkPBG wrote

I'm from the side that believes if the Gov't takes some of my money in the form of taxes to provide something like roads, then I should have a RIGHT to access it.

don't get me wrong, Mark, I agree . . . what we are talking about is what restrictions the government cn put on the right [and do restrictions turn the right into a privilege].

Does the government have a right to restrict the amount of alcohol one drinks before getting behind the wheel? I would think so, because it becomes a safety issue. Does the government have a right to restrict highway speeds? Again, I would think so, same reason.

Helmets? Driver's Ed? Into the gray areas here, for sure. Where is the line between safety and intrusion into personal life and decisions?

[free2ride]

TOOLS1 wrote

Did, you know that, you must maintain insurance, even if, you do not have a vehicle?

Yet another rather pathetic way the insurance companies are able to gouge us [and legally!], isn't it?

It was a law that as long as I had a drivers license I had to have insurance, and I could have gotten a "Non Owners policy" (wish I had a smiley, for this one).

I think this is what you are looking for, TOOLS:  

[sgtslag]

Years ago, I found an Internet article which claimed that the Washington State Supreme Court ruled, in the early 1930's, that a citizen had the Constitutional right to drive, even without a license, because the U.S. Constitution guaranteed his, "...right to the pursuit of happiness."  I don't know if it is true, but it sounds just goofy enough to have happened back then.  How times have changed...

[Re-run]

This must be different from state to state though. I have never heard of this happening in ND and I have known a number of people here that didn't have a car or insurance for years.
In some ways, be thankful for this as it shows that states do have a few rights left. Sort of.

[sgtslag]

Insurance rules/regulations/laws vary from state-to-state, as do driving requirements.  The Fed's attempt to control certain aspects, like the State's legal drinking age, by withholding federal aid for roads, if States choose not to agree with them -- some States have actually refused the Fed's, and they have lost funding because of it.  States do have separate powers, but exercising them, can be costly.

[TOOLS1]

Last night I was watching some real life medical program with Toolbrat#1. They were going to do a liver transplant. This got me to thinking. There is such a great demand, for donated organs that it would would really be a shame to outlaw the right to be stupid.
TOOLS