This Parachute?

[BrendAn]

7 minutes ago, Bosi72 said:

Until they buy one of these..

 

ps: this was referred to me by "professional" driver long time ago.. 

 

they need to be bright orange. 

[spacesailor]

Our friends son ' resides ' in Winstonhills .!

I sad resides , as a quadriplegic Exmotorcyclist . His helmet stopped his Death ! . 

But

He has NO LIFE .

Before it was compulsory.  Medical practitioners said.  

And I  quote. 

" even if there is no reduction in deaths , we won't have to clean the grey matter off the road  "  .

That from the top doctors,  was enough to put me off helmets for the rest of my life .

I have spent my childhood in hospitals & a few years with a wheelchair!  .

SO, !.  I would prefer Not to spend any more time on my back .

spacesailor

 

[Old Koreelah]

16 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

Really??? I doubt history (pre mandatory set belts/helmets/etc) would support your prediction of carnage on our roads.

 

I hesitate to mention the USA (not the sanest population)  but as the only western nation (I know of) where many States do not require the use of vehicle safety equipment  I would doubt that they have significantly greater health costs,  due to people making their own decision on the matter.

Skip I base my statement on widely-available statistics and 40+ years experience in road accident rescue. We still get called to fatals where people didn’t buckle up because there are no coppers around. Last year my wife and I attended a rollover where the driver was thrown out.
Not the first time I’ve spent the night guarding the body of a young girl lying on the road.

[skippydiesel]

Okay let me take the debate away from the emotive vehicle scene;

 

Why don't we bane contact sports? - medical science tells us the chance of a participant getting a brain injury, is far higher than for the non sporting population. Then if the participant survives the  years of repeated head trauma, he/she will likely go down the dementia path and become a vegetable ie a burden on family/society/no quality of life.

 

Why don't we ban horse riding? - an activity thet has an awful record of death/brain & spinal injury.

 

Why don't we ban rock/mountain climbing?

 

Perhaps flying sport aircraft should also be banned, after all there are some pretty nasty outcomes to crashing or walking into an unguarded  prop?

 

Why do we allow coastal rock fishing, sailing, surfing, water-skiing, and on and on and on.

 

The reality is we expect that the participants have, with full understanding of the sport/activity, accepted the inherent risks ie made an adult decision to participate (or not).

 

Why then is it such a leaps to suggest seat belts/cycle helmets should be worn at the discretion of the participant (over 18)??

 

 

 

 

[spacesailor]

Weird one ,.

IN ' dog sledding , you Are required to wear a helmet . ( in competition)

But

On the road , a ' kick scooter ' ,( as used for sledding ' helmets are Not Mandatory. 

spacesailor

[skippydiesel]

1 hour ago, Old Koreelah said:

Skip I base my statement on widely-available statistics and 40+ years experience in road accident rescue. We still get called to fatals where people didn’t buckle up because there are no coppers around. Last year my wife and I attended a rollover where the driver was thrown out.
Not the first time I’ve spent the night guarding the body of a young girl lying on the road.

I am not and have not, ever advocated for not wearing seat belts/motorcycle helmets. Just the opposite.

What I am advocating is the freedom to make my own decision on the matter - I deeply resent the State forcing me to do something that should be my decision and mine alone

 

[Thruster88]

Skippy your logic that if less motorcyclist wore helmets, the state would be saved ongoing health costs is flawed. Minor crashes that with a helmet result in no head injury would become in many cases result in serious on going trauma. We see what happens when people are punched and fall backwards on concrete, very sad. I am guessing there are many times the number of minor crashes v major.

 

 

[spacesailor]

Especially if it goes Against,  What you want or. What you need .

spacesailor

[BrendAn]

i wonder if anything will come out of the school bus crash last week, as in buses 

getting fitted with seatbelt sensors so kids have to buckle up. people are saying 

the worst injured kids had not buckled in causing several amputations.

[Thruster88]

Volvo made some excellent vids about 20 years ago showing what happens to unrestrained drivers in truck crashes. It is a long way to the other side of a truck or bus. Education is the key.

 

A sensor system  will just be a PIA for the driver, a new way to have fun on the way home.

[onetrack]

A better idea is vehicle proximity sensors that activate brakes, to be fitted to trucks, to counter the number of truck drivers who insist of keeping pedal to metal, when they should be backing off - a major cause of many road crashes. The number of drivers who won't back off when caution dictates it, is amazing.

[BrendAn]

18 minutes ago, onetrack said:

A better idea is vehicle proximity sensors that activate brakes, to be fitted to trucks, to counter the number of truck drivers who insist of keeping pedal to metal, when they should be backing off - a major cause of many road crashes. The number of drivers who won't back off when caution dictates it, is amazing.

a common cause of trucks rear ending cars is the car drivers. spend an hour in a truck and watch what they do. no matter how much you try to keep a safe distance cars just keep filling the gap.  its getting worse every year in victoria.  

[facthunter]

A Passing motorcyclist "cutting in" can trigger a rapid stop on your vehicle if you are close to it. That can cause a critical braking event when no one is expecting it.  Nev

[RFguy]

relevant : did you read the findings of the Baron in WA ? 

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2022/aair/ao-2022-026

 

about half way down near "Survivability", and "Restraints" then "Survivability"

 

Pax (in a 3 point harness)  might have survived if was in a 4 point harness like the pilot was... see "the primary difference"

 

The survivability of the accident can be broken down into the environment within the aircraft prior to and after the collision and the impact forces related to the collision.

The fire generated significant heat and smoke in the aircraft’s cockpit. The reports of the pilot and the respiratory injuries to both occupants indicate that they were unable to effectively vent the smoke.

With the pilot able to self-extract after the collision, the passenger continued to be exposed to the environmental conditions within the aircraft until the pilot was able to re-enter the aircraft to extract them. This likely reduced the passenger’s chances of survival.

The pilot reported that they and the passenger were secured in their restraints at the time the aircraft collided with terrain. The pilot, in the left control seat was in a 4-point harness and the passenger, in the rear right seat, was in a 3-point harness. Generally, the 4-point harness improves survivability in 2 ways. Firstly, it better attenuates the impact forces, by spreading them more broadly over the body. Secondly, it secures the occupant more effectively laterally reducing flailing. This decreases the likelihood of injuries due to contact with obstructions or structure of the aircraft.

The primary difference in injuries between the 2 occupants of the aircraft was the chest and other trauma present in the passenger. This trauma was consistent with the differences between the use of a 3-point and 4-point restraint. The 3-point restraint did not distribute forces as evenly across the body and allowed significant multi-directional movement (flailing) inside the aircraft.  

Based on advice from the manufacturer, operator and ATSB research a 4-point restraint is not available for the rear seat of B58 aircraft. However, this accident demonstrates the fitment of the 4-point harness to the crew seats, can improve survivability over the 3-point restraint that is required under the regulations.

Edited May 25, 2023 by RFguy

[skippydiesel]

3 hours ago, Thruster88 said:

Skippy your logic that if less motorcyclist wore helmets, the state would be saved ongoing health costs is flawed. Minor crashes that with a helmet result in no head injury would become in many cases result in serious on going trauma. We see what happens when people are punched and fall backwards on concrete, very sad. I am guessing there are many times the number of minor crashes v major.

 

 

Selective reading and quoting out of context - I repeat;

 

I am not and have not, ever advocated for not wearing seat belts/motorcycle helmets. Just the opposite.

What I am advocating is the freedom to make my own decision on the matter - I deeply resent the State forcing me to do something that should be my decision and mine alone

 

[onetrack]

I must say I detest the State telling me I can only go 110kmh on highways when I'm personally convinced I could happily do 200kmh without any problems.

Unfortunately, my decision to do 200kmh is not in the best interests of all road users, and comes with vastly increased risk to my health, other road users health, and other potential major cost burdens on society.

 

So, the result is, we have speed laws that tell me what I can do, and can't do - and only those stupid enough to think that they, and they alone, hold the right to determine whatever speed they wish to do, is the speed limit, soon find out one of two things - they crash and maim or kill themselves or others (thereby showing the legal speed limit isn't simply the State forcing unpalatable restrictions on them) - or they run into law enforcement that ensures the drivers decision to do whatever speed they choose to do, comes with serious financial, and possibly personal freedom penalties.

[Old Koreelah]

1 hour ago, skippydiesel said:

I am not and have not, ever advocated for not wearing seat belts/motorcycle helmets. Just the opposite.

What I am advocating is the freedom to make my own decision on the matter - I deeply resent the State forcing me to do something that should be my decision and mine alone

Skip I get what you are saying. Perhaps you could look at this in terms of a contract between state and individual: if I am to ride a bike on the state’s roads, I agree to do so on their terms (helmet, speed limit, etc.) 

In return, the state will do it’s best to ensure my safety by keeping other road users to their side of the road, etc. If I crash, they will pull out all stops to assist me.

Taking your arguments further, a “sovereign citizen”claims not to be subject to society’s laws (but still drives on our roads).

Would they expect to be left to die on the roadside if they crash?

[spacesailor]

'' I must say I detest the State telling me I can only go 110kmh on highways when I'm personally convinced I could happily do 200kmh without any problems. ''

 

BUT

You Can do your 200 plus K P H .

ON the right road , were the OPEN road is Not limited . surprised ! .

A Bentley Continental Sports car , did over 300 K P H . on the Stuart Highway . a 12 day, 3978km journey .  (  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2sDKUjSOic ).

I did 140 in my Holden Jackaroo .

spacesailor

 

 

[skippydiesel]

11 hours ago, onetrack said:

I must say I detest the State telling me I can only go 110kmh on highways when I'm personally convinced I could happily do 200kmh without any problems.

Unfortunately, my decision to do 200kmh is not in the best interests of all road users, and comes with vastly increased risk to my health, other road users health, and other potential major cost burdens on society.

 

So, the result is, we have speed laws that tell me what I can do, and can't do - and only those stupid enough to think that they, and they alone, hold the right to determine whatever speed they wish to do, is the speed limit, soon find out one of two things - they crash and maim or kill themselves or others (thereby showing the legal speed limit isn't simply the State forcing unpalatable restrictions on them) - or they run into law enforcement that ensures the drivers decision to do whatever speed they choose to do, comes with serious financial, and possibly personal freedom penalties.

My philosophy (as stated eelier) is - Laws to protect the majority from the minority and the minority from the majority (there should be very very  few exceptions) .

 

We are back to motor vehicles again - no one took me up on sporting and other risky activities - so be it;

 

Having speed limits does three things;

• Protects the majority of road users from irresponsible/unskilled drivers - I support such  rules .
• Allows the Government to avoid insisting on a higher standard of driver skill, which would allow higher speeds on our main arterial routs 
• Generates an income stream (speeding fines) for Gov.

On Max Speed Limits; To a very large extent these are arbiter and do not reflect road/traffic conditions - basically a crock of excrement.

 

I take this opportunity to demonstrate how random/arbitrary is Gov. legislation - We (over 18) are allowed to indulge in legal drugs (smoking/alcohol) both well known to cause significant health issues, which in tern cost the country millions if not billions in associated costs. How is it  then, that I can choose to poison my body with legal drugs but do not have the choice when it comes to seatbelts/helmets????

 

[Marty_d]

21 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

My philosophy (as stated eelier) is - Laws to protect the majority from the minority and the minority from the majority (there should be very very  few exceptions) .

 

We are back to motor vehicles again - no one took me up on sporting and other risky activities - so be it;

 

Having speed limits does three things;

• Protects the majority of road users from irresponsible/unskilled drivers - I support such  rules .
• Allows the Government to avoid insisting on a higher standard of driver skill, which would allow higher speeds on our main arterial routs 
• Generates an income stream (speeding fines) for Gov.

On Max Speed Limits; To a very large extent these are arbiter and do not reflect road/traffic conditions - basically a crock of excrement.

 

I take this opportunity to demonstrate how random/arbitrary is Gov. legislation - We (over 18) are allowed to indulge in legal drugs (smoking/alcohol) both well known to cause significant health issues, which in tern cost the country millions if not billions in associated costs. How is it  then, that I can choose to poison my body with legal drugs but do not have the choice when it comes to seatbelts/helmets????

 

The bit about risky sporting activities is not the same as road use in choice, demographics or population.

By that I mean if you want to do skydiving that's your clear choice,  you're fit and well and trained in that activity, and there's a few thousand of you at most.

However if you want to get from A to B then whether it be on motorbike, car or bus, you're without choice a road user, you could be any age and health condition and there's millions of you.

So to protect this large number of citizens the state has road laws which are pretty reasonable really.

[facthunter]

To be consistent then. You could carry concealed weapons? Infect people freely and allow people to drive at their  chosen speed down your street where kids might be . Look everyone from their own point of view would like to live in a benign Dictatorship where there are no rules Try HAITI.  Nev

[skippydiesel]

31 minutes ago, Marty_d said:

The bit about risky sporting activities is not the same as road use in choice, demographics or population.

By that I mean if you want to do skydiving that's your clear choice,  you're fit and well and trained in that activity, and there's a few thousand of you at most.

However if you want to get from A to B then whether it be on motorbike, car or bus, you're without choice a road user, you could be any age and health condition and there's millions of you.

So to protect this large number of citizens the state has road laws which are pretty reasonable really.

Very selective reasoning.

 

Avoiding the grog/smoking issue AND that there are thousands/millions of contact sports players, horse riders, etc from 5 years and up - what percentage will end up with a broken neck, brain injury and erly onset dementia???.

 

Further you have not addressed the public road transport lack of seat belts (someone else mentioned)

 

The Gov is cherry picking with poor/ unreasonable/inconsistent legislation - you should not.

 

Our collective Governments chose to legislate for helmets/set belts rather than train/educate (create an environment of compliance). In so doing they infringed on your right, as an intelligent adult, to make your own informed decision.

 

[facthunter]

We  don't have many intelligent adults. That's the problem. Nev

[skippydiesel]

17 minutes ago, facthunter said:

To be consistent then. You could carry concealed weapons? Infect people freely and allow people to drive at their  chosen speed down your street where kids might be . Look everyone from their own point of view would like to live in a benign Dictatorship where there are no rules Try HAITI.  Nev

I try very hard not to offend you Nev but really do you actually read what I post? - once again, the central tenant of my opinion on this matter is:

 

"Laws to protect the majority from the minority and the minority from the majority" (laws should not be enacted that protect the adult from himself, except in extraordinarily rare and empirically proven exceptions)

 

In my view  - all hand guns/military style long guns should only be available to the military and a few specially trained police. This would "protect the majority from the minority (including trigger happy cops)"

 

All children under the age of 18 would be obliged to have whatsoever vaccinations deemed appropriate (by medical science) to protect them from irresponsible parent, enhance the "herd" immunity to "protect the majority" from individuals irresponsible enough to not be vaccinated.

 

I have never advocated for no road speed limits but do think that our speed limits are very often set without consideration for the actual road/traffic conditions, are inconsistent and sometimes even dangerous.

Edited May 26, 2023 by skippydiesel

[skippydiesel]

10 minutes ago, facthunter said:

We  don't have many intelligent adults. That's the problem. Nev

Said in jest? Nev or do you have some insight into the way our law makers view the proletariat?