 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / June 2006Why is the blame not being placed where it belongs?
As a Pittsburgh Steelers fan for many years, I've been following the Ben Roethlisberger story with some interest, and it concerns me that the vast majority of comments both from the media and from the general public (at least as read in the "letters to the editor" section of USA Today, which I normally wouldn't have been reading but was the only rag available at the hotel I've been at for the last week) is that this whole incident is somehow Roethlisberger's fault for not wearing a helmet. Excuse me? What would have been the difference if Roethlisberger had been wearing his helmet? He still would have hit the car, he just may or may not have been as severely injured. Where's the public outcry against the lady who pulled out in front of him? Had she not done that, there would have been no incident at all. I find it very disheartening that all the blame seems to be placed on someone who was acting in a perfectly legal manner (well, except possibly for the rumor that Roethlisberger didn't have his "M" endorsement, but that's somewhat irrelevant) simply because he made the legal choice to ride without an optional piece of safety gear and nobody's saying a thing about the person who caused the accident. This is akin to someone saying that if I hit a SUV that pulls out in front of me while driving my old Studebaker and get a punctured lung as a result, it's my own damn fault for not buying a new car with a collapsible steering column. As I'm sure you can tell, I have a real problem with that - but it certainly does seem to be where our society's heading. So what of it? Why is the blame not being placed squarely where it belongs, on an inattentive driver? I'm not saying that the lady needs to be publicly beat up over this; I'm sure she feels bad enough already, but I just can't wrap my mind around how everyone's faulting Roethlisberger for something that by all accounts wasn't his fault. nate > Where's the public outcry against the lady who pulled out in front of > him? Had she not done that, there would have been no incident at all. This is the same as what happens when advocating properly set speed limits. It's the blame-the-victim-of-bad-driving argument that is consistantly used. If someone turns left in front of you it's your fault for going too fast despite that you were doing 10mph under the already absurdly low limit and the person put his vehicle 3 feet in front of yours. Never mind someone cut you off going 20mph slower and then stomped on the brakes.... it's your fault for 'going too fast'. 'too fast' often defined as 'more than zero' Helmet arguments go the same way. At least motorcycle helmets have some benefit. In bicycling the magic foam hat is supposed to save us when our chest is crushed by fully loaded semi-tractor-trailer. How a piece of styrofoam is supposed to do that I don't know, but news articles enjoy mentioning that the rider didn't wear a helmet even when the injuries are no where near the top of the head. Instead of demanding competency this society has moved towards demanding tolerance and preparation for the incompetent. The problem is that adapting to the incompetent is a never ending battle because as time passes better idiots are built. In the end our lives become more limited and getting things done and getting where we are going requires more labor, time, and causes more frustration. > This is akin to someone saying that if I hit a SUV that pulls out in > front of me while driving my old Studebaker and get a punctured lung as > a result, it's my own damn fault for not buying a new car with a > collapsible steering column. As I'm sure you can tell, I have a real > problem with that - but it certainly does seem to be where our > society's heading. Yep. I see the same thing for driving an old car or riding a bicycle. Their incompetence and bad behavior is my fault because it effects me to a greater amount that the average bear. > So what of it? Why is the blame not being placed > squarely where it belongs, on an inattentive driver? Because it doesn't benefit government and corporations to have a competent, responsible population of people who can think. Yes, I know to many people I sound nuts. But once you've read how schooling has systematically dumbed down people in the USA in the last century plus and couple that with the consistant build a better moron nanny state parental government it starts to become clear. Incidents like this with the proper media spin get people accepting greater controls over them. Willingly passing more laws, making more people lawbreakers. And so goes our free choice, sacrificed to limit the damage of morons which it will never really accomplish. > Brent P said in rec.autos.driving: > Helmet arguments go the same way. At least motorcycle helmets have some > benefit. In bicycling the magic foam hat is supposed to save us when our > chest is crushed by fully loaded semi-tractor-trailer. Its a control thing. They can't rule a cyclist's life in other ways, so they come up with the helmet requirement. First for unxer x years of age, and then soon enough to everybody. > How a piece of > styrofoam is supposed to do that I don't know, but news articles enjoy > mentioning that the rider didn't wear a helmet even when the injuries > are no where near the top of the head. Dunno. Maybe it gives the nanny state types a comfortable place to put their figurative thumb down on so that they can twist....  Signature"If the Tampa Bay Buccaneers are known as the "Buc's," And the Jacksonville Jaguars are known as the "Jag's," Then what does that make the Tennessee Titans?" --George Carlin >> Brent P said in rec.autos.driving: >> Helmet arguments go the same way. At least motorcycle helmets have [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > so they come up with the helmet requirement. First for unxer x years > of age, and then soon enough to everybody. In PA, there used to be a helmet law where all riders had to wear them. It's in the past few years that this law has been loosened up. Going the other way there, don't 'ca think? Doug > >> Brent P said in rec.autos.driving: > >> Helmet arguments go the same way. At least motorcycle helmets have [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Doug based on the comments outside this forum, my prediction is "not for long." Yes, you are correct, the whole time I lived in PA there was a mandatory helmet law, no exceptions. nate > > Brent P said in rec.autos.driving: > > Helmet arguments go the same way. At least motorcycle helmets have some [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > they come up with the helmet requirement. First for unxer x years of > age, and then soon enough to everybody. Huh? One time my front wheel locked up and I was thrown headfirst into the road. I escaped with a concussion, ruined glasses, and some superficial cuts. Without the "magic foam hat" I would have gotten some serious face mangling at best; or broken teeth, broken nose, lost eye, or skull fracture at worst. The roads in that area were not asphalt; they were chip-seal (ie. sharp stone chips mixed with tar). > > > Brent P said in rec.autos.driving: > > > Helmet arguments go the same way. At least motorcycle helmets have some [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > face mangling at best; or broken teeth, broken nose, lost eye, > or skull fracture at worst. It's all in balancing the risks and benefits. I probably can't argue against requiring kids to wear helmets on bicycles if they are in the streets, up to at least some age. In my early teens I was riding mine through the woods. And I probably shouldn't bring up the skateboard--that was before the skateboard parks! Often enough, something serious enough happened that the wisdom of basic helmets was appropriate. Wouldna' helped me though. The worst bike injury I had was to my leg in a fall. That'd be a funny place to wear a helmet... Helmets on motorcycle riders who are adults? Let Darwin thin them out. As long as I don't have to pay the hospital bills for their "freedom" when the wreck happens, it's their choice. > Huh? One time my front wheel locked up and I was thrown > headfirst into the road. I escaped with a concussion, ruined > glasses, and some superficial cuts. > Without the "magic foam hat" I would have gotten some serious > face mangling at best; or broken teeth, broken nose, lost eye, > or skull fracture at worst. Not at all, you would have the same injuries you do now. A bicycle helmet does not protect your nose, your teeth, or your eyes and barely any of your skull. It's performance limits are very very low. Back before the nanny state got so bad, before bike helmets, my brother had something similiar happen to him when were kids, he had a concussion and superficial cuts. The exact same injuries you claim having with a bike helmet. Basically you are doing what a lot of people do, you have a fall and think the helmet saved you and attribute unprovable characteristics to it. > Brent P said in rec.autos.driving: > Not at all, you would have the same injuries you do now. A bicycle [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Basically you are doing what a lot of people do, you have a fall and > think the helmet saved you and attribute unprovable characteristics to it. Exactly. Back when I could ride a bike, I took a few spills (especially when I was a kid) and aside from being scraped up (mostly my arms/knees) and my bell rung a little, I was none the worse for it. And I find it hard to fathom how that helmet would help you if some idiot driver heads for you or you ride (accidentally, ofcourse) over an embankment or other such large fall... Signature-- "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." --Benjamin Franklin > > Huh? One time my front wheel locked up and I was thrown > > headfirst into the road. I escaped with a concussion, ruined [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Not at all, you would have the same injuries you do now. Could you provide a cite... > A bicycle > helmet does not protect your nose, your teeth, or your eyes and barely > any of your skull. I think that would be dependant of the angle of incidence and shape of the impacted surface, wouldn't it? > It's performance limits are very very low. Low, as compared to what? Higher, maybe, than a hair covered skull? > Basically you are doing what a lot of people do, you have a fall and > think the helmet saved you and attribute unprovable characteristics to it. Well, I don't know. Can you prove his injuries would have been identical with/without the helmet... or do you think you may have "concluded" with insufficient evidence? ----- - gpsman > Old Wolf wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > I think that would be dependant of the angle of incidence and shape of > the impacted surface, wouldn't it? I would think so too (although it seems nobody here has any actual evidence). The last thing I remember is my cheek being a couple of inches from the ground and thinking "oh crap". I think the brunt of the impact would have been borne by the lip of the helmet covering my temple / the side of my forehead, this would have slid along the road with parts of my face sliding along after it. Certainly this lip would give some degree of protection in that it means my eyes are lifted above the road surface by an inch or so, for example. Also it seems likely to me that a head smacking polystyrene that smacks a road, would lead to a less severe concussion and less risk of skull damage than pure skull on rock. My concussion was fairly serious though (I think): I woke up at the side of the road (someone had carried me there), unable to see anything. After about 10 minutes my vision returned, but another 10 minutes later it went away again. I only vaguely remember the trip in the ambulance, although I very clearly remember the saline being rubbed on my cuts :) There were no recurring headaches or anything in the days following, though. > My concussion was fairly serious though (I think): I woke > up at the side of the road (someone had carried me there), [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I very clearly remember the saline being rubbed on my > cuts :) Sounds much more serious injury wise than the helmetless flip over the handlebars I'm familiar with... I fail to see how the styrofoam hat had any benefit at all. >Basically you are doing what a lot of people do, you have a fall and >think the helmet saved you and attribute unprovable characteristics to it. So you're saying a bike helmet is a placebo, like a radar detector? ;) SignatureWhat the heck, I'll play too. - Dave >>Basically you are doing what a lot of people do, you have a fall and >>think the helmet saved you and attribute unprovable characteristics to it. > > So you're saying a bike helmet is a placebo, like a radar detector? ;) I don't know all that much about radar detectors. >>So you're saying a bike helmet is a placebo, like a radar detector? ;) > I don't know all that much about radar detectors. Yeah, why would one need to use a radar detector when riding a bike? ;) . > Yeah, why would one need to use a radar detector when riding a bike? ;) It depends on who you are and where you are riding. While I was a competitive racer, it wasn't uncommon for me to -shatter- speed limits on bicycles ridden on non-closed public roadways. -Dave >>>So you're saying a bike helmet is a placebo, like a radar detector? ;) > >> I don't know all that much about radar detectors. > > Yeah, why would one need to use a radar detector when riding a bike? ;) I take it you've never seen a bike trail with an 8mph speed limit enforced with the use of radar. >> Yeah, why would one need to use a radar detector when riding a bike? ;) > > I take it you've never seen a bike trail with an 8mph speed limit > enforced with the use of radar. Ummm, I could walk (powerwalk) faster than that, and it's hard to balance a bike below about 10MPH anyway. -Dave >>> Yeah, why would one need to use a radar detector when riding a bike? ;) >> >> I take it you've never seen a bike trail with an 8mph speed limit >> enforced with the use of radar. > Ummm, I could walk (powerwalk) faster than that, and it's hard to balance a > bike below about 10MPH anyway. A speed limit being absurd doesn't stop it from being posted or enforced. I've seen both 8 and 10mph speed limits on "bicycle" trails that have been taken over by joggers, dog walkers, and women with babies in strollers. I have also seen them enforced with a radar gun... although that was when I was going by on the road.... (it also says radar enforced on the sign, thought it was joke it was so absurd... at first) >>> I take it you've never seen a bike trail with an 8mph speed limit >>> enforced with the use of radar. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > that was when I was going by on the road.... (it also says radar enforced > on the sign, thought it was joke it was so absurd... at first) sh.t, I used to live in a city that spent gobs of money building bicycle trails. They were designed for bicycle use, they were built for bicycle use, they were SIGNED for bicycle use ONLY. Yet every time I rode these bicycle trails, I always met a group of pedestrians that would get highly indignant that they had to move off the bicycle trail to let me by. Sometimes I'd even get yelled at. Like, how DARE you ride your bicycle on a bicycle trail. ??? The worst was having to emergency brake for the pedestrians who refused to yield. Yes, they got an earful. -Dave > sh.t, I used to live in a city that spent gobs of money building bicycle > trails. They were designed for bicycle use, they were built for bicycle [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Sometimes I'd even get yelled at. Like, how DARE you ride your bicycle on a > bicycle trail. ??? The lakefront bike path is signed for bicycles, striped like a road, has space off to the sides for peds, but the peds insist on walking side by side blocking the whole width of it, they insist on crossing anywhere they like without looking. joggers will claim they have priority because the initial trail was supposedly created by runners back in the 70s or some such... although why they want to run on the concrete and asphault rather than the softer fine gravel surfaces created for jogging I have no idea. > The worst was having to emergency brake for the pedestrians who refused to > yield. Yes, they got an earful. -Dave When I was younger, on the weekends riding the lakefront bike path in chicago I would go full bore then slamming on the brakes, then full bore again, then brakes... rinse and repeat for all the idiot peds. > > sh.t, I used to live in a city that spent gobs of money building bicycle > > trails. They were designed for bicycle use, they were built for bicycle [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > chicago I would go full bore then slamming on the brakes, then full bore > again, then brakes... rinse and repeat for all the idiot peds. Pedestrians generally do as they damn well please. I see way too many cross in the middle of a block when the crosswalk is just a handful of feet away. I saw a ton of that at my base when stationed in Kuwait. Couldn't believe that many soldiers were ill-disciplined. > > Yeah, why would one need to use a radar detector when riding a bike? ;) > I take it you've never seen a bike trail with an 8mph speed limit > enforced with the use of radar. Can't say that I have. The bike trail here has a "speed limit" of 15 mph. I usually do 20 mph one way (since it's slightly downhill), but I can't maintain more than 13 to 15 mph on the way back. >>>>So you're saying a bike helmet is a placebo, like a radar detector? ;) >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >I take it you've never seen a bike trail with an 8mph speed limit >enforced with the use of radar. I've seen bike trails with 8mph limits and bike trails with 15mph limits, both fortunately unenforced. How do they make the cyclist stop? SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >>>>>So you're saying a bike helmet is a placebo, like a radar detector? ;) >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > limits, both fortunately unenforced. How do they make the cyclist > stop? Same as motorist, firearms. >>>>>>So you're saying a bike helmet is a placebo, like a radar detector? ;) >>>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Same as motorist, firearms. They'll shoot you in the back if you don't stop? I knew Chicago was tough but that's really going far. With a car if you run they'll chase you or radio ahead for you or just get your plate and show up at your door. With a bike you can disappear a lot easier. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >> So you're saying a bike helmet is a placebo, like a radar detector? ;) > > I don't know all that much about radar detectors. OK, I'll sum it up for you. With a radar detector, you get stopped for speeding less often, but always get a ticket when you do. Without a radar detector, you get pulled over more often, but get more "warnings", rather than tickets. Net result is that you get more speeding tickets while using the radar detector. -Dave > With a radar detector, you get stopped for speeding less often, but always > get a ticket when you do. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Net result is that you get more speeding tickets while using the radar > detector. Which is why I won't bother with a radar detector unless I can integrate it into the car such that it is not visible. just a couple unlabeled LEDs somewhere on the dash at worst. > Without a radar detector, you get pulled over more often, but get more > "warnings", rather than tickets. That's only true if one is stupid enough not to take the detector down when one is likely to get caught with it. For instance, I don't bother using my detector in city driving. Also, when I'm on the highway, I keep an eye out for police. If one appears to be coming after me, I take the detector down. On the day I was pulled over twice for my headlights (in VA), I took the detector down before the unit caught up with me. I didn't get a ticket in either case, and neither officer had any idea I was using a RD. >> Huh? One time my front wheel locked up and I was thrown >> headfirst into the road. I escaped with a concussion, ruined [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >helmet does not protect your nose, your teeth, or your eyes and barely >any of your skull. It's performance limits are very very low. Exactly; I was wondering if he was referring to a motorcycle helmet. A bicycle helmet's face protection is negligible. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > Old Wolf said in rec.autos.driving: > > > Brent P said in rec.autos.driving: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > face mangling at best; or broken teeth, broken nose, lost eye, > or skull fracture at worst. Maybe so, but it should be the cyclists' choice to wear or not wear a helmet, not the nanny state's. >> Old Wolf said in rec.autos.driving: >> > > Brent P said in rec.autos.driving: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Maybe so, but it should be the cyclists' choice to wear or not wear a > helmet, not the nanny state's. Kismet: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/6420AP_WA_Motorcycle_Fatal.html (Of course, the real blame is DUI, but still...) Motorcycle rider dies in crash following anti-helmet law rally THE ASSOCIATED PRESS WAPATO, Wash. -- A motorcycle rider returning from a rally by a group opposing the state's mandatory helmet law died after crashing into a pickup truck on U.S. Highway 97 outside this lower Yakima Valley town. Alcohol was suspected in the death of Jason Irvine, 27, of Yakima, who was wearing a helmet while returning from an annual rally at the Toppenish fairgrounds by American Bikers Aimed Toward Education, or ABATE, Washington State Patrol Lt. James W. Keightley said. A rally representative would not comment to the Yakima Herald-Republic. According to ABATE's Web site, the group does not advocate riding without a helmet, only that riders be given a choice. Irvine and another biker were northbound when a Ford F-150 ahead of them pulled to the shoulder to check a possible mechanical problem about 2:20 p.m., Keightley said. The first rider swung around the truck, but Irvine hit the left rear corner of the vehicle and remained with the motorcycle for about 80 feet before coming to a stop on the roadway. Irvine, who was pronounced dead at the scene, may have been struck by a second pickup, possible a gray Chevrolet S-10, Keightley said. Troopers determined that Irvine had been drinking at the motorcycle rally, and tests to determine whether he was legally impaired were pending, Keightley said. In May the patrol began a campaign emphasizing motorcycle safety because of a rising number of deaths. Last year 73 motorcyclists died in the state, the highest total since a mandatory helmet law took effect in 1990. >> Its a control thing. They can't rule a cyclist's life in other ways, so >> they come up with the helmet requirement. First for unxer x years of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >face mangling at best; or broken teeth, broken nose, lost eye, >or skull fracture at worst. I believe the point is it should be YOUR CHOICE to have your face mangled, your teeth knocked out, and your eyes lost - some people chafe at ANY hint of government "control," even if that control is ultimately beneficial to them like helmet and seat belt laws. I personally would support the repeal of mandatory seat belt, helmet, and similar laws IF AND ONLY IF we also refuse to provide taxpayer-supported medical attention to accident victims who choose not to wear the seat belts, helmets, etc. I see no reason why MY taxes should be spent on transporting and treating some Gary Busey type who refuses to minimize his potential for injury. If these morons end up with injuries that are more severe (and thus more costly to treat) because of their choice, then it's only fair that they bear the full financial consequences of that choice. SignatureWhat the heck, I'll play too. - Dave Brent P wrote: <brevity snip> > In bicycling the magic foam hat is supposed to save us when our > chest is crushed by fully loaded semi-tractor-trailer. Are you saying wearing leathers, boots and helmets is ridiculous since they won't protect your chest from being crushed by a semi...? ----- - gpsman > Brent P wrote: <brevity snip> > > In bicycling the magic foam hat is supposed to save us when our [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > - gpsman Shucks, wearing an SUV won't protect you much when you get run over by a semi.... But for bicycle helmet wearers (since they tend to scrupulously avoid semis) the FAR more likely thing is bouncing off the curb or pavement or rocks, and that piece of re-inforced styrofoam does quite a bit to keep a minor scrape from becoming a brain injury. Motorcycle helmets are, of course, made of much sterner stuff, since the speeds are higher. Now, whether the government should mandate things or not is a valid discussion. But it helps to keep things in the realm of reason. > But for bicycle helmet wearers (since they tend to scrupulously avoid > semis) the FAR more likely thing is bouncing off the curb or pavement > or rocks, and that piece of re-inforced styrofoam does quite a bit to > keep a minor scrape from becoming a brain injury. Actually, bicycle helmets reach their maximum at a simple fall. If we take bicycling to be risky enough to wear a styrofoam hat then so becomes much of daily life, like climbing stairs, riding in an enclosed motor vehicle, and walking on the sidewalk. Brent P wrote: <brevity snip> > Actually, bicycle helmets reach their maximum at a simple fall. Maximum what...? What constitues a complicated fall? > If we > take bicycling to be risky enough to wear a styrofoam hat then so > becomes much of daily life, like climbing stairs, riding in an > enclosed motor vehicle, and walking on the sidewalk. You appear to be some spatial kind of idjit, who's to blame for that? ----- - gpsman [snip] > Where's the public outcry against the lady who pulled out in front of > him? Had she not done that, there would have been no incident at all. There is no outcry because we don't have the political will to remove incompetent drivers from the roads. We will belt, air-bag, pad, and helmet everything in sight in order to minimize the damage done as the incompetents merrily bounce off of them. SignaturePaul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ Think honk if you're a telepath. > N8N said in rec.autos.driving: > As a Pittsburgh Steelers fan for many years, I've been following the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > whole incident is somehow Roethlisberger's fault for not wearing a > helmet. IME, the big deal probablly is that since Roethlisberger is a big name in the NFL that he is considered a "role model," and that there are people out there who will want to follow his lead good, bad or indifferent and they will come up with all sorts of "what if..." scenarios where someone else who rides sans helmet and gets Darwinized will be blamed on that person imitating or following the "lead," of Roethlisberger. > Excuse me? What would have been the difference if Roethlisberger had > been wearing his helmet? He still would have hit the car, he just may > or may not have been as severely injured. Probablly would not have been injured as badly... > Where's the public outcry against the lady who pulled out in front of > him? Had she not done that, there would have been no incident at all. Because these people who are quick to criticize Roethlisberger for no helmet would see too much of themselves in the lady who caused the accident. Here's to hoping that Roethlisberger makes a complete rocovery and returns to his career... Go JAGUARS!!!!!! ;) Signature-- "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." --Benjamin Franklin >As a Pittsburgh Steelers fan for many years, I've been following the >Ben Roethlisberger story with some interest, and it concerns me that [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >been wearing his helmet? He still would have hit the car, he just may >or may not have been as severely injured. Let's look at a slightly different scenario: Suppose Roethlisberger had been f.cking the woman instead of running into her car. Suppose that he wasn't wearing a rubber and she got knocked up. Whose fault is it that he is now on the hook for EIGHTEEN YEARS' worth of child support payments? Bottom line, he bears a certain amount of responsibility for protecting himself. He knew the risks, but he pulled a Gary Busey anyway. This tempers any sympathy I might feel for him. SignatureWhat the heck, I'll play too. - Dave > >As a Pittsburgh Steelers fan for many years, I've been following the > >Ben Roethlisberger story with some interest, and it concerns me that [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > What the heck, I'll play too. > - Dave I admit that I haven't followed the story all that close but... I haven't seen anything at all blaming him 'for the crash'. Only for not wearing a helmut. So far I don't recall hearing anything at all about what the woman was charged with and I'll bet she was ticketed heavily. Harry K > Suppose Roethlisberger had been f.cking the woman instead of running > into her car. Suppose that he wasn't wearing a rubber and she got > knocked up. Whose fault is it that he is now on the hook for EIGHTEEN > YEARS' worth of child support payments? Where did he ask the woman to turn in front of him? See, that's what is missing. > Bottom line, he bears a certain amount of responsibility for > protecting himself. He knew the risks, but he pulled a Gary Busey > anyway. This tempers any sympathy I might feel for him. I'll remember that if some dumb trucker crushes your corvette. It's your fault for not driving something bigger like another semi. >> Suppose Roethlisberger had been f.cking the woman instead of running >> into her car. Suppose that he wasn't wearing a rubber and she got [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Where did he ask the woman to turn in front of him? See, that's what is >missing. Trusting a woman not to turn in front of you is like trusting a woman when she says she's on the pill. >> Bottom line, he bears a certain amount of responsibility for >> protecting himself. He knew the risks, but he pulled a Gary Busey >> anyway. This tempers any sympathy I might feel for him. > >I'll remember that if some dumb trucker crushes your corvette. At least I paid extra for the side curtain airbags, and I always wear my seatbelt. You won't be able to say I didn't take every available precaution. >It's your fault for not driving something bigger like another semi. Hey, I never said the guy shouldn't have been riding a motorcycle. I merely pointed out he didn't go as far as he could have to mitigate his risks. SignatureWhat the heck, I'll play too. - Dave > >> Suppose Roethlisberger had been f.cking the woman instead of running > >> into her car. Suppose that he wasn't wearing a rubber and she got [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > What the heck, I'll play too. > - Dave Apparently the just-missed-a-Darwin-nomination QB failed to take the geezer factor into account...the KC Chefs' playoff chance for the 06-07 season moved up a bit.... > At least I paid extra for the side curtain airbags, and I always wear > my seatbelt. You won't be able to say I didn't take every available > precaution. If you did, you'd be driving something bigger that the dumb trucker could see and wouldn't be crushed by his rig. >>It's your fault for not driving something bigger like another semi. > Hey, I never said the guy shouldn't have been riding a motorcycle. I > merely pointed out he didn't go as far as he could have to mitigate > his risks. Far enough to who's standards? Yours or his or say someone like joan claybrook? Why is where you draw the line so important? N8N wrote: <brevity snip> > this > whole incident is somehow Roethlisberger's fault for not wearing a > helmet. Roethlisberger has an obligation to fulfill his contract. Having a winning team vs. a losing team has millions, if not hundreds of millions of dollars riding on it. It means a lot to a city and state to have a winning team and by not *at least* protecting himself with a helmet he risks all *that* money, which isn't his. He's paid millions to generate his salary many times over, or at least give it his best shot. > Excuse me? What would have been the difference if Roethlisberger had > been wearing his helmet? He still would have hit the car, he just may > or may not have been as severely injured. Well, he may not have looked quite the idiot, that might be another difference. If he's out one Sunday more than he would have been with the helmet, that could make all the difference this season... but we'll never know. > Where's the public outcry against the lady who pulled out in front of > him? Had she not done that, there would have been no incident at all. The cause of a significant incident doesn't always remain the primary issue, it's sometimes the aftermath that draws the most attention. ----- - gpsman >N8N wrote: <brevity snip> > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >to generate his salary many times over, or at least give it his best >shot. He's an employee, not a slave. Unless his contract requires him to wear a helmet while not on the field, it's not relevant. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.