Chest Protectors

Be safe and prepared.

Moderator: Sitewide Forum Moderators

Post Reply

Should chest protectors be mandatory like the helmet?

Yes
6
11%
No
47
84%
Undecided
3
5%
 
Total votes: 56

TroyB
6th Gear "Wide Open" Member
6th Gear "Wide Open" Member
Posts: 1081
Joined: Fri May 10, 2002 9:39 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: USA

Chest Protectors

Post by TroyB » Wed Dec 03, 2003 8:43 am

IV Press Dec 1: Boy, 11, killed in off-road accident

After reading this story I started wondering( I know, Troys Thinking again), should chest protectors be mandatory like the helmet.

User avatar
Larry Jowdy
ASA Forum Administrator
Posts: 1022
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2000 8:13 pm
antispam: NO
Please enter the middle number: 7
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by Larry Jowdy » Wed Dec 03, 2003 8:51 am

TroyB,

During our TRT conference call, this incident came up.

Neil Hamada was the first EMS on the scene and according to Neil, the boy was wearing full protective gear including a chest protector.

The fall and weight of the quad as it fell on him was just too much for his body to withstand.

TroyB
6th Gear "Wide Open" Member
6th Gear "Wide Open" Member
Posts: 1081
Joined: Fri May 10, 2002 9:39 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: USA

Post by TroyB » Wed Dec 03, 2003 8:57 am

thanks Larry. The info that was relayed to me was incorrect.

User avatar
kev
5th Gear "Pinned" Member
5th Gear "Pinned" Member
Posts: 525
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2001 8:38 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: Henderson Nv.

Post by kev » Wed Dec 03, 2003 9:56 am

Maybe for kids under 16. If an adult does not want to wear safety gear they should not have to. I don't need any more laws. Troy, you should know that there are more laws on the books than could ever be enforced. Most LEO's could not drive down the street without stopping every 100 feet for a violation of some sort. (this is not an attack just an observation)

User avatar
Rekd
6th Gear "Wide Open" Member
6th Gear "Wide Open" Member
Posts: 1116
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2001 3:36 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: teh Debug Window
Contact:

Post by Rekd » Wed Dec 03, 2003 10:36 am

In a word, No.

What would be next? Boots? Gloves? Shin Guards? Taped wrists/ankles? Blue shirts on Tues and Thurs? Red shirts on Wed and Fri?

Enough is enough. My child will not ride without protective gear, but to enforce something like that is silly and next to impossible.

'Rekd
What's in your sippy cup?
___□__ □
[l_,[____],
l---L - OlllllllO-
( )_) ( )_)--)_)

ATVs /Offroading at About.com

L&L Corvairs
ASA Board Member
ASA Board Member
Posts: 1631
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2002 6:29 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: Ontario, Calif.

Post by L&L Corvairs » Wed Dec 03, 2003 1:27 pm

kev wrote:Maybe for kids under 16. If an adult does not want to wear safety gear they should not have to. I don't need any more laws. Troy, you should know that there are more laws on the books than could ever be enforced. Most LEO's could not drive down the street without stopping every 100 feet for a violation of some sort. (this is not an attack just an observation)
Gonna agree with Kev on this one. Would like to see the poll adjusted:

Should be mandatory for everyone under 18.

Once you are an adult, you have the right to be stupid...which includes not wearing safety equipment.
L&L
It is not ours to decide the times in which we live.
It is only ours to decide what to do with the time given us.

Make the most of your time.

User avatar
jhitesma
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
Posts: 7791
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2000 9:57 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by jhitesma » Wed Dec 03, 2003 2:48 pm

I don't think anyone should be riding without a helmet...but I also feel the helmet laws need to be repealed.

My answer is no. It's already required if you have good sense but there should not be any new laws or regulations requiring it.

I've never ridden without a helmet and never plan on trying it....I also think anyone who does is a moron and needs to be cleansed from the gene pool...but I'll still fight for their right to help expidate the cleansing.

User avatar
Larry Jowdy
ASA Forum Administrator
Posts: 1022
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2000 8:13 pm
antispam: NO
Please enter the middle number: 7
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by Larry Jowdy » Wed Dec 03, 2003 4:00 pm

A couple of interesting things happened when CA passed the helmet law..

One was that the outlaw bikers got pissed because they thought that helmets made you look like a sissy.

Another was Gary Busey, the actor, going on TV advocating that the helmet law was un-constitutional, right after he took a fall off his Harley and suffered severe brain damage. He wasn't wearing a helmet at the time of the crash.

Yet another interesting thing is that the law was passed in CA because so many people have motorcycles in this state and a whole bunch of them were falling or involved in collisions, sustaining brain damage and the State of Calif. ended up taking care of these people for the rest of their vegetated life (the State really means the taxpayers).

Since the law was passed, the number of severe brain damage motorcycle related injuries took a plunge.

If for no other reason, I'm in favor of the helmet law as a tax savings measure.

Kind of goes along with the seat belt law, when passed and enforced, the number of ejections and blunt force trauma from the steering column was reduced dramatically as was the number of people crashing through the windshield.

User avatar
jhitesma
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
Posts: 7791
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2000 9:57 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by jhitesma » Wed Dec 03, 2003 4:16 pm

Larry Jowdy TRT wrote: Yet another interesting thing is that the law was passed in CA because so many people have motorcycles in this state and a whole bunch of them were falling or involved in collisions, sustaining brain damage and the State of Calif. ended up taking care of these people for the rest of their vegetated life (the State really means the taxpayers).

...

If for no other reason, I'm in favor of the helmet law as a tax savings measure.
That's the old scapegoat argument that really pisses me off. The problem is the state supporting people who it has no business supporting. If you can't afford the health coverage then tough the state shouldn't have to pony it up for you.

Heck this argument is being used to try and kill OHV entirely now - there are people lobbying that because people in OHV injuries also end up relying on state provided health care that it should not be covered by normal insurance.

The argument can be used for almost anything and is a MAJOR slippery slope.

If that's your problem fight the problem (state supported care) not the symptom (people being idiots and riding without helmets.)

User avatar
Larry Jowdy
ASA Forum Administrator
Posts: 1022
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2000 8:13 pm
antispam: NO
Please enter the middle number: 7
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by Larry Jowdy » Wed Dec 03, 2003 4:35 pm

You're right, the State shouldn't have to support these people but they do, remember, this is California, land of fruits and nuts.

Maybe Arnold has the answer?????

Voice
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
Posts: 2599
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2001 11:56 am

Post by Voice » Wed Dec 03, 2003 4:46 pm

Gee, maybe we should outlaw doughnuts and other heart damaging foods. I'm tired of my taxes paying to take care of these people who have no regard for their own safety!
While we're at it, let's outlaw cigarettes... (almost there on this one)...
Hmmm, those big SUV's are killing lots of compact car driving loosers... Let's outlaw them while we're at it.

Sarcasm over.
Another law? NO
Another restriction? NO
Another directive? NO

NO NO NO...

Just say no.

Brian
Mahmoud Ahmedinejad in a letter to President Elect Barak Obama
"May God Almighty ... bless the leaders of societies with the courage to learn from the mistakes of predecessors,"
"I hope that you will be able to take fullest advantage of the opportunity to serve and leave behind a positive legacy."

Image

User avatar
Washroad
ASA Chapters Chair • SSSS Chair
ASA Chapters Chair • SSSS Chair
Posts: 3648
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2000 1:00 pm
antispam: NO
Please enter the middle number: 7
Location: Orange, CA

Post by Washroad » Wed Dec 03, 2003 5:33 pm

A chest protector will not save your life. Period. My friend Corky Krickbaum was killed at the Adelanto Grand Prix several years ago while doing the triples on a CR250. The chest protector he was wearing didn't do a thing to save his life and that's where his motorcycle hit him.

Duning is dangerous.

You should know that going in.

You can get injured/killed doing it.

If you know that then you should assume the risk yourself and make sure that you have enough insurance to take care of you.

Anything less is irresponsible.

Mandatory chest protectors is the first step towards making everyone ride in a steel box so they won't get hurt.

I prefer my quad.

With a helmet and no chest protector.
Brian
ex-SSSS Coordinator
aSa Supporting Member and VERY PROUD OF IT!!!
2007 Jerry R. Seaver Award
"Facts don't enter a world dominated by our beliefs." Proust
The whole "point" of life is that there is no "point." There's just life.
"Never miss an opportunity to shut up." Will Rogers

L&L Corvairs
ASA Board Member
ASA Board Member
Posts: 1631
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2002 6:29 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: Ontario, Calif.

Post by L&L Corvairs » Thu Dec 04, 2003 9:01 am

Going to agree with Jason, Vor and Brian on this one.

I don't want cradle to the grave security. If you do, move to China or Cuba.

In fact, I would extend this concept radically further:

Draw a line in the sand at Comp. Hill. Post a sign that says : From 30 min. before sundown to 30 min. after sunrise, there will be NO EMT, POLICE or Emergency Services available in this area. ENTER AT OWN RISK.

And let the crazies kill themselves. Too bad our society don't work that way.
(Think I've said this before)
L&L
It is not ours to decide the times in which we live.
It is only ours to decide what to do with the time given us.

Make the most of your time.

User avatar
Larry Jowdy
ASA Forum Administrator
Posts: 1022
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2000 8:13 pm
antispam: NO
Please enter the middle number: 7
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by Larry Jowdy » Thu Dec 04, 2003 9:36 am

Well, maybe it's time to chime back in regarding safety equipment.

Prior to the helmet law being passed, and back in my street and off road motorcycle days, I NEVER rode without a helmet, when I rode on the street, the least I'd wear was a long sleeve shirt and jeans. I've seen too many people go down on pavement only to find thier skin smeared across the road for a 1/4 mile . In the sand/dirt, when riding a MC, ATC or ATV, I always wore riding pants, riding shirt and boots.

And ALWAYS, a quality helmet.

When the helmet law passed, it didn't bother me in the least, as I always wore a helmet.

In my previous post, I pointed out the WHY behind the Calif. helmet law. Not my opinion as to its worthyness.

I still believe that under our current practices, that particular law is a necessity.
And, only because it helps us taxpayers from having to provide long term medical for someone that can't pay for this service.

My opinion is this,
If and when the legislature comes up with a way that prevents tax payers from having to foot the medical bill for indigent people then I'm in favor of repealing the helmet law.

Until then, WE (TAXPAYERS) ARE STUCK WITH PROVIDING MEDICAL CARE FOR THOSE THAT DON'T HAVE THE MONEY TO DO SO THEMSELVES.

Jason wrote:
That's the old scapegoat argument that really pisses me off. The problem is the state supporting people who it has no business supporting. If you can't afford the health coverage then tough the state shouldn't have to pony it up for you.
I totally understand that sentiment and agree in principal, BUT,,,,, WHAT SHOULD WE DO WITH THESE PEOPLE THAT DON'T HAVE THE MEANS TO PAY FOR MEDICAL SERVICES, LET THEM DIE??? I seriously doubt that any of you would choose that option.

Sorry, but in my opinion, the argument against the argument doesn't hold water until the question of "WHAT DO WE DO WITH THESE PEOPLE" is answered.

Just stating that the State shouldn't care for them isn't an answer. Maybe a desire, but not an answer.

The only other thing besides letting them die is to have a socialized medical care program such as in England or Canada, BUT,,,,, the taxpayers support that program via excessively high supplemental taxes, so we're right back to letting the taxpayers pay through the nose.

So, it still leaves us with the question:
"What do we do with the people that need medical attention and are indigent ?"


And, by the way, I voted "NO" on the poll at the top of this page.

L&L Corvairs
ASA Board Member
ASA Board Member
Posts: 1631
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2002 6:29 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: Ontario, Calif.

Post by L&L Corvairs » Thu Dec 04, 2003 1:38 pm

Larry Jowdy TRT wrote: I totally understand that sentiment and agree in principal, BUT,,,,, WHAT SHOULD WE DO WITH THESE PEOPLE THAT DON'T HAVE THE MEANS TO PAY FOR MEDICAL SERVICES, LET THEM DIE??? I seriously doubt that any of you would choose that option.
On the contrary, if an adult was riding with no helmet and could not afford his/her medical care (ie insurance), then YES I would let them die. And not feel the least bit guilty about it. Stupidity should be painful...sometimes it should be fatal.

Adults should have the right to choose their risks, even what would be generally accepted as 'stupid' risks. (like no helmet). But the rest of society doesn't need to pay for their lack of common sense. Improving the gene pool, I believe, is what Jason said.

I understand the opposing opinion, in terms of what is 'particle', especially for the tax payer and I usually agree with being 'particle'. However, in this case, I don't, because the same logic can eventually be extended to include any activity that has risk involved, including OHV riding.

Currently I don't wear a helmet in my rail. Would I be safer? Probably. But I don't want someone else deciding that for me.....because the next thing they could say is....."you'll be safer if you just don't DRIVE it anymore".
L&L
It is not ours to decide the times in which we live.
It is only ours to decide what to do with the time given us.

Make the most of your time.

TroyB
6th Gear "Wide Open" Member
6th Gear "Wide Open" Member
Posts: 1081
Joined: Fri May 10, 2002 9:39 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: USA

Post by TroyB » Thu Dec 04, 2003 1:59 pm

LL Corvair wrote:
Currently I don't wear a helmet in my rail. Would I be safer? Probably.
Ive always looked at wearing a helmet in a buggy as doing more bad then good. the added weight to your head could cause neck injuries, especially in little kids. If the car is set up right your head should not hit the bars. On the other hand you never know what is going to happen, you could possibly knock heads w/ your passenger.

User avatar
jhitesma
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
Posts: 7791
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2000 9:57 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by jhitesma » Thu Dec 04, 2003 2:33 pm

I may not win any friends saying this but...yes...let them die.

The planet is overpopulated as it is and that's the root of MANY of the problems in society and the environment today. Too many laws exist to help people survive who aren't capable of doing so by themselves. This leads to people who don't care and don't do anything because they know someone will take care of them if they don't take care of themselves.

It's like sending food to starving nations - you only prolong the suffering. Don't send food, send technology to help them provide for themselves or don't do anything. If you don't do anything the problem will solve itself naturally.

Nature is not kind or pretty. Creatures die all the time, they've been doing it since before humans were on this planet and they'll do it long after humans are gone. We're no different, we die as well. But we're so scared of nature that we try to control it and extend our lives well past what nature has intended. The result is the mess that the world is in today.

It's time to cut back on the government and liberal thinking and let nature take over. If you can't fend for yourself....tough. That's the way nature works, and it did just fine until we started trying to mess with it.

OBSESSED
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
Posts: 5566
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2000 8:17 am
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: Sand City, USA
Contact:

Post by OBSESSED » Thu Dec 04, 2003 2:49 pm

Jason wrote:
Quote:
That's the old scapegoat argument that really pisses me off. The problem is the state supporting people who it has no business supporting. If you can't afford the health coverage then tough the state shouldn't have to pony it up for you.




I totally understand that sentiment and agree in principal, BUT,,,,, WHAT SHOULD WE DO WITH THESE PEOPLE THAT DON'T HAVE THE MEANS TO PAY FOR MEDICAL SERVICES, LET THEM DIE??? I seriously doubt that any of you would choose that option.
Larry did you know that the number one reason that pedestrians die is severe head trama? Should all jay-walkers be required to ware protective gear? If Gary Bussy wants to take the chance on crashing with out a helmet so be it. Why should the state protect Gary Bussy from himself?

Personally if we keep passing laws to protect us from doing something stupid, we will all end up in a padded bubble.

I think we are close. Today on the news it said all SUV's would be made lower (to ground) in the future with full side top and front air bags.....

Less government control of our lives.

As Jason said....
Let them dieImage
Geeze Steve that's cold man....

User avatar
Larry Jowdy
ASA Forum Administrator
Posts: 1022
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2000 8:13 pm
antispam: NO
Please enter the middle number: 7
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by Larry Jowdy » Thu Dec 04, 2003 3:34 pm

Steve, don't assume that I'm in favor of more laws.

All that I was doing was posting WHY the law was enacted, and why I favor keeping the helmet law on the books.

"Letting them die" WILL not happen in our lifetime so, to help eleviate the tax burden, I'm in favor of the helmet law, nothing more, nothing else.

Maybe in the future, we'll all be Soylant Green!!! But it just ain't going to happen!!

User avatar
jhitesma
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
Posts: 7791
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2000 9:57 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by jhitesma » Thu Dec 04, 2003 4:45 pm

The answer is not MORE laws but LESS.

Just because you can't see something coming to fruition within your lifetime is an awfully lame excuse not to fight it. With that kind of attidude there really is no chance of it happening in anyones lifetime.

Honestly, I have deep doubts about whether I'll see the dunes reopened in my lifetime. But that sure as hell dosn't mean I won't fight for it.

When people stop fighting for what they believe in they may as well give up even having opinions in the first place.

As a society we need to stop treating symptoms and start attacking the causes. It's time to stop making new laws and start revoking and rewriting old ones to fix them. It's like trying to make a piece of tubing longer by cutting more and more off. You're only going to keep making the original problem worse - it's time to start over fresh instead.

User avatar
Larry Jowdy
ASA Forum Administrator
Posts: 1022
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2000 8:13 pm
antispam: NO
Please enter the middle number: 7
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by Larry Jowdy » Thu Dec 04, 2003 7:48 pm

Wow, this topic started off as a mistake, Troy thought the 11 year old lad that died wasn't wearing a chest protector, it then turned into "should a chest protector be required" then it turned into the helmet law, then it turned into letting people die if they didn't have enough money to pay for medical care.

Where does it go next???

We have a system, it's screwed up no doubt.

Unfortunately, we as taxpayers pay for indigient people, which by the way could easily be YOU or I.

The only answer that has been given here is don't pass new laws, get rid of old laws, and let people die because they can't pay for medical aid.

Not much of a solution to a huge problem.

Jason wrote:

Just because you can't see something coming to fruition within your lifetime is an awfully lame excuse not to fight it. With that kind of attidude there really is no chance of it happening in anyones lifetime.

I can certainly understand not sending food to starving nations (most of which seem to end up hating us) when we have people right here in America that are starving, homeless and sick.

But I'm still miffed about the statement that we should allow people to die.

And, by the way, who makes that decision???

What if you were knocked out cold due to an injury and no one was around to tell them that you could pay for medical services.

Do they let you die???

Or should we have a seven digit number tattooed on our forearm that links us to a "LIVE or DIE" data base????

As a society we need to stop treating symptoms and start attacking the causes. .
Well, as a society, we unfortunately treat the symptoms rather than the cause, however, to treat the cause takes taxpayer dollars.

FDR tried it during his 12 year reign as President, his motto was a "Chicken in every Pot"""

Guess who paid for the chicken. WE DID (taxpayers)

In closing, I understand the social and economic problem that we're faced with.
Every politican and every USA taxpayer understands the problem, well, at least most of them.

So far, no good answer has been given on how to solve the problem.

Just letting them die isn't the answer.

azsandrider
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
7th Gear "No Brakes" Member
Posts: 2864
Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2001 2:28 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: Mesa, Az.

Post by azsandrider » Fri Dec 05, 2003 12:20 am

I voted NO, but...

You are STUPID if you don't wear all the appropriate safety gear there is...

I hit a circle track in a severe dust storm at Gordon's last year and I'm still suffereing from the separated sternum and multiple micro fractures in my T-5 vertabre. If I was not wearing my chest/back protector I would probably be severely injured and maybe dead. The Chest/back protector distributed the force of the impact, and then the quad land on my chest, throughout the area of the plastic and lessing the force at any one area.

BUT, no matter what safety gear you wear, severe injuries and death will still happen. Safety gear can prevent a lot of injury/death, but sometimes the forces are too severe for the safety gear to overcome.
(The above statement is my own opinion and not that of the ASA's.)

T. Wight
Mesa, AZ.
ASA Supporting Member
ASA Volunteer

Is your spouse an ASA member??? Numbers count!!

asa_rick
5th Gear "Pinned" Member
5th Gear "Pinned" Member
Posts: 738
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2000 6:45 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by asa_rick » Fri Dec 05, 2003 6:08 am

But I'm still miffed about the statement that we should allow people to die.

And, by the way, who makes that decision???
Yeah, it's easy to sit here and say "let 'em die". Would you have the "huevos" to actually pull the plug? Talk is cheap......
Think before you act, and make sure that your brain is in gear before you let out the clutch!!

Rick Jenkins
Forum Moderator
Rjenk49957@aol.com

L&L Corvairs
ASA Board Member
ASA Board Member
Posts: 1631
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2002 6:29 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: Ontario, Calif.

Post by L&L Corvairs » Fri Dec 05, 2003 9:12 am

asa_rick wrote: Yeah, it's easy to sit here and say "let 'em die". Would you have the "huevos" to actually pull the plug? Talk is cheap......
You bet. Without hesitation.

What direction do we want our society to go? Right now, we save everyone, (or try to) even those whose stupidity and carelessness raise doubt about their overall value to the whole.

I don't believe that everybody deserves or needs to be saved. If I am riding without a helmet, (or engaged in some other activity where normal protective gear should be worn, and don't) and injure myself, and can't pay for my medical care, then, please, pull the plug on me. I made a choice, I need to live (or die) with it.

People, and by extension, society, learn by example. We wouldn't have to pull the plug on very many of these types before the rest of em' would say...(note George Carlin voice)...."WHOAAAAAA..... that ain't a too smart thing for me to do...riding without a helmet. Maybe I oughta change my behavior."

But I don't want the GOVERNMENT deciding what risks I am allowed to take. Because the more we support a government that makes decisions for us, the closer we get to a socialist/communist/police/1984 type society.

The Government shouldn't be in the business of 'saving' everybody. That IS the socialism of FDR and LBJ and you are right, we taxpayers ARE still paying for it. We shouldn't be.

Again, stupidity NEEDS to be painful, and if necessary, fatal, because that is one of the few very powerful motivators for people, and society to make CHANGE.
L&L
It is not ours to decide the times in which we live.
It is only ours to decide what to do with the time given us.

Make the most of your time.

fairlydangerous1
3rd Gear Member
3rd Gear Member
Posts: 72
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 2:59 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: Sunny AZ
Contact:

Post by fairlydangerous1 » Sun Dec 14, 2003 8:13 pm

I know. Everyone just wear your mandatory bubble before you go outside. I'm putting my on right now. LOL

TroyB
6th Gear "Wide Open" Member
6th Gear "Wide Open" Member
Posts: 1081
Joined: Fri May 10, 2002 9:39 pm
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: USA

Post by TroyB » Sat Dec 20, 2003 5:34 pm

Well, I guess the answer to this ? is a big NO. Thanks for the input, you all have very good points.

az350x
3rd Gear Member
3rd Gear Member
Posts: 52
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2001 4:51 am
Please enter the middle number: 5
Location: USA

Post by az350x » Sat Feb 28, 2004 6:55 pm

Rekd wrote:What would be next? Boots? Gloves? Shin Guards? Taped wrists/ankles? Blue shirts on Tues and Thurs? Red shirts on Wed and Fri?

'Rekd
Funny- people die every few minutes in vehicle accidents involving alcohol. So far, I have heard no mention of outlawing alcohol OR motor vehicles!

Go figure. They use the logic against us SOMETIMES, but not ALL the time.

It's odd how inconsistently (and inaccurately) our society determines the ROOT of problems- PEOPLE killing people, not GUNS, irresponsible adults hurting children (not just their parents either), not ATVs, etc.

User avatar
Ross & Alice
5th Gear "Pinned" Member
5th Gear "Pinned" Member
Posts: 739
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2003 12:51 pm

Post by Ross & Alice » Tue Mar 23, 2004 4:39 pm

Washroad wrote:A chest protector will not save your life. Period. My friend Corky Krickbaum was killed at the Adelanto Grand Prix several years ago while doing the triples on a CR250. The chest protector he was wearing didn't do a thing to save his life and that's where his motorcycle hit him.

Duning is dangerous.

You should know that going in.

You can get injured/killed doing it.

If you know that then you should assume the risk yourself and make sure that you have enough insurance to take care of you.

Anything less is irresponsible.

Mandatory chest protectors is the first step towards making everyone ride in a steel box so they won't get hurt.

I prefer my quad.

With a helmet and no chest protector.
I'm with washroad on this issue,, well said Brian.
Ride Safer by Riding Sober
Friends of Dumont Dunes

Post Reply

Return to “Dune Safety • Survival • Camping”