tkam Posted June 12, 2006 Report Posted June 12, 2006 http://www.wpxi.com/sports/9356102/detail.html Guess thats what he gets for not wearing a helmet, but pretty much the entire city of Pittsburgh is holding its breath hoping he'll be alright.
acs236 Posted June 12, 2006 Report Posted June 12, 2006 He's no Kellen Winslow Jr., but that's a tough break.
tkam Posted June 12, 2006 Author Report Posted June 12, 2006 Early reports so far is that he has a broken jaw, and its also rumored he has a fractured eye socket and that he banged up his knees.
ojnihs Posted June 12, 2006 Report Posted June 12, 2006 Arg...being a Pittsburgh fan...this is not good news. Fool fool fool...
tkam Posted June 12, 2006 Author Report Posted June 12, 2006 Here's the latest report from a local TV station: "According to a police source, Roethlisberger suffered a broken jaw, broke his left sinus cavity, suffered a 9-inch laceration to the back of his head, lost many teeth and has severe injuries to his knees from hitting the pavement."
Guest sacd lover Posted June 12, 2006 Report Posted June 12, 2006 Here's the latest report from a local TV station: "According to a police source, Roethlisberger suffered a broken jaw, broke his left sinus cavity, suffered a 9-inch laceration to the back of his head, lost many teeth and has severe injuries to his knees from hitting the pavement." I havent felt this bad about a sports figure in twenty years .... since Len Bias died. :'(
tkam Posted June 13, 2006 Author Report Posted June 13, 2006 Well they've now said that the knee injuries aren't severe. I guess we'll find out when an official statement comes.
n_maher Posted June 13, 2006 Report Posted June 13, 2006 And now we find out that it's likely he didn't even have an MC license... Stupid is as stupid does. Hey Yikes, what do you think of the 'busa as a "beginners bike"...
tkam Posted June 13, 2006 Author Report Posted June 13, 2006 Yeah I don't get the whole license thing, he's always said he's been riding motorcycles for years. Pretty stupid to not have a license for any length of time.
n_maher Posted June 13, 2006 Report Posted June 13, 2006 in ohio you don't need a special license to ride motorcycles, IIRC, though the state does offer classes. is penn different? Special license, not really, but you are required to have a "motorcycle endorsement" on your normal license. As far as I know every state in the union requires that you take at least a skills test before you can get your motorcycle endorsement. Most require both a written and riding test before getting your permanent endorsement. Unfortunately this really provides inadequate education about how to properly operate a motorcycle, I'm of the opinoin that an MSF course should be mandated. It'd make my insurance rates go down, that's for sure. Nothing like a 50 year old who's never ridden before getting his permit, a 700# harley and killing himself to drive up premiums, unless you want to talk about 16 year olds on 180mph rockets like the 'busa...
n_maher Posted June 13, 2006 Report Posted June 13, 2006 that's a slippery slope. Not sure if you're serious but really, it's no different than requiring driver's ed for anyone who wants to drive a car. Motorcycle does not equal car, therefore more training required. It takes one weekend to complete the BRC through MSF. I'm not trying to limit who can or can't get a license but allowing little timmy to get a permit and then pilot the world's fastest road going two-wheeled vehicle with no training is a little crazy, doncha think? I'm waiting for a law suit against a mcycle manufacturer for selling a bike to someone that couldn't handle it...
Yikes Posted June 13, 2006 Report Posted June 13, 2006 The hayabusa as a beginner bike? It's called culling the breed. The same goes for any idiot who rides without a helmet. I just wish that society didn't get stuck paying the medical bills of morons who ride without a helmet. I?ll laugh my ass off if he doesn?t have a license. His insurance won?t cover him because he was riding illegally. There?s even a chance that his disability insurance won?t cover him because he was injured while performing an illegal act. I don?t know, but I can hope.
grawk Posted June 13, 2006 Report Posted June 13, 2006 I've been riding motorcycles since I was 14. I got my endorsement last thursday. I'm 36. Why did I wait 22 years? Because I hadn't seen the need for the hassle. It's a real pain in the ass to get a motorcycle license. They test you on things you don't need to know, and make you have another licensed rider with you, etc. Or you can take the MSF class. The thing about the MSF class is it's expensive, and usually a 2-3 month wait to get it. I've been pulled over riding without an endorsement and the cops never said boo about it. I sometimes ride without a helmet. I usually wear one. I sometimes ride without boots on, I sometimes ride without a jacket. Thing is, I'm the only one affected by these decisions (well, and my family). It's not your business what I choose to do. I know that you can get a motorcycle license without a license, and that they have to pay even if you don't have one.
n_maher Posted June 13, 2006 Report Posted June 13, 2006 I sometimes ride without a helmet. I usually wear one. I sometimes ride without boots on, I sometimes ride without a jacket. Thing is, I'm the only one affected by these decisions (well, and my family). It's not your business what I choose to do. No offense, but that's a pretty close-minded view on the scenario. If insurance companies would offer incentives for wearing a helmet or have a right to deny coverage for riders that chose not to wear one I'd be right with you. But the fact is that riders who chose to operate a motorcycle without even the most basic safety equipment affect everyone. When your minor accident with a helmet becomes a major one without it that has a ripple effect, whether you want to admit it or not. I'm not trying in infringe on your rights, I just have no interest in paying for your privilege through my insurance premiums.
grawk Posted June 13, 2006 Report Posted June 13, 2006 No offense, but that's a pretty close-minded view on the scenario. If insurance companies would offer incentives for wearing a helmet or have a right to deny coverage for riders that chose not to wear one I'd be right with you. But the fact is that riders who chose to operate a motorcycle without even the most basic safety equipment affect everyone. When your minor accident with a helmet becomes a major one without it that has a ripple effect, whether you want to admit it or not. I'm not trying in infringe on your rights, I just have no interest in paying for your privilege through my insurance premiums. If your insurance is higher because I sometimes choose not to wear a helmet, you need to have a discussion with your insurance company. My rates are pretty reasonable, mostly because I have a clean driving record, and have established myself as a good risk over the years. As a long time rider, I'd say that more important than a helmet are boots, jacket, pants, gloves, and good eye protection. Helmets add to fatigue, decrease peripheral vision, ADD to the noise while blocking your ability to hear useful sounds, and increase the likelihood of neck injuries in an accident.
Dusty Chalk Posted June 13, 2006 Report Posted June 13, 2006 I sometimes ride without a helmet. I usually wear one. I sometimes ride without boots on, I sometimes ride without a jacket. Thing is, I'm the only one affected by these decisions (well, and my family). It's not your business what I choose to do. Well, yes and no -- I won't go into that. If someone wants to commit suicide, is it any of my business? If you believe it isn't, then we'll agree to disagree on that, but I believe that there should be a certain amount of intrusion for the safety of numskulls. Too many numskulls about, we can't let them all go and kill themselves. That aside, none of those things is anything like a license. A license means you were given at least a little training in how to use the pocket rocket in other ways than as a lethal weapon. Sure, you might be one of the good ones, but how are the rest of us to know? Unless we actually have an institution set up wherein licenses are required, and that rule is enforced. So yes, I do believe one should have a license, and that it should be enforced. For my safety.
n_maher Posted June 13, 2006 Report Posted June 13, 2006 If your insurance is higher because I sometimes choose not to wear a helmet, you need to have a discussion with your insurance company. My rates are pretty reasonable, mostly because I have a clean driving record, and have established myself as a good risk over the years. If you honestly believe that your insurance company treats you as an individual rather than anything other than a set of parameters nothing I say to you is going to convince you otherwise. But trust me, you are a series of checkboxes and multiple choice questions nothing else. As a long time rider, I'd say that more important than a helmet are boots, jacket, pants, gloves, and good eye protection. Helmets <snip> increase the likelihood of neck injuries in an accident. Well, I think here we'll just have to agree to disagree. I agree that boots, proper jacket, pants, gloves and eye protection are imporant but as to the likelihod that a helmet will make a crash worse you have to ask yourself, would you rather have a neck injury or brain trauma?
grawk Posted June 13, 2006 Report Posted June 13, 2006 Well, yes and no -- I won't go into that. If someone wants to commit suicide, is it any of my business? If you believe it isn't, then we'll agree to disagree on that, but I believe that there should be a certain amount of intrusion for the safety of numskulls. Too many numskulls about, we can't let them all go and kill themselves. That aside, none of those things is anything like a license. A license means you were given at least a little training in how to use the pocket rocket in other ways than as a lethal weapon. Sure, you might be one of the good ones, but how are the rest of us to know? Unless we actually have an institution set up wherein licenses are required, and that rule is enforced. So yes, I do believe one should have a license, and that it should be enforced. For my safety. Trust me, the license test doesn't show you're safe on a motorcycle. The easy way to deal with unsafe operators is to enforce traffic laws. Pull over and stop people who are operating their vehicles in an unsafe manner. Until you pull me over, you don't know if I have a license or not. And if I'm operating safely, you'd never pull me over. If you do pull me over, then ticket me for what I did wrong. The license really is irrelevant. f you honestly believe that your insurance company treats you as an individual rather than anything other than a set of parameters nothing I say to you is going to convince you otherwise. But trust me, you are a series of checkboxes and multiple choice questions nothing else. I believe I'm a series of check boxes to an insurance company. 36 yrs old, long time customer, good driving record, lives in central alaska. That's why I have low insurance. Well, I think here we'll just have to agree to disagree. I agree that boots, proper jacket, pants, gloves and eye protection are imporant but as to the likelihod that a helmet will make a crash worse you have to ask yourself, would you rather have a neck injury or brain trauma? By far brain trauma. If I'm going to be paralyzed, just kill me.
Dusty Chalk Posted June 13, 2006 Report Posted June 13, 2006 Trust me, the license test doesn't show you're safe on a motorcycle. I disagree. It may not accurately show that you are a safe driver, but it will show that most morons who try to drive one that can't, can't. Example: an unlicensed driver totalled one of my previous vehicles. By "finding gear". WTF were they doing trying to drive a stick if they didn't know how to drive a stick? You want me to trust someone who doesn't wear a helmet? I don't think so.
grawk Posted June 14, 2006 Report Posted June 14, 2006 I disagree. It may not accurately show that you are a safe driver, but it will show that most morons who try to drive one that can't, can't. That has nothing to do with the motorcycle skills test, which takes place at 10mph in a parking lot. That test says NOTHING about real world riding. Can you weave in and out of cones, can you turn around, can you stop. That's it. Example: an unlicensed driver totalled one of my previous vehicles. By "finding gear". WTF were they doing trying to drive a stick if they didn't know how to drive a stick? Was the unlicensed driver driving YOUR car? You want me to trust someone who doesn't wear a helmet? I don't think so. I could care less if you trust me, really.
tkam Posted June 14, 2006 Author Report Posted June 14, 2006 Well, yes and no -- I won't go into that. If someone wants to commit suicide, is it any of my business? If you believe it isn't, then we'll agree to disagree on that, but I believe that there should be a certain amount of intrusion for the safety of numskulls. Too many numskulls about, we can't let them all go and kill themselves. We protect the dumbasses in this country too much already, the more things we can do to help them kill themselves the better.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now