Text 16229, 125 rader
Skriven 2005-11-14 22:44:00 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
  Kommentar till text 15957 av Roy Witt (1:1/22)
Ärende: Fog lights
==================
 >>>>> Wrong. Apparently you've never ridden a motorcycle.

 MvdV>>>> Wrong. It appear *you* are the one who has never ridden a motor
 MvdV>>>> cycle.

 >>> LOL! I was riding motorcycles long before you became old
 >>> enough to know what they are.

 MvdV>> You can not possible be that old.

 > You claim not to be the 55 that I estimated.

Your estimate is wrong. Had you been paying attention over the years, you'd
know it is.

 > If you were, you would have been born six years prior to my buying
 > my first motorcycle. However, I rode them at 15 without a license;
 > my dad owned a few.

My father owned two motor cycles when I was a kid. There is a picture of me as
a three year old sitting in the saddle of one of them.

 MvdV>> The biker that is a survivor will create the time by slowing
 MvdV>> down so that he can always stop before the line where the
 MvdV>> car would be if it suddenly decides to pull up.

 > That doesn't always work out that way. Nothing is written in stone.

It does if the biker slows down sufficiently.

 MvdV>> He will only accelerate when he has reached the point where he can
 MvdV>> pull out in front of the car no matter what the car does.

 > When one has the right of way, one cannot empahatically state
 > that the one without the right of way will obey the law or even
 > see the motorcycle.

Which was exactly my point.

 >>> Anticipating the vehicle's movement still
 >>> requires enough reactionary time to avoid it.

 MvdV>> See above. An experienced and careful biker can not be
 MvdV>> tricked into running into the side of car.

 > I never was, but I had plenty of close calls that would have
 > happened if I had not been paying attention.

A biker that does not always pay attention will soon become an ex-biker.

 > There is always going to be the exception in any case.

Thet is true.

 >>> http://home.earthlink.net/~gallery59/cadangR.jpg

 MvdV>> Oops, that look s awful. I remember those fins from when I was
 MvdV>> young. I always wondered why people thought that was nice...

 > That tail light lense cut my Levis and gouged my thigh for
 > about 4 inches just above the knee. It hurt to high heaven,
 > but I was only bruised and not cut.

You were lucky.

As was I. To learn the vital lessons of survival on a bike before I got myself
killed.

 >>>>> And it certainly doesn't have anything to do with
 >>>>> a different method of driving.

 MvdV>>>> But is does. See my massage to Frank S.

 >>> I saw it, but I didn't think it was relevant.

 MvdV>> That's not my problem.

 > Which means your explanation was rejected and you have nothing
 > to say? Great, then I've won that arguement, hands down.

The only way to win an argument in FidoNet is to convince the opponent. You
haven't convinced me, therefore you did not win.

 >>> I feel no safer with seat belts on than I did without them. I
 >>> have no more confidence that I'll somehow be saved from injury
 >>> than I did with out them. Until there's an opportunity to prove
 >>> they're safer than not, I only feel inconvenienced by having
 >>> to strap myself into the car before I can go anywhere.

 MvdV>> The staistics show that you have a better chance of surviving a
 MvdV>> serious accident when you are buckled up. Most people seem to
 MvdV>> believe that and DO feel safer when belted in.

 > I still find the belts to be constraining and a nuisance to
 > freedom of movement within the confines of the vehicle.

Better then the confinement of six pieces of plywood eight feet under.

 MvdV>> Whatever. I have been hearing all these arguments for decades. I
 MvdV>> have yet to see the accident statisctics to back it up.

 > I just gave you an arms length of studies that prove
 > otherwise. You ignored them?

You only provided case studies about visibility, nothing about overaal
improvement of road safety.

 >>> Wrong...by now you've seen the list of studies, which prove
 >>> your theory wrong.

 MvdV>> I have seen a list of article about visibility. There was nothing
 MvdV>> to prove that carrying lights in broad daylight improves overall
 MvdV>> road safety.

 MvdV>> I do not feel safer with the lights on in broad daylight.

 > That's your problem...

Which means your explanation was rejected and you have nothing to say? Great,
then I've won that arguement, hands down.

Cheers, Michiel

---
 * Origin: http://www.vlist.nodelist.org (2:280/5555)