Text 16356, 157 rader
Skriven 2005-11-15 19:23:12 av Roy Witt (1:1/22)
  Kommentar till text 16229 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: Fog lights
==================
14 Nov 05 22:44, Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Roy Witt:


 >>>>>> 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.

 MvdV> Your estimate is wrong.

And I've learned from that estimation. You're either younger or older.
You were born after 1950, and before 1960.

 MvdV> Had you been paying attention over the years, you'd know it is.

Why do I have to play a guessing game.

 >> 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.

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

But you weren't driving it. My father too had a collection of various two
wheel motorized vehicles that he kept at my grandparents farm. We rode
them up and down their gravel lane.

 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.
 MvdV> It does if the biker slows down sufficiently.

If you're going to go all out, why not just stop and let the car go
ahead?

 MvdV>>> He will only accelerate when he has reached the point where he
 MvdV>>> can 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.

 MvdV> Which was exactly my point.

Good thing I put it into perspective for you.

 >>>> 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.

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

A friend of mine was paying attention and he's now an ex-biker. Actually
he's now dead, but that's beside the point. He was paying attention to his
clutch adjustment while going down a back road. He failed to pay attention
to the curve in the road ahead and ran off it, breaking his back. As a
paraplegic, he never rode again. However, he was still a biker in the true
sense of the word.

 >> There is always going to be the exception in any case.
 MvdV> 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.
 MvdV> You were lucky.

Had I more patience, I would have just stopped and let this guy do
whatever he was going to do. At 16, you don't worry about such things
because you're immortal.

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

As does everyone who rides. Very few don't.

 >>>>>> 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.

 MvdV> The only way to win an argument in FidoNet is to convince the
 MvdV> opponent.

You were arguing you position with; That's not my problem. ? I always
thought of that exclamation as another way of saying, 'I give up.'

 MvdV> You haven't convinced me, therefore you did not win.

I have no doubt that there will never be anything anyone can convince you
of without you needing absolute positives.

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

I didn't state my opposition to the alternative.

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

Those were early case studies of what they had found to be the overall
improvement of road safety with the use of DRLs.

 >>>> 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...

 MvdV> Which means your explanation was rejected and you have nothing to
 MvdV> say?

No, just giving you an example of what it's like in kind.

 MvdV> Great, then I've won that arguement, hands down.

Hands down your pants, maybe.


Roy
--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000
 * Origin: Hacienda de Rio de Guadalupe * South * Texas, USA * (1:1/22)