Banning Loud Pipes?
#861
10-13-2015, 08:14 AM
Just curious, were you aware of Busey's off-screen persona before the accident? It was a burn-out doing a burn-out that caused the accident, not the lack of a helmet.
Yeah, everybody's "pro-choice" until it comes to helmets, seat belts, guns, open carry etc. etc. etc. Whatever hurts freedom to choose one's own way (as long as their choices hurt no one else), decidedly does hurt.
You are aware that there are still states where those "fundamentals," at least as regards helmets, are still left to the rider to choose, right? In fact, there are several more free or partially free states than mandatory helmet law states, so that kinda throws that "fundamental" stuff out the window. Individual liberty is the most "fundamental" meme running throughout the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and bikers have been on the losing side of liberty-killing legislation for all four+ decades that I've been riding.
Clearly, it is up to the writer to make their sarcasm apparent, not the reader, but thanks for the clarification. Still, Busey's injuries were not sustained because he lacked a helmet, they were sustained because he tried to do a stunt that was beyond his capabilities as a rider. A whack-job is still a whack-job with or without a helmet.
If helmets are such the wonderful life-saving implements as government imagines them to be, then why is their use illegal in cars nearly everywhere in the country? Helmets only even have the potential to effect the safety of one part of the human anatomy, and yet traumatic brain injury due to (all) vehicle crashes is only about 14% of all TBIs in the nation, and a relatively small minority of those are sustained by motorcycle riders (or passengers). Helmets would do the most good for society in cages, yet even some bikers only see them as a "fundamental" necessity for bikers. What's up with that?
Don't hate on me because I don't like helmet laws, hate on me because I know how easy it is to prove the fallacy of their effectiveness. Same goes for legislation regulating loud pipes. They do absolutely nothing to cure any ill of society. They lessen freedom and increase government intrusion in our lives.
I ride a motorcycle because it's the best way to simulate being free, because there is no such thing as real freedom in this country anymore, and helmet laws and loud pipes bans are two among thousands prima facie proofs of that assertion.
Blues
You are aware that there are still states where those "fundamentals," at least as regards helmets, are still left to the rider to choose, right? In fact, there are several more free or partially free states than mandatory helmet law states, so that kinda throws that "fundamental" stuff out the window. Individual liberty is the most "fundamental" meme running throughout the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and bikers have been on the losing side of liberty-killing legislation for all four+ decades that I've been riding.
If helmets are such the wonderful life-saving implements as government imagines them to be, then why is their use illegal in cars nearly everywhere in the country? Helmets only even have the potential to effect the safety of one part of the human anatomy, and yet traumatic brain injury due to (all) vehicle crashes is only about 14% of all TBIs in the nation, and a relatively small minority of those are sustained by motorcycle riders (or passengers). Helmets would do the most good for society in cages, yet even some bikers only see them as a "fundamental" necessity for bikers. What's up with that?
Don't hate on me because I don't like helmet laws, hate on me because I know how easy it is to prove the fallacy of their effectiveness. Same goes for legislation regulating loud pipes. They do absolutely nothing to cure any ill of society. They lessen freedom and increase government intrusion in our lives.
I ride a motorcycle because it's the best way to simulate being free, because there is no such thing as real freedom in this country anymore, and helmet laws and loud pipes bans are two among thousands prima facie proofs of that assertion.
Blues
#862
10-13-2015, 08:29 AM
This article should clear the air concerning Gary Busey, ""Yet to hear Busey, 44, tell it,"
..."Passing Bartels', I approached a corner where a bus was letting off passengers. I swung to the left of the bus, then turned right in front of it to turn onto the cross street, which leads to the freeway. But the cross street had an island, and I had to turn more sharply than I had anticipated. There were gravel and rocks and a little bit of slickness on the street, too, and I went into a skid. I hit my rear brake, which is what you're not supposed to do with a big bike—and it whipped around like a fish.
The bike slammed into the curb and threw me over the windshield. I came down on the curb headfirst, hitting the back of my head, then the right side of my head and then my back. Wop-wop-wop! Then I was out. Gone.""...
http://www.people.com/people/archive...120285,00.html
..."Passing Bartels', I approached a corner where a bus was letting off passengers. I swung to the left of the bus, then turned right in front of it to turn onto the cross street, which leads to the freeway. But the cross street had an island, and I had to turn more sharply than I had anticipated. There were gravel and rocks and a little bit of slickness on the street, too, and I went into a skid. I hit my rear brake, which is what you're not supposed to do with a big bike—and it whipped around like a fish.
The bike slammed into the curb and threw me over the windshield. I came down on the curb headfirst, hitting the back of my head, then the right side of my head and then my back. Wop-wop-wop! Then I was out. Gone.""...
http://www.people.com/people/archive...120285,00.html
Last edited by 13dino; 10-13-2015 at 08:32 AM.
#863
10-13-2015, 08:44 AM
Seasoned HDF Member
This article should clear the air concerning Gary Busey, ""Yet to hear Busey, 44, tell it,"
..."Passing Bartels', I approached a corner where a bus was letting off passengers. I swung to the left of the bus, then turned right in front of it to turn onto the cross street, which leads to the freeway. But the cross street had an island, and I had to turn more sharply than I had anticipated. There were gravel and rocks and a little bit of slickness on the street, too, and I went into a skid. I hit my rear brake, which is what you're not supposed to do with a big bike—and it whipped around like a fish.
The bike slammed into the curb and threw me over the windshield. I came down on the curb headfirst, hitting the back of my head, then the right side of my head and then my back. Wop-wop-wop! Then I was out. Gone.""...
http://www.people.com/people/archive...120285,00.html
..."Passing Bartels', I approached a corner where a bus was letting off passengers. I swung to the left of the bus, then turned right in front of it to turn onto the cross street, which leads to the freeway. But the cross street had an island, and I had to turn more sharply than I had anticipated. There were gravel and rocks and a little bit of slickness on the street, too, and I went into a skid. I hit my rear brake, which is what you're not supposed to do with a big bike—and it whipped around like a fish.
The bike slammed into the curb and threw me over the windshield. I came down on the curb headfirst, hitting the back of my head, then the right side of my head and then my back. Wop-wop-wop! Then I was out. Gone.""...
http://www.people.com/people/archive...120285,00.html
#864
10-13-2015, 09:05 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deuuuce
Clearly you missed that "ask Gary Busey" was sarcasm because his brain damage from his helmetless accident is very obvious.
And SBROB, there is more in here about just that with ignorant name calling! So, reason for my response of what actually happened to clear others misconception and resulting conniption fits. Simple enough, eh! Apologize to all for going off topic as I knew it was, soo...Nothing wrong with loud pipes to me and don't care to argue about it.
Originally Posted by Deuuuce
Clearly you missed that "ask Gary Busey" was sarcasm because his brain damage from his helmetless accident is very obvious.
And SBROB, there is more in here about just that with ignorant name calling! So, reason for my response of what actually happened to clear others misconception and resulting conniption fits. Simple enough, eh! Apologize to all for going off topic as I knew it was, soo...Nothing wrong with loud pipes to me and don't care to argue about it.
Last edited by 13dino; 10-13-2015 at 09:16 AM.
#865
10-13-2015, 11:23 AM
This article should clear the air concerning Gary Busey, ""Yet to hear Busey, 44, tell it,"
..."Passing Bartels', I approached a corner where a bus was letting off passengers. I swung to the left of the bus, then turned right in front of it to turn onto the cross street, which leads to the freeway. But the cross street had an island, and I had to turn more sharply than I had anticipated. There were gravel and rocks and a little bit of slickness on the street, too, and I went into a skid. I hit my rear brake, which is what you're not supposed to do with a big bike—and it whipped around like a fish.
The bike slammed into the curb and threw me over the windshield. I came down on the curb headfirst, hitting the back of my head, then the right side of my head and then my back. Wop-wop-wop! Then I was out. Gone.""...
http://www.people.com/people/archive...120285,00.html
..."Passing Bartels', I approached a corner where a bus was letting off passengers. I swung to the left of the bus, then turned right in front of it to turn onto the cross street, which leads to the freeway. But the cross street had an island, and I had to turn more sharply than I had anticipated. There were gravel and rocks and a little bit of slickness on the street, too, and I went into a skid. I hit my rear brake, which is what you're not supposed to do with a big bike—and it whipped around like a fish.
The bike slammed into the curb and threw me over the windshield. I came down on the curb headfirst, hitting the back of my head, then the right side of my head and then my back. Wop-wop-wop! Then I was out. Gone.""...
http://www.people.com/people/archive...120285,00.html
To the distress of Busey's wife, Judy, and their 17-year-old son, Jake, one thing that hasn't changed is Busey's love of motorcycles and his refusal to wear a helmet while riding. For years, he and fellow bikers including Jay Leno have been among the most vocal opponents of laws requiring protective headgear, despite the fact that 142,000 Americans are injured in motorcyle accidents each year.
Busey hasn't known "what really happened" to him or anybody else since long before the day of the accident. He was known in SoCal as a whack-job before the accident, and it's been beyond obvious that he's been a whack-job ever since the crash to the general public well beyond Hollywood.
"What really happened" was chronicled just a couple of weeks after the crash by the guy who opened Bartels' on a Sunday so Busey could get his bike after a windshield had been installed. Coincidentally, his account was also run in People Mag. Part of what he said is in quotes, and part is paraphrased by the writer. Decide for yourself if Busey's account makes sense in light of the fact that he was "Barely 100 feet out of Bartels' door..." when it all went South. He wasn't "passing" Bartels' like the People piece that you posted allowed him to get away with lying about, he was leaving Bartels' in burn-out fashion and he lost it because he was an inexperienced rider.
The End.
Blues
#866
10-13-2015, 12:12 PM
Seasoned HDF Member
[QUOTE=BluesStringer;14478300]
If helmets are such the wonderful life-saving implements as government imagines them to be, then why is their use illegal in cars nearly everywhere in the country? Helmets only even have the potential to effect the safety of one part of the human anatomy, and yet traumatic brain injury due to (all) vehicle crashes is only about 14% of all TBIs in the nation, and a relatively small minority of those are sustained by motorcycle riders (or passengers)/QUOTE]
Helmets aren't required in cars because car drivers wouldn't stand for it. And they have the numbers(votes) to make their choice mean something. Unlike the 'political force' a comparatively small number of motorcycle riders possess. Especially since this "comparatively small number of motorcycle riders" is not made up of 'real' motorcycle riders that will band together in defiance of any societal pressure to prevent injuries/costs to society.
That 14% is meaningless when considering the value of helmets. The value of helmets is how many riders bounce their heads on something solid and sustain no, or a greatly reduced, injury. That is a figure that can't be known. It would require an examination of the results of every crash. And of every ride that resulted in a possible, except for the helmet, injury to a rider.
Yes "Helmets only even have the potential to effect the safety of one part of the human anatomy". But trust me, that part of the 'human anatomy' is the most important. And the most easily severely damaged. 'Free choice' is great, just make that choice carefully.
Like the choice of having loud pipes, and riding in such a manner as to generate social pressure against the freedom to choose which pipes to use. It is really very simple.
Helmet use, or load pipes, are subject to the rules/regulations of society. Like it, fair, or not most of society doesn't/wouldn't ride a motorcycle and controls those of us that do ride.
If helmets are such the wonderful life-saving implements as government imagines them to be, then why is their use illegal in cars nearly everywhere in the country? Helmets only even have the potential to effect the safety of one part of the human anatomy, and yet traumatic brain injury due to (all) vehicle crashes is only about 14% of all TBIs in the nation, and a relatively small minority of those are sustained by motorcycle riders (or passengers)/QUOTE]
Helmets aren't required in cars because car drivers wouldn't stand for it. And they have the numbers(votes) to make their choice mean something. Unlike the 'political force' a comparatively small number of motorcycle riders possess. Especially since this "comparatively small number of motorcycle riders" is not made up of 'real' motorcycle riders that will band together in defiance of any societal pressure to prevent injuries/costs to society.
That 14% is meaningless when considering the value of helmets. The value of helmets is how many riders bounce their heads on something solid and sustain no, or a greatly reduced, injury. That is a figure that can't be known. It would require an examination of the results of every crash. And of every ride that resulted in a possible, except for the helmet, injury to a rider.
Yes "Helmets only even have the potential to effect the safety of one part of the human anatomy". But trust me, that part of the 'human anatomy' is the most important. And the most easily severely damaged. 'Free choice' is great, just make that choice carefully.
Like the choice of having loud pipes, and riding in such a manner as to generate social pressure against the freedom to choose which pipes to use. It is really very simple.
Helmet use, or load pipes, are subject to the rules/regulations of society. Like it, fair, or not most of society doesn't/wouldn't ride a motorcycle and controls those of us that do ride.
Last edited by rjg883c; 10-13-2015 at 12:30 PM.
#867
10-13-2015, 02:56 PM
if helmets are such the wonderful life-saving implements as government imagines them to be, then why is their use illegal in cars nearly everywhere in the country? Helmets only even have the potential to effect the safety of one part of the human anatomy, and yet traumatic brain injury due to (all) vehicle crashes is only about 14% of all tbis in the nation, and a relatively small minority of those are sustained by motorcycle riders (or passengers)
and they have the numbers(votes) to make their choice mean something. Unlike the 'political force' a comparatively small number of motorcycle riders possess. Especially since this "comparatively small number of motorcycle riders" is not made up of 'real' motorcycle riders that will band together in defiance of any societal pressure to prevent injuries/costs to society.
The 14% that I referenced was the total number of traumatic brain injuries sustained in all vehicle crashes. It had nothing to do with measuring "value" of helmets, or more to the point I was attempting to make, the "value" of helmet laws.
Officials don't tell you how many neck injuries are caused by helmets. When air bags were found to hurt and kill children, nhtsa aggressively studied the situation and determined that they are, in fact, safe "if" used correctly, but that they can kill if not. As a result, air bags are not mandatory and can be disconnected legally. This begs the question, since there are cases where riders have sustained neck injury from their helmet, why isn't this being studied so that we can once and for all, all know the pros and cons of helmets. Like air bags, helmets should be a matter of freedom of choice.
Like the choice of having loud pipes, and riding in such a manner as to generate social pressure against the freedom to choose which pipes to use. It is really very simple.
Helmet use, or load pipes, are subject to the rules/regulations of society. Like it, fair, or not most of society doesn't/wouldn't ride a motorcycle and controls those of us that do ride.
Helmet use, or load pipes, are subject to the rules/regulations of society. Like it, fair, or not most of society doesn't/wouldn't ride a motorcycle and controls those of us that do ride.
Just to make sure that people understand, I view helmet laws and loud pipes laws as one issue - a freedom issue - and I don't really think anything that's been said about helmet laws is off-topic. The thread was started a few years ago with a post decrying the intrusion by government into bikers' lives with a legislative proposal forcing compliance with EPA noise standards in NH at the time. That some bikers think there's a legislative "solution" to other bikers exercising their free will in a different way than they themselves would is the issue here as far as I'm concerned, and that doesn't mean that I'd ride as loudly as I could in neighborhoods or would forego wearing a helmet in any and all situations. It just means that freedom is more important to me than acquiescing it away to government's control just because the majority of voters are willing to do it to themselves.
Blues
#868
10-13-2015, 03:45 PM
Elite HDF Member
Yeah, everybody's "pro-choice" until it comes to helmets, seat belts, guns, open carry etc. etc. etc. Whatever hurts freedom to choose one's own way (as long as their choices hurt no one else), decidedly does hurt.
You are aware that there are still states where those "fundamentals," at least as regards helmets, are still left to the rider to choose, right? In fact, there are several more free or partially free states than mandatory helmet law states, so that kinda throws that "fundamental" stuff out the window. Individual liberty is the most "fundamental" meme running throughout the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and bikers have been on the losing side of liberty-killing legislation for all four+ decades that I've been riding.
Clearly, it is up to the writer to make their sarcasm apparent, not the reader, but thanks for the clarification. Still, Busey's injuries were not sustained because he lacked a helmet, they were sustained because he tried to do a stunt that was beyond his capabilities as a rider. A whack-job is still a whack-job with or without a helmet.
You are aware that there are still states where those "fundamentals," at least as regards helmets, are still left to the rider to choose, right? In fact, there are several more free or partially free states than mandatory helmet law states, so that kinda throws that "fundamental" stuff out the window. Individual liberty is the most "fundamental" meme running throughout the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and bikers have been on the losing side of liberty-killing legislation for all four+ decades that I've been riding.
Clearly, it is up to the writer to make their sarcasm apparent, not the reader, but thanks for the clarification. Still, Busey's injuries were not sustained because he lacked a helmet, they were sustained because he tried to do a stunt that was beyond his capabilities as a rider. A whack-job is still a whack-job with or without a helmet.
If helmets are such the wonderful life-saving implements as government imagines them to be, then why is their use illegal in cars nearly everywhere in the country? Helmets only even have the potential to effect the safety of one part of the human anatomy, and yet traumatic brain injury due to (all) vehicle crashes is only about 14% of all TBIs in the nation, and a relatively small minority of those are sustained by motorcycle riders (or passengers). Helmets would do the most good for society in cages, yet even some bikers only see them as a "fundamental" necessity for bikers. What's up with that?
Don't hate on me because I don't like helmet laws, hate on me because I know how easy it is to prove the fallacy of their effectiveness. Same goes for legislation regulating loud pipes. They do absolutely nothing to cure any ill of society. They lessen freedom and increase government intrusion in our lives.
I ride a motorcycle because it's the best way to simulate being free, because there is no such thing as real freedom in this country anymore, and helmet laws and loud pipes bans are two among thousands prima facie proofs of that assertion.
Blues
Don't hate on me because I don't like helmet laws, hate on me because I know how easy it is to prove the fallacy of their effectiveness. Same goes for legislation regulating loud pipes. They do absolutely nothing to cure any ill of society. They lessen freedom and increase government intrusion in our lives.
I ride a motorcycle because it's the best way to simulate being free, because there is no such thing as real freedom in this country anymore, and helmet laws and loud pipes bans are two among thousands prima facie proofs of that assertion.
Blues
And you know what else? You cannot get on a track anywhere in a car running 13.99 or quicker OR any road circuit WITHOUT a SNELL or FIA approved helmet. Now WHY is that? Have you heard of any racers of cars or bikes protest helmets? Nope. None.
A secondary injury FROM a helmet? That's a new argument (except for the false neck trauma argument). And it's secondary, not primary. Injury data (usually old) is confounded by older vehicles, side impacts without airbags and improper seatbelt use.
The best way to be free is going for a hike. That way there are no loud pipes (because people abuse that), no gas that is taxed, and no electronics to fail on you. That's true freedom. Do you protest anti-nudity laws too? More government control...
#869
10-13-2015, 07:08 PM
1st Gear
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: St. Albert, Alberta
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Loud Pipes
i run straight pipes and plan on keeping them as such. If the law fines me then i pay unless there is a way around it. If you don't like riding next to my bike then it is your right to stay back to a distance that is good for your sinsitive ears. As for the general public, the short amount of time that you deal with my pipes isn't enough for you to care. If you do, then my pipes have accomplished their intended purpose. They have gotten your attention and we all know that is what it is all about. Have fun and enjoy my ear splitting pipes. I know i will!!!
#870
10-14-2015, 08:20 AM
Seasoned HDF Member
Originally Posted by rjg883c
the value of helmets is how many riders bounce their heads on something solid and sustain no, or a greatly reduced, injury. That is a figure that can't be known.
Sure, and the value of individual liberty is manifested in how many riders get to make the decision for themselves whether or not manufacturers' claims of protection at highway speeds is worth the buffeting in the wind, the decreased visibility and hearing, the risk of neck injury in a collision and on and on and on. It's not nearly as one-sided an argument as advocates for government intervention in individuals' decision-making processes would have us believe.
You really don't understand my point/concern. It is sort of ironic, but the best way to ensure freedom is not to give examples of why it should not be used. At this point in time, there are far less motorcycles registered, and especially actually used on the streets, then cages. My concern is if there are too many injuries, and I know there are head injuries in cages also but simple logic makes it obvious that such injuries are more easily received in a motorcycle accident, society will take steps to reduce said injuries. Steps which cage drivers, because they have numbers on their side, wouldn't accept.
??? "buffeting in the wind, the decreased visibility and hearing, the risk of neck injury in a collision and on and on and on". This is subjective and some people would even say 'nonsense'.
Freedom is a great thing, but we only have as much as we are allowed to have. Don't let your blind pursuit of 'freedom' color your understanding of motorcycle rider's role/importance in society. Especially when it comes to things that would shock society, head injuries, or irritate society, loud pipes.
the value of helmets is how many riders bounce their heads on something solid and sustain no, or a greatly reduced, injury. That is a figure that can't be known.
Sure, and the value of individual liberty is manifested in how many riders get to make the decision for themselves whether or not manufacturers' claims of protection at highway speeds is worth the buffeting in the wind, the decreased visibility and hearing, the risk of neck injury in a collision and on and on and on. It's not nearly as one-sided an argument as advocates for government intervention in individuals' decision-making processes would have us believe.
??? "buffeting in the wind, the decreased visibility and hearing, the risk of neck injury in a collision and on and on and on". This is subjective and some people would even say 'nonsense'.
Freedom is a great thing, but we only have as much as we are allowed to have. Don't let your blind pursuit of 'freedom' color your understanding of motorcycle rider's role/importance in society. Especially when it comes to things that would shock society, head injuries, or irritate society, loud pipes.
Last edited by rjg883c; 10-14-2015 at 08:22 AM.