[brickl]

The 24 year old man has complete control over his faculties in most circumstances. The 87 year old man, comparatively, does not.



My uncle is a great rider. He showed me the ropes on the road back in the late 80's. But even though he's only 57, he's dialed back his two-wheeled pace a bit due to his reduced ability to react with the quickness he had at my age. He hates it, but he realizes it, admits it, and accepts it.



People steadily lose their ability to rapidly process information as they age. Processing visual information is key, but so is being able to determine that your foot is in fact on the gas instead of the brake. And what happens when the brain isn't the only factor? What happens when it's physically difficult for elderly to do the things they once did?



I was almost clipped the other day by an old guy who was barrelling out of his driveway in reverse. Not once did he look from side to side while backing. Not once! Why? He probably CAN'T!!!! And he does this several times a day...



Information processing, reaction time, proper reaction, multiple points of attention, all of these things decline when someone drinks booze and gets behind the wheel. But they also decline with age.



Physically, muscles, nerves, joints, eyesight, hearing, feeling, etc., all deteriorate with age.



AARP needs to relent on this issue. I understand that the elderly need to feel empowered over their own lives, and that they deserve as much respect as anyone else. But that doesn't mean we should all be imperiled by them.



I think men and women should be re-tested every two years once they reach 65 years old. There really is no other way to deal with this issue.

 

[brickl]

costs of non-helmet use

It costs less to plant the helmetless retard in the ground than it does to treat people who survive as a result of their gear.

I was recently rear-ended by another rider on the road. I was in full roadracing gear and suffered NO broken bones, and NO roadrash, but did suffer some permanent shoulder dislocation/separation. Total cost to the ins. co when this is all done may be upwards of 70-80k.

It doesn't cost anywhere near 70-80k to plant the helmetless retard in the ground.

 

[brickl]

Re: costs of non-helmet use

Well, since the people previously referred to as "retards" are now safely and tongue-twistingly labeled as "developmentally disabled", allow me to re-purpose the coarse yet illuminating term. But first let me tell a story.

I've racked up 29,000 miles on the two-wheeled odometer in the last 12 months alone. Partly because I love to do it, and partly because half of that time has been spent on the unemployment line.

During that time I've been off the saddle once, but "nearly killed" six times. Three of those near death experiences came as a result of another person's illegal and incredibly stupid driving/riding decisions.

Of the three, the last was the only one I was unable to avoid, and it cost me my bike and, for a while here, my health.

Yes, those three people who drove and rode like morons are dumb, but the other three occurrences came as a result of an even dumber living being. Yes, deer. The last incident had an adult doe, completely hidden in the roadside brush, jumping out in front of me while I was going 60mph, with oncoming traffic. Instead of T-boning the hooved animal, however, she stopped short and whacked her head, mightily, against the unprotected portion of my leg, between the knee padding of my riding pants and the upper calf armor of my A-stars boot. Now that hurt like nothing I've ever felt in my life, believe me.

But that's not the point of this exercise, just supporting commentary. The point is, invariably at some point people who ride motorcycles will have an "incident" that will or could see them separated from their bike and quickly introduced to a hard surface. This is not high science, it's common sense. Something anyone with even negligible intelligence can see.

People who ride their motorcycles on the highways and who do not use appropriate safety gear are in my opinion very slow learners. They see that the machine on which they ride offers no protection from a fall. They know how fast they will travel at highway speeds. And they know how hard, abrasive, and unforgiving asphalt, concrete, ARMCO, trees, signs, and tractor-trailers are. Yet they decide to ride in a T-shirt and jeans w/ no helmet, gloves, etc.

In my opinion these people exemplify a group that should be referred to as the "new retard", someone who sees the danger, has the ability to mitigate the danger, yet in the end decides that they will not benefit from safety gear.

To me the only thing that's worse than the "new retard" is the "new retard" who convinces another human to do the same thing.

 

[brickl]

Re: costs of non-helmet use

Yeah, well, oddly enough, I'm steadfastly in favor of wearing head-to-toe gear when riding, but just as steadfast against the govt telling me I have to.

I just don't ride with folks who won't gear up. You know, social pressure rather than SWAT team pressure.