Tom Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 It's funny that this motorcycle seems to be getting faster by the hour....first report was 189, then 200, and now 225?? By tomorrow afternoon, this thing will be topping 300!!! 707535[/snapback] Give me your Email ID, I'll send you a video of it doing 220,,,,,,,,, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattyT Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 Give me your Email ID, I'll send you a video of it doing 220,,,,,,,,, 707558[/snapback] A video like this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corp000085 Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 Ok, i''m way late in the argument, but i will make these points. --nobody is to blame... yet... whether ben didn't see the car, or the lady didn't see ben, that's too be determined... --Ben's one lucky f--- to be alive right now. Putting football aside, hopefully he can live a normal life. Bringing football into the context, i guess we'll have to wait and see on his injuries, but it seems like the "football" guys like clayton and bettis are making it seem not too serious... 7 hours of facial reconstruction is serious dr. bettis and dr. gazoo. i guess he'll be out for at least the first half of this season while his face heals, and he'll be back when his knees and concussion heals. Maybe the bills will be better than the steelers this year... --as for the bike argument, i think that a bike rider knows the risks and makes an informed decision in taking those risks when he rides on a bike, helmet or not. Ben knew those risks, especially with not wearing a helmet. He wasn't doing anything illegal. stupid, yes, illegal, no. Even if the accident was not ben's fault, he definitely earns the Darwin Award for the day. Maybe he's the example to all the other NFL MACH 4 bike riding punks to slow down, put on a helmet, or drive around in your bling escalade. On a life note, get well ben... on a football note, retire MOFO!! retire to the splendor of your crotch rocket and hog collection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 What do you think is safer......driving in a car with NO seatbelt, or driving a motorcycle WITH a helmet? Are you kidding me? Is there ever, any restriction on rights that you fail to support? Don't you think that perhaps both of these restrictions are designed to maximize profits for insurance companies, or do local governments suddenly care about us? That said, enjoy your place on the bandwwagon which supports taking away rights from property owners and individuals. 707511[/snapback] All I know is that a seatbelt saved my face from being like Ben R's. (This was before air bags) I was in a Geo Metro going about 30 coming off the thruway at Elm or Oak (I forget the streets). I had the green light at the bottom of the bridge at the end of the off ramp. A guy went right through the red light and I hit him broadside. With the seatbelt, I ended up with a stiff leg from jamming on the brakes, a minor whiplash, and a bruise from the seat belt. My head came within inches of the windshield. If I didn't have the belt on, I would have at least kissed the windshield, if not gone through it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Jack Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 Actually, it goes MACH 3 707550[/snapback] But I read a report on some kids internet site at knows a garbage man that is married to an accountant that does books for a motorcylce shop that Ben had his bike modified so now he can get it to MACH 5 in less than 3 seconds. So since Ben was flying through the air so fast he was able to go back in time and think "Damm, I should have had a helmet on". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 Without knowing all the full details (like was the driver DUI), why should she be prosecuted? It was an accident. I'm sure she wasnt aiming to mow him down. Blame it on carelessness or stupidity on her part, or perhaps BR was speeding and just came out of nowhere (tunnel?) while she was just about making her turn, but does that warrant prosecution? 707405[/snapback] Mostly because she hit Ben Roethlisburger, a guy we've heard of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richNjoisy Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 Ok, i''m way late in the argument, but i will make these points.--nobody is to blame... yet... whether ben didn't see the car, or the lady didn't see ben, that's too be determined... --Ben's one lucky f--- to be alive right now. Putting football aside, hopefully he can live a normal life. Bringing football into the context, i guess we'll have to wait and see on his injuries, but it seems like the "football" guys like clayton and bettis are making it seem not too serious... 7 hours of facial reconstruction is serious dr. bettis and dr. gazoo. i guess he'll be out for at least the first half of this season while his face heals, and he'll be back when his knees and concussion heals. Maybe the bills will be better than the steelers this year... --as for the bike argument, i think that a bike rider knows the risks and makes an informed decision in taking those risks when he rides on a bike, helmet or not. Ben knew those risks, especially with not wearing a helmet. He wasn't doing anything illegal. stupid, yes, illegal, no. Even if the accident was not ben's fault, he definitely earns the Darwin Award for the day. Maybe he's the example to all the other NFL MACH 4 bike riding punks to slow down, put on a helmet, or drive around in your bling escalade. On a life note, get well ben... on a football note, retire MOFO!! retire to the splendor of your crotch rocket and hog collection. 707562[/snapback] Sorry - no Darwin award. Unless he dies AND we can be certain he had no kids.... gotta respect the gene pool ya know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RayFinkle Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 Another problem with these johnny come lately motorcycle riders who have a lot of coin to invest in a bike, is they buy bikes with too much power. For at least your first year of riding, you should be riding something small and easy to handle (650 or under) and gradually work your way up. These clowns are running out and buying 1200+ bikes and its too much for them to handle and manuver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphean Bills Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 I always wondered why he bothered wearing a helmet on the football field. Stupid is as stupid does. Well, hope he recovers and gets his face put back together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphean Bills Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 THE SUZUKI HAYABUSA GSX1300RZ IS THE FASTEST PRODUCTION BIKE MADE! 225MPH!!!1 707531[/snapback] I can see going 225 MPH routinely on the pothole filled roads of PA, the city streets of Pittsburgh not being an exception. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 Another problem with these johnny come lately motorcycle riders who have a lot of coin to invest in a bike, is they buy bikes with too much power. For at least your first year of riding, you should be riding something small and easy to handle (650 or under) and gradually work your way up. These clowns are running out and buying 1200+ bikes and its too much for them to handle and manuver. 707639[/snapback] Yep - the NHSTA (I think it was) has cited that several times. I hold an opinion about the riding positions of today's bikes. The main choices are the sport, Ninja-type bikes (used to be called cafe racers), that bends the back and puts the rider in a crouch - not the best for a wide-ranging view of the road and periphery ahead. Or some of the cruiser-types, laid back and not in the best position for crisp manuvering when needed. The "standard" - for lack of a better term - position seems to have fallen out of favor. In days of yore, the Honda CB's, the Kaw, Yamaha, and Suzuki 2-strokes, BMW's, Guzzis, BSA, Norton, Triumph etc. had this median position, combining good visibility and decent manuvering stance. To my knowledge, only Honda makes a smaller bike with this riding position - the 250cc Rebel (?). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 Amazing the idiots that make lefts in front of bikes. Just the other day in WNYbike accident 707096[/snapback] Damn, I know their family here in Hornell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 I have never had any love for Ben R......but I do hope that he makes it out of this ok.... I saw a friend die right in front of me in a bike crash.....have never gotten on one since..... And no...he wasnt wearing a helmet either Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Avenger Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 What do you think is safer......driving in a car with NO seatbelt, or driving a motorcycle WITH a helmet? Are you kidding me? Is there ever, any restriction on rights that you fail to support? Don't you think that perhaps both of these restrictions are designed to maximize profits for insurance companies, or do local governments suddenly care about us? That said, enjoy your place on the bandwwagon which supports taking away rights from property owners and individuals. 707511[/snapback] So helmet and seat belt laws are unacceptable restrictions on personal liberties put in place to maximize the profits of the big insurance companies? Do you live on Ruby Ride or in some kind of compound somewhere? I'll leave your underlying argument alone (that government can do no good and certainly wouldn't pass any laws for the safety and well being of its citizens) and state my original point again - it's BS to claim that, in the name of personal liberties, you should be able to do anything you want that might result in your own serious injury or death because it's only you who's impacted. Other ARE impacted, resources are used and life does not take place in a vacuum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 So helmet and seat belt laws are unacceptable restrictions on personal liberties put in place to maximize the profits of the big insurance companies? Do you live on Ruby Ride or in some kind of compound somewhere? I'll leave your underlying argument alone (that government can do no good and certainly wouldn't pass any laws for the safety and well being of its citizens) and state my original point again - it's BS to claim that, in the name of personal liberties, you should be able to do anything you want that might result in your own serious injury or death because it's only you who's impacted. Other ARE impacted, resources are used and life does not take place in a vacuum. 707752[/snapback] My point is that people are not perfect creatures. From time to time, they will do things that you personally disapprove of. To answer my own question, it is much more safe to drive a car while not wearing a seatbelt than it is to drive a motorcycle with a helmet. Wouldn't you agree? Does this mean that we should ban motorcycles entirely? Also, I think that waiting for illegal aliens to be treated (for no charge of course) has a far greater impact on the speed/cost of your medical care than do a few idiots on bikes with no helmets. Any suggestions on how to deal with that particular problem (if of course you deem it a problem)? Btw, I do not like motorcycles. I have seen up close what can happen and choose not to ride. I just don't think that things shoud automatically be banned because I feel a certain way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pennsyl-tucky Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 As a follow-up, turns out Big Doofus never had a license: (KDKA) PITTSBURGH One day after the motorcycle accident that seriously injured Ben Roethlisberger, there are new questions about whether the Steelers quarterback even had a license to drive a motorcycle. As accident investigators continue to search for answers, KDKA Investigator Andy Sheehan has learned that police are looking into that issue this afternoon Sources say that while Roethlisberger had a license to operate a car, he apparently did not possess a Pennsylvania motorcycle license. City accident investigators are not commenting, but a confidential source tells KDKA that a review of motor vehicle records in Harrisburg shows that Roethlisberger has never had a Pennsylvania motorcycle license. According to our source, Roethlisberger did have a learner's permit that allowed him to ride a motorcycle; but that permit expired on March 29th. The source goes on to explain that Roethlisberger never took the written and driving test required to get a motorcycle license – and would have been driving illegally at the time of the accident. At this point, the state division of motor vehicles will not comment on the licenses of specific state residents. Likewise, Pittsburgh police spokeswoman Tammy Ewing tells KDKA that police will "have no comment on licensing issues" until the accident investigation is over. (© MMVI, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 (edited) As a follow-up, turns out Big Doofus never had a license: 707778[/snapback] Might be a team thing... When the PA and PGH powers-that-be were pimping for the 2 new stadiums, Cowher went on TV and urged people to vote. IIRC, it was found out that in all his years in the area, he had never voted (I lived in the Pgh area for 11 years, and not registering to vote could keep you off the property tax rolls somehow). Edited June 13, 2006 by stuckincincy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 So helmet and seat belt laws are unacceptable restrictions on personal liberties put in place to maximize the profits of the big insurance companies? Do you live on Ruby Ride or in some kind of compound somewhere? I'll leave your underlying argument alone (that government can do no good and certainly wouldn't pass any laws for the safety and well being of its citizens) and state my original point again - it's BS to claim that, in the name of personal liberties, you should be able to do anything you want that might result in your own serious injury or death because it's only you who's impacted. Other ARE impacted, resources are used and life does not take place in a vacuum. 707752[/snapback] I would still make the argument that having a law which requires you to wear a seat belt is government playing daddy, which shouldn't happen. If they want to make a campaign for people to wear their seat belts, great, but I wouldn't make a law requiring it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Avenger Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 My point is that people are not perfect creatures. From time to time, they will do things that you personally disapprove of. To answer my own question, it is much more safe to drive a car while not wearing a seatbelt than it is to drive a motorcycle with a helmet. Wouldn't you agree? Does this mean that we should ban motorcycles entirely? Also, I think that waiting for illegal aliens to be treated (for no charge of course) has a far greater impact on the speed/cost of your medical care than do a few idiots on bikes with no helmets. Any suggestions on how to deal with that particular problem (if of course you deem it a problem)? Btw, I do not like motorcycles. I have seen up close what can happen and choose not to ride. I just don't think that things shoud automatically be banned because I feel a certain way. 707769[/snapback] People aren't perfect - agree with you there. Corrolary would follow that accidents happen and there are no ways to avoid them. I also agree with you on the seat belt vs. helmet. Even if you don't wear a seat belt, you still have a windshield and some steel and air bags to help out in a crash. Hit some road debris in a car and it makes a big noise and may cause some tire or undercarriage damage. Hit that same debris on a bike and you're in big trouble, and if you're not wearing a helmet (and maybe even if you are) you might die. What I'm not following is how if you believe it's safer to not wear a setabelt then you think motorcycles should be banned - you lost me there. Perhaps its a slippery slope argument that if I support people not being allowed to ride without a helmet then I could also argue that people shouldn't be allowed to ride bikes at all? That's ceratinly not an argument I'm making. As for where you draw the line and place governmental restrictions on potentially dangerous or deadly activities, that's up for debate. Personally, I believe government has a right to limit your freedom to ride with the wind in your hair on your bike or limit your ability to slide over to the passenger seat because you have to wear a seatbelt if such restrictions result in fewer resources (police, EMT, road crews, public hospitals, etc.) being expended when there's an accident (you may feel differently). I also personally feel that, despite some really dark cynicism, government does make law to protect the safety and wellbeing of their citizens. I'm not going to get sucked into the immigration question, but I think you're being too narrow if you place the burden of busy hospitals on illegals. The problem isn't that uninsured illegal immigrants clog up the system, its that UNINSURED people clog up the system - illegals are only a part of that group. Plenty of red-blooded American citizens who go to the emergency room with a stomach ache because they don't have any insurance and the hospital can't turn them away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 People aren't perfect - agree with you there. Corrolary would follow that accidents happen and there are no ways to avoid them. I also agree with you on the seat belt vs. helmet. Even if you don't wear a seat belt, you still have a windshield and some steel and air bags to help out in a crash. Hit some road debris in a car and it makes a big noise and may cause some tire or undercarriage damage. Hit that same debris on a bike and you're in big trouble, and if you're not wearing a helmet (and maybe even if you are) you might die. Would that be the same precious police resources that the government sends out on ashtray patrol? Bill is correct that originally the seatbelt leftislation was passed because insurance companies lobbied (paid) for it. As for where you draw the line and place governmental restrictions on potentially dangerous or deadly activities, that's up for debate. Personally, I believe government has a right to limit your freedom to ride with the wind in your hair on your bike or limit your ability to slide over to the passenger seat because you have to wear a seatbelt if such restrictions result in fewer resources (police, EMT, road crews, public hospitals, etc.) being expended when there's an accident (you may feel differently). I also personally feel that, despite some really dark cynicism, government does make law to protect the safety and wellbeing of their citizens. Pass over some of what makes you so ideological. I could use it, it's obviously better than reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts