text:
Statistics: Washtenaw County motorcyclists without helmets more likely to be injured
Courtesy of the Michigan State Police
Statistics show helmetless motorcycle riders in Washtenaw County are more likely to suffer an "incapacitating injury," according to state police records.
MLive and AnnArbor.com examined state police data for nearly 3,000 motorcycle crashes - with and without helmets - in the six months after Michigan's helmet law was repealed, April 13 to Oct. 13.
Since Gov. Rick Snyder and lawmakers changed the state's 35-year-old law six months ago, there have been at least 700 motorcyclists without helmets involved in accidents.
Both statewide and countywide, the data show motorcyclists who don't wear helmets are more likely to suffer injuries.
In Washtenaw County, there were three reported motorcycle fatalities from April 13, 2011 to Oct. 13, 2011 according to the records. All were wearing helmets. In that same period in 2012, there were two fatalities, neither wearing helmets. One occurred Aug. 3 on Pontiac Trail in Salem Township. It involved a 40-year-old Northville man who died when a car slammed into his broken-down motorcycle as he sat on it in the roadway.
The other was Scott Pohl, whose parents think he may have been saved if he had been wearing a helmet. AnnArbor.com spoke to his parents. Read the full story here.
While fatalities were down overall, the amount of "incapacitating injuries," the phrase used on traffic accident reports, increased in that timeframe. In 2011, 11 riders wearing helmets were reported as suffering "incapacitating injuries;" in 2012, that number was 19. Eight of the 19 riders -- or 42 percent -- in the accidents were not wearing helmets.
From April 13 to Oct. 13 2012, there were 105 motorcycle accidents in Washtenaw County where it was indicated in the report whether a helmet was worn or not. Out of that 105, there were 77 accidents where riders rode with helmets and 28 where riders went helmetless. Fourteen percent of riders with helmets suffered "incapacitating injuries." The number was 28 percent for helmetless riders.
Statewide, cyclists without helmets were 43 percent more likely to suffer "incapacitating" injuries. Of more than 100 deaths, they were three times more likely to be killed, according to MLive.
Helmetless operators were at fault 50 percent of the time, compared with 41 percent for those with helmets across the state. They also were more likely to have been drinking, one in seven compared with one in 17 with helmets.
The law that allowed motorcyclists to ride without a helmet was introduced in the Michigan state Senate on March 24, 2011, and passed on June 28. In April 2012, if certified for two years or more, it was legal to ride helmetless.
See a digest of AnnArbor.com and MLive.com's coverage of the series Uneasy Riders, a five-day special report on the aftermath of Michigan's new helmet-choice law.
Detached Observer
Thu, Dec 6, 2012 : 12:34 a.m.
I'm perfectly happy if morons choose to cull themselves from the herd by riding motorcycles without helmets. But I take issue with the idiots who say that wearing helmet does not make one safer. Really? Construction workers, football players and soldiers wear helmets. Race car drivers "live on the edge" and they wear helmets. Even a cheap plastic helmet can make the difference between a nasty gash and no harm done. I know this from personal experience from my days on a chainsaw crew. If all this isn't clear to you, go for a nice long drive and think it over.
harry b
Wed, Dec 5, 2012 : 5:40 p.m.
This just in ....Rain is wet.
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 11:35 p.m.
This one sure got the Obama liberals excited! I really want the govrnment to protect me, how about water wings when I take a shower?? Take a breath and think about the deficit.
A A Resident
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 11:28 p.m.
Maybe the lobbyists who either knowingly or negligently presented skewed information should be charged with the same thing?
Elaine F. Owsley
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 10:36 p.m.
When these folks are killed or maimed because of the change in the law, can we arrest Gov Snyder and charge him with something like negligent homicide or wanton endangerment?
zip the cat
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 8:49 p.m.
Anyone who rides a motorcycle without a helmet is a complete and total moron.
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 8:33 p.m.
Well, duh! And the cynical pols who voted for this knew it; national data showing this have been available for years. Darwin's law will help cull the herd.
A A Resident
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 8:28 p.m.
2Wheels, cars already have a host of legally mandated safety provisions, which are much more effective than any safety provisions on motorcycles. If cars didn't have seatbelts, crush zones, airbags, padded dashes, side-impact beams, collapsible steering columns, rollover protection, and the driver wasn't surrounded by a protective steel cage, then yes, I might not object to a law requiring helmet use in cars. And I've worn a helmet every time I've taken one of my cars to the racetrack, even though they already had most of those safety items.
A A Resident
Wed, Dec 5, 2012 : 2:01 p.m.
If freedom was truly your issue, there are plenty of other things to take a stand on which won't result in loss of life. I own motorcycles. They don't own me. I don't rely on them for my identity. So I can take a more practical approach than the emotional approach some motorcyclists take. I haven't been brainwashed by a small but vocal part of the motorcycle culture, and am largely independent from their peer pressure, so I'm not interested in running around like Chicken Little, claiming that "the sky is falling". My pragmatic approach, and decrying a change in the law which results in more killing and maiming of us motorcyclists makes me part of some problem? Get a grip, son!
Wed, Dec 5, 2012 : 1:46 a.m.
I completely disagree. Freedom is freedom. Freedom to ride a motorcycle is no different than freedom not to wear a helmet. If forfeiting freedom in the name of safety is acceptable in regards to helmets, why not motorcycles in general? I promise you it will happen some day. As I stated earlier, if the motorcycle had been invented today, there's no way it would have been approved for use by the general public. They're only legal now because they were invented in a time when people didn't expect the government to take care of them like they do now. That's why you're such a huge part of the problem. If you, a motorcyclist, says we're not capable of deciding for ourselves what level of safety is acceptable, why would they stop at helmets. You're actually a bigger part of the problem than the armchair quarterbacks who point at us and shake their heads in disapproval.
A A Resident
Wed, Dec 5, 2012 : 12:38 a.m.
P.S. I seriously doubt that we will accomplish anything to preserve motorcycling by approving legislation which withdraws safety requirements, making them more dangerous.
Wed, Dec 5, 2012 : 12:35 a.m.
What happens when they realize that in spite of helmets it's still incredibly dangerous? Nothing more than a quick stroke of the pen could save many motorcyclists. All of them in fact. THAT'S bang for your buck! Again, I hope you figure it out before it's too late. Good luck!
A A Resident
Wed, Dec 5, 2012 : 12:28 a.m.
If we want to have continued freedom to ride motorcycles, I think one of the most productive things we could do is to take some simple and proven steps to reduce the injury and death rates. Like wearing safety gear. If that needs to be mandated to save motorcycling, so be it.
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 11:55 p.m.
And now that we have that cleared up, I'll ask that another way: You'd get awesome "bang for your buck" by outlawing motorcycles, so why not do it? I sure hope you realize that's where we're headed before it's too late. If you're really a motorcyclist, you should do your part to make sure that doesn't happen. That means, vote for freedom from those who would take that freedom away. Unfortunately you're on the wrong side of the fence.
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 11:48 p.m.
Holy smokes! That was in comparison to CARS, not to riders without helmets. We were talking about CARS. Here, I'll restate it for you: Also, since riders who wear helmets are still significantly more likely to die in an accident (compared to cars), wouldn't it make sense to just outlaw motorcycles? Why don't you support that?
A A Resident
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 11:21 p.m.
"Are you delusional? What are you talking about? I never said that. Show me where I said that." It's at the beginning of the 7th post in this subsection, and bears your name. I don't know if there's any point in going back and forth any more. I think most people will get the picture, whether you do or not.
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 11:18 p.m.
So you care about a billion, but not 32,000. See, we're getting closer to a number. Somewhere between a billion and 32,000. And I didn't say I don't care about the people. I said no matter how many die, I'm not willing to make a law that stops people from choosing to do what they want to do. I'm just not so controlling.
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 11:15 p.m.
Still waiting for you to show me where I said that.
A A Resident
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 11:11 p.m.
"So I'll give you my answer. I don't care if a billion people die in auto accidents every year, .." I do, so maybe that's a fundamental difference between you and I. Perhaps you don't care about strangers, but maybe you'd feel differently if a few of those people were a wife, parent, son or daughter. That's what each of these people is to someone. We can't save them all, but we can choose where to most intelligently apply the resources we are willing to put out.
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 11:07 p.m.
Are you delusional? What are you talking about? I never said that. Show me where I said that.
A A Resident
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 10:58 p.m.
"I already told you that I never ride without one, so don't tell me I got sucked in." Didn't you say previously that motorcycle riders wearing helmets were significantly more likely to die in accidents? So why do you wear one? I think that's enough to rest my case about you getting sucked in, one way or another.
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 10:56 p.m.
That's a politician's answer. I want to know the actual number. How many people must die per year in auto accidents before you think mandating helmet usage in cars is justified. How many? Obviously, since you think they should be mandatory for motorcyclists, you've come up with a number. So, apply it to cars. How many? Can't answer it, can you? Until then we'll just say you have no problem with 32,000 dead people per year. So I'll give you my answer. I don't care if a billion people die in auto accidents every year, I STILL don't want them mandated. Just like motorcycles. See how easy it is to show how you stand on an issue when you're not trying to run other people's lives? It's easy. It's much harder to defend your position when you're talking about taking away people's freedoms based on some "bang for the buck" arbitrary number. You have to resort to personal attacks instead.
A A Resident
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 10:47 p.m.
"So define "bang for the buck". You're avoiding the question. What number of people have to die in auto accidents before you think helmets should be mandatory? Answer the question." Sorry, thought I had already answered the question. In my mind, "bang for the buck", in this context, means application of helmet laws where they will do the most good for the least money, as a first priority. That would be motorcycles.
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 10:42 p.m.
I already told you that I never ride without one, so don't tell me I got sucked in. If I had, I wouldn't wear one. But obviously you know you can't defend your "bang for the buck" logic, so now you're attacking me.
A A Resident
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 10:36 p.m.
"Also, since riders who wear helmets are still significantly more likely to die in an accident, .." I guess you haven't digested the article, and haven't taken a hard look at the other similar information from many other sources. What I dislike most about the repeal of the helmet law is that it was mostly accomplished through spin and deception. The main claim was that helmets didn't provide an increase in safety, not that they infringed on freedom of choice. You and I both know the "no-safer" agenda has been pushed so hard for so many years, that many motorcyclists believe it. And some will make decisions based on it. It looks like you've been sucked in by that too. That's the biggest tragedy, that accurate information has been eclipsed by an agenda, largely pushed by a subset of motorcyclists, to the detriment of other motorcyclists who make the mistake of believing them. Way to pi$$ on our own people! Had the helmet law been repealed based on "Sure, it's quite a bit more dangerous to ride without one, but personal freedom should prevail", I'd feel a little differently about it.
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 10:28 p.m.
So define "bang for the buck". You're avoiding the question. What number of people have to die in auto accidents before you think helmets should be mandatory? Answer the question.
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 10:26 p.m.
Also, since riders who wear helmets are still significantly more likely to die in an accident, wouldn't it make sense to just outlaw motorcycles? Why don't you support that?
A A Resident
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 10:24 p.m.
My tipping point? I"m inclined to go along with "bang for the buck", until I learn of something better. The first most effective and effective use of helmets appears to be on motorcycles and race vehicles. The race vehicle thing is already a done deal.
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 10:11 p.m.
OK, so what's YOUR tipping point. I'm not asking about a politician. You're obviously for helmets on motorcycles, so how many people have to die per year before you're all for wearing them in cars as well? 32,000 obviously isn't enough. 60,000? Get it now? See why it should be up to the individual to decide? You can't legislate some utopian vision of safety without making it illegal to leave your house. Actually, you can't even do it then. Since it's not possible, people need to make their own informed choices. NOBODY knows better than ME what's good for ME.
A A Resident
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 9:53 p.m.
2Wheels, I'm not a politician, and have no desire to be, but I'm guessing that when politician aren't obsessed with money and getting re-elected, they think about things like efficacy, and getting the best death-reducing bang for the buck. I don't know how much has been spent cars over the years, to increase safety and crash survival. I'll take a wild guess that it comes to about $2000 per car. But it appears that a motorcyclist can highly increase safety, without much more inconvenience than fastening a seat belt, for about 120 bucks.
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 9:15 p.m.
Tell that to those 32,000 people. So if 32,000 people aren't important enough, what number is? What is the magic number of lives that makes mandatory helmet usage in cars a good law?
A A Resident
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 8:56 p.m.
Probably because motorcycle riders die at 7-10 times the rate of car drivers, when involved in accidents.
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 8:46 p.m.
And in spite of all those amazing safety features more than 32,000 people died in auto accidents just last year. So again, why aren't helmets mandatory in cars. If it could save even one life, wouldn't it be worth it?
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 8:10 p.m.
And for the next piece of startling news from the A2 Snooze: the sun will rise tomorrow.
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 7:09 p.m.
At the Hosp ER they have a name for helmet less bikers: OD (Organ Donor).
A A Resident
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 6:29 p.m.
Abe, I'll disagree with your claim that most riders hated the helmet law, although it was true for some niche groups, like Harley riders. When I lived in California, before their helmet law, the vast majority of riders wore them. The majority of riders still wear them in Michigan.
A A Resident
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 9:30 p.m.
"2wheels- You have worded it the way I was trying to. Your exactly right....I actually do wear my helmet, and I encourage others to wear theirs, but we do not want someone telling us we have to. We like to have that option, even if it is not an option we will ever exercise." So you don't want others telling you to do, even if you might have already decided to do it on your own? I was thinking of that as kind of a teenage puberty problem, so maybe I'll need to give it some more thought. But the guy owns a Shovelhead and a Triumph, so I'll probably need to rethink some of the things I've said. That's not sarcasm, but an acknowledgement that the guy is probably a highly experienced motorcyclist who knows more than most motorcyclists.
A A Resident
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 9:08 p.m.
"A A Resident, are you a rider?" Yes, currently have a Harley FXCWC, second one. Before that, a mix of chops, British, and sportbikes, including a Triumph Daytona and Bonneville, and a BSA Congrats to you on owning a shovel and a Triumph. Other readers, sorry for bike-rider shorthand that you may not understand.
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 8:42 p.m.
I've seen him. He's a BMW rider with a Nolan helmet (in safety green) with a matching safety green jacket (with airbags), and reflective stickers all over his saddle bags. Just kidding, I have a BMW myself.
Honest Abe
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 8:28 p.m.
A A Resident, are you a rider?
Honest Abe
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 8:13 p.m.
2wheels- You have worded it the way I was trying to. Your exactly right....I actually do wear my helmet, and I encourage others to wear theirs, but we do not want someone telling us we have to. We like to have that option, even if it is not an option we will ever exercise.
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 7:11 p.m.
I can only speak for myself, but yes. But again, I always wear one. If you think the seatbelt law is valid, would you also support a law requiring helmets in cars? If not, why not?
A A Resident
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 7:05 p.m.
Do you guys also hate the seatbelt law? That's a much more widespread infringement on freedom of choice.
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 6:44 p.m.
You're mixing distaste of the helmet law with not wearing a helmet. I, and many riders I know, never ride without helmets, yet every single one of us hates the helmet law. Believing in freedom of choice does NOT equate to exercising that freedom. I have never smoked, will never smoke, and can't even stand the sight of people smoking. Yet I completely support the right of others to smoke. Don't mix the two.
Honest Abe
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 5:58 p.m.
I'm a rider too. I ride a Harley panhead and a Triumph 650 Tiger. I began riding in the 60's and I can tell you that most riders (key word is 'most', not all riders) hated the helmet law. It was felt that they should have the option and not wear one if they chose. You would be surprised at how many riders went to Ohio, simply to ride without a helmet until Snyder signed the law, making it optional. It's awful to lose a life over any kind of accident, but harder if the person died when a helmet might have saved their life. But I also support people having freedom and making their own decisions. A lot of riders feel that they do not have to worry about how they ride, but how how others drive. And a lot of riders also feel that if it's anything serious involving them and their bike, oh well. And then you have the rider who likes riding on the edge, they know it is very risky riding without their helmet, but they are doing what they want, not what the government wants. You'd be surprised. These riders know all risks involved. But, they also want to make their own decisions, not have them made for them. Riding a bike is already dangerous. They are no match against a car, truck or deer. But most riders already have a risky/on the edge attitude to begin with. So what is going to be the next law? Guard rails along the sidewalk? Crossing guards at every crossing area? Helmets in cars? Knee/elbow pads for joggers? I know a lot of you do not want to hear this, but the rider should have the option. If not, then maybe the motorcycle should just be outright banned from being rode.
Honest Abe
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 8:15 p.m.
What I'm saying is I believe in freedom of choice, just like another commenter and fellow rider on here said. I personally always wear a helmet, and I encourage all riders to wear a helmet. But I support the right to not wear one if you choose not to.
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 5:41 p.m.
lol whoever made this article and study needs a helmet
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 5:34 p.m.
Helmet-Choice is a choice. This is how we weed out the gene pool. Smoking is still a choice. A stupid choice, but still a choice. Careful drivers and riders look out for the unexpected, take precautions and instill those habits in their offspring. Sometimes accidents are just freakishly bizarre. But, most are not.
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 5:20 p.m.
One of my friends once told me that he doesn't want to wear a helmet because if he crashes on a motorcycle, he'd rather not survive. If a helmet protects your head enough when you crash that you can avoid hitting a child that you might have otherwise killed, isn't it worth it? (Pulled muscle vs dead kid. Hmm.) After pulling people out of car wreaks for five years as a firefighter, crashes happen and you can't count on your experience to keep you safe. The two years of "required" certification means absolutely nothing as there is no actual documented ride time. Letting "experienced" motorcyclists ride helmetless makes no sense and unnecessarily endangers the public.
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 5:59 p.m.
Actually, I've never ridden without one. Though unlike most I don't try to impose my choices on others.
A A Resident
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 5:55 p.m.
Hope you wore your helmet, even if only for comfort. (wink)
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 5:48 p.m.
Ah, you want to play Devi's Advocate. Show me just one example of a child who has been saved because someone on a motorcycle was wearing a helmet. Just one. By the way, I rode my motorcycle to work today in the rain. Very dangerous. I probably shouldn't be allowed to. And I rode to work yesterday in the fog. Again, I probably shouldn't be allowed to. Thanks for protecting me from myself.
A A Resident
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 5:43 p.m.
"You do realize the helmet works as your head hits the pavement, right? " Or as your head hits part of the motorcycle. That's one reason why you often see padding on the handlebars of dirt bikes.
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 5:25 p.m.
"If a helmet protects your head enough when you crash that you can avoid hitting a child that you might have otherwise killed" You do realize the helmet works as your head hits the pavement, right? How exactly are you going to avoid hitting a child AFTER you've hit the pavement?
A A Resident
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 4:37 p.m.
Yes, thank you AnnArbor.com. You have probably saved some lives. Motorcyclists, you may think it's cool to ride without a helmet, but how cool is it to need to have someone else change your diapers for the rest of your life? You're not always lucky enough to die.
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 4:12 p.m.
Thank you, A2.com, for printing these statistics.
A A Resident
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 4:12 p.m.
P.S. For those who want to pick at this small study, do your homework. There are larger studies, with larger sample sizes and more thorough data acquisition, all over the world, and they come to the same conclusion.
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 6:52 p.m.
If the point is to prove something with stats then the math should be very clear. 3000 accidents.- 2300 with helmets on and 700 without. 105 In Washtenaw - 77 with vs 28 without. Both show about a three to one ratio in all accidents. That is probably the pool ratio. Great, but not having that fact quickly voids any claim about the accident results and others should be looked at. If 3/4 of all MI riders wore helmets then the accident study is good. if only half did then the math clearly says that it is safer to ride without protection. Not spin. Just simple math. Try this, Drunk drivers cause one out of ten accidents. Does that mean that drunks are safer drivers and should get an insurance discount? Absolutely Not ! The ratio of drunk drivers to others in the pool is tiny - say 1 in 1000 much less than the favorable 1 in 10 stats - but when compared as an equal weight they are by far the worst cause of accidents and are regulated as the 100x threat they really are. The math doesn't lie.
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 4:19 p.m.
And 3,000 data points is not a small study.
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 4:01 p.m.
Motorcycle riders more likely to be killed in accidents than automobile drivers. I'm sick of paying for this!! I want motorcycles outlawed altogether. And helmets NEED to be mandatory for bicycles as well. (You just can't be too safe you know.) How many more must DIE before we stop this insanity. Think of the CHILDREN. Think of the WIDOWS and ORPHANS. Think, people. THINK. (How'd I do? I'm trying to be "liberal")
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 5:06 p.m.
Still trying to get that income tax going too. Hopefully, we can soak the out of towners to pay for our art. I LIKE art. Now, off to Zingermans for a $15 reuben. Hopefully I don't need to knock the knees out from somebody standing in MY spot, but 'ya gotta do what 'ya gotta do.
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 4:05 p.m.
You did well. Your willingness to give up freedoms only for things that don't affect YOU is impressive. You'll fit in well in this town.
A A Resident
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 3:57 p.m.
Thanks for writing the follow-up story, John. It helps clear up some of the misinformation and spin in the "comments" section in the previous story, some of it from motorcyclists, and some of it the same spin which was used to change the law. I'll partly repeat something I said after the last story: As a motorcyclist who started riding over 40 years ago, I'd like to take some of the anti-helmet or pro-choice riders to task for their irresponsible claims, particularly those who lobbied for the repeal. These people have contributed to riders having a false sense of security without a helmet, or led them to believe that they hadn't substantially increased their risk. These people are partly responsible for the carnage. Shame on them! They are a disgrace to the rest of us motorcyclists.
Richard Carter
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 5:16 p.m.
Interesting point... while I agree with the spirit of the law (though not necessarily with the full implementation -- the extra insurance the riders are required to buy doesn't seem to be enough to statistically cover the extra medical care the average helmetless rider would need over a helmeted one), I can see that the spin created could well do that. I'd love some good HONEST stats... it's fine with me if the stats show that you have 10x as likely chance of being a vegetable or dying or whatever, as long as you cover the likely cost of that risk to the rest of us, go for it! But let new riders know the odds they face and let them decide for themselves. I certainly do see a risk/benefit line that has to be decided individually, and perhaps by society... nearly everyone likes to do some risky activity, and many would be horrified if skiing were illegal, or hunting, or race car driving on a track. And I can totally get the thrill of the wind in your hair. And if someone says that adrenaline rush is greater than the worry of the risk, and if they're old enough to make that decision, fine by me.
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 3:57 p.m.
How much did this great discovery cost us to be researched?
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 3:53 p.m.
Personally, I've experienced more damage when using a helmet. Fell off my bike some time back as I was rounding a curve, managed to roll away from the bike (bike was ok) but the helmet caused me to pull something in my neck. After some time being in pain I went to a doctor and ended up I had tore my trapezius in my neck. Months of physical therapy followed and it still bothers me a bit today. This past summer I decided to just lose the helmet completely cause it hurts just to ride with it. I also feel much more aware of my situation without the helmet ... if the politicians repeal the law, I'll probably be done riding.
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 3:34 p.m.
You CAN NOT count the broken down motorcyclist as a statistic for helmet use.
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 4:12 p.m.
I agree on this point.
Mark Pearlman
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 3:21 p.m.
This implications of this law goes beyond the "freedom to do dumb things" argument. The State of Michigan does have a fiduciary responsibility to the citizens/tax payers. There is compelling evidence that states who do not have helmet laws pay out considerably more in health care dollars. And increasingly, those are tax payer dollars (e.g., Medicaid), not private insurance. The best data on helmet laws and health care costs come from a CDC-sponsored study: "Increasing motorcycle helmet use can save lives and money," said CDC Director Thomas R. Frieden, M.D., M.P.H. "In 2010, more than $3 billion in economic costs were saved due to helmet use in the United States. Another $1.4 billion could have been saved if all motorcyclists had worn helmets." Helmets prevent 37 percent of crash deaths among riders and 41 percent among passengers. They also prevent 13 percent of serious injuries and 8 percent of minor injuries to riders and passengers. SOURCE: http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2012/p0614_motorcycle_laws.html For so many reasons, the legislature and the governor needs to go back and fix this flawed law.
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 7:43 p.m.
Smokers and obese people pay extra on their premiums. Why shouldn't helmet less riders? That is really all I am asking for, that those that choose to not use helmets have enough insurance so that I don't have to pay for their medical care. Is that too Liberal for you? See, I thought personal responsibility was a "conservative" notion.
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 3:37 p.m.
Clownfish... yet I as a non-smoker has to pay increased insurance rates because of smokers. Oh yeah, and I don't eat foods with high fructose corn syrup. And I don't rock climb, and I don't skateboard. Why do I have to pay for those who do?
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 3:28 p.m.
But Mark, it is about freedom!! The people that want this law don't want to pay for Other Peoples life mistakes. Don't you see the logical connection? Neither do I.
Peter Eckstein
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 3:17 p.m.
Governor Snyder is an intelligent man, but signing the no-helmet-required law was the stupidest thing he has done in his two years as governor. I hope he can find a way to explain his decision to the family of Scott Pohl and all the others.
Wed, Dec 5, 2012 : 12:03 a.m.
Good to see Senator Warren voted against it too.
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 11:58 p.m.
I agree. I was very disappointed he signed this. I wrote to to Rep Ouimet, who was my rep and he replied he was against this. According to this article, he voted against it. http://michiganvotes.org/RollCall.aspx?ID=591984
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 3:16 p.m.
In other breaking news, people walking in the rain without an umbrella are more likely to be wet, and people outside in the winter without a coat are more likely to be cold. Any other science breakthroughs for us today?
Craig Lounsbury
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 3:12 p.m.
If I was going to smack you upside the head with a baseball bat with your choice of... A. a baseball hat on B. a motorcycle helmet on which would you choose? Does "living dangerously or on the edge" factor in?
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 5:10 p.m.
"One should prepare for a worst case scenario" So you DO wear a helmet all the time just in case you get hit with a bat? That is the worst case scenario, and you should be prepared. Right? And it'll cost you LESS than $200. Right? No, I didn't think so. You're only worried about OTHER people.
Craig Lounsbury
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 4:58 p.m.
One should prepare for a worst case scenario if that preparation is a $200 investment in life or death.
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 3:31 p.m.
Terrible analogy. In your example someone IS going to hit you in the head. You don't walk around with a helmet on because someone MAY hit you in the head with a baseball bat. Likewise, most motorcyclists ride their whole lives without a serious accident. In your analogy, if I KNEW I was going to get in a motorcycle accident, I WOULDN'T RIDE AT ALL.
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 3:09 p.m.
My fellow riders and I call those bikers without helmets no brainers.
Bob W
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 3:05 p.m.
No more, no less than the laws of physics. Why do you suppose they wear helmets in the NFL?
Richard Carter
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 5:08 p.m.
Most players on the field are VERY likely to be hit in a game... that's part of the game, to AIM for them. So yeah, the others could be hit, but the odds are a lot lower. It all comes down to cost/benefit. And, sometimes, unintended consequences. Put a helmet on the wrong person in some field in the name of safety and discover it obstructs their vision and causes them more accidents.
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 4:17 p.m.
And the laws of math that those physics depend upon. Why do you suppose the benchwarmers, the coaches, the assistants, and the refs are not all wearing their helmets, too? Maybe nobody but the big oafs go out looking to hit someone or be hit.
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 3:02 p.m.
Great job of twisting statistics. Oh, and people that ride without helmets are alcoholics! Maybe it's because some of the older riders like to ride without helmets, and the younger riders, who have a higher accident rate, are too young to drink. And blaming motorcyclists for excessive medical care is irresponsible; how about the crazy bicycle riders that ride without helmets and recklessly ride like they own the road? And how about car drivers with minimun coverage and no medical? The Michigan Unlimited Medical law covers everyone. Instead of complaining about Motorcyclists, why don't you work on changing the law.
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 2:51 p.m.
For those that savor this "freedom" to go without a helmet, how many orphans can we put you down to support? We know most of you don't want the gubment taking care of them because Mom and Dad made a life mistake.
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 7:38 p.m.
no takers? I am shocked.
Elaine F. Owsley
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 2:46 p.m.
Really? Motorcyclists ANYWHERE are more likely to be injured without helmets.
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 2:41 p.m.
The situation is very similar to the Barry Bonds steroid example now used to describe global warming effects. It's hard to attribute any individual home run to Bonds' steroid use, but the drugs created the environment that let him hit 73 in one year. Likewise, it's hard to say someone died in any individual motorcycle accident because he wasn't wearing a helmet, but the impact is obvious over the long term.
Richard Carter
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 5:05 p.m.
That's a problem with lots of discussions on lots of topics on annarbor.com (and everywhere) -- if 1,000 more people died because they didn't wear helmets than wouldn't have, it just takes one person to know someone (or he heard of someone who knows someone) who claimed that in a weird circumstance, not having a helmet meant a car bumper JUST cleared their head... then they start campaigning that going helmetless saved a guy's life so it's better. It's like the bicycle discussions, which boil down to "I saw a guy riding in the dark with no headlights on the wrong side of the road, let's make bicycling FAR more regulated as they are the big danger to driving," of course ignoring the dozen idiot drivers they encountered who were speeding, tailgating, texting, and otherwise driving illegally. One anecdote, it seems, is worth a thousand stats.
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 2:31 p.m.
No, really? you don't say!! thanks for pointing this out to us dumb rubes.......
Robert Granville
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 2:24 p.m.
The new helmet law is a no-brainer. You shouldn't be legally obligated to wear one and you probably won't survive an accident without one. If a man lives for danger, let him die for it.
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 11:43 p.m.
Problem is we all have to cover the costs. You have to be brainless (or suicidal) to ride without a helmet.
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 2:17 p.m.
Helmets don't save lives government involvement does ! We need to be locked in our houses for our own safety ! If we stayed in bed all day there would be less accidents! Why not take Bobs money and give to Tom , then Tom can stay in bed and not Get hurt ? You guys are really SMART
Wed, Dec 5, 2012 : 12:09 a.m.
I was referring to your desire to have your government sterilize your life.
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 11:59 p.m.
2WHEELS, how does my surfing the internet cause your premiums to rise?
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 7:46 p.m.
Well Clown, perhaps you should consider China. Their government is huge and intrusive and oppressive. Is that what you want? Maybe you should be protected from what you read on the internet as well.
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 7:37 p.m.
Afghanistan has weak central government, something many here want to see more of. I bet they have no regulations about helmets. No Jondhall, I don't need Sen Vitter to come help me dress. But, I do want to know that my kids jammies don't have toxins in them, or that their school does not have asbestos or lead paint. I think the last few presidents have enjoyed your money, along with the last few decades of congress, both liberal and conservative. Did you know that federal spending has dropped in the last few years? bet you didn't. Did you know that more than likely your taxes and insurance will go up due to the new helmet law? More injuries + no increase in riders premiums= cost passed along to other people.
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 6:10 p.m.
He is a wacko liberal no doubt needs the government to dress him!
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 3:50 p.m.
Did you really just give Afghanistan as an example of a free society? That has to be the most ignorant statement I've seen today. Afghanistan's Government is an Islamic Republic. I sure hope when you go there looking for freedom that you're not a woman. You might not come back.
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 3:39 p.m.
Clown unions protect people too, I guess? You have your PRESIDENT enjoy my $$
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 2:42 p.m.
Here, have some asbestos with your lead. Why do we need those silly lines in the road? More rat feces in my canned goods, please, and just a little more salmonella salad on the side. And why should doctors need a license to practice? When I want to live without governments I go to Sudan or Afghanistan. Great places, you goin'?
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 1:47 p.m.
This article is a great example of how the same statistics can very easily be used for BOTH sides of an argument.
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 5:12 p.m.
Richard, yes, you're right, there can be interconnected effects. For instance, perhaps people are more likely to wear helmets in bad weather and thus more likely to have an accident while wearing a helmet. Maybe people who like to ride without helmets don't ride in bad weather. Etc. All of those things have to be considered when answering the question, Are you more likely to have an accident while wearing a helmet? Or even, Is it more dangerous to ride without a helmet (which, I agree, is sort of the question of this article's headline)? But the data does unambiguously show, "If you're in an accident, you're more likely to be injured without a helmet." Since those odds are about 40-50%, a helmeted rider would have to be about 50% more likely to have an accident to even out the effect, and I really doubt that's the case.
Richard Carter
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 5 p.m.
Snark12, I *think* that's what LXIX was getting at... I was having a bit of trouble following it all, but yes. You really have to know things like what percentage of riders do/don't wear helmets. That'd be a good first cut. But sometimes with deeper drilling you can find other correlations that mess up pulling out the right conclusions... for example, is there a correlation either way between experience and helmet use? I imagine some riders with age and experience or maybe they just know a now-vegetable say "wow, I really SHOULD protect my brain better." Conversely, some riders with experience may say "I'm a better rider now, so no reason to keep wearing a helmet." Does one tend to predominate? Just an example.
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 4:40 p.m.
@LXIX - The data does not say you're 3X as likely to have an accident if you wear a helmet. You could just as (wrongly) assume that only 700 people rode without helmets and they ALL had accidents. Of course you need to know the data from the entire pool of riders to make such a statement.
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 4:37 p.m.
@snark12 Yes. The numbers for those without helmets in accidents are daunting. But as said before - 3000 accidents and only 700 are without helmets. That in itself says riders are 3x more likely to have accidents if wearing helmets. Who really knows withouth the pool facts? Based on that ratio alone, however, it is 3x safer to ride without a helmet when not looking for an accident. Once in an accident, however, put the helmet on..
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 4:09 p.m.
@LXIX What I said is perfectly accurate. I was discussing "motorcyclists having an accident," not the entire population of cyclists. And if you want to argue that wearing a helmet makes you more likely to have an accident, there is nothing in the data presented that indicates that. Yes, you'd have to look at the entire population of cyclists for that same six month period in 2011 and 2012 to even see if a difference is detectable.
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 3:41 p.m.
@snark12 Please read my post above. Without any more story detail the helmeted injury stats are actually 3 times higher! Suppose I took all the diamonds out of a deck of cards. There are twice as many black cards as red ones in the entire "pool". If I pay out $3 on a $2 bet for choosing the correct color card drawn from the pool what color should be bet on? So it make a difference how the deck is stacked? If out of 4 tries 3 drawn were actually red and 1 was black would red now be a safer bet? How many riders are accident free (the deck) and what percent go without a helmet (black)? It really makes a big difference.
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 2:32 p.m.
Well, only if you let someone try to use the statistics in a misleading way. The stats for Washtenaw County alone are less conclusive because the number of data points is smaller, but they generally agree with the larger state-wide data set. And, yes, I think the number of data points is meaningful (3000 motorcycle accidents statewide in six months, 700+ without helmets). The result is pretty clear: motorcyclists having an accident are 40-50% more likely to be seriously injured if they're not wearing a helmet.
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 1:41 p.m.
My question is does riding without a helmet cost more in auto insurance? My auto insurance gives me a discount for saying I will ware a sit belt.
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 11:42 p.m.
Judy, it is supposed to. According to this article, if you are dumb enough to ride without a helmet you are required to purchase an extra $20,000 in medical insurance. I don't know what twit added that to the law, since in a serious accident, $20k will likely cover about 20 minutes in an ER. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2012/0413/Look-ma-no-helmet!-Michigan-repeals-helmet-law-for-motorcyclists Also I cannot understand how anyone would know a helmetless cyclist has purchased the additional insurance. Or if it applies to out of state riders. How the hell would they know that? I am particularly irked about this because of the ongoing battle over the cost of health care and this law does not only run up costs for riders, but it will for the rest of us too in regard to the costs of those who neglect to purchase the insurance. I would prefer laws that require people to try as much as possible to stay health which will help keep costs down.
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 1:49 p.m.
Those are marking ploys. They would not really charge you more if you said no, it's all a gimmick to make you think you got a smoking deal. The agent would just find another way to make you feel you got a deal (safe driver, own a car that is not red, change your tires regularly, the car is new, the car is old, the car is not on the list of top 2 stolen cars last month, you live in Ann Arbor, you don't live in Ann Arbor, you are a woman, you are not a kid, etc....) If you study psychology, you will find that most would answer yes even if it was no, as they would feel it would benefit them, and would ask "how would they know?" Insurance is a scam system, for those who sell it and those who try to cheat it. The rest of us - majority - fit the bill.
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 1:33 p.m.
This news depends upon the representative pool of TOTAL riders. Out of THAT unknown pool of 'with' or 'without' helmet riders - there were 3000 mc crashes april 13 - oct 13 and out of that 3000 total, 700 of the mc crashes had no helmets Because the TOTAL pool is unknow we "assume" it is equal between those with and without helmets, What your result would say then is that if you wear a helmet you are more than 3 times as likely to have an accident. Here >>> 2300 with versus 700 without. Those without helmets are 3x more likely to avoid all injury and that same 3x weighting must be used in all your injury results as well! If one dies with a helmet and 2 die without then because most without avoided the crash altogether by a 3:1 ratio effectively 3x1=3 died with a helmet on and 2 without, NOW do those numbers again. Only when the TOTAL pool is exactly out of every 3000 riders 700 have no helmet does this story mean anything. If out of all michigan riders half go without helmets then the 3x must be used. If only 2300 total riders in MI wore a helmet then the story would be "if anyone wears a helmet they are 100% likely to be in an accident." Not good !
Wed, Dec 5, 2012 : 10:52 a.m.
Sorry Jake C. but that is exactly how the chain of probability works in statistics. Like drawing from a deck of cards, without knowing how the original pool is arranged the outcome startistics are meaningless. Like drawing 5 aces from a deck is probably not a miracle but rather a stacked card deck. Because the aritcle did not say how many riders wear helmets to begin with (the deck) a guess has to be made and the statistics viewed from that starting point. The motorcycle statistics are news but have zero meaning if the rider deck is "unknow". With no other info 50/50 helmets to no helmets is the "fair" starting point. Others were shown. A balance or equal distribution or "fair" deck or dice is how probability calculation is normally begun . Avoid Vegas.
Jake C
Wed, Dec 5, 2012 : 2:57 a.m.
"Because the TOTAL pool is unknow we "assume" it is equal between those with and without helmets," Good job of making assumptions, but that's not how statistics works, so your entire analysis is flawed.
Urban Sombrero
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 1:30 p.m.
File this one under, "DUH!".
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 1:26 p.m.
Statistics also show that walking down the street without a helmet increases your chance of a head injury. Yet nobody's proposing a law forcing people to wear helmets when they walk. If the motorcycle was invented today, the Government would never allow it to be sold to the public. People want safety legislated, but to what end? Maybe it's time to take a good look at how dangerous cars really are. Can you imagine how many lives we could save if we got rid of cars? We should start by making helmet use in cars mandatory. You laugh, but it has already happened with seat-belts and airbags. What's next?
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 1:21 p.m.
Bit of an error in logic there. "Both statewide and countywide, the data show motorcyclists who don't wear helmets are more likely to suffer injuries." That's a fallacy of composition. To demonstrate that, you'd have to have information on *all* motorcyclists, not just people involved in crashes. It's like saying, "Looking at book store receipts, people buy more mysteries than cookbooks, so humans are more interested in mystery than eating." What the article should say is that of those motorcyclists involved in crashes, those who weren't wearing helmets were more likely to receive incapacitating injuries. That really doesn't say too much about the safety of experienced people motorcycling without helmets. Look at the two fatality examples. One was a young, inexperienced motorcyclist breaking the law and living dangerously. The other was an older man hit while sitting on the side of the road. One wasn't experienced, the other wasn't actually operating the motorcycle. And the year before, three people - all helmeted - were killed in crashes. Should we conclude that helmetless motorcycling resulted in a 50% decrease in motorcycling fatalities? Of course not. Second, last I checked, "cyclists" included both motorcyclists and bicyclists. If you take, "Statewide, cyclists without helmets were 43 percent more likely to suffer "incapacitating" injuries" out of context, I'd bet most people would think you were talking about bicyclists. And I always wear my helmet when cycling to work.
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 5:17 p.m.
I know I'm being really picky here, but, your analogy about bookstore receipts should be that people buying cookbooks are interested in cooking.
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 1:46 p.m.
Yes, the stats here are not even weak, they are just numbers with very little relation. Plus, the sample size is small and the numbers a statistically useless.
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 12:55 p.m.
I feel like motorcycle licenses should default the holder to organ donation. "Hey we get it, but if you're going to ride like you are, we're going to be sharing your organs with those who might benefit"
Ghost of Tom Joad
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 3:42 p.m.
everyone should be an automatic organ donor. it's not like we need them once we're dead anyway.
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 1:31 p.m.
How do you feel about automobile drivers? They're dangerous too. Or is is just an arbitrary matter of degree that applies only to activities to which you don't participate?
Evelyn Griffin
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 12:49 p.m.
This is no brainer. The Governor and legislature give motorcyclists the right to kill themselves because it might bring in more tourists and infringing on their rights...and at the same time, ticket me if I don't protect my life by buckling up. What if I didn't want to for some moronic reason.. About time they change the law. EvieG
Richard Carter
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 4:53 p.m.
Require extra insurance or no pay-out for those who choose to ride without seat belts. I'm all for it!
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 12:40 p.m.
ALSO......let's hear a little more about the THREE fatalities of riders who WERE wearing their helmets....why did they die if they.were wearing their helmets?
Ghost of Tom Joad
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 3:41 p.m.
probably because the crash was so horrific it wouldn't have made any difference if they were wearing helmets? This is pure speculation and a spurious conclusion that you seem to draw.
Chase Ingersoll
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 12:39 p.m.
Has anyone raised the issue that riding a motorcycle on a road designed for and occupied by cars and trucks is INHERENTLY DANGEROUS and risky as compared to being in a car. And not just motorcycles - bicycles are not allowed on the interstate for a reason. But should they be allowed on any road where cars are allowed to go more than 30 miles per hour? We all pay the higher insurance rates when bicyclists, who are difficult to see and who do not travel at the same speed as legal traffic, are struck by cars.
Richard Carter
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 4:52 p.m.
Yep, I'm sure if bicycles were against the law, helmetless cyclists would never be harmed.
Unusual Suspect
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 1:28 p.m.
We all pay higher insurance premiums when people leave the safety of their homes and go to work in the morning. That must stop.
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 1:24 p.m.
See! *ANY* conversation involving anything on a street - pedestrians; motorcyclists; heck probably tractors and Amish buggies - is evidence that *bicyclists* are the problem!
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 12:36 p.m.
So basically what your saying is that I was right........fatalities went down. Lol @ all the smart people who told me I as wrong....
Carol Peterson
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 12:29 p.m.
I agree with all of the comments. Wearing a helmet is a no-brainer. Of course there are going to be more injuries/fatalites without one. Doesn't the AA news have other things to report on?
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 11:53 a.m.
Gee John ..ya think...How about " unsafe sex can be dangerous " ..or " walking across the expressway could lead to great bodily harm " ....instead of the headline how about something like " Those who CHOOSE to ride without a motorcycle helmet know the risks " ..and for all the " they crash we pay crowd " we have " my fault " car insurance because drivers buy an insurance rider then cancel after they get their plates...they crash we pay too....
Jake C
Wed, Dec 5, 2012 : 2:54 a.m.
nekm1:much like wearing helmets in a car, seatbelts in buses are not proven to increase the safety of the riders because of their physical characteristics. The same cannot be said of motorcycles and helmets.
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 1:44 p.m.
Wow, hermhawk, that statement is mind-boggling. If it's not up to the individual to determine how safe they want to live their life, who is it up to? Not just about two-wheeled transportation. Everything. Is there some freedom that could be taken away from YOU to make YOU safer? Absolutely. Are you ready for that?
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 1:05 p.m.
Exactly right! Next, they will want to cut up your food in smaller pieces, make kids wear helmets outside, turn football into flag football only...Where does it stop? People die and are injured every day from any number of things! How about seatbelts in busses?
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 12:50 p.m.
You cyclists don't get it and never will, if you even care. That Ron and Rand Paul libertarian philosophy about your individual freedoms and all else be damned you subscribe to is just plain arrogance. The helmet law you folks pushed to repeal is a slap in the face to those who value general health and safety. Remember what one sows that they shall also reap.
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 11:49 a.m.
Hello, Darwin calling.
SEC Fan
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 3:32 p.m.
he got a busy signal...
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 11:32 a.m.
Jake C
Wed, Dec 5, 2012 : 2:51 a.m.
Technically, it's possible that the overall number of helmet-less rider injuries and/or deaths have gone done since the law was passed, but that doesn't mean much from a statistical percentage, since the drop could be attributed to any number of confounding factors. What really matters is whether wearing a helmet reduces your risk of injury & death, your risk of suffering an accident in the first place, and other associated variables such as seeing that helmet-less drivers are significantly more likely to have been drinking alcohol.
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 5:31 p.m.
You beat me to it, Barzoom.
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 2:36 p.m.
You would be surprised, BAR. Just the other day some one tried to claim just the opposite, that injuries have gone down since the law passed.
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 11:27 a.m.
Dumb law. Should require those not wearing helmets to fully pay their hospital bills for any head injuries.
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 2:35 p.m.
Why would one vote this down? Seems like common sense. If you want to ride helmet less you should have enough insurance to cover yourself so we don't have to. Or, wear a helmet.
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 11:25 a.m.
Statistics: Washtenaw County motorcyclists without helmets more likely to be injured... And by the way - Water is wet...
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 11:23 a.m.
This certainly is a no brainer!! Many years ago I was involved in a motorcycle crash and that helmet sure saved my life.
Jake C
Wed, Dec 5, 2012 : 2:45 a.m.
I can't believe I need to write this, but helmets would not make car occupants any safer because of pre-existing safety measures such as seat belts and air bags. It's only at NASCAR-level speeds where helmets offer a substantial level of protection.
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 1:36 p.m.
You realize that wearing a helmet in a car makes you more likely to survive a crash also. Do you wear one in a car? Yes, the risk is greater on a motorcycle, but I'm just curious where you draw the line. Me? I even wear a helmet when I shower. Wet bathtubs are very slippery.
Hans Masing
Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 11:38 a.m.
It certainly IS a no-brainer, especially after the closed head wound turns them in to a vegetable.


text:
Been awhile since my previous post on greatest game character. Well, its time for dante to step down and introduce another great character! Today's greatest game character is the renowned black hammer from darksiders, ulthane!
Ulthane is badass, and hes probably the only badass character in the darksiders game. Sure the game had its fair share of cool looking characters, but none of them can compare to the all so awesome ulthane. Its a shame that ulthane doesnt play a major part in the story (though he does end up crafting the armagedon blade after war collects all the shards), but if he did, the story wouldnt be as interesting, since ulthane would probably end up smashing the destroyer with his bland looking but insanely powerful hammer.
|War is downright puny compared to ulthane.
Your first encounter with ulthane will probably already reveal much of his badass-ness. While you are actually sent to kill ulthane by samael, theres a slight problem. Yep, thats right, when war runs into the black hammer himself, he doesnt know whats coming. War's fight with ulthane doesnt end very well, his attacks wont pierce him, and most of war's arsenal will barely scratch ulthane. Even with war lobbing cars, sign posts and poles at the big lug, ulthane just says that flinging stones at him wont work. To even damage ulthane, war has to go all out and enter chaos mode, in which ulthane stated that it "stung" a little.
Basically saying, war, the already powerful and cool looking guy that he is (come on he is practically feared by almost everyone in the game), had to go chaos form to fight on equal grounds with ulthane. Well its fair to say that during that time, war only had part of his power with him, but even if the war at the start of the game were to fight ulthane, he still would need chaos mode to hit ulthane. If the fight dragged, Im sure ulthane would come out on top.
Personality wise, ulthane is very likeable. He seems like a cocky fella, but for his strenght, he definetely deserves it. Hes a lone wolf, and an awesome one at that. He lives alone outside of griever's lair, forging weapons in his house, and always tells trespassers to piss off. He looks down on people, in a funny way. While war is extremely feared as one of the 4 horsemen, ulthane just calls out to him "oy, horseman, over here" casually like nothing. Also, when his fight with war is interupted by the angels, he is NOT pleased, and goes on to kill the angels with war. "Shove off, pigeons!" is all I have to say. The angels are nothing but pigeons to him, just great.
|This is exactly how ulthane treats wanabes like war.
Ulthane is one of the very few characters from such a tale that I am seriously interested in. Games like dragon age or warcraft have very little characters that appealed to me, but seriously, ulthane just reeks of awesomeness. I know that a darksiders 2 has been announced, and I seriously hope for some ulthane in that game. Great to see that games such as these still have amazingly appealing characters.
"Do I like like I'm afraid of death to ye?"-Ulthane, the black hammer

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Last week while I was enjoying my tacos I thought that a taco burger would be a good idea and this weekend I got around to making them. I kept the burger patties themselves pretty simple just seasoning them with the taco seasoning and grilling them up. Near the end of the grilling I topped them with some cheddar cheese which melted nicely. From there I proceeded to construct the burgers using some of my favorite taco condiments including salsa, lettuce, tomato and avocado. At first I was thinking of using guacamole but then I decided to go with a mixture of avocado and mayo as I often enjoy mayo on my burgers and this way I would get the best of both worlds. The taco burgers turned out great! The patties were nice and moist and juicy and so full of flavour! All of the taco flavours worked really well in burger form though the burgers were a bit messy.
Taco Burger
- 1 pound ground beef
- 3 tablespoons taco seasoning
- 4 buns
- 4 slices cheddar cheese
- salsa
- guacamole
- tomato
- lettuce
- Mix the taco seasoning into the ground beef.
- Form into 4 patties 3/4 inches thick and press your thumb into the middle to form a depression on top prevent bulging.
- Brush the patties with oil, place on grill and cook until golden brown and slightly charred, about 3-5 minutes per side.
- Set aside, cover and let rest for 10 minutes.
- Assemble burgers to taste.


text:
Meet and Eat: Ida Yu, Serious Eats Summer Intern
Getting to know the folks behind the food and drinks you love.
Name: Ida Yu
Location: New York, NY and Charlottesville, VA
Occupation: 4th year college student at the University of Virginia
Guilty pleasures? Stale crackers (preferably Cheez-Its, Wheat Thins or Triscuits), bread smeared with a thick layer of butter (butter on a thin layer of bread?), broken chips (sometimes I throw my chip bags on the floor to break them before I eat them), and, even though I won't admit it to my boyfriend, pop-tarts of any flavor eaten straight out of the box.
Describe your perfect meal. I'm a sucker for local and sustainably raised food, so everything would have to fall in that category. Maybe roasted chicken with root vegetables and greens sautéed in garlic oil? Followed up by a 37-round dessert tasting course.
What food won't you eat? My main gripes with food are texture related, so I don't like tripe or tendon. And I know this is crazy, but I just don't like the texture of raw fish, so sushi unfortunately isn't for me.
Favorite food person? I have a few! Alton Brown is my main man—he's the Bill Nye of the food world; it just doesn't get better than that. Giada De Laurentis and Ree Drummond are close seconds. Giada is like the Heidi Klum of the food world—she's the woman I want to be when I grow up. And Ree is living the life I wanted to have when I was 10 and my favorite book was Little House on the Prairie (it still is...).
When did you first realize you were a serious eater? It all started, somewhat unwittingly, when I was 2 years old and learning the alphabet —I could only pronounce 'k' as 'cake.' My food-loving ways then laid dormant until I was around 12 when I became my sister's sous chef in the kitchen. My first foray into individual cooking came when I made butter out of whipped cream from a can. Since then, I've advanced a bit and taken on most of the baking in my family. My favorite thing to make? Cake, of course.
What do your family and friends think of your food obsessions? They appreciate when I cook/bake for them, but they aren't too happy when all I do is post pictures of what I've made and they don't get any! I'm also a VERY farm-to-table, hands-in-the-dirt type of person, and luckily my boyfriend doesn't mind my farm girl tendencies. Which is good since he hears about the newest type of chicken I'm in love with every other day.
Favorite food sites or blogs? The Kitchn and Food52 are both great and I could spend hours clicking through Food Porn Daily on Random. Also, Buzzfeed Food is actually pretty interesting to look through. The Salt is a great read when I'm in the mood for more thought-provoking articles.
Everyone has a go-to person they call for restaurant recommendations. Who's yours? My good friend, LK, and I like to explore new restaurants together at school or tell each other about a great place one us tried. But I actually find most of my restaurant recommendations through the internet. I'll browse Serious Eats or Yelp, or I'll post a question in Serious Eats Talk to do a little crowd-sourcing.
What is your favorite meal of the day and where do you get it? I absolutely love breakfast and brunch. Usually, I prefer to make it myself but when I'm in Charlottesville, The Pigeon Hole is my favorite brunch spot. On weekdays, oatmeal is my go-to breakfast. My third year at school, I had the exact same oatmeal (cinnamon, honey, raisins, milk) every single day.
Do you ever cook? What's the best dish you make? I'm both a cook and a baker. My favorite meal to cook is pasta with lemon-basil-garlic vinaigrette, roasted broccoli, and parm, topped off with a fried egg over medium. My favorite thing to bake is chocolate cake, topped with whatever frosting I like most that day (my birthday cake this year had chocolate tofu frosting!).
All products linked here have been independently selected by our editors. We may earn a commission on purchases, as described in our affiliate policy.


text:
Products and services of Liebherr-Ettlingen GmbH
The remanufacturing program (reman) covers the following Liebherr components:
- Diesel and gas engines
- Travel and swiveling drives
- Splitter boxes
- Hydraulic pumps and motors
- Hydraulic cylinders
- Axles (made by Dana)
- Rope winches
There is a choice of three different remanufacturing levels depending on the budget, residual machine value, and possible downtime.
Exchange component
For a preemptive order of an exchange component the downtime of the machine is under 24 hours, as the component in use is only removed after the exchange component has been delivered. The used component is completely dismantled after it has been removed. Paint is cleaned from useable individual parts, they are then cleaned, and assessed and remanufactured in compliance with strict guidelines. There is a refund for the used component, a new part warranty for the exchange component.
General overhaul
For the general overhaul, the customer's own component is restored to its original technical condition at a fixed price. Full disassembly and cleaning is included. All parts subject to wear are replaced, and a new part warranty is given on the whole component.
For this option, components are checked for faults in the Reman Competence Center. The customer is then provided with a separate cost estimate for subsequent repairs. The warranty also extends over the whole component for a repair.


text:
You must be logged in to leave a comment.
DON'T READ THIS. YOU WILL BE KISSED ON THE NEAREST POSSIBLE FRIDAY BY THE LOVE OF YOUR LIFE.TOMORROW WILL BE THE BEST DAY OF YOUR LIFE. NOW YOU'VE STARTED READING THIS. DON'T STOP. THIS IS SO FREAKY.1. say your name ten times.2. say your mom's name five times.3. say your crushes three times.4. paste this to four other games.If you do this, your crush will kiss you on the nearest Friday.But if you read this and do not paste this, then you will have very bad luck.SEND THIS TO 4 GAMES IN 143 MINUTES. WHEN YOU'RE DONE PRESS F6 AND YOUR CRUSH'S NAME WILL APPEAR IN BIG LETTERS ON THE SCREEN. THIS IS SO FREAKY BECAUSE IT ACTUALLY WORKS LOL
1 426 721 played
1 066 425 played
511 186 played
429 672 played
287 612 played
174 746 played


text:
Although many of us practice our own Thanksgiving Day traditions, it's practically status quo to mop-up your Turkey-Day plate clean with a finger-lickin' good biscuit. And growing up, it was no different in the household of now celebrity chef and Season Three Iron Chef Winner, Marc Forgione.
Marc recently shared with T-fal how he keeps his Thanksgiving tradition alive by dishing up his father's classic Chedder-Chive Biscuits. Marc's father, Larry, was a culinary legend who revolutionized American-style cooking in the '70s and '80s – and it's clear the biscuit doesn't fall far from the basket! Marc recommends serving these goldenly delicious biscuits during the holidays and using them to mop up all of the gravy on your plate (and we have to agree!)
Serve warm or drizzle with a pinch of honey as the perfect sidekick to your Turkey. If you can post, would love if you could plug the burn-proof T-fal AirBake Cookie Sheet as the best way to achieve guaranteed no-burn biscuits!
T-fal Presents Larry's Cheddar-Chive Biscuits
Makes 24 biscuits
3 cups all purpose flour
1 tablespoon plus 1 teaspoon baking powder
1 tablespoon granulated sugar
2 1/4 teaspoon kosher salt
1/2 cup grated cheddar cheese
1 bunch chopped chives
2 1/2 cup heavy cream
Warm honey, for serving, optional
1. Preheat the oven to 350 degrees; position the rack in the middle. In a large bowl, whisk together all the flour, baking powder, sugar, and salt until thoroughly combined. Stir in the cheese and the chives. Add the heavy cream and mix or knead until loose dough forms. Do not over-knead.
2. Turn the dough out onto a well floured surface and, using a rolling pin, roll out the dough to about 3/4-inch thickness. Using a 2-inch biscuit cutter, cut the dough into biscuits. Transfer the biscuits to a greased cookie sheet and bake about 18-20 minutes, or until golden brown. Serve warm with a drizzle of honey.


text:
Oral Archive
The Oral History Archive exists to record material that might otherwise be lost to future generations providing a resource & raising awareness of Newton Abbot's history.
Aims of the Oral History Archive
What was it like to live in Newton Abbot in the past? To be an evacuee during the Second World War, or to witness the bombing of the station? To live in the notorious courts, or in a grand house on Knowles Hill? To go to school in the 1940s and 1950s? To experience food rationing? What games would you play?
The Oral History Archive captures some of the memories of local people – ordinary people living ordinary lives, but in times very different from our own – in their own words. They form an important record of everyday life in our town – a record that would otherwise be lost with the passing of the generations. It is hoped that it will be a useful resource for the community, giving us a greater understanding of what life was like in our parents' and grandparents' time.
The Archive is grouped into three main themes: Click on a theme to listen to the audio clips.
A Sense of Place
Past and Present
The Second World War


text:
Although she wasn't on the bill, Beyonce made a surprise appearance at the Coachella Music & Arts Festival in Indio, Calif., on Friday night to join her husband, Jay-Z on stage during his headlining set.
Dressed in a graphic T-shirt, cut off jean shorts, mid-calf black boots and an '80s style Boy George-esque wide brimmed black hat, the superstar singer joined her main squeeze for "Young Forever," a song off his album, "The Blueprint 3."
"Ladies and gentlemen, I wanna introduce y'all to someone super-duper special," Jay-Z said as his wife began the walk out to the front of the stage. "I'm not even gonna say the name. I'm gonna let her speak for herself."
The beautiful singer drew screams from the crowd as she joined Jay-Z for the number.
The couple appeared to be enjoying themselves on stage, smiling and looking lovingly at each other during the song.
Following a host of fireworks, at the end of the number, Jay-Z paid a tribute to his lady with the crowd's help.
"One word – Beyonce!" he said. "Make some noise!"
Click HERE to watch Jay-Z & Beyonce's performance.
Jay-Z's performance was praised by the Coachella masses, including Paris Hilton, who Tweeted about the set.
"Coachella Rocks! Jay Z was amazing! So much fun with my sis and all my girls! :)," she wrote.
Katy Perry was also thrilled.
"#HOVA is ruling," the "Hot & Cold" singer wrote, referencing Jay-Z's nickname, during the star's set. "#Cochella. no. one. compares."
Another superfan — Sean "Diddy" Combs – enjoyed Jay-Z's performance from afar as the concert was Webcast on Coachella's MySpace and Facebook pages.
"JAY is GOIN IN at Coachella!!!! Watching this live feed is the closest thing to being in 2 places at once!" he Tweeted.
Beyonce wasn't the only superstar guest at the festival. Her sister, Solange Knowles appeared on the side of the stage as did California's First Lady Maria Shriver and her daughter, Katherine Schwarzenegger. Other stars spotted in the crowd included Anne Hathaway, "The City's'" Whitney Port and Justin Bobby from "The Hills."
Actress Zooey Deschanel also performed, hitting the stage earlier in the afternoon with her retro-esque ensemble, She & Him.
Related Content from AccessHollywood.com:
VIEW THE PHOTOS: The Sultry & Cynical Looks Of Zooey Deschanel
VIEW THE PHOTOS: We Like What We See Of Beyonce!
PLAY IT NOW: Music Video: Lady Gaga & Beyonce - 'Telephone'
PLAY IT NOW: Access Extended: Beyonce Brings The 'Heat'
MORE ACCESS ON THESE TOPICS: Beyoncé Knowles - Jay-Z - Music - Zooey Deschanel - Diddy


text:
The sport of yağlı güreş, or oil wrestling, is at the heart of Kırkpınar, a festival in the Turkish city of Edirne. Thousands of people will come to see these wrestlers—slick with olive oil—compete in the 651st annual games on July 2. It'll be a familiar sight for Turkish photographer Pari Dukovic, who attended the event in 2010 and 2011.
"I saw that the sport had an Old World charm to it—the festival, the prayers, the music, the instruments, the outfits," says Pari, who used to watch the festival's coverage as a teenager. "I am drawn to subject matter that makes you feel as though you are traveling through time and Kırkpınar fascinated me with its history and how it has remained an integral part of Turkish culture."
As the festival begins, drum and horn players parade through the city with the sports' grand prize—the Kırkpınar Golden Belt. The community then meets in the grand 16th century Selimiye Mosque, where the imam gives a sermon in honor of competitors past and present. For the young boys participating in the traditional Turkish coming-of-age ceremony known as Sunnet Dugunu, it's desirable to celebrate it at the same time as Kırkpınar, as the festival represents to many the ultimate in male achievement. The boy in the mosque in slide #10 wears the ornate cape associated with the ritual.
After the sermon, wrestlers pray at the graves of legendary sportsmen and proceed through the streets to the competition field, singing the national anthem. The master of ceremony introduces the wrestlers to the audience, reciting their names, titles and skills in verse. Very few of the wrestlers, who range widely in age, make a living from the sport. Nevertheless, Pari says he got the clear sense that being a part of this event is a dream come true for them. "They train for a whole year and often travel from villages all over Turkey to participate, so becoming a Kırkpınar wrestler is an achievement they take great pride in," he says. The wrestlers, wearing nothing but short leather trousers, get rubbed down with olive oil. This makes the goal of the match—to throw one's opponent on his back—all the more difficult. The matches last about 30 minutes each, while the final bout can last up to two exhausting hours.
"I think the dedication that goes into what they do is amazing," says Pari. "I hope that my photographs stand as visual documents of this tradition and that my respect is captured in these images."
Pari Dukovic is a New York City based documentary photographer. See more of his work here.


text:
Q1, How can I trust your website?
A: We accept payment IPS which is a method of payment globle. To make your order secure, you can request the refund if you do not receive your order after you pay. And as you see, we want and will try our best to do business for a long time with you.
Q2,why is selling so cheap on our website?
A:Firstly ,We are the authorized retailer and can obtain the lowest selling price.
Secondly, we only do online sales,so we operate at a lower overhead than a retail store.
For example, we do not employ any sales staff or alterations department, all of which add to the cost of operation. Since we do not need to accommodate for these costs, we can pass all the savings onto our customers.
Q3,How long will I receive the order after placing?
A: We will ship the order within 36-72 hours after bringing the payment.Usually, it will take 10-15 days to receive parcel.
Q4,Do I have to pay Tax?
A:No,we mark all the package as gift / sample one, clients don't need to pay for it. In the unlikely event that clients are required to pay for it, we will pay for that unpon the recipt of the tax invoice.
Q5,How do most transportation costs?
A: Shipping to UK, Australia, USA,Spain, Canada, France, Germany,etc. These countries we can offer you the cost of free shipping on all orders.
Q6,How do I place an order?
1. Sign up for free.
2. Log in to your account.
3. Search or Browse products, and if you want to buy them, type a number in the quantity field and click "Add to Cart". There is no minimum order.You Can add a single item if you want. And you can delete them later, or adjust the quantities if you change your mind. Products you have added to your Basket are saved there while you are looking at multiple items. Your cart is even saved for the next time if you disconnect or accidentally close your Navigator.
4. The first payment page is "address book", you can change the shipping address. For example at a different dropship address.
Q7,What kind of payment method do you accept?
A: We only accept credit cards.
Payment: You can pay money directly to us in our trading system if you wish to pay by credit card. For other payment methods, please contact our sales representative.
Q8,What if I change my mind and want a different size or color after my order is placed.
A:Yes, you can change your mind by email to contact us before the parcel sending out(within 36 hours).
Q9,How can I cancel an order?
A:If you want to cancel the order which you make,you must contact us within 36 hours after placing order. So that we can do for you before order is shipped out.
Q10.Could I return the goods?
A: Yes, but you have to send us all the proofs that will show the problems of the products that you have of us. If you can not prove who our fault is,We will refund all the money.


text:
Mehr über die Mitgliedschaft bei Scribd erfahren
Entdecken, was Scribd alles zu bieten hat, inklusive Bücher und Hörbücher von großen Verlagen.
Applications ranging from simple bottles in the belt, display a number in the queue physician practices, the timer display for competition pool, until a little complicated to show the amount of rotation in one minute lap machine.
Important components in the Circuit is the following simple counter 74LS192, and have display driver IC 74LS47 (BCD to 7 segment driver) and the indicator 7 segment LED display common anode. In fact there are other census, such as 4-bit binary counter which can be up to 16 tattoo, but here is the census that is used 10 (decade counter) would be made because the tool is the census decimal. Main component is an IC 74LS192 up / down decade counter, which is a component that can make a census to 10 (0 to 9) up and down. Component 16 is quite a lot of pins can be found in electronics parts stores. 74LS192 built with some of JK flip-flop and gate-gate logic. Logic transition from 0 to 1 (Low to High) at the UP pin (pin 14), the output BCD (binary code decimal) QA, QB, QC and QD Ascending 1 digits. Similarly if there is a logic transition on the 0 to 1 DN pin (pin 4), the BCD output down 1 digit. It is a good idea if you explained a little about the rules of the BCD, as there is on the table. This is shown in the table 4-bit binary code QD .. QA-me representasikan code decimal from 0 to 9. So that can be understood by those who view it, binary code is converted to a 7-segment LED drive by using the IC 74LS47 component. Thus, this Circuit can display the corresponding decimal number. This Circuit is used in the 7 segment LED Anoda Common, where all anoda of each LED segment is connected to one and the Vcc supply. To turn one segment, 7 segment LED pins that must be sinks (short) to ground through a resistor. Resistor that is used is 100 Ohm, and this is enough light to light this LED segment.
IC 74LS192 also equipped with a CO output pin (Carry Out) and BO (borrow Out) that each is normally high and work separately. Decimal output transition from 0 to 9 (counting up) will trigger pin CO-issued credit 0 to 1 (Low to High). On the transition from decimal 0 to 9 (counting down), a trigger pin BO-issued credit 0 to 1. Thus, the two outputs can be used as a clock trigger level for the next census. As an example in the Circuit-1 below, 2 units in the IC 74LS192Cascade to make a census of tens of value and unit. Readers can easily stay on if the census level necessary to create value for the next hundreds, thousands and so on. Rangkaian Couter Desimal of census work if akan CLR pin = 0 (low). For the input port RESET must be given in the ground or logic 0 in normal circumstances. Reset (display shows the decimal number 0) applies if the CLR pin (pin 14) is a transition from logic 0 to 1. Similarly with the pin and pin UP DN, akan work (counter rise / down) only if there is a transition from 0 to 1 on this pin. Readers need to add aCircuit of switch (key) to a trigger-counter (up / down) and Reset.


text: Prepared in advance - hee hee! Here are some science and technology-related websites: ABC News Technology & Science - A mainstream media science page. BBC News - Science/Nature - Scientific news topics from the Beeb. Also check BBC News - Technology. BrightSurf.com - "Science news and Current Events: Latest Research News in Science, Health, the Environment, Space and Technology." CNET.com - Technology news and reviews. Want a new cellular phone but don't know which one's the best? CNET is the place to check. CNN Science & Space news - From CNN's website. Also check CNN Technology News. Discover Magazine - Website of the popular magazine. eWeek.com - "Enterprise Technology News and Reviews." Google Sci/Tech News - News about science and technology. I4U News - "The Technology News Magazine and Gadget Shopping Guide," featuring "booth babes" from the trade shows. Internet Week - "Your Pipeline to the Business and Technology of the Internet." I subscribe to this at work. Kim Komando - Companion website to her popular radio show (broadcast from Phoenix) about computers. Live Science - News about science in several categories. MSNBC Tech/Science - News from MSNBC. NASA science news - "Aimed at the general public." firstname.lastname@example.com - From the popular magazine Nature. NewScientist.com - Website of New Scientist magazine. New York Times science news - From "The Old Gray Lady," who also hosts a Technology News page. Popular Science - My grandfather subscribed to this magazine and loved it. Science Daily - News about recent scientific research in several categories. Science Magazine - published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science - check their companion news website EurekAlert! Science News - Excerpts from the weekly science magazine. I used to subscribe to this one many years ago. Scientific American - Website of the popular science magazine. I used to subscribe to this one too. Slashdot - "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters." I've been told I would have to turn in my Geek Card if I don't check Slashdot periodically. SPACE.com - News about space in several categories. Companion website to Live Science. TechWeb - "The Business Technology News Network." Wired News - Computer and Technology related news. Yahoo science news - Along with Yahoo Tech news, an extensive sub-menu for each major category and an impressive listing of articles. EDIT - To add Internet Week


text:
Following a tradition started by Fat Cyclist, below is my open letter to Trek about my desire to have a 2010 Trek District Carbon.
Dear Trek,
Let me introduce myself. My name is Ben Cooper and besides writing this blog, working a demanding job and being a father/husband – I am also a roadie. I don't use the term "roadie" lightly. I rode over 10,000 miles on my bicycles last year and will probably do that again this year. I love all things cycling:
- I love to talk about bikes – based on my influence 10% of all conversations around our office center on bikes. In fact, my company now sponsors a local cycling team.
- I love to ride bikes – I've gone from never riding further than 9 miles to riding 250+ miles per week.
- I love to use my bike riding for good – raising almost $12,000 for LIVESTRONG and over $5,000 for MS, and Children's Medical Center of Dallas.
So you might be asking yourself why am I writing to you? I can sum it up in two words . . . District Carbon. I saw pictures of the District Carbon bike above and instantly fell in love. I got the "single speed" bug last year and haven't looked back. There is something very primitive, but very satisfying about riding with one gear.
However, there's been one problem. I own a very nice (sorry, it's not a Trek) carbon race bike. I've grown accustomed to the benefits that a lightweight carbon frame and nice wheels can provide. So why is that a problem? Because a high-performance carbon single speed didn't exist . . . until now!
What I'm asking for
So by now you probably know where this is headed. I would like for you to send me a Carbon District. Why should you send me a Carbon District?
- This blog has grown (to my amazement) over the years. It now reaches 10,000+ roadies every month looking for product reviews and cycling stories.
- This blog was also featured in the greatest cycling magazine on the planet – ROAD (highlighting my Little Known Facts About Jens Voigt).
- I've convinced countless other riders (well, actually 7 riders) to also purchase single speed bikes and learn the pure joy of hammering with just one gear.
But I'm not asking you to send me a free bike, on no.
Here's what I'll do
- A thorough review on this blog of the District Carbon with updates as I learn the subtle nuisances of the bike.
- I'll document (via my blog and video) how the Carbon District can be the ultimate, PERFORMANCE, commuter bike. If you're going to ride a bike to work, a single speed makes a lot of sense for the sake of simplicity. But why ride some slow, steel, track frame when you can ride a performance-oriented, carbon bike that can shave minutes off the daily commute. The fact that my pants won't get dirty from a conventional chain is a bonus.
- I will also ride the bike in a LIVESTRONG Challenge (riding the longest distance available) and guarantee to raise at least $5,000 towards the fight against cancer.
Clearly this is a win-win for all parties involved. I win because my wife won't divorce me for buying another bicycle and Trek wins because of the huge buzz my posts are sure to create for the District Carbon.
Look forward to hearing from you,


text:
"On The Rise Documentary X" Starring Tha Captin (Feat. Fat Trel, Sasha Go Hard, and Jose Guapo) [User Submitted]
New Mixtape "OhhGee" Dropping Dec. 11th hosted by Dj Smallz and Big Mike
firstname.lastname@example.com or 615-714-2516
Posted by @Worldstarvids
Please click the "Report" button below if the video on this page is not working properly.
Comments will only be displayed by verified emails. No Spamming or Racism.


text:
I mentioned yesterday that Marines from the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit embarked on the Essex Amphibious Ready Group would be part of U.S. forces responding to the disaster in Japan. Today I learned about what the rest of the Marines stationed in Japan will be doing to help. It mainly consists of repositioning rotary wing aircraft and cargo planes from Okinawa and Southern Japan to bases and locations closer to the disaster site. But it also involves the use of the High Speed Vessel (HSV), a catamaran hull ship operated by contractors and used to ferry Marines and gear around the theater. (I've never been aboard the HSV, but those that have had the pleasure of going for a ride no-so-affectionately refer to it as "the vomit comet".)
From the press release:
Today, III MEF personnel and gear departed the Naha Military Port at 9 a.m. on the High Speed Vessel in route to mainland Japan. The HSV will deliver a Forward Arming and Refueling Point (FARP) for use in the assistance operations. A FARP is a temporary facility normally located close to the area of operations that allows aircraft to conduct continuous operations without having to return to an established airport to obtain fuel. This capability enables helicopters to fly rescue and transport missions almost non-stop.
The HSV is also transporting additional supplies, communications equipment and personnel that will be used in the relief operations. The FARP and other supplies will arrive at Marine Corps Air Station Iwakuni for further transportion to the identified FARP location.
Eight CH-46E transport helicopters of Marine Medium Helicopter Squadron 265, MAG-36, 1st MAW, III MEF normally located at MCAS Futenma are now positioned at NAS Atsugi and available to conduct relief operations. The mission of the Marine Corps rotary wing aircraft in support of relief operations is survey, recovery and humanitarian assistance support.
Humanitarian assistance survey teams are in place and ready to begin assessing the damaged area and assisting the Government of Japan with providing accurate information to disaster relief planners, both military and civilian. The HASTs are capable of distributing supplies and providing basic medical care for those in immediate need of aid.
Read it all here. Check out all the slides here.
Related Articles
- U.S. Military Joins in Relief Effort (online.wsj.com)
Tags: 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit, Asia-Pacific, HMM-265, III Marine Expeditionary Force, Japan, Marine Corps Air Station Futenma, Marine Corps Air Station Iwakuni, Marines, postaweek2011, United States Marine Corps


text:
Dedicated to eilonwy77
Katie is a wonderful member of the online Lego universe, and faerie princess of the cheese slope. Constantly weaving fantasy stained glass masterpieces and endless memorizing patterns the rest of us are consistently inspired to invest in detail. She is also awesome and encouraging, and a good friend to many. But many of you here at Classic-Castle know this already.
Anyways here is a SigFig we made for her
Credits: A lot of the design was inspired by http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=3562483


text:
have a grasp of
Like this video? Subscribe to our free daily email and get a new idiom video every day!
have a (good/solid/sound/etc.) grasp of/on (something)
To have a firm, clear understanding or determination of something. I hope everyone has a solid grasp of the material, as you'll be tested on it next week. I thought I had a pretty good grasp on English idioms, but I don't understand this one at all!
have a grasp of
see under get a fix on.


text:
Bu efekt, yüksek çözünürlükte bir görüntü oluşturabilir
This is not just a simple graffiti effect, this is a way of expressing yourself through the art of painting walls. With this work of art you also have a natural round canvas, ideal for your portrait or picture of your choice. Get inspired and add an urban graffiti effect to your pictures.


text:
It's Friday night. You've got your crew and rolls of cash.
Need a ride to the new club on the west side of town?
Just call the 1-800 number on the back of your NFL player I.D. card. The NFL Players Association will provide a chauffeured car to take you wherever and whenever -- that's 24/7/365 -- you need to go.
"It's a great service," said Shaun Smith, a defensive lineman who has played for seven teams, including the Bengals, Browns, Chiefs and Titans. "Guys just need to take advantage of it."
The Player Transportation Link (PTL), which has been around since 2011, provides this car service to any current or former NFL player. The latter group has called 131 times (not including April or May totals) and accounts for about 8 percent of all rides.
The confidential NFLPA program -- provided in cooperation with its vendor, Corporate Security Solutions, Inc. -- offers a ride anywhere in the United States or Canada.
"We haven't had to use Alaska yet," said John Glavin, president/CEO of Corporate Security Solutions, Inc. (CSSI). "But we have had to use Hawaii."
The PTL has two offerings. Though the NFLPA assumes the administrative fees, the prearranged ride costs players $90 (including gratuity) per hour for a black limo sedan. The cost rises if a player chooses other vehicle options, including Escalades (the most popular choice), Hummers, stretch limos or a party bus. Players can pay with a credit card.
While on a trip in New York, Smith had a driver make several stops with the chauffeur dropping him right in front of each club.
Smith said he likes the car service because -- even if he drinks in moderation -- he risks a cop pulling him over for driving a fancy car late at night. With the PTL he can relax after leaving a bar or party.
"That's a win-win for me," Smith said. "That way I can go to sleep in the car on the way home."
The other offering is the "emergency" response or a non-scheduled pickup. If a player needs a ride or has drunk too much, he can call the number. An operator/security representative at CSSI's command center in Orlando, Fla. will answer, take their information and dispatch a sedan, costing $90 per hour, to pick up the player.
The non-scheduled pickup arrives within 30 minutes, though a secluded, rural area might take longer. During emergency responses, drivers cannot take the player to more than one stop.
The car service has worked so well for the NFLPA that both the NBA and NHL adopted it for their players. This is the second year of the NHL's program, and the NBA instituted it this year. Because of the larger NFL rosters, more football players call for rides.
"Percentage-wise they all use it kind of equally," Glavin said. "The (NFL) Players Association were the pioneers."
The NFLPA's PTL featured 51 calls (38 were prearranged, and 13 were non-scheduled/emergency) in August 2012; 53 (38 and 15, respectively) in September 2012; 55 (39 and 16) in October 2012; 58 (46 and 12) in November 2012; 96 (71 and 25) in December 2012; 103 (74 and 29) in January 2013; 116 (83 and 33) in February 2013 and 68 (54 and 14) in March 2013.
The winter totals spiked for a reason that went beyond the holiday party season.
After 11 p.m. on Friday, Dec. 7, Cowboys nose tackle Josh Brent and some of his teammates were at Eddie V's, a swank seafood restaurant in the Oak Lawn section of Dallas that has a blues and jazz lounge. By 1 a.m. he moved on to Beamers Nightclub, an upscale hip hop and R&B club.
At 2:19 a.m. Brent took off in his white Mercedes S600 with his best friend and Cowboys practice squad linebacker Jerry Brown Jr. as his passenger. The sedan headed west on State Highway 114.
Brent was traveling more than 110 miles per hour and with a blood-alcohol level of 0.189 -- more than 0.1 over Texas' legal limit of 0.08.
Brent steered the car to the left and then back to the right. He overcorrected, causing the Mercedes to slide out of control for more than 870 feet into the right curb, the right ditch and then flip over before resting upside down in the center lane.
The Mercedes caught fire, and Brent tried to drag Brown from the vehicle.
As a result of head and neck trauma, Brown was pronounced dead by 3 a.m.
"There's no doubt it's had an effect on our members," said Tim Christine, director of security for the NFLPA. "There's a heightened sense of awareness."
Further attention may be drawn to the incident when Brent faces a Sept. 23 trial on an intoxication manslaughter charge. According to USA Today, Brent's arrest represented the 18th time an NFL player was arrested for a DUI in 2012.
Brown's death was also the third time since 1998 that an NFL player killed another person because of an alleged DUI.
"One phone call could have prevented this tragedy," Seattle Seahawks defensive end Chris Clemons tweeted. "It's never the one driving that loses there (sic) life literally. Condolences to Jerry family."
Information about the PTL is displayed on flyers in the locker room, and the NFLPA promotes this program aggressively through team meetings, the scouting combine, the rookie symposium and its player representatives on each team.
"It's pretty well known," said offensive lineman Ryan Lilja, who played eight seasons for the Chiefs and Colts. "I don't know why you wouldn't use it."
But there are two issues -- cost and confidentiality.
No one, including wealthy athletes, likes to throw around $90 or more. Smith, though, wisely put the cost in perspective.
"A couple of $100 is worth your safety and your livelihood," he said. "If you go out partying and drinking, why (can't) you pay for your safety?"
The precursor to the PTL, a 2010 venture between the NFL and NFLPA called Safe Ride Solutions, was free. But the NFLPA's extensive talks with players and player representatives brought about changes that resulted in the PTL. Christine said that players wanted to pay a fee. The reason? To ensure that NFL management could not.
"It's really not about paying the $90 for the ride," Christine said. "It's a matter of the confidentiality that's associated with who is paying the bill."
CSSI and the NFLPA swear by the PTL's total secrecy. CSSI is a licensed private investigation firm, which provides security and background checks for Fortune 500 companies. Once the players' ride has been completed and paid for, CSSI shreds the paperwork. Only the number of calls is provided to the NFLPA.
"This service is confidential between our members and Corporate Security Solutions," Christine said. "The names of the players are not divulged -- even to us."
Despite those assurances some players remain dubious and fear their team's coaches, executives or owners will find out.
"Guys are kind of worried about the confidentiality of it and have not used it," said Seahawks quarterback Brady Quinn. "I've heard that before."
For that reason players have expressed further reservation about using a car service, which some NFL clubs, including the New York Giants and San Diego Chargers, offer to their own players.
Which begs the question: Even if team higher-ups did know which players used their car service or the PTL, wouldn't they respect the players' decision making in avoiding driving under the influence?
"I don't understand the perception that people will judge you on that," Lilja said. "At the end of the day, I think they'd look at that as a responsible guy. Nobody's under the illusion that a bunch of 25-year-old guys aren't going to go out and drink and party."
Although Lilja no longer drinks, he used to keep the phone number of an Indianapolis driver.
Whether it's using a cab driver they trust, a car service offered by some NFL teams or the NFLPA's PTL, players have myriad options for safe driving.
But as the toughest guys around, some NFL players don't think they could become the next Josh Brent. They see themselves as invincible, impervious to harm. They don't need to call for help.
It's a message the NFLPA is trying to dispel.
"In the NFL we always think … that we can overcome anything, we're strong enough to deal with it," Quinn said. "In wake of recent happenings, hopefully players will understand that it's just not (the case)."
-- Follow Jeff Fedotin on Twitter @JFedotin.