Epic Helmet Law Protestor is Epic

[OneSickPsycho]

Originally Posted by Avatard

Valentino still races minimoto every year at ZPF, where he got his start.

Small bikes are a well known "secret" among racers, for staying sharp. MUCH more reactive than a fullsize, and everything is amplified, in terms of dynamics.

Get on the big bike, and it just seems like slo-mo by comparison. It seems it can do nothing to surprise you, and you just feel like you're pushing around a motorhome.

If the fiddy flips your skirt up, you should try an Italian racing minimoto. It's even lower to the ground, and reacts just that much faster. Once you learn to dominate one, a big bike can only seem slow to react by comparison.

I have a shattered kneecap to illustrate that point.

[Trip]

Originally Posted by Avatard

If the fiddy flips your skirt up, you should try an Italian racing minimoto. It's even lower to the ground, and reacts just that much faster. Once you learn to dominate one, a big bike can only seem slow to react by comparison.

Costs are too much to get one that can compete on the fiddy level. Double to triple the costs of an extremely fast and nimble fiddy to get a minimoto that can perform at the same level. Just not worth it. We flat run over italian minimotos in the $2000 range that have come out to play. They cost the manager of DGMR a race, so he banned them from racing with us.

[Avatard]

Once of my favorite things about selling minimotos back in the day, was watching those who claimed years of big bike experience confidently telling me how they would have such an easy time adapting to the little bike...just before they had a test drive/spectacular crash.

Those were always the ones who actually broke bones.

[the chi]

A certain mod still primarily uses a rear brake for every day riding...but yes, that mod also uses both brakes at the track, and if necessary, both on the street. As she rides like a grandma on the street, unless someone tries to kill her or she's feeling frisky, there's no real need for anything more than the rear brake or downshifting. Unless folks are looking her feet when she rides, most folks never even realize she primarily uses the rear brake. She'd also like to note: this is south ga flat land riding. Mountain and track require use of both brakes. And she does NOT recommend anyone else do what she does. (Not cuz she's a badass, simply bc it wouldnt work for most folks.)

As seen at a rally, said mod can also control the skid and slide when applying the rear brake with force.

I thought this was about helmets?

I tried riding a 50, I definitely sucked worse on it than a regular bike. For some reason it was scarier than riding a 400lb bike around. And way more sensitive. Yuck.

[6doublefive321]

Back on topic.....

There are causes worth dying for. There are causes that aren't worth dying for. If ole Helmetless Protestor Dude could be revived from the dead, there is a 100% chance he would change his stance on helmets.

[Gas Man]

Originally Posted by 6doublefive321

Back on topic.....

There are causes worth dying for. There are causes that aren't worth dying for. If ole Helmetless Protestor Dude could be revived from the dead, there is a 100% chance he would change his stance on helmets.

THIS!

I have never heard it put this way but I like it!!

As far as front & rear brake. I will tell you this... I use both on my HDs. My Ultra has GREAT Brembo ABS brakes. I can stop that heavy pig probably as well as any sportbike here. Simply because of break size and hugely on part because of the ABS.

In the twisties... it's all rear brake. It simply stabilizes the ass end of the heavy bike. I might use the front to scrub off big speed, say after a straight, but beyond that, it's all rear brake.

Just saying...

And my stand on helmets...

In the day and age of cars/trucks/suvs required to have side impact beams, crumple zones, anti roll over computers, 3 point seat belts, the steel cage that makes it a car/truck/suv, and 47 air bags deploying all around you. Yet, on a motorcycle, the only defense to saving your life, the helmet, and you think the govt should just let you not wear one! You're logic is VERY flawed!

However, if you are able to talk some idiot politician into it. By all means, go for it. I will ride with you regardless. However, when you splat your head and become a veggy, I don't want to pay for your bad decision. I support the required medical insurance option if you want to ride helmet less. I also believe that rider should be required to take a MSF or otherwise riding safety class. I don't care if he/she has been riding for 50 years!

[OneSickPsycho]

Originally Posted by Gas Man

And my stand on helmets...

In the day and age of cars/trucks/suvs required to have side impact beams, crumple zones, anti roll over computers, 3 point seat belts, the steel cage that makes it a car/truck/suv, and 47 air bags deploying all around you. Yet, on a motorcycle, the only defense to saving your life, the helmet, and you think the govt should just let you not wear one! You're logic is VERY flawed!

However, if you are able to talk some idiot politician into it. By all means, go for it. I will ride with you regardless. However, when you splat your head and become a veggy, I don't want to pay for your bad decision. I support the required medical insurance option if you want to ride helmet less. I also believe that rider should be required to take a MSF or otherwise riding safety class. I don't care if he/she has been riding for 50 years!

The difference between your car analogy and motorcycles is that it's a requirement of the manufacturer to build the vehicle with safety in mind... motorcycles don't have such ability without completely neutering them - HP limits or outright banning them is about the only real option.

I agree on the MSF course thing... Just like getting a license to drive a car... more education the better. Not because I give a fuck about the douchebag behind the wheel or on the bike, but because they could possibly hurt or harm someone else due to their lack of ability. Again, if the only person or property that could possibly be harmed or damaged is the one making the decision, it should not need to be legislated.

[Avatard]

Yeah, read my post quoting John Stuart Mill (he was a Brit, but wrote a lot about liberty). Looks like you might have missed it.

Yes, it might have been far better for Mr. dead dumb fuck if he was wearing a bucket.

In retrospect, there's a lot of things I could have done in life that would have been better for me. If you tried to force them on me, however, I'd probably have punched you in the fucking throat...and deservedly so.

Paternalism is the polar opposite of what this country was founded for. It's amazing how much of what people from hundreds of years ago had to say about freedom still applies today.

Ben Franklin's insights, for instance, apply verbatim today, in almost all cases.

What's that saying again regarding those who forget the past?

(kidding...I didn't forget)

[OneSickPsycho]

Originally Posted by Avatard

Yeah, read my post quoting John Stuart Mill (he was a Brit, but wrote a lot about liberty). Looks like you might have missed it.

Yes, it might have been far better for Mr. dead dumb fuck if he was wearing a bucket.

In retrospect, there's a lot of things I could have done in life that would have been better for me. If you tried to force them on me, however, I'd probably have punched you in the fucking throat...and deservedly so.

Paternalism is the polar opposite of what this country was founded for. It's amazing how much of what people from hundreds of years ago had to say about freedom still applies today.

Ben Franklin's insights, for instance, apply verbatim today, in almost all cases.

What's that saying again regarding those who forget the past?

(kidding...I didn't forget)

I find it very disturbing when we think alike... I just posted this on the TL site earlier today...

Originally Posted by OneSickPsych

Here's the problem with that 'argument'... Only stupid people argue that you are safer without a helmet in ANY way... However, the problem with helmet laws is that they are unnecessary... just like seatbelt laws... they are meant to protect people who are too stupid to protect themselves...

Our government was NOT created to be our mommy... It was created with the sole intent on protecting our way of life against foreign governments and our ability to live the American ideal without someone else punching us in the face with their ideals... life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...

These laws violate liberty in it's sincerest form and frankly fucking disgust me. Laws like these are EXACTLY what the founding fathers were fighting against and EXACTLY why people first settled here in the first place... The idea that someone else knows what's best for you and forces, via law or military conflict, you to conform.

[Particle Man]

Originally Posted by Avatard

Yeah, read my post quoting John Stuart Mill (he was a Brit, but wrote a lot about liberty). Looks like you might have missed it.

Yes, it might have been far better for Mr. dead dumb fuck if he was wearing a bucket.

In retrospect, there's a lot of things I could have done in life that would have been better for me. If you tried to force them on me, however, I'd probably have punched you in the fucking throat...and deservedly so.

Paternalism is the polar opposite of what this country was founded for. It's amazing how much of what people from hundreds of years ago had to say about freedom still applies today.

Ben Franklin's insights, for instance, apply verbatim today, in almost all cases.

What's that saying again regarding those who forget the past?

(kidding...I didn't forget)

Originally Posted by OneSickPsycho

I find it very disturbing when we think alike... I just posted this on the TL site earlier today...

You two are scaring me.

Stop it.

The Space-Time Continuum is going to unravel.