lemosley01

bump

bump - make an offer

You guys know what this means? It means that all of our grills will have to be retro-fitted with catalytic convertors. They'll also require sophpisticated propane injection systems and 2 $100 HEGO sensors. You thought a $1000 grill was expensive? Wait until you have to take out a second mortgage to afford a cheap Weber BBQ. Can't have a cookout spewing out more bad stuff than a car.

Random stuff I found in my toolbox. $5 - 5 lug nuts for a 96-04 mustang (I assume they all use the same lugs). Never used, still in package. Probably fit other Fords as well. $75 - Front and rear O2 sensors for 96-04 Ford 4.6L (possible others). Ford P/N XR3F-9G444-B1A (2 rear) and XC2F-9F472-B2A (2 front). These are new, but not in the package. PM me or email me lemosley01@gmail.com

I work off of Tuttle Crossing - won't be at work tomorrow, but will be back in on Tuesday, if you want to arrange a pickup.

Southwest side - off of Georgesville rd.

Craftsman cordless drill and cordless screwdriver- $10 for both. They are about 6 years old, but still work fine. PM me here or email lemosley01@gmail.com

I ride in the rain. I won't plan trips to go in the rain, but if it's there, it doesn't bother me.

^^^Me too. They have a lottery for empty seats. I didn't get picked, but I did the classwork and showed up Saturday morning. A couple of people didn't show, so I was allowed to continue.

If only they would legalize it. I'm not talking about 60mph lane-splitting, but the kind that allows you to do it when traffic is at a standstill or you are stopped at a light.

Indeed - it shows responsibility. Statistics also indicate that many riders crash with only their permit or no permit at all. Getting your license doesn't mean you suddenly know how to ride, but it implies a level of responsibility that people who choose to ride with permit only or no permit don't have. I'm not insulting anyone here that has only their permit, but those are the statistics. An easier and MUCH better way to get your license is to take an MSF class - if you pass it, then you will get your full M-endorsement. Plus you get rider training -something important if you have never ridden or are returning to riding. Riding a motorcycle isn't like driving a car, not only from the standpoint of protection and handling, but from the standpoint of how traffic treats you.

Don't you love the interweb? Ludefreak - you're nothing but a squid. Here's hoping you get out of riding or grow up before you hurt someone else. Dumb decision. Even dumber to post about it.

Wasn't me - I was at home. And I don't lane split (although I've been tempted when traffic is sitting still).

Go get your permit and license. It's cheap and then you don't have to worry about it. Your only restriction will be that you have to wear a helmet for the first year (I think you're a fool if you don't wear a helmet even when it isn't required, but it's your head and your business). The permit test is a joke - it's just a written test.

Jason, Pics of the faux leather caouch and recliners please? Thanks!

I'm interested. Are there any driver probs with these cards?

And now you are aware of it, so what is the problem? If he hadn't stopped you, you still wouldn't be aware of it until the day you took something in the eye. Unfortunately, ignorance of the law is no excuse (the cops probably here 'I didn't know all of the time). If it really bothers you that much, file a complaint. I'm sure the next guy he stops on a bike, he won't be so nice to. My memory is fuzzy on this with the MSF, but I believe they told us we need a helmet and eye protection. A full face helmet is eye protection, but if you were wearing a 3/4 without a visor, then you need glasses. They may have said eye protection even for those in a full face helmet. Like I said, it's fuzzy, but I do recall eye protection being part of the requirement.

Sharon Twp - they don't have a lot to do. I don't think there is a lot of 'real' crime in their area. The guy stopped you, gave you a warning (one you needed, since you didn't know the law), and let you go. If someone with you had been riding without a license or insurance would you consider that a 'real' crime? Sure, it took a little time, but in the end, you now know the law, so you learned something. If I got stopped, I would be happy that he let me go with a warning when I was clearly breaking the law. We get harassed because some of us have given the rest of us bad names - high speed runs (guilty), running from the police, riding like an asshat in traffic, standups at 80mph, all sorts of shit. While you and I may not see it a lot, the police see it all the time because they drive the road for 8 hours a day.

You are EXACTLY right. I want what was intended. A country where people are free to do as they choose provided they don't hurt others in the process. That doesn't mean I don't want to be a part of society, but I DO want liberty and I DO want people to take responsibility for their own actions instead of asking the government to fix all of their ills. Asking the government to 'fix' society doesn't work. It's been tried over and over, and it always ends up with the government controlling the citizens. As opposed to mandating rider training and a tiered licensing structure? Sure, that is more expensive, but the paybacks are enormous. Untrained riders on too powerful bikes are a threat to those around them. I wear my helmet, too - not because it makes other drivers around me safer (it doesn't) but because I have a family to look out for, and, frankly, riding without a helmet is uncomfortable to me.

If it is not based on emotional impact, then why do you keep bringing up the issue of emotional damage. It isn't relevant to the issue. You can't quantify 'emotional damage', and people have to face emotional damage just by living. It's part of being human and we have to deal with it. We can't simply outlaw something based on emotional impact. What you described is considered 'theft' - a DIRECT financial impact to the rights of ownership of artist and record company. There is no safety issue there, but theft violates one's right of ownership, hence it is illegal. What part of the Constitution does me not wearing a helmet violate? That is the crux of my position. EVERY law is *supposed* to be based on something in the Constitution. I know it isn't working that way anymore, but the whole point of that and the Bill of Rights was to protect me from you and from the Government. If you just discard the Constitution and Bill of Rights and pass laws based on what 'feels right', then you end up with the mess we have. It is not your safety at all that is impacted by an unhelmeted rider. Show me statistics that indicate not wearing a helmet are the cause of crashes, especially in crashes where someone other than the rider was injured. You indicated that the government bases it's laws on what they see as a safety issue to society. A helmet is a safety issue to the individual, not society. Where are the statistics that say helmeted riders keep the citizens more safe than unhelmeted riders? Again, I ask where are your stats that the act of not wearing a helmet makes you more unsfe to those around you than when wearing one. Nothing can be assured as 100% cost-free to society. That is the reason that 'cost-to-society is NOT in the Constitution. Your reasoning can, will, and IS applied to anything that people don't agree with. The first question you should ask is: 'Does the action infringe upon MY rights?' Does me not wearing a helmet infringe upon YOUR rights, and if so, how?

Once again, you reveal the fundamental problem with socialism vs. liberty. The question, once again, is does not wearing a helmet impact anyone's safety, other than your own? That is it. It is an issue of personal liberty and one's freedom to do as they choose provided they do not injure anyone else. When you say 'but medical bills and cost to the health care system' you reveal a problem with the system. I can give you a hundred examples of people doing far more damage to society - should all of those be regulated, or should they not because they involve people just making bad choices? Unwed mothers is one example that has an ENORMOUS cost to society, yet no one would ever THINK of mandating birth control or requiring abortions for unwed mothers. If you are REALLY concerned about rider safety then you would be pushing the issue of tiered licensing, mandatory rider training, and more strict licensing tests since those have a demontrated far larger impact on rider fatalities. You can't outlaw stupidity.

Minority groups have direct protection (14th amendment) under the Constitution. Riders do not because we are not an ethnicity, religion, etc. We have the AMA and groups like ABATE to fight helmet laws. We also have the Supreme Court to go to fight laws that violate our rights - in the meantime, however, we are forced to live under those laws. To some extent it works because some states have repealed helmet laws. They have determined it isn't a safety issue, it is a personal rights issue.

The government shouldn't be passing laws because of 'emotion'. I know they DO but that is not how the system is supposed to work. Many of the things we do result in 'costs'. Financial arguments should not be used because anything can be outlawed based on financial arguments. I don't like paying for mountain climbers being rescued when they get lost or stuck in a winter storm. No mountain-climbing. People injure themselves doing home improvements. The cost is tremendous in lost time in work, medical bills, etc. Home improvement projects should be outlawed for the DIYer - only professionals are allowed to do them. The cost of teenagers getting pregnant causes financial and emotional damage to them and those around them, as well as direct impact on the taxpayers who now have to potential support and unwed teen mother. All teens should be required to take birth control until they are old enough to decide, as should anyone who is not married. Do you understand what I am getting at? Does a helmet do ANYTHING other than protect a rider in a crash? How does it make the remainder of motoring public safer and what statistics do we have to indicate this? That is the only question that shoud be of concern to the government. Seatbelts != Helmets. Seatbelts at least work to keep the occupants in place, preventing them from losing control in some situations. Once again, these are financial or emotional arguments and are indirect results. They are also limited in scope. Where is the safety to the public issue, and what DIRECT damage is done by my not wearing a helmet and crashing. Motorcycles are not needed in the US. We can't ban cars because we need them. Motorcycles are an alternate to a car, but not a better alternate. Since riders being injured cause such emotional and financial distress, they are not good for society and should be eliminated. How is YOUR safety impacted by MY not wearing a helmet? See above question. Your argument for helmets reveals a problem with socialism, and also reveals the fundamental conflict that socialism has with liberty and democracy. To lower the risk to other drivers, the government CAN tighten up licensing and training requirements. Having someone behind the controls who is barely competent is a direct risk to the public, and this is demonstrable. Having someone behind the controls who is competent and is not wearing a helmet presents no demonstrable risk to the public. I 'own' myself. I have certain rights, including the right to put myself at risk - what you see as risky I see as acceptable. My right ends when my actions can injure you, but to that point, you have no right to tell me what to do - it is one of the guiding principals of the Constitution.

With vehicles that is not what happens. The DOT has regulatory authority - they can create any law (though they call them regulations, since them making laws would violate the Constitution). Further, there are many more non-riders than riders (something like 10% of us ride motorcycles). Assume that all of us riders turn out to vote against a helmet law, while only 30% of the non-riders turn out - guess what, we get outvoted and the people it affects really have no say in it.

That is why eye-protection is required. Show me statistics where where there is trend of riders being hit by road debris, losing control of their bike, and hurting other drivers on the road. A motorcycle does very little damage (in comparison to a car) to whatever it hits. Drivers in cars are at very little risk in a crash with a motorcycle. Your scenario is an 'if' scenario, which is not the same thing as 'it happens this many times and is a problem'. This is an insurance issue, not a safety issue - it can be handled by the insurance companies. It is not a regulatory issue. Further, you are aware that even helmeted, an improperly geared rider involved in a motorcycle crash is likely to be injured and wrack up many thousands of dollars of medical bills compared to a car driver. Even a properly geared rider can get messed up pretty good. Using the financial argument, motorcycles should be outlawed altogether, and if not, the full 1 piece leathers with CE armor should be required gear. You are not required to take a safety course to ride a motorcycle unless you are under 18. You can get your permit and on the same day, take the riding portion of the test. Mandatory rider training and a tiered licensing system will do much more to save riders than mandatory helmet laws. Making helmets compulsory is a band-aid to a much larger issue - rider training and licensing. Further, better driver training will help us out more than helmet laws. Too many motorcyclists get whacked by left-turners who didn't 'see' them. The statistics say that our licensing system is too easy and that rider training is needed. They do not indicate that helmetless motorcyclists are doing anything other than killing or injuring themselves. You are letting the government decide what is best for you. Frankly, you are a fool to depend on the government to 'protect' you. I can cite numerous examples where the government did not act in the best interests of it's citizens. This issue is about my right to do as I please as long as I don't endanger anyone. IMO, you're a fool if you don't wear a helmet, but that's your right - you aren't injuring me. I wear my helmet - I'm not fool.