http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/0803/20janklow.html"TRENT, S.D. -- A prosecutor said Tuesday that Rep. Bill Janklow likely ran a stop sign before a deadly crash with a motorcycle at a rural intersection, setting up the possibility that criminal charges could be brought against the South Dakota political icon."-Steph
"TRENT, S.D. -- A prosecutor said Tuesday that Rep. Bill Janklow likely ran a stop sign before a deadly crash with a motorcycle at a rural intersection, setting up the possibility that criminal charges could be brought against the South Dakota political icon."Apparently he was an unapologetic speeder, too. Asshole.Susan
Apparently he was an unapologetic speeder, too-----He may well be an *sshole, but I did get the impression he was pretty apologetic. Unfortunately, that won't bring back the biker, helmet or no.If the deeper aim really was public safety, and not just "band-aid", quick-fix soundbite style public safety, maybe there would be more of an emphasis on public education. I can't help thinking a real push to make drivers more aware of motorcycles might do as much as any helmet law to further the public welfare. Rider education is good too; at least there's been some effort expended there, but that's only half the equation in my book.I feel bad both for the biker and his family and (albeit to a lesser degree) for Janklow. Killing someone by accident has got to be a life-changing horrible experience, no matter his character. Assuming he's not an alcoholic, I bet it doesn't happen again. Bottom line is though, that nothing is going to bring back that victim.
He may well be an *sshole, but I did get the impression he was pretty apologetic. Unfortunately, that won't bring back the biker, helmet or no.He's only apologetic because he hit somebody.
The following link is an op-ed piece on the Janklow story in Motorcycle Cruiser:http://www.motorcyclecruiser.com/newsandupdates/JanklowScott/Rock Chalk, y'all,Dr. J. Hawk
I don't mean to write off the motorcyclist's life when I say this (honestly), but the wrong here isn't so much that a biker died, it's that the politician takes pride in speeding and running stop signs. I mean, I'm no stranger to speeding, but I sure as hell don't run stop signs. I hope he gets the book thrown at him.I wonder what kind of lobbying has to be done to get the driver's license tests to include awareness of motorcycles. We all know it should be done, but how?
I wonder what kind of lobbying has to be done to get the driver's license tests to include awareness of motorcycles. We all know it should be done, but how? England has a program as part of both the driver education and test that makes motorists be more aware of two-wheeled transportation. But England, and the rest of the the world for that matter, use motorcycles more than the U.S. for basic transportation needs and thus see more motorcycles on the road than we do. If the price of gasoline weren't subsidized so heavily, here, I think more people would be looking at motorcycles as basic transportation. It would also help our domestic oil production if the price of gasoline wasn't depressed. I put 13K miles on my bike in the past year just by commuting to work.I love the new Suzuki ads out recently:If you don't experience the road in surround sound;If the only reason you twist your wrist is to check the time;If your daily commute isn't the high point of the day;THEN GET OUT OF THE WAY!Rock Chalk, y'all,Dr. J. Hawk
I'm no stranger to speeding, but I sure as hell don't run stop signs.**********Ms.VeeDub, I think you hit the nail right on the head. The rest of my thinking on this specific issue is athttp://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=19512904As Hogriding often says, though, "your mileage may vary".As always,Tom
I wonder what kind of lobbying has to be done to get the driver's license tests to include awareness of motorcycles.=========A little history & perspective on the subject from a post on this vary board.http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=16478087HOGr
As a brit motorcyclist; I often commute by bike, and I race motorcycles as a hobby, I was interested in this thread.In the UK (and I'm sure you'll let me know there are many things about driving here that are not OK) wearing helmets is compulsory, and I think that Brit riders would consider riding at all, ever, without a helmet as complete madness.Look, he might well have died if he weren't wearing one, but I know that I'd be either lying in a coma now or dead if I didn't wear a helmet, and I'm not. I realise its one of those personal freedom things, but really lads (and lasses?) its the freedom to be f****d up by some idiot car driver (and its going to happen) and land up in a coma in some hospital somewhere or not most of the time.Regards
I realise its one of those personal freedom things, but really lads (and lasses?) its the freedom to be f****d up by some idiot car driver (and its going to happen) and land up in a coma in some hospital somewhere or not most of the time.------With all due respect, you are assuming facts not in evidence.
When I said that its about being hit by some idiot car driver I wasn't talking about this case. Is that what you meant? I should have made that clearer. I was saying it will happen sooner or later if you ride your bike enough and you'd better be prepared for it when it does.I assume the not wearing a helmet thing is about personal freedom. Am I wrong to assume that? I suppose he hadn't just forgotten it that day.I'm considered to be a brainessly reckless rider by some over on the UK Fool biking board BTW.pearcey
I realise its one of those personal freedom things, but really lads (and lasses?) its the freedom to be f****d up by some idiot car driver (and its going to happen) and land up in a coma in some hospital somewhere or not most of the time.Right, and like a friend of mine says, ya can't cure stupid. Not even by passing laws, so why bother to hassle people if they don't want to wear the skull cap as long as they're willing to accept the responsibility of the risks?DQ
I assume the not wearing a helmet thing is about personal freedom. Am I wrong to assume that? -----In a word (at least in my case), yes.There are other issues beyond surviving an accident (or personal freedom, for that matter) - namely accident avoidance, something you rarely hear about in the news or from people who want to slap a bandaid on a complex problem and call it cured (not inferring that trait to anyone here).I am of the belief that if I'm involved in an accident (and I do not accept that it's inevitable, anymore than it's inevitable to be in a car wreck), it's going to be unpleasant even with a helmet. Anything I can do to stack the deck in my favor to avoid one, I want to do.I don't drink and ride. I keep my lights on. I run loud pipes. I ride defensively and with as high a level of alertness and awareness as I can muster. And I often feel that wearing a helmet, especially a full-face helmet, cuts into that, reducing peripheral vision, auditory information, and whatever you want to call all the other cues that we subconciously process every second we ride.So there's two issues. Prevention and survival. There's some data on one and not much on the other. How does one balance these two goals? There simply is not a supportable, definitive answer - there is a grey area. As such, IMHO, this is where personal choice is appropriate. Is it about "Personal Freedom" when I don't want a politician, uneducated in a matter that is not black & white to make a decision for me that removes my options in caring for my own personal safety? Personal freedom and choice are great things. I don't like anyone telling me what to do - but that's not my problem with helmet laws, at least not my only one.YMMV
It seems to me that the whole argument about whether to wear a helmet or not is a personal choice similar to smoking.If it's legal where you do it, and you assume all the responsibilities that go with your decision, you should be able to make the choice not to wear a helmet. Maybe that decision, as the decision to smoke or not, will be the death of you.Are the following statements true are false?1. More accidents on motorcycles involve no other vehicles.2. If you go down, you are more likely to survive if you are wearing head protection.3. Prevention over protection is not a valid argument if the only person involved in the accident is you.I'm obviously pro helmet, and anti-smoking.I also own stock in a cigarette company, and think that people should be able to make there own responsible choices in life.Cib
It seems to me that the whole argument about whether to wear a helmet or not is a personal choice similar to smoking.-----Sorry - this is a poor analogy, and is only vaguely similar, in that both cancer and injuries are both bad.There is a direct causal link between smoking and cancer. Helmets improve survivability in (most) accidents. Wearing a helmet does not prevent accidents, nor does not wearing a helmet cause an accident to occur.Are the following statements true are false?1. More accidents on motorcycles involve no other vehicles.----False. 2. If you go down, you are more likely to survive if you are wearing head protection.----True (but this is only one part of the equation)3. Prevention over protection is not a valid argument if the only person involved in the accident is you.----Again, assuming facts not in evidence (ie - "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" ;)It's also False even, for the sake of argument, allowing the faulty assertion that most accidents do not involve others. Apart from the fact that it is both prevention AND protection involved, and not one or the other, I fail to see how accident prevention is an invalid argument.I'm pointing out that this issue is not, as it is often portrayed by the media, and various politico's out for an easy vote - a simple, direct, cause & effect problem.One can make a reasonable argument for seat belts based on Common Good and Public Cost assumptions, but this is because the data on seat belts is in fact, pretty clear, and well-known (not just assumed).Showing that a head in a helmet is protected from certain types of impacts (and damaged by others) is simply not the same as analyzing it's use in practice - the net effect has not, to my knowledge, been well studied. Show me differently, and I'll be happy to revisit my opinion (I am, after all, in favor of riding until a ripe old age!). Until then however, please do not equate public opinion with fact.Helmets != Seat beltsPS - Personal Freedom is an issue, too. Something can be a good idea, but still a poor law. Personal freedoms should never be lightly restricted, nor without very good cause. This is, however, a different issue for a different thread.
With all due respect, you are assuming facts not in evidence. =================This is how some rationalize their wanting to cap other people's freedom of choice. It is also at the foundation of their own choices that some could argue costs us in health care and other social burden situations....like smokers, over eaters, drinkers, over weight people, parents of lazy over weight children, chronic gamblers, parents of problem school children, gun owners, sky divers, mountain climbers, speeders, chronic or habitual drunk drivers ... same lot I guess.HOGr
them: Again, assuming facts not in evidence (ie - "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" ;)OK, I was wrong about the percentage of accidents that happen involving single vehicle collisions. I thought it was 75%, but according to the Hurt Report, it was accually 25%. Big difference. I think we can both agree that neither one of us is a wife beater. :) But, you seem to be implying that those 25% of accidents don't occur, simply because you have never been, nor would you ever be, involved in one. Here is the link to the information I am using to base my numbers on: http://www.webbikeworld.com/Motorcycle-Safety/Hurt-study-summary.htmSixty percent of the motorcyclists were not wearing safety helmets at the time of the accident.Of this group, 26% said they did not wear helmets because they were uncomfortable andinconvenient, and 53% simply had no expectation of accident involvement. "No expectation of accident involvement," sounds like they are sticking there heads in the sand, doesn't it?Safety helmet use caused no attenuation of critical traffic sounds, no limitationof precrash visual field, and no fatigue or loss of attention; no element ofaccident causation was related to helmet use. Is it your contention that the Hurt report is not a good source for numbers? Or, maybe these findings are not well enough supported?Cib
Sixty percent of the motorcyclists were not wearing safety helmets at the time of the accident.Of this group, 26% said they did not wear helmets because they were uncomfortable andinconvenient, and 53% simply had no expectation of accident involvement.
Safety helmet use caused no attenuation of critical traffic sounds, no limitationof precrash visual field, and no fatigue or loss of attention; no element ofaccident causation was related to helmet use.
http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20030922140109990001Janklow 'Couldn't Be Sorrier' for Fatal WreckSIOUX FALLS, S.D. (Sept. 22) - U.S. Rep. Bill Janklow, speaking publicly for the first time since he was charged in a deadly crash, said he "couldn't be sorrier" for the August accident that killed a motorcyclist.Rep. Bill Janklow, R-S.D., holds his first news conference since an Aug. 16 traffic accident that killed a motorcyclist. The 64-year-old former governor talked about his own injuries from the crash, ... He told reporters he thinks about his future but doesn't know yet what he'll do.In the shortrun, he said, he would return to Washington later in the day to get back to work."I've been in public service since 1966," Janklow said. "I don't know what's appropriate at this point in time, candidly. And I do give it a lot of thought. There's things more important than politics to me."Asked if he would run for re-election next year, Janklow said: "I have no idea. There's a time for everything."Janklow is charged in South Dakota with second-degree manslaughter, which is a felony, and three misdemeanors for the Aug. 16 crash that killed Randy Scott, 55, of Hardwick, Minn. A prosecutor said Janklow was going 71 mph in a 55-mph zone and had just run a stop sign at a rural intersection when Scott's motorcycle hit the Cadillac Janklow was driving.A hearing in the case is set for Thursday and Friday in Flandreau to determine if there is enough evidence for a trial.Janklow told reporters Monday he had spoken with Scott's family but wouldn't discuss what was said and wouldn't talk about details of the case."I'm not going to go into it because all I do is cry when I do," he said.Janklow, R-S.D., was also injured in the crash. His doctor said he suffered bleeding on the brain but had been cleared to travel, and he returned to Congress last week. He was visibly in much better shape Monday than at his Sept. 2 court hearing.Janklow said Monday that he has some memory problems from the accident and still has headaches, but he said his speech had returned to normal and he was getting better.His health affects his work somewhat, he said, but he added that there's no major legislation moving right now. Several times during the news conference, he mistakenly referred to Scott as Robertson.Janklow served as South Dakota's attorney general for four years and governor for 16 years before being elected to the state's lone House seat last year. His take-charge, straight-talking approach made him enormously popular among South Dakota voters.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |