Almost Crash, and I was the Cager :( - Page 2

tapdiggy · April 8th, 2012, 11:38 PM

Oh gee, this thread was all like 'this crazy thing happened to me', then it got all like 'everyone is wrong but me and the people who agree with me'. WU SAI people.

n4mwd · April 9th, 2012, 04:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex

Link to a single one that states that. Your points above are what you erroneously believe or erroneously repeat in threads like that, but you miss the point time and time again.

Don't get me wrong, this is not a ninjette.com problem, its a biker community problem. The problem exists on pretty much all forums, not just here. This is actually probably the best all around Ninja forums. But to answer your question....

Do you remember this one:
http://www.ninjette.org/forums/showthread.php?t=74526
The bikers were cut off by a pickup truck in KY, to get around him, they tried to pass him, but the pickup driver deliberately tried to run them off the road and into opposing traffic. There were several posters that wanted to fry the bikers because they had crossed the yellow line, yet the pickup did it numerous times and with malice. Although nobody actually got hurt in that one, its a good example of what I was saying.

Or this one:
http://www.ninjette.org/forums/showthread.php?t=81348
A motorcycle cop was out riding with his buddy was killed when a dump truck violated his right of way by pulling across in front of him killing him. The bike's tank ruptured and both the cop and bike went up in a big fireball. Some posters inferred that the cop must have been speeding and deserved what he got.

And the list goes on. So yes, its a common thread here and on other forums. The presumption of guilt is on the biker.

I do agree that having good riding skills is very important, but not having them doesn't make it your fault when a cage pulls in front of you. The same is true of helmets and gear. Those are good to have in an accident, but not having them doesn't automatically make the accident your fault. Yet some people insist that it does.

Motofool · April 9th, 2012, 05:29 AM

“Compassion is not religious business, it is human business, it is not luxury, it is essential for our own peace and mental stability, it is essential for human survival. It is lack of love for ourselves that inhibits our compassion toward others. If we make friends with ourselves, then there is no obstacle to opening our hearts and minds to others.” - Dalai Lama

CZroe · April 9th, 2012, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by n4mwd

Don't get me wrong, this is not a ninjette.com problem, its a biker community problem. The problem exists on pretty much all forums, not just here. This is actually probably the best all around Ninja forums. But to answer your question....

Do you remember this one:
http://www.ninjette.org/forums/showthread.php?t=74526
The bikers were cut off by a pickup truck in KY, to get around him, they tried to pass him, but the pickup driver deliberately tried to run them off the road and into opposing traffic. There were several posters that wanted to fry the bikers because they had crossed the yellow line, yet the pickup did it numerous times and with malice. Although nobody actually got hurt in that one, its a good example of what I was saying.

Or this one:
http://www.ninjette.org/forums/showthread.php?t=81348
A motorcycle cop was out riding with his buddy was killed when a dump truck violated his right of way by pulling across in front of him killing him. The bike's tank ruptured and both the cop and bike went up in a big fireball. Some posters inferred that the cop must have been speeding and deserved what he got.

And the list goes on. So yes, its a common thread here and on other forums. The presumption of guilt is on the biker.

I do agree that having good riding skills is very important, but not having them doesn't make it your fault when a cage pulls in front of you. The same is true of helmets and gear. Those are good to have in an accident, but not having them doesn't automatically make the accident your fault. Yet some people insist that it does.

I remember pointing out that the KY truck could also have been trying to block them and that it was presumption to say that the video was proof that he was trying to kill them, but even that wasn't well received because the attitude in the thread was the exact opposite of what you describe. It's the same as "cop intentionally tried crashing into me" thread. The cop did not try to crash into him intentionally (ridiculous). He jumped to the same conclusion because the cop acted with similar deliberation, but it's not even remotely believable that the cop wanted him dead for no reason. We see the same kind of things being said every day in the Trayvon Martin case. Even then, I simply disagreed with the truck driver's presumed intentions and never said anything about the bikers being at fault or deserving it.

Regarding gear vs. no gear, what people "insist" is that it makes the extent of the AFTERMATH of the gear-less accident partially your fault because it was predictable and either preventable or able to be minimized with minimal investment compared to the cost of your life. No one even pretended that it had any bearing on who was at fault for the accident itself. It's a good point and one that needs to be made: Fault for the extent of the aftermath does not equal fault for the accident.

CZroe · April 9th, 2012, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trixter

did you hear the truck drivers rant at the end? He even grabbed a crow bar to threaten the bikers when they stopped. He blamed all bikers on that road for something (I couldnt make out what) and the response from the guy with the camera was that it was not them. Unless we are talking about another incident, but I dont think so. The biker with the cam was on the recording I saw calling the cops although I never heard what happened to the driver who said his driving was totally safe because he grew up on those roads.

Yes, I did. I simply disagreed with the truck driver's presumed intentions and never said anything about the bikers being at fault or deserving it. The crowbar doesn't change anything as far as his earlier intentions. The drunk truck driver obviously escalated things and then feared retaliation during the resulting confrontation. If he truly didn't care and wanted to murder them, why didn't he start swinging?

Why didn't that cop turn back around and crash the Ninjette member he "missed?" Why did Zimmerman call the authorities on himself if he intended to shoot Trayvon Martin in cold blood and how could he expect them to cover for him if that scenario were true? People seemingly always pick the most inflammatory interpretation of what they see and RUN with it, no matter if it is the most likely/believable one.

CZroe · April 9th, 2012, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trixter

I do not think that this is comparable to someone claiming to take a left at 100 in front of a cop car or whatever and the cop tried to run him over (afaik no one believes that story) nor do I think it is comparable to the unfilmed story of zimmerman.

In all honesty I do not care what his intent was, he almost ran a bike off the road through his actions, intentional or not.

Oh, it's comparable. I'm not comparing the incidents and never was; I'm comparing how people chose to interpret them. They are both examples of people who "seemingly always pick the most inflammatory interpretation of what they see and RUN with it, no matter if it is the most likely/believable one."

Alex · April 9th, 2012, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by n4mwd

Do you remember this one:
http://www.ninjette.org/forums/showthread.php?t=74526

...snip...

Or this one:

http://www.ninjette.org/forums/showthread.php?t=81348

And the list goes on. So yes, its a common thread here and on other forums. The presumption of guilt is on the biker.

I do agree that having good riding skills is very important, but not having them doesn't make it your fault when a cage pulls in front of you. The same is true of helmets and gear. Those are good to have in an accident, but not having them doesn't automatically make the accident your fault. Yet some people insist that it does.

I didn't think either of those threads were that bad, and I don't see what you're stating you're seeing in those threads. Nobody is saying that a rider needs to assume fault for someone else's mistakes. Nobody is immediately blaming the rider at the exclusion of blaming the other parties.

Self-quoting is the height of arrogance, so please forgive me my trespass, but I think that it's just as relevant in this current thread and it's easier to paste than paraphrase.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex

Fault is a loaded word, that is different than responsibility. It might certainly be another vehicle's fault that a crash occurs. But it's the rider's responsibility to do everything they can to get themselves home safely, regardless of outside factors that may be aligned against them.

and:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex

None of us in fact know any of this. It's distressing when the general public immediately assumes the biker is at fault for all accidents. This angers us motorcyclists. But it's just as silly for us to immediately assume that the other vehicle must be at fault instead. From the information provided in the news report, it sure seems like the motorcyclist bears a significant portion of the responsibility, and was going much faster than would ever be perceived as safe for those conditions, and had a poor control of his bike at those high speeds.

Regardless of whatever inaccuracies might be in the reports (as they always are), the end result is that the motorcyclist wasn't alert enough and in control enough to prevent a fatal accident. Some might believe that these things just happen and there's nothing that he could have done. I don't believe that.

n4mwd · April 9th, 2012, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CZroe

Regarding gear vs. no gear, what people "insist" is that it makes the extent of the AFTERMATH of the gear-less accident partially your fault because it was predictable and either preventable or able to be minimized with minimal investment compared to the cost of your life. No one even pretended that it had any bearing on who was at fault for the accident itself. It's a good point and one that needs to be made: Fault for the extent of the aftermath does not equal fault for the accident.

Actually I'm saying the fault of the aftermath does equal the fault of the accident. If I lose work as a result of being hospitalized for an extended period, is that my fault or the cager's fault who pulled out in front of me? The point here is that there wouldn't be an aftermath if there was no accident.

I can chose to wear as much gear or as little as I want. That's my choice. But failing to wear a Michelin man costume doesn't make my injuries my fault when a cager pulls in front of me.

Getting back on track, the OP here doesn't deny being on the phone when he pulled out in front of a biker. Not wearing a helmet doesn't cause accidents, but being on the phone does.

Jiggles · April 9th, 2012, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by n4mwd

Not wearing a helmet doesn't cause accidents,

Bug in eye, crash and die

TnNinjaGirl · April 9th, 2012, 01:09 PM

I'm not sure why the OP would volunteer the information in the first place.

n4mwd · April 9th, 2012, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiggles

Bug in eye, crash and die

I wear glasses. Anyhow, one time a bee did get inside my helmet and dam near caused a wreck. So it goes both ways.

Boom King · April 9th, 2012, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by n4mwd

Getting back on track, the OP here doesn't deny being on the phone when he pulled out in front of a biker. Not wearing a helmet doesn't cause accidents, but being on the phone does.

Has the OP posted in this thread since you raised the question? Who knows if he saw the question or for other reasons has not had the chance to respond. I agree that a driver on a cell phone is a distracted driver but without trying to side with anyone on this topic here, I'd say let's hold our assumptions in check a bit here.

CZroe · April 9th, 2012, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by n4mwd

Quote:

Originally Posted by CZroe

...
Regarding gear vs. no gear, what people "insist" is that it makes the extent of the AFTERMATH of the gear-less accident partially your fault because it was predictable and either preventable or able to be minimized with minimal investment compared to the cost of your life. No one even pretended that it had any bearing on who was at fault for the accident itself. It's a good point and one that needs to be made: Fault for the extent of the aftermath does not equal fault for the accident.

Actually I'm saying the fault of the aftermath does equal the fault of the accident. If I lose work as a result of being hospitalized for an extended period, is that my fault or the cager's fault who pulled out in front of me? The point here is that there wouldn't be an aftermath if there was no accident.

I can chose to wear as much gear or as little as I want. That's my choice. But failing to wear a Michelin man costume doesn't make my injuries my fault when a cager pulls in front of me.

Getting back on track, the OP here doesn't deny being on the phone when he pulled out in front of a biker. Not wearing a helmet doesn't cause accidents, but being on the phone does.

Semantics. Fault causing aftermath != fault for FULL EXTENT of the aftermath. You're back to talking about fault that caused the aftermath when you say that, which DOES equal "fault of accident." Perhaps I should have made "extent" in all caps.

If you refuse to differentiate extent and fault for the accident, you could say it was ALL someone's fault for driving that night or for even being born in the first place. It wasn't illegal for Zimmerman to get out of the car, but a popular argument is that Trayvon would still be alive if Zimmerman had not. Well, if Zimmerman were never born, Trayvon would be alive today, so I guess we should change the law and prosecute mothers.

n4mwd · April 9th, 2012, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CZroe

Semantics. Fault causing aftermath != fault for FULL EXTENT of the aftermath. You're back to talking about fault that caused the aftermath when you say that, which DOES equal "fault of accident." Perhaps I should have made "extent" in all caps.

If you refuse to differentiate extent and fault for the accident, you could say it was ALL someone's fault for driving that night or for even being born in the first place. It wasn't illegal for Zimmerman to get out of the car, but a popular argument is that Trayvon would still be alive if Zimmerman had not. Well, if Zimmerman were never born, Trayvon would be alive today, so I guess we should change the law and prosecute mothers.

Sometimes accidents are both parties fault, but those cases require a causative acton. For example, at midnight, cage A is driving down the road with no headlights on. Cage B doesn't see cage A and turns into his path causing an accident. In this case, both cages are at fault. The act of not having his headlights on was a significant causative factor of the accident even though it was the other cage that actually violated the first cage's right of way. In this example, both cages are at fault.

But if cage A has his lights on, but isn't wearing his seat belt, and cage B pulls out in front of him, then cage B is entirely to blame even though cage A would have "probably" suffered fewer injuries had he been wearing a seat belt. Wearing or not wearing a seat belt does not play a factor in the cause of an accident.

As far as whether or not certain gear would help in a specific accident is pure speculation. All we can do is look at statistics which claim that helmets, for example, improve your odds of survival by 30%. Quite a number of bikers die from head injures who were wearing helmets. A helmet improves your odds, but it doesn't guarantee survival. Its a myth that a helmet WILL prevent head injuries in all circumstances.

The OP says that the biker here was wearing a helmet so I'm not sure where this is coming from.

n4mwd · April 9th, 2012, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trixter

It should still be an individual choice and not a law to make life easier for insurance companies.

If you want to look at statistics though look at where the majority of injuries occur. Most are from the knee to the toes. There is a numbering system to classify injuries in a crash, I forget its name or the study that looked at all of this and gave real numbers about what and how severe you are likely to be injured. With that said if you do get a head injury, which is not as common as legs according to real accident numbers, your stat comes into play.

The way you phrased it seemed to imply that wearing a helmet would improve your odds even if your head never hit anything, which was my case last Sunday - my helmet never hit or scraped against anything but my ankle broke.

If you don't like helmet laws, you should check out your local ABATE chapter.

My MSF instructor actually said to the class "Nobody who wears a helmet ever dies in a motorcycle crash." I don't believe a word of it now.

If you can find that numbering system, I'd love to see it.

Sorry about your ankle. How did it happen? And I must ask, were you wearing motorcycle boots?

Jiggles · April 9th, 2012, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by n4mwd

My MSF instructor actually said to the class "Nobody who wears a helmet ever dies in a motorcycle crash."

Wow what a real low life.

n4mwd · April 9th, 2012, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiggles

Wow what a real low life.

There is no helmet law here so I guess he was trying to scare everybody into wearing one. He passed me so I can't really complain.

n4mwd · April 9th, 2012, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trixter

I have a feeling I know the answer which is "you will do as you are told because I said so" but is ABATE for the freedom of choice or the government being parents?

There is a difference between wearing a helmet and having a law dictate that you wear a helmet.

Thanks to ABATE, we don't have helmet laws here in FL, but I wear one anyway just because. In my ABATE chapter, I'd say about 25% wear helmets. And most of those are those useless spikey things.

ABATE is for less government and more freedom of choice. Here are the local chapters in CA.

http://www.abate.org/AboutABATE/ABATELocals.aspx

Looks like May is Motorcycle Awareness Month according to that website. Check them out.

Jiggles · April 9th, 2012, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by n4mwd

Thanks to ABATE, we don't have helmet laws here in FL, but I wear one anyway just because it will probably save my life one day.

Lemme fix dat fo ya

n4mwd · April 9th, 2012, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiggles

Lemme fix dat fo ya

Did your helmet prevent you from breaking your femur?

Quote:

Originally Posted by trixter

alrighty then, most of the groups like that are actually for less freedom, or in the NRA style "freedom as they see it for their clique and no one else". As a result I have become cynical of such groups.

Check out their newsletter which is online. That should give you an idea what they do. ABATE does use LEGAL means for changing laws to benefit bikers. So you will definitely see references to "lobbyists", "senators" and stuff like that. They do sponsor group rides, but those are mostly just for fun.

Jiggles · April 9th, 2012, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by n4mwd

Did your helmet prevent you from breaking your femur?

No actually it prevented me from breaking my nose when my head slammed into her hood, and my boots prevented me from breaking my right ankle under her car. I'd be quite a bit more ****ed up if I wasn't wearing a helmet (and not nearly as photogenic)

I should also mention my helmet slid about a foot or two on the pavement after I fell off her hood, so yeah....

n4mwd · April 10th, 2012, 04:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiggles

No actually it prevented me from breaking my nose when my head slammed into her hood, and my boots prevented me from breaking my right ankle under her car. I'd be quite a bit more ****ed up if I wasn't wearing a helmet (and not nearly as photogenic)

I should also mention my helmet slid about a foot or two on the pavement after I fell off her hood, so yeah....

See, that makes the accident all your fault. If you had been wearing a helmet kissed by the Pope with SNELL, DOT, FDA, Jim Beam and CE approvals, you wouldn't have been injured at all and your bike wouldn't have been damaged. Now because of your failure to use due diligence, that poor lady has a ding in the fender of her nice new car - not to mention a black eye from where the airbag popped her in the face.

Motofool · April 10th, 2012, 06:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trixter

............

If you want to look at statistics though look at where the majority of injuries occur. Most are from the knee to the toes. There is a numbering system to classify injuries in a crash, I forget its name or the study that looked at all of this and gave real numbers about what and how severe you are likely to be injured. ............

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/810982.pdf

n4mwd · April 10th, 2012, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Motofool

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/810982.pdf

Interesting data. Thanks.

Jiggles · April 10th, 2012, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by n4mwd

See, that makes the accident all your fault. If you had been wearing a helmet kissed by the Pope with SNELL, DOT, FDA, Jim Beam and CE approvals, you wouldn't have been injured at all and your bike wouldn't have been damaged. Now because of your failure to use due diligence, that poor lady has a ding in the fender of her nice new car - not to mention a black eye from where the airbag popped her in the face.

Good, never admit fault, its a sign of intelligence

ajcadoo · April 10th, 2012, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by n4mwd

I'd still like to know if the OP was on the phone when he pulled in front of the rider. That question has not been answered.

I was not on the phone. Both hands on the wheel and attention was fully on driving.

ajcadoo · April 10th, 2012, 06:45 PM

OK, so I just skimmed through all 60 posts and I am sorry for causing such a flame war. I didn't mean for so much hostility between our community

My anger toward the biker was mostly filled with sarcasm. If he had crashed while on the freeway, you can bet that I would have pulled over and assisted in any way I could. If he accused me for causing the crash, I would have shrugged it off since I had a witness in the car with me.

I want to repeat that I felt utterly horrible for doing that to the biker. It made me feel like (expletive here). I am a rider too, and I know what it feels like to have a close call like that.

However, the multiple actions the rider did following the incident was absolutely unnecessary. I know what I did. You honked at me, I saw you in my rear view, and you angrily revved your engine behind me. I realize that something happened. But you don't need to pull of the doucheiest of moves as you hurriedly pass me.

When it comes down to it, I think I would not have been so angry at the rider IF I did not own a bike. I dont get road rage, I consider myself to be a cautious yet efficient driver. The fact that he was so rude to a fellow rider (of course he doesnt know that, yet I did) made me super mad. I drive assuming there is a motorcycle somewhere in my line of path. I have driven like that since I put the first mile on my Ninja.

Anyway, what happened happened, and it will better my driving habits both on and off the bike. Thanks for everyone's feedback!

ajcadoo · April 10th, 2012, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trixter

I never drive with both hands on the wheel.

Cool...?

Jiggles · April 10th, 2012, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ajcadoo

Cool...?

(PSSST he only has one hand and is super little girl sensitive about the subject)

ajcadoo · April 10th, 2012, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiggles

(PSSST he only has one hand and is super little girl sensitive about the subject)

The awkward moment when you don't know if this is true. haha

Btw, I hope you heal soon Jiggles! Sad to hear about your incident

Jiggles · April 10th, 2012, 06:58 PM

Yea, sucks. I never should have wheelied past that faggot in the scion

ajcadoo · April 10th, 2012, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiggles

Yea, sucks. I never should have wheelied past that faggot in the scion

hahahahahaha

April 8th, 2012, 11:38 PM	#41
tapdiggy Humble Observer Name: Truong Location: Augusta, Maine Join Date: Mar 2009 Motorcycle(s): 2009 Yamaha XT250 Posts: 612	Oh gee, this thread was all like 'this crazy thing happened to me', then it got all like 'everyone is wrong but me and the people who agree with me'. WU SAI people. __________________________________________________ Everything I post is "IN MY HONEST OPINION". Why is "Parking Lot Enduro" not a thing?

April 9th, 2012, 05:29 AM	#43
Motofool Daily Ninjette rider Name: Hernan Location: Florida Join Date: Mar 2011 Motorcycle(s): 2007 Ninja 250 Posts: A lot. MOTY - 2016, MOTM - Dec '12, Jan '14, Jan '15, May '16	“Compassion is not religious business, it is human business, it is not luxury, it is essential for our own peace and mental stability, it is essential for human survival. It is lack of love for ourselves that inhibits our compassion toward others. If we make friends with ourselves, then there is no obstacle to opening our hearts and minds to others.” - Dalai Lama __________________________________________________ *Motofool* *.................................Never ride faster than your guardian angel can fly* "Mankind is composed of two sorts of men — those who love and create, and those who hate and destroy. Love is the bond between men, the way to teach and the center of the world." - José Martí

April 10th, 2012, 06:58 PM	#71
Jiggles Jigglin' your Jiglets Name: Sean Location: San Jose, Ca Join Date: Jun 2011 Motorcycle(s): 2009 K1300S, 2013 Ninja 300, 2011 Ninja 250R, Faster than Unregistered's ninjette Posts: Too much. Blog Entries: 1 MOTM - Apr '13	Yea, sucks. I never should have wheelied past that faggot in the scion __________________________________________________ If the Ninja 250 doesn't have enough power for you, then you don't know how to ride it. AFM #676 Supersports are for n00bs

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Cager's	mikromo	General Motorcycling Discussion	45	June 5th, 2014 08:09 AM
Russian Cager...	akima	Videos	14	May 7th, 2013 09:54 AM
Motorcycles dies in crash with cager.	ai4px	!%@*#$%!)@#&!%@ I crashed!	3	October 8th, 2012 05:21 AM
Some cager tried to make me crash!!!	Z300	!%@*#$%!)@#&!%@ I crashed!	28	September 18th, 2012 04:48 AM
Cager all up in my lane	Old Lemon	Videos	16	August 24th, 2012 10:14 PM

April 9th, 2012, 01:09 PM	#50
TnNinjaGirl Ms. Personality Name: CB Location: Murvill, TN Join Date: Jan 2009 Motorcycle(s): Depends on the week you ask Posts: A lot.	I'm not sure why the OP would volunteer the information in the first place.

April 10th, 2012, 06:45 PM	#67
ajcadoo Towster ['__'`,-, Name: Josh Location: San Diego, CA Join Date: Jan 2012 Motorcycle(s): 2010 Green Ninja 250 SE Posts: 379	OK, so I just skimmed through all 60 posts and I am sorry for causing such a flame war. I didn't mean for so much hostility between our community My anger toward the biker was mostly filled with sarcasm. If he had crashed while on the freeway, you can bet that I would have pulled over and assisted in any way I could. If he accused me for causing the crash, I would have shrugged it off since I had a witness in the car with me. I want to repeat that I felt utterly horrible for doing that to the biker. It made me feel like (expletive here). I am a rider too, and I know what it feels like to have a close call like that. However, the multiple actions the rider did following the incident was absolutely unnecessary. I know what I did. You honked at me, I saw you in my rear view, and you angrily revved your engine behind me. I realize that something happened. But you don't need to pull of the doucheiest of moves as you hurriedly pass me. When it comes down to it, I think I would not have been so angry at the rider IF I did not own a bike. I dont get road rage, I consider myself to be a cautious yet efficient driver. The fact that he was so rude to a fellow rider (of course he doesnt know that, yet I did) made me super mad. I drive assuming there is a motorcycle somewhere in my line of path. I have driven like that since I put the first mile on my Ninja. Anyway, what happened happened, and it will better my driving habits both on and off the bike. Thanks for everyone's feedback!