Seat belts, Helmets and Freedom of Choice
Michael Wicks
I realize that this subject may have been beaten to death long
before now but I wanted to add 2 cents from my end. Here in California
we of course do not have any helmet laws and motorcylists can do just
about anything they like, and they usually do. Some are safe and
courteous riders and others are reckless. I don't have any numbers or
percentages on that or for the number of safe or reckless drivers
either. I find it interesting that Californians have a MANDATORY
seat belt law in effect that no one in particular seems to object to,
and, I would gather, that most people adhere to. It appears to me that
sane motorists have accepted the fact that seat belts save lives and
it isn't that big of a deal and their choice is to comply with the law.
Motorcyclists have no such restrictions placed upon them, even though
their vehicles are far more dangerous to them than if they were in an
enclosed 4 wheel vehicle. Why is this? Is there a lobby that bikers
have that speaks up whenever a helmet law is mentioned? Why would the
persons who wrote and voted for the seat belt law NOT consider a
helmet law? I don't have the answers but I do say that if you are on
a motorcycle on the freeway WITHOUT a helmet and decide to travel
between cars, you deserve to get you head mashed if that's all the
sense you have. I've always wanted to get a bike myself but after
seeing what the cyclists do here, and how drivers react both on and
off the road I say "No thanks, I don't need any more enemies!".
MICHAEL L. WICKS
Sun Microsystems
*****************************************
* ....It was a NEW DAY yesterday *
* but it's an OLD DAY now!.... *
*****************************************
Robert Allen
>
> I realize that this subject may have been beaten to death long
> before now but I wanted to add 2 cents from my end. Here in California
> we of course do not have any helmet laws and motorcylists can do just
> about anything they like, and they usually do. Some are safe and
> courteous riders and others are reckless. I don't have any numbers or
> percentages on that or for the number of safe or reckless drivers
> either. I find it interesting that Californians have a MANDATORY
> seat belt law in effect that no one in particular seems to object to,
> and, I would gather, that most people adhere to. It appears to me that
> sane motorists have accepted the fact that seat belts save lives and
> it isn't that big of a deal and their choice is to comply with the law.
Michael, I have religiously worn a seatbelt for the past 6 years, and it
has saved my head and face twice. However, I opposed the enaction of the
mandatory seatbelt law in California for the same reason I oppose mandatory
helmet laws; it's my business what I do with my body. Note that the seatbelt
law was only enacted a few months ago, and we have yet to see a longterm
study of whether people will obey it, or whether it will go the way of
obeyance of the 55 mph speed limit.
> Motorcyclists have no such restrictions placed upon them, even though
> their vehicles are far more dangerous to them than if they were in an
> enclosed 4 wheel vehicle. Why is this? Is there a lobby that bikers
> have that speaks up whenever a helmet law is mentioned? Why would the
Yes there is.
> persons who wrote and voted for the seat belt law NOT consider a
> helmet law? I don't have the answers but I do say that if you are on
> a motorcycle on the freeway WITHOUT a helmet and decide to travel
> between cars, you deserve to get you head mashed if that's all the
> sense you have. I've always wanted to get a bike myself but after
> seeing what the cyclists do here, and how drivers react both on and
> off the road I say "No thanks, I don't need any more enemies!".
I appreciate your keen sense of moral values, such that you can determine
when it is and is not OK for me to get my head crushed by someone in
an auto. Again, I always wear boots, helmet, gloves and leathers when
riding my bike, but I respect others rights not to (although they have
to be foolish). I'm fairly new to motorcycling, but already I've learned
that the single biggest danger to the motorcylist is not his speed or
agility, but the ignorance of auto drivers on the road. In fact, my
speed and agility are the only ways of surviving when someone weaves across
several lanes of traffic and cuts me off, without signaling. Given
your concern for the survival of people on the roads, maybe you would
like to contribute to my lobby to have HE warhead missles legalized for
use by motorcylists. A well placed Stinger would go far to increasing
the amount of respect and notice afforded motorcyclists on the roads
of America.
>
> MICHAEL L. WICKS
> Sun Microsystems
> *****************************************
> * ....It was a NEW DAY yesterday *
> * but it's an OLD DAY now!.... *
> *****************************************
Robert Allen,
rob...@sri-spam.ARPA
Michael Wicks
> study of whether people will obey it, or whether it will go the way of
> obeyance of the 55 mph speed limit.
>
> > Motorcyclists have no such restrictions placed upon them, even though
> > their vehicles are far more dangerous to them than if they were in an
> > enclosed 4 wheel vehicle. Why is this? Is there a lobby that bikers
> > have that speaks up whenever a helmet law is mentioned? Why would the
>
> when it is and is not OK for me to get my head crushed by someone in
> an auto. Again, I always wear boots, helmet, gloves and leathers when
> riding my bike, but I respect others rights not to (although they have
> to be foolish). I'm fairly new to motorcycling, but already I've learned
> that the single biggest danger to the motorcylist is not his speed or
> agility, but the ignorance of auto drivers on the road. In fact, my
> speed and agility are the only ways of surviving when someone weaves across
> several lanes of traffic and cuts me off, without signaling. Given
> your concern for the survival of people on the roads, maybe you would
> like to contribute to my lobby to have HE warhead missles legalized for
> use by motorcylists. A well placed Stinger would go far to increasing
> the amount of respect and notice afforded motorcyclists on the roads
> of America.
> >
> rob...@sri-spam.ARPA
I realize that many drivers have a "bad attitude" towards ANYONE on
two wheels but I'm wondering if it's because the drivers are just
plain ignorant jerks who don't pay attention to their surrroundings,
or if the bikers who normally weave in and out of traffic and scare
safe drivers cause motorists to cop their attitude towards motor-
cyclists. I suspect it's some of both. Safe cyclists don't have a
chance against incompetent drivers anymore than 'insane' bikers
have a chance against safe drivers. As I've stated previously--
Laws are enacted because of worst-case scenarios and there is not
a whole lot that can be done if most of the people comply with the
law. I would like to see a 'free ' society where people could make
their own choices about wearing seatbelt and helmets but as long
as there are incompetents on 2 or 4 wheels then we're in for some
CONTROL legislation.
Jan Vandenbrande
>has saved my head and face twice. However, I opposed the enaction of the
>mandatory seatbelt law in California for the same reason I oppose mandatory
>helmet laws; it's my business what I do with my body. Note that the seatbelt
Indeed it is anyones business what they do with their body.
But who pays for a person to be patched up after an accident? The insurance.
And who pays the insurance? Right, we all do (so I hope). And now it
becomes my business too. If I indirectly have to pay for you to be
scraped from the pavement and be reassembled, I'd rather have your,
mine and everyone's elses freedom diminished a bit by requiring
everyone to wear protective devices such as helmets, seatbelts, etc.
The small sacrifice is worth the benefit.
Jan.
Kim P. Collins
wqucjhcj
Do you drink? It's therefore costing ME money if you do. And about that coffee you have every morning (for the sake of the arg.) -- your increased chances of heart disease (or whatever) will eventually end up increasing my taxes and insurance. And any cola you drink, and any time you do anything that is dangerous to yourself but not others. Do you eat red meat? Shall I declare the fact that you will have a much less healthy life, statistically speaking (AND rationally speaking, since researchers can s
how how red meat hurts you) as grounds for mandatory no-red-meat law? You and I are staring at CRTs, in all likelihood. What do you think that's doing to our eyes? Would you "rather have [my], [your], and everyone else's freedom diminished a bit ..."?
Etcetera.
There is a reason for my going into those examples. I am trying to make it clear that there are two distinct kinds of cases -- those that affect others directly, and those that affect others through such things as taxes, insurance, etc.
The latter, should you continue to think them grounds for limitations of individual liberties, are on what is called a SLIPPERY SLOPE; that is, if you hold that
one thing is impermissible, then you really can't make the case that another thing (say, red meat) is not also impermissible.
Cars themselves are dangerous! a 10-degree turn in the steering wheel for only a second could kill you.
"For your own good" should not be a phrase heard in the lawmakers' chambers in this country. It was heard in many other countries, with results that you and I both know well. (I know that you didn't say that, but it is one thing that supporters of your general position would say.)
Nor should the tax/insurance rationalization be heard.
(well, _hear_ it, but DON'T MAKE LAWS FROM IT.)
Our laws are necessary to protect people FROM OTHER PEOPLE. We are free men.
this is a line of text
Herb Chong
in exchange for the PRIVILEGE of using public roads, you must exchange
a little bit of your personal freedoms for the good of the many. if
you don't want to wear a seatbelt, do it on private roads. this
has been rehashed many times in net.auto and will continue to be
talked about until people realize that public roads are different than
private roads.
are tollways considered private? if so, the people running them could
impose just about any safety laws they wanted.
Herb Chong, IBM Research...
I'm still user-friendly -- I don't byte, I nybble....
VNET,BITNET,NETNORTH,EARN: HERBIE AT YKTVMH
UUCP: {allegra|cbosgd|cmcl2|decvax|ihnp4|seismo}!philabs!polaris!herbie
CSNET: herbie%ibm.com@csnet-relay
ARPA: her...@ibm.com, herbie%yktvmh...@wiscvm.wisc.edu
========================================================================
DISCLAIMER: what you just read was produced by pouring lukewarm
tea for 42 seconds onto 9 people chained to 6 Ouiji boards.
Kevin Donn
>
> I find it interesting that Californians have a MANDATORY
> seat belt law in effect that no one in particular seems to object to,
> and, I would gather, that most people adhere to. It appears to me that
> sane motorists have accepted the fact that seat belts save lives and
> it isn't that big of a deal and their choice is to comply with the law.
> Motorcyclists have no such restrictions placed upon them, even though
> their vehicles are far more dangerous to them than if they were in an
> enclosed 4 wheel vehicle. Why is this? Is there a lobby that bikers
> have that speaks up whenever a helmet law is mentioned? Why would the
> persons who wrote and voted for the seat belt law NOT consider a
> helmet law?
First of all, there are plenty of people who object (and objected) to
the passing of a seat belt law. The fact that it got passed anyway is
not at all indicative of the people's will. What happened was one of
the "those who know what's best for us" groups decided we needed to have
air bags in our cars a couple years ago and pushed an airbag law through
congress. Now the car manufacturers weren't too carried away with this
because it would cost them money to develop and implement airbags, so
they employed their own lobby to have the final draft of the bill say
that airbags would be mandatory if by mmddyy, xx% of the driving populace
weren't wearing seatbelts. This served to buy them time to start putting
pressure on state legislatures to pass seat belt laws. California
represented a lot of drivers so it got hit early on and was eventually
won over, a victory for big business. But who got their rights walked
all over? You got it, the only group without a lobby, the Joe "head up
his hiney" American group, the voters (who never really got to vote on
the whole deal). So don't think for a minute that the seat belt law
(whether or not it can be considered a good thing) was called for by
the people. As for helmet laws, you're absolutely right that there
are lobbies of cyclists who are willing to defend their right to splatter
their head all over the pavement. I personally am a helmet advocate,
but I recognize that it should be the individual's decision to wear
or not wear a helmet while riding a bike, to wear or not wear goggles
while operating a circular saw, to wear or not wear a coat on a winter
day.
Kevin Donn
D. Starr
>
> ...are tollways considered private? if so, the people running them could
> impose just about any safety laws they wanted.
>
> Herb Chong, IBM Research...
>
is considered a private road owned by the Illinois State Toll Highway
Authority, a private corporation owned by the state of Illinois. The
tollway is proud to remind us that no tax dollars are used in its
construction or maintenance (but you still pay road tax on the gas you
buy at its service plazas). So in theory they could raise the limit
(and in practice, there is frequently very lax enforcement on several
well-known stretches of the system--especially the stretch of Illinois
5 in the western part of the state, the one which is paralleled by
non-toll I-80). This is unlikely, since our current (and probably
future, since he is running unopposed) governor is a big fan of 55.
An interesting item in the newspaper last week described a proposal to
build a private tollway from Pueblo, Colorado to Denver to relieve the
congestion on I-25. The backers of the plan stated that the road would
have a speed limit of 80 mph, and could do so without fear of government
reprisal because the road is private.
Marcus J. Ranum
On the other hand, how many times have you seen Freddy
Spencer or Eddie Lawson ride a motorcycle without a helmet ?
I'm sure they could use the "added vision and hearing" that so
many of the potential brain-donors out there boast of, but
they prefer to wear restrictive headgear. I can't recall too
many cases of seeing Mario Andretti get into a car and leave
his seatbelt off, either. Of course, these dudes are going a
lot faster than you and I (?) and don't have to cope with
traffic. Of course, they don't have to worry about things
falling off the semi-trailer in front of them and hitting
them in the face, either...
I wish you guys could see my buddy Fred's helmet
after he slid face-first on the Washington beltway...
I particularly like the teeth-marks in the styrofoam
liner of the chin. The styrofoam is all that's left,
after all the fiberglass wore off the way his face would
have.
Now, I hate the law, and laws in general (ask
anyone) and I spit on no spitting signs just 'cuz they're
there, but following the law of survival makes sense. If
nobody exercised thier freedom of choice, the number of
kidney donors would drop. if you think I'm kidding, ask
your friends who work near an emergency room...
--
*All opinions expressed aren't even mine, let alone those of Gould, Inc.*
Mojo Jones
> If
> nobody exercised thier freedom of choice, the number of
> kidney donors would drop. if you think I'm kidding, ask
> your friends who work near an emergency room...
Item in the newspaper today:
Italy recently passed a mandatory helmet law for motorcyclists.
The law was spawned by the fact that of Italy's first eight heart
transplants, six of the donors were motorcyclists without
helmets. (Maybe edg@micropro will post the whole item.)
I won't tell you to wear a helmet (unless you're on my range
taking my course). But if you don't, PLEASE sign the donor card
on the back of your license. Thank you!
"Think of it as evolution in action."
Operator <often mikey>
> I wish you guys could see my buddy Fred's helmet
> after he slid face-first on the Washington beltway...
> I particularly like the teeth-marks in the styrofoam
> liner of the chin. The styrofoam is all that's left,
> after all the fiberglass wore off the way his face would
> have.
>
> Now, I hate the law, and laws in general (ask
> anyone) and I spit on no spitting signs just 'cuz they're
> there, but following the law of survival makes sense. If
> nobody exercised thier freedom of choice, the number of
> kidney donors would drop. if you think I'm kidding, ask
> your friends who work near an emergency room...
>
> --
I second that .... several years ago, my wife was riding her
little honda 350 with a helmet and a crash bar on the bike. A
guy came out from a side street, looked right at her and pulled out
(she thought she had eye contact - turns out he did not see her).
She was doing the speed limit (35 mph on this street) , was merged
with traffic (which was fairly heavy) and it was daylight and clear.
Both she and the bike were thrown across 2 lanes of traffic, the bike
was totaled (the crash bar took the whole blow - it was flattened against
the engine saving her leg). The side of her helmet looked like I had
used a power sander on it (she said it felt like someone used a hammer
on her head). Total injuries were a skinned ankle and a bruised
colar bone -- she did not even have a head ache! (the kirkland police
cited the guy who hit her for "failure to yield" right on the spot).
While we also do not like the manditory helmet law, we both feel
that you are a fool if you do not wear one! (Our neighbors are both
nurses - one of them works in an emergency room - they agree - helmets
should be worn - They have told us about some of the cases that come
in!)
Mikey (yes "he likes it!")
My job is so secret even I don't know what I'm doing
===============================================================================
email: real person: Life:
ssc-vax!fields (206) 251-4638 [work] Mike Fields
ssc-vax!shuksan!mikey (206) 821-3492 [home] 12022 N.E. 138th Pl.
Kirkland, Wa.
98034
===============================================================================
Dave Hsu
>> I wish you guys could see my buddy Fred's helmet
>> after he slid face-first on the Washington beltway...
>I second that .... several years ago, my wife was riding her
>little honda 350 with a helmet and a crash bar on the bike. A
>used a power sander on it (she said it felt like someone used a hammer
>on her head). Total injuries were a skinned ankle and a bruised
>colar bone -- she did not even have a head ache! (the kirkland police
>
The most convincing argument I ever saw for the use of helmets involved
my 10th grade bio teacher. An epileptic, he gave up driving for fear
of killing someone else when he was 19 and took up bicycle riding
instead. Naturally, he never rode anywhere without his Bell Biker.
Well, he stopped showing up to class one day. It seems he had been
riding along at about 35 mph when he had a seizure, bounced off a
telephone pole and off the street. Fortunately, he did not get hit by
a car (I think he glanced off one) but the helmet was totalled. The
lexan shell split into three separate pieces and the styrofoam was
almost completely worn through where it had been crushed. He was in a
coma for a while, and recovered after about 10 months.
Try to repeat that without a helmet.
-dave
--
David Hsu (301) 454-1433 || -8798 || -8715 "I know no-thing!" -eneevax
Communications & Signal Processing Laboratory / EE Systems Staff
Systems Research Center, Bldg 093 / Engineering Computer Facility
The University of Maryland -~- College Park, MD 20742
ARPA: h...@eneevax.umd.edu UUCP: [seismo,allegra,rlgvax]!umcp-cs!eneevax!hsu
"Evil...pure and simple!"
Dave Richards
>
>The most convincing argument I ever saw for the use of helmets involved
>my 10th grade bio teacher. An epileptic, he gave up driving for fear
>of killing someone else when he was 19 and took up bicycle riding
>instead. Naturally, he never rode anywhere without his Bell Biker.
>
>Well, he stopped showing up to class one day. It seems he had been
>riding along at about 35 mph when he had a seizure, bounced off a
>telephone pole and off the street. Fortunately, he did not get hit by
>a car (I think he glanced off one) but the helmet was totalled. The
>lexan shell split into three separate pieces and the styrofoam was
>almost completely worn through where it had been crushed. He was in a
>coma for a while, and recovered after about 10 months.
>
>Try to repeat that without a helmet.
I think that I'd rather die than wake up to 10 months of hospital bills.
This story doesn't seem like a very good one to promote helmet-wearing.
If the helmet did such a good job, why was he in the hospital for 10 months?
By chance, were there any neck or collarbone injuries?
Dave