From: svoboda@rtsg.mot.com (David Svoboda)
Subject: Re: HELMETS
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 21:39:26 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.200008.14797@asl.dl.nec.com> drinckes@nzl.abk.nec.co.jp writes:
|I don't believe we/you can protest helmets on the grounds that:
|
|	smoking/drinking cause high costs to society and they are still legal
|
|because ..... do they?  What are the estimated medical costs attributed to smoking,
|and what is the tax revenue that is gained from sales of tobacco products?

In the US, the tobacco industry is strongly subsidised.  Surely you don't 
believe that cigarettes are strongly enough taxed to pay for the damage they do, 
especially when you subtract the subsidies.

|Compared with this, I think you'll find that the medical cost/tax revenue of
|motorcycle helmets is somewhat different.

Yes, but the damage done as a result of not wearing them is also far different.

|I agree with a previous poster that responsible adults don't need legislation to
|make them do something that is, well, responsible.  

As long as you are allowed to define what is responsible, right?

|Unfortunately (and kinda
|obviously) there are a hell of a lot of irresponsible people out there.  The ones
|who drive/ride drunk, tired, in/on poorly maintained vehicles, too fast.  

Oh, that's your definition of responsibility, huh?  Don't forget sex without a 
condom.  Surely you must consider that irresponsible.  How would you feel about
a law concerning it?

|If you've ticked one or more, or if anyone within 100 miles
|of you has, then I think you get to wear a helmet.

"You think".  I don't think so, myself.  Why is your opinion about what is responsible
more valid than mine, hmmm?

|I could at this point say "shut up and take your medicine" but I won't. :)

I could at this point say "shut up and mind your own business" but I won't.

|Doug Rinckes   drinckes@nzl.abk.nec.co.jp   TSSC New Zealand Ltd
|1976 BMW R100S        1960 BMW R60 (soon)       1940 Indian 741B       

I hope you don't ever ride that Indian.  Surely it lacks safety features
necessary for safe riding.  You're obviously an irresponsible motorcyclist.

|     Shoei RF200 - it's not just a good idea, it's the law

Not here, it isn't.

I would like to add something, that perhaps some non US people might not
understand:

I value liberty.  I value it more highly than most other things.  Not just 
mine, but I value your liberty, too.  I am willing to pay for my own liberty, 
that's personal responsibility, and yes, I am willing to pay for yours, too,
that's community responsiblity.  I am a member of Amnesty International for 
that exact reason; I value the liberty of people all over the world.  And I 
extend that willingness to pay for liberty beyond political supression, but 
also to simple things such as the ability to take risks in your own life, 
like riding a motorcycle, riding a horse, skydiving, or rock climbing.  While
it is possible to abuse this liberty, I have to see VERY strong evidence of
this abuse before I am willing to support supressing the liberty, since I
consider the supression of liberty basically immoral (although sometimes
necessary--I'm not an anarchist).  As far as helmets go, then, I am against 
helmet laws, simply because I have never seen strong enough evidence to feel 
my support is being badly abused.

At the same time, I feel a strong sense of personal responsibility, and a
keen sense of personal preservation.  Those that know me know that I wear a
helmet all the time.  And leather.  And I take classes often.  And I
practice.  I urge everyone else to take the same steps, but your liberty
limits me to urging.

Dave Svoboda (svoboda@void.rtsg.mot.com)    | "I just can't take
90 Concours 1000 (Mmmmmmmmmm!)              |  this weird shit
84 RZ 350 (Ring Ding) (Woops!)              |  before breakfast!"
AMA 583905  DoD #0330  COG 939  (Chicago)   |   -- Evo Woman