From: behanna@phoenix.syl.nj.nec.com (Chris BeHanna)
Subject: Re: Helmet Law Editorial
Followup-To: rec.motorcycles
Reply-To: behanna@syl.nj.nec.com
Organization: NEC Systems Laboratory, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 92 19:40:57 GMT

In article <moseley.72.715542510@u.washington.edu> moseley@u.washington.edu (Steve L. Moseley) writes:
>1. Helmets are dangerous:  these people are idiots

	Not so fast:  Although the incidence of severe head injuries may be
reduced by helmet use, the added weight can increase the likelihood of severe
neck injuries.  Would you rather be dead or paralyzed?  I'm not sure I can
answer this one myself, but I don't want anyone else making the decision for
me.

>2. Helmet LAWS don't prevent death and serious injury: these people are 
>uninformed

	Bullshit.  If your head hits anything directly at greater than 15mph,
your helmet will just contain the mess.  If you survive such an impact, you
probably will wish you hadn't, if you're still capable of rational thought.
At any rate, helmet LAWS do nothing but persecute motorcyclists.  Intelligent
use of HELMETS THEMSELVES can make a positive difference.  How many $!#$ squids
do you see riding in shorts, thongs, and a full-face helmet?  If they go down,
they WILL suffer serious injury, despite wearing the helmet (hint: skin loss
can be a life-threatening injury, and the treatment is ALWAYS excruciatingly
painful).

>3. Helmet laws are just the start in a fiendish plot that will ultimately 
>result in confiscation of our motorcycles: these people are afraid to drink 
>fluoridated water (shrill persecution complex) 

	Get real.  They have helmet laws in the U.K.  Now they're pushing for
mandatory leg guards and shin protectors.  Don't doubt for a second that the
IIHS will push for laws to impound motorcycles if they can.  Since they can't
at the moment, they choose to do it incrementally.  First helmets, then leg
protectors, then no more sport bikes, then you can only ride under certain
conditions.  I'm not making this up:  It WILL happen if you let it.

>4. Helmets undoubtedly provide safety benefits, but if I choose not to wear 
>one, only I am affected, thus the government shouldn't legislate away the 
>choice:  this really has some merit (Boy, I really do sound patronizing,
>don't I). Most people who hold this opinion actually wear helmets most of 
>the time.
>
>I'm almost persuaded by number 4. Except in states without helmet laws, half 
>the riders NEVER wear helmets. Making these riders wear helmets, and thus 
>maybe saving a few of them just doesn't seem like such an evil thing to me.

	It is most certainly evil of you to suggest that you know enough to
protect someone else from himself.  You have absolutely no right to do so.  So
what if someone pays for not wearing a helmet?  It was his choice, and the
consequences are his.  Deal with it.

>OK, I'll quit whining for another few months. If somebody else would 
>occasionally post a pro helmet law article, I'd drop the subject entirely. 
>Let me just whine this in my defense: I NEVER initiate one of these threads. 
>I'd really rather read about steering head bearings, Aerostitch suits, DoD 
>numbers, or the difference between torque and horsepower.

	Oh, please quit whining.  I've posted hard numbers before to refute
the public burden theory, and the numbers are available to refute IIHS/CDC
carnage statistics in a heartbeat.  If pushed, I'll do it again.

Ride Free,
-- 
Chris BeHanna	DoD# 114   1983 Harley-Davidson FXWG Wide Glide (She lives!)
behanna@syl.nj.nec.com	   (I need another bike for this space!)

Disclaimer:  Now why would NEC agree with any of this anyway?