From: hist1261@waikato.ac.nz
Newsgroups: soc.culture.new-zealand
Subject: Re: Kevlar vests to be made COMPULSORY for pedestrians in NZ
Date: 17 Nov 92 11:21:06 +1300
Organization: University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand


In article <58sis-b@massey.ac.nz>, news@massey.ac.nz (USENET News System) writes:
> On Friday it was announced that after an investigation into road
> safety that (a) a zero-alchol limit would not be imposed as it was
> unrealistic and (b) cyclists would be forced to wear helmets.
> 
> Cycling is not an inherently dangerous activity (certain types might
> be, such as racing, but general cycling is not). As such people should
> not be forced to protect themselves, though if they wish to they may,
> as it violates a fundamental principle that people should be protected
> from injury by others (or from their own activities). NO OTHER section
> of society is forced to protect themselves from injury in this way.
> 
> Will such an action reduce the road toll? Maybe, but probably not the
> accidents. On Friday I (unusually) came to work by car, whilst driving
> down a residential street I was overtaken as I was clearly going too
> slow - i.e. 50 Km/h in a 50 Km/h area. Will cycle helmets stop that
> driving from being a criminal? Today on the way to work (on my bike as
> normal) I approched a pedestrian crossing at which half-a-dozen
> children were waiting. I slowed down, and given my high regard for
> motoring standards, also pulled OUT towards the centre of the road to
> CLEARLY indicate to the vechicles behind that I was stopping IN FRONT
> of them to allow the children to cross. The vechicle, with plenty of
> stopping distance before the crossing, just pulled out and overtook on
> the crossing. Would my wearing a cycle helmet have protected those
> children?
> 
> (I should point out that I am an experienced London UK cyclist and
> have been involved in serious accidents. I do not think people should
> not wear helmets [though their protection is not very much and they
> give a certain amount of false security]. It is interesting to note
> that my 5 year old son never thought of cycling as dangerous when we
> lived in London, despite the tales of near disaster and the accidents.
> A short while after coming to Palmerston North, a small town of merely
> 70K compared to the 6M of London and much quieter roads, he decided
> that cycling was dangerous after the barrage of propaganda which
> results in children wearing helmets when riding around the garden!)
> 
> Come on what do you Kiwi's think?
> 
> And for the future...
> 
> The NZ Government today announced that it would be acting
> on the findings of the select committee on the safety of areas
> frequented by pedestrians.  From January 1994 all it will become
> compulsory for all pedestrians in public areas to wear protective
> Kevlar vests, so as to reduce the injuries when they are shot. A
> government spokeperson stated "It is highly irresponsibile for people
> to involve themselves in dangerous activities without taking suitable
> protective measures.  We believe that the compulsory wearing of these
> vests will greatly reduce the number of people seriously injured
> during armed robberies."
> -- 
> ---
> Dr Nigel Perry                    Email: N.Perry@massey.ac.nz
> Department of Computer Science    Tel: +64 6 356 9099 ext 8900
> Massey University                 Fax: +64 6 350 5611
> Palmerston North
> New Zealand

This particular Kiwi agrees whole heartedly and thinks you have a promising 
future ahead of you in satire.  The cycle helmet argument is ludicrous,
brought to you no doubt by the same "well meaning" people who banned
"Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer" for the "good of the community".
I suppose the next thing will be fines for not flushing toilets or 
excessive hair length, practices that exist in countries which are already
providing the economic model for New Zealand.

Richard.