HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dcb@kopachuk.uucp (David Breneman)
Subject: Re: Risks and paying for them
Organization: Tacoma Screw Products, Inc.
Distribution: seattle
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 16:44:07 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.170752.4827@tc.fluke.COM> lowell@tc.fluke.COM (Lowell Skoog) writes:
>Which do you prefer:
>
>A. Your insurance company requires you to tell them whether or not
>   you ride a bicycle.  If you do, you pay higher premiums.  (Maybe
>   they refuse to cover you.)  If you don't tell them, and you get
>   injured on a bicycle, they don't pay.
>
>B. Your insurance company doesn't ask whether or not you ride a
>   bicycle, but by law, you are required to wear a helmet if you do.
>
>I prefer B.
>

Why?

-- 
David Breneman     Sys Admin, Tacoma Screw Products, Inc. |  ____  ____  ____
dcb@tacoma.uucp           |   SCREWIE the TSP CLOWN sez-  |   /   /___  /___/ 
 ..!uunet!tacoma!dcb      | "Zinc & cadmium plating stops |  /   ____/ / 
CompuServe: <DEAD>        |  rust & acts as a lubricant!" |
Newsgroups: seattle.general,alt.activism
From: david@cs.washington.edu (David Callahan)
Subject: Christmas Lights
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering Dept., Univ. of Washington, Seattle
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 15:32:43 GMT

Which neighborhoods around the
city put on the most interesting
Christmas light displays?

-- 
David Callahan  					 (david@tera.com)
Tera Computer Co. 	400 North 34th Street  		Seattle WA, 98103
Newsgroups: seattle.general
From: kalloway@hebron.connected.com (Keith L Alloway)
Newsgroups: seattle.general
Subject: Re: Condoms in Public Schools
Date: 10 Dec 1992 21:05:09 -0800
Organization: Make-it up as you go
NNTP-Posting-Host: hebron.connected.com

In article <2978@uswnvg.uswnvg.com> jstaffe@uswnvg.com (Jarrod Staffen) writes:
>Say, now that this newsgroup if full of heated debates about helmet
>laws, governmental offenses, blah, blah, blah....
>
>Let's talk about condoms in public schools!!!!
>
> <text omitted>
>--
Yes, condoms can reduce unwanted pregnancy and S.T.D., but
my concern with distributing condoms in public schools (at
taxpayer expense) is the precident being set.  It is only
a short, logical step to distributing bullet proof vests to
students because some people bring guns to school (maybe this
should be posted on tacoma.general) or (I'll probably be sorry
about this) helmets because walking implies the risk of
falling and getting injured.

The proper function of schools is education - *not* protection!

Internet: kalloway@hebron.connected.com		Assume N*O*T*H*I*N*G


-- 
  Inet: kalloway@hebron.connected.com 
  Associated Grocers, Inc ; 3301 S. Norfolk St. ; Seattle, WA  98118
  Assume N-O-T-H-I-N-G !!!
Newsgroups: seattle.general
From: monaghan@cac.washington.edu (Tracy Monaghan )
Subject: Re: FREE CHOICE QUESTION
Organization: UW Computing
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:59:05 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.070449.129@jazzie.com> sds@jazzie.com (Sean Shapira) writes:
>In article <josh.724197683@pogo> josh@cqs.washington.edu (Josh Hayes) writes:
>>Some rights are important, some are completely trivial. Abortion
[snip, snip]
>>of people yell and scream about bicycle helmets, they will demonstrate
>>that it is an important "right" 
>
>Josh, I simply can't agree that the screaming millions should
>determine which rights are important.  To the contrary, there's 
>as much danger in a society where rights are granted or denied 
>by a democratic process as in a society where they are granted 
>or denied by a dictator.
>

That is what the courts (supposedly) are for, to rule whether a law
supported by the majority violates the constitution (state or
federal) and infringes upon the rights of a minority.

And it is also why it always scares me when one group or another wants to
amend the constitution for whatever little pet peeve they may have.
Newsgroups: seattle.general
From: eris@tc.fluke.COM (Chris Beckmeyer)
Subject: Re: Freedom, Social Responsibility, Individual Responsibility
Keywords: Helmet Laws, Drug Laws, etc.
Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA
Distribution: seattle
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 19:51:22 GMT

In article <klg.724381009@statsci> klg@statsci.com (Kevin L. Gross) writes:
>lowell@tc.fluke.COM (Lowell Skoog) writes:
>
>   I continue to be amazed at how some people can get all worked up
>   about a bicycle helmet law.  If you don't like the law, you can vote
>   against the people who passed it in the next election.  Your basic
>   freedoms (the ones the American Revolutionaries fought for) have not
>   been diminished.  Invoking the spirit of the American Revolution over
>   a bicycle helmet law cheapens the idea of liberty, in my opinion.
>   
>   					--Lowell Skoog
>
 (stuff deleted)

>Tell me Lowell, what are you going to do when they decide that climbing
>mountains is too dangerous and costs too much money for the rescue attempts
>of those who slip into a crevasse? Why should the rest of us pay for your
>rescue and health care? We can pass a law against it, because 99.99%
>of the people I have *ever* met think that people who climb mountains in
>rarefied air, in ice and snow and in unbelievably cold temperatures are
>just flat fucking crazy and we can reduce our costs significantly by
>outlawing the whole damn idea. 
>
>Or are you gonna be magnanimous when you slip into that crevasse and decide 
>that it costs society too much $$$ to send a rescue chopper up, needlessly
>endangering other people's lives, so you won't send up a flare, rather,
>you'll just sit there and freeze to death like a good little Amerikan?
>
well put, kevin!  i agree with you but would like to ask a question...
does washington state provide search/rescue services free to the "victim"?
the state of nevada (or at least the particular county i lived in) did NOT.
i recall an incident where three or four days of helicopter searching for
a child lost in the desert resulted in a bill to the parents of somewhere
between 40 and 50 thousand dollars. 'course the community jumped in with a
zillion donations/fund raisers to cover it.

just wondering....

chris

Newsgroups: seattle.general
From: brennan@halcyon.com (J.D. Brennan)
Subject: Re: FREE CHOICE QUESTION
Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. (206) 455-3505
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 02:14:54 GMT


> ... an interesting question.  Namely, the question of individual
> rights versus the greater societal good.

There is no such thing as the "greater societal good".  A society is
only better off if the individuals in it are better off.  Individuals
are not better off if they are required to wear a helmet.  Nor are
they better off if they are required to pay for the health care of an
individual who doesn't wear a helmet and gets injured.

Now the abortion question is interesting because it is the rights
of one individual (mother) against the rights of another (unborn
child).

P.S. I ride my bicycle to work and wear a helmet.
JD Brennan
[brennan@halcyon.com		Symbologic Corporation, Redmond, WA]
Newsgroups: seattle.general,pnw.general,alt.society.civil-liberty,misc.talk.politics,alt.activism,alt.individualism,rec.bicycles,talk.politics.misc
From: "Michael Smith" <p00004@psilink.com>
Subject: Re: Freedom, Social Responsibility, Individual Responsibility
Organization: Performance Systems Int'l
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 19:54:22 GMT
X-Mailer: PSILink-DOS (3.3)

>DATE:   Thu, 10 Dec 92 15:42:19 GMT
>FROM:   Peter Epstein <peter@helix.ObjecTime.on.ca>
>
>Although this thread is dangerously close to drifting into outright political
>philosophy [....]

No bloody fear.

--Michael Smith
Newsgroups: seattle.general,pnw.general,alt.society.civil-liberty,misc.talk.politics,alt.activism,alt.individualism,rec.bicycles,talk.politics.misc
From: brians@atlastele.com (Brian Sheets)
Subject: Re: Freedom, Social Responsibility, Individual Responsibility
Organization: Atlas Telecom Inc.
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 10:21:17 GMT

In article <1992Dec13.223549.25391@hounix.org> wlarkin@hounix.org (Ward Larkin) writes:
>In article <1992Dec13.161531.2323@sequent.com> dickwin@sequent.com (Dick Winningstad) writes:
>>
>>
>The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
>of America has a somewhat similar phrase ( that is, the
>life, liberty and pursuit of happiness phrase ) but's it's
>intent is to protect the people from oppressive government,
>not to assure the people the freedom to do whatever they
>wish.

Well I must correct this statement since it has no basis, 

"As a general rule men have natural right to do anything
which their inclinations may suggest, if it be not evil in
itself, and in no way impairs the rights of others" 
		In Re Newman (1858), 9 C. 502

Our country was based on the fact that the King was passing laws
as the Soverign, to which men had no say so in their own personal
actions. God has given us the responsibilty and the guidelines to 
structure and run our own lives and OUR government has no part  
interfering.

>
>That phrase from the Constitution is
>
>     No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty
>     or property without due process of law ....
>
>In the case of these helmit laws ( both bicycle and
>motorcycle ) there was due process law, and there
>laws were well within the overall purpose of the
>Constitution:

I can remember right off the top of my head but just passing a law is
not "Due Process". I beleive that one can only be deprived of "Life, 
Liberty, or Property" if convicted of a crime, eminent domain, or by 
contract. Passage of a statute IS considered constitutional until challanged
in court. If you people belive that the passage of a Helmet Law or Seatbelt
Law take away some of your personal liberty, take it to court. 

PS. If you have a drivers license, be prepared to lose.

brians

-- 
Brian Sheets		    _   /|  	"TRUCK?! What truck?"
153 N. Hayden Bay Dr.	    \`o_O'    	 
Portland, Or 97217	      ( ) 	   -Raiders of the Lost Ark
brians@atlastele.com           U
From: milan@italia.boeing.com (Milan Richter)
Newsgroups: boeing.general,seattle.general
Subject: Looking for a good family doctor in Bellevue
Date: 11 Dec 92 21:18:46 GMT
Distribution: seattle
Organization: Boeing Computer Services

I am looking for a good (i.e. experienced, knowledgable, responsible)
family doctor in Bellevue, preferrably in the proximity to Eastgate/Factoria 
area. One condition: should be a preferred provider for the Boeing medical 
plan.

Please send me the recommendations directly. Many thanks for help!

-- Milan Richter
Newsgroups: seattle.general
From: pete@carrera.wvus.org (Pete Gregory)
Subject: another test
Organization: Private System
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 92 08:01:52 PST
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA15215; Sat, 12 Dec 92 08:12:55 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA07539; Sat, 12 Dec 92 08:12:54 -0800
X-Received: from wvus.UUCP by elroy.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (4.1/SMI-4.1+DXR)
	id AA26099; Sat, 12 Dec 92 08:12:53 PST
X-Received: from carrera by wvus.wvus.org id aa28309; Sat, 12 Dec 92 7:38:57 PST
X-Received: by carrera.wvus.org (1.64/waf)
	via UUCP; Fri, 11 Dec 92 08:01:52 PST
	for seattle.general.usenet@decwrl.dec.com
X-To: seattle.general.usenet

another test... sorry... i'm testing a long-distance mail-to-news
relay through decwrl...
From: jmethve@uswnvg.com (John Methven)
Newsgroups: seattle.general
Subject: Re: Happy with Honda of Seattle service?
Date: 16 Dec 92 16:56:16 GMT
Organization: U S WEST NewVector Group, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

Honda of Seattle service is good, but overpriced. They charged 50.00 an hour forlabor and I think compared to other Honda dealers that is quite expensive. The
other thing I disliked was, the service people who fill out the paperwork try
to sell you other services they may not be needed. My recommendation is HinshawsHonda in Auburn. They are very helpful and do not try to sell other services.
john
Newsgroups: seattle.general,pnw.general,alt.society.civil-liberty,misc.talk.poli
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: Freedom, Social Responsibility, Individual Responsibility
Followup-To: alt.society.civil-liberty,misc.talk.poli
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 16:31:25 GMT


[Note the "Followup-To" redirect(s) to
alt.society.civil-liberty,misc.talk.poli.]

In article <1992Dec13.223335.23667@starbase.trincoll.edu>, 
nmiller@starbase.trincoll.edu (norman miller) said:

> What bothers me about dangerous activities is that I wind up paying
> some of the costs.  (I do now of course to keep the FDA and others
> in groceries, but I'm willing to pay those costs because I hope they
> protect me and mine.)  These costs stem from higher insurance rates
> as well as higher taxes because of negligency lawsuits.  The
> unhelmeted motorcyclist thus runs a better chance of dying or being
> maimed for life _and_ I wind up paying because he or his estate will
> sue my company.
>
> What does the freedom-for-all crowd say about that?

I say that you should buy your insurance from a company that only
sells policies that contain a clause saying "In the event that the
insured party suffers an injury while riding a motorcycle without a
helmet, the insurance company will not pay him any amount which
exceeds six dollars and nineteen cents."

What's that?  You say that your state, which claims a monopoly on
allowing insurance companies to do business legally within its
borders, won't allow any insurance company to sell policies like that?
Well then, your quarrel is with the state, and not the helmetless
motorcyclists, isn't it?

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
From: sharon@tc.fluke.COM (Sharon Drasnin)
Subject: Re: Yet another request for contractor recommendations
Summary: excellent contractor
Keywords: Broken tile wet rot no shower yuck
Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA
Distribution: seattle
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:28:38 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.165016.19008@ninja.zso.dec.com>, mcbride@rust.zso.dec.com (Melinda McBride) writes:
> In article <3480@voodoo.UUCP> zombie@voodoo.UUCP (Mike York) writes:
> >we're looking for any 
> >recommendations for honest, reliable and reasonable contractors.  We're
> >located in West Seattle.
> >

Hi,

	Try Vornbrock construction located in West Seattle.  They only
build in West Seattle, by the way.  They are a family-owned business.  The
business was started by the father, and now the two sons, Greg and Mark (I
think) work there also.

	Greg built my mom's new house (1 year old).  He was great -- he
reminds me of a boy scout.  He has built lots of houses in West Seattle so
you can call him up and he will put you in contact with happy customers.

	We were also considering building a house on a view front lot.
We contacted Greg to ask him about it.  He told us to make sure their were
no problems with the lot (legal) before we bought it.  Because of his
advice, we found out that the neighbors were preventing the owners from
building on it because it was an environment hazard (they claimed it
would erode the land because it was on a slope -- when in reality all
it would do was block their view).  Anyways, the point I am making is that
Greg, and his family,  looks after his customers, not just his wallet.

	When my husband and I  do some more work on our house in the coming
years, the Vornbrock's will be doing it.  Their work is quality work, I
should mention.  

	I recommend to you, without any reservations, that you contact 
Vornbrock Construction.  They are located 1 block west of Jefferson
Square.  I looked up the address:

	Vornbrock and Sons Construction
	4745 40th SW
	phone: 935 - 7500


best of luck to you,
sharon
From: dickwin@sequent.com (Dick Winningstad)
Newsgroups: seattle.general,pnw.general,alt.society.civil-liberty,misc.talk.politics,alt.activism,alt.individualism,rec.bicycles,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Freedom, Social Responsibility, Individual Responsibility
Date: 13 Dec 92 16:15:31 GMT
Article-I.D.: sequent.1992Dec13.161531.2323
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.


A person should not be required to protect themselves from themselves.
The old argument that the government pays for your mistakes so the
government should have a say in your behavior is bunk.  If it costs to
much to provide protection for a person's behavior then the payments
should stop, not the freedom of individual action. Costs are not an
acceptable excuse to limit freedom.

In addition, I firmly support the rights of stupid people to weed
themselves out of the gene pool in whatever activity they choose to
participate in.

I also find it a little humorous to see bicycle riders all of a sudden
concerned about their freedoms when they didn't seem to give a rats
ass about the helmet issue when it concerned motorcycle riders.

The "paranoid" predictions made during the motorcycle helmet law
arguments are coming to pass, we now have mandatory seatbelt laws,
helmet laws for bicyclists, and eventually we will see the outright
elimination of dangerous sports such as bicycle/motorcycle riding.

Next to be eliminated will be skiing (water and snow), cars, and
private airplanes. After all, these activities are not necessary or
there are safer alternatives. And the government will have its hands
full just providing care for our rapidly growing older population. So
the government won't be able to pay for the injuries all these other
non-normal activities cause.

Perhaps these activities will not be eliminated in that order or
others will be eliminated first. But if the government is not
stopped from trying to be your "mom" you will find all of your rights,
not just your right to the pursuit of happiness, eventually gone; for
your own safety of course.

I know, I know, the founding fathers meant something a little
different when they were talking about the pursuit of happiness. But
it sounded good and it really is not that far off from what they were
talking about.....

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+Dick Winningstad                                                    +
+                    Italian Wines are Fine                          +
+          I'd rather be on a Moto Guzzi in eastern Oregon.          +
+     I wore a helmet when it wasn't required and I wear one now     +
+dickwin@sequent.com                                                 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Newsgroups: seattle.general,pnw.general,alt.society.civil-liberty,misc.talk.politics,alt.activism,alt.individualism,rec.bicycles,talk.politics.misc
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Subject: Re: Freedom, Social Responsibility, Individual Responsibility
Keywords: Helmet Laws, Drug Laws, etc.
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA
Distribution: sqnt
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 92 01:50:53 GMT

In article <1992Dec10.180742.5313@sequent.com> stm@sequent.com
(Scott "Worf" MacQuarrie) writes:
>Well, I expect all the same arguements used against the mandatory Helmet law
>for motorcycles will be used on the bicycle helmet law.
>
>My view is this:  A Democratic Government's primary role is the defense of 
>Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The foundations of a democratic 
>society were established using these guidelines in France after the revolution and
>entrenched in the US constitution.
>
>A free and democratic government is required to defend these principles or
>cease to be a free or democratic. This means that an individual is free to
>engage in dangerous activites, but it also means that the goverment must pass
>laws to make these activities reasonably safe.

Baloney.  It's my responsibility to engage in these activities as safely as
I can; it aint the government's concern.

>This is why you are required to pass a test before legally driving a car,
>flying a plane, or riding a motorcycle. This is why I'm required to wear a
>seatbelt while driving my car and a helmet while riding my motorcycle. This is
>why the manufacturer must pass inspection tests to insure the vehicles are made
>to certain standards.

Those tests exist to protect OTHERS from your mistakes; helmet laws only
protect you, so the law is out of line.

>To settle the point, I ride a certain brand of American motorcycle with a long
>history of personal freedoms behind it. I have heard a lot of arguments against
>the helmet laws, so far I still wear a helmet.

And I've worn a helmet every time I ride, even when it wasn't the law.

>The bottom line is that the government is not forcing you to wear a helmet,
>they have simply established a financial penalty for not doing so. You are
>still free to not wear a helmet, just expect a ticket when you do. You have not
>lost any freedoms, society is simply charging you for the results of not
>wearing a helmet.

Right....

   don
Newsgroups: seattle.general,pnw.general,alt.society.civil-liberty,misc.talk.poli
From: josh@Happy-Man.com (Joshua_Putnam)
Subject: Re: Freedom, Social Responsibility, Individual Responsibility
Reply-To: Joshua_Putnam@happy-man.com
Organization: Happy Man Corp., Vashon Island, WA 98070-7399
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 19:54:24 GMT

In <1992Dec13.223335.23667@starbase.trincoll.edu> nmiller@starbase.trincoll.edu (norman miller) writes:

>What bothers me about dangerous activities is that I wind up paying
>some of the costs.  (I do now of course to keep the FDA and others
>in groceries, but I'm willing to pay those costs because I hope they
>protect me and mine.)  These costs stem from higher insurance rates
>as well as higher taxes because of negligency lawsuits.  The unhelmeted
>motorcyclist thus runs a better chance of dying or being maimed for
>life _and_ I wind up paying because he or his estate will sue my com-
>pany.

>What does the freedom-for-all crowd say about that?

I suppose a court system that apportions blame reasonably and
fairly is out of the question?
-- 
 Joshua_Putnam@happy-man.com    Happy Man Corp.  206/463-9399 x102
 4410 SW Pt. Robinson Rd., Vashon Island, WA  98070-7399  fax x108
 We publish SOLID VALUE for the intelligent investor.  NextMail OK
Info free; sample $20: Send POSTAL addr: Solid-Value@happy-man.com
Newsgroups: seattle.general
From: chrispi@microsoft.com (Chris Pirih)
Subject: Re: Freedom, Social Responsibility, Individual Responsibility
Date: 16 Dec 92 05:57:43 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

Re: bicycle helmet law in Seattle

The tenth ammendment is very appropriate in this
case, but not in the sense of overruling the helmet
law.  The power to make silly laws that have nothing
to do with public welfare is, according to the tenth
ammendment, reserved to the States and the People.
I'm not familiar with the WA State constitution,
but it probably does not give the state the power
to make silly non-essential laws, so that power is
reserved to the counties, cities, etc.  Since this
is a county law we're talking about (correct me if
I'm wrong about this), it's completely legitimate.  
Just like a law against public nudity or spitting 
on the sidewalk.

Some questions:

How does the total public cost of helmetless riders 
(i.e. number of injuries * (cost per injury
- amount paid by injured)) compare to the total
cost of the helmet law (i.e. total number of
bicyclists * cost of helmet + cost of enforcement)?

How common are expensive head injuries compared to 
fatal head injuries and expensive non-head injuries?
I would think helmets are likely to prevent fatal
head injuries (which are not very expensive in
monetary terms) while allowing serious but non-
fatal spinal injuries (which are very expensive).  
Is there any hard data on this subject?  My gut 
feeling is that the "cost to society" argument is 
completely bogus, in theory and in practice.

---
chris
Newsgroups: seattle.general,pnw.general,alt.society.civil-liberty,misc.talk.politics,alt.activism,alt.individualism,rec.bicycles,talk.politics.misc