From: tcox@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (Tony Cox - (415)926-3105)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Freedom, Social Responsibility, etc. etc.
Date: 23 Dec 92 15:31:39 -0800
Organization: SSRL, Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu

In article <casseres-231292084333@missmolly.apple.com>,
	casseres@apple.com (David Casseres) writes:
> 
> First, just one question for all the ultra-pure Libertarian types who are
> saying that no government anywhere has any right to tell anyone to wear
> anything for any reason:  Where were all you mighty warriors when they made
> laws that say we have to wear clothing when we walk around on the street? 
> Why aren't you out there bare-ass naked like that guy in Berekeley,
> protesting stupid laws about apparel and "decency"?  If you aren't going to
> deal with clothing laws, then your philosophical opposition to helmet laws
> is purely a hand-job.

   Well, I'm not an ultra-pure Lib, but I _do_ oppose laws requiring
   clothes as well, so at least I am consistent by your standards.

   There has been much discussion on rec.nude concerning compulsory
   clothing laws. Actually, in CA, there is no such state-wide law.
   There is merely legislation against `lewd' exhibition - see the
   appropriate news group for further info. The Berkeley naked guy has
   been getting away with it because he is in no sense lewd. Local
   ordinances may vary.

   In any case, just because I don't march in the streets against each
   and every law that I find oppressive doesn't undermine my attacks
   upon those laws I _do_ care to challenge.

> 
> Second, for all those who think it's a matter of protecting the general
> public from having to pay hospital bills -- via taxes and insurance
> premiums -- for all the helmetless bicyclists who bash their brains out on
> the street:  Get real.  Show me that you personally have ever paid more
> than maybe a nickle a year on cyclist head injuries that would have been
> prevented by a helmet, and I'll be impressed as hell.

   This was the justification used in CA for the introduction of
   compulsory helmet laws for motorcyclists. A figure of $170M/year
   was quoted, I believe.

> 

   Putting on my utilitarian hat for a moment (urgh), there are two
   points which don't appear to have come out in all this discussion.

   Firstly, wearing a skid-lid may reduce your chance of being killed
   when you fall on your head, but it also _increases_ the chances of
   neck injury. You aren't violating the law of energy conservation by
   wearing your crashhat - the energy which would have gone into
   cracking your skull now goes into compressing your spinal column.
   I'm not sure what the trade-offs are, however. Anyone got any
   figures?

   Secondly, anyone who has ever ridden a motor cycle will tell you
   that a helmet reduces both your vision and your ability to
   determine the source of a noise. Try this simple test. Stand in a
   parking lot with your eyes shut and get a friend to toot her horn.
   You should be able to point to her car very accurately. Now try it
   when wearing a helmet. See?
   Wearing a helmet _increases_ your chances of being involved in an
   accident.

   So even by the states own justification, compulsory helmet laws are
   based upon fuzzy logic. 

Tony Cox, Stanford, CA