Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!sri-spam!robert
From: robert@sri-spam.ARPA (Robert Allen)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.cycle,net.auto
Subject: Re: Seat belts, Helmets and Freedom of Choice
Message-ID: <6133@sri-spam.ARPA>
Date: Wed, 23-Jul-86 11:59:26 EDT
Article-I.D.: sri-spam.6133
Posted: Wed Jul 23 11:59:26 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 25-Jul-86 01:50:30 EDT
References: <5348@sun.uucp>
Distribution: net
Organization: SRI International, Menlo Park, CA
Lines: 61
Xref: watmath net.politics:17610 net.cycle:1848 net.auto:11766

In article <5348@sun.uucp>, mwicks@sun.uucp (Michael Wicks) writes:
> 
>        I realize that this subject may have been beaten to death long
>   before now but I wanted to add 2 cents from my end. Here in California
>   we of course do not have any helmet laws and motorcylists can do just
>   about anything they like, and they usually do. Some are safe and
>   courteous riders and others are reckless. I don't have any numbers or
>   percentages on that or for the number of safe or reckless drivers
>   either. I find it interesting that Californians have a MANDATORY
>   seat belt law in effect that no one in particular seems to object to,
>   and, I would gather, that most people adhere to. It appears to me that
>   sane motorists have accepted the fact that seat belts save lives and
>   it isn't that big of a deal and their choice is to comply with the law.

Michael, I have religiously worn a seatbelt for the past 6 years, and it
has saved my head and face twice.  However, I opposed the enaction of the
mandatory seatbelt law in California for the same reason I oppose mandatory
helmet laws; it's my business what I do with my body.  Note that the seatbelt
law was only enacted a few months ago, and we have yet to see a longterm
study of whether people will obey it, or whether it will go the way of
obeyance of the 55 mph speed limit.

>   Motorcyclists have no such restrictions placed upon them, even though
>   their vehicles are far more dangerous to them than if they were in an
>   enclosed 4 wheel vehicle. Why is this? Is there a lobby that bikers
>   have that speaks up whenever a helmet law is mentioned? Why would the

Yes there is.

>   persons who wrote and voted for the seat belt law NOT consider a
>   helmet law? I don't have the answers but I do say that if you are on
>   a motorcycle on the freeway WITHOUT a helmet and decide to travel 
>   between cars, you deserve to get you head mashed if that's all the 
>   sense you have. I've always wanted to get a bike myself but after
>   seeing what the cyclists do here, and how drivers react both on and
>   off the road I say "No thanks, I don't need any more enemies!".

I appreciate your keen sense of moral values, such that you can determine
when it is and is not OK for me to get my head crushed by someone in
an auto.  Again, I always wear boots, helmet, gloves and leathers when
riding my bike, but I respect others rights not to (although they have
to be foolish).  I'm fairly new to motorcycling, but already I've learned
that the single biggest danger to the motorcylist is not his speed or
agility, but the ignorance of auto drivers on the road.  In fact, my
speed and agility are the only ways of surviving when someone weaves across
several lanes of traffic and cuts me off, without signaling.  Given
your concern for the survival of people on the roads, maybe you would
like to contribute to my lobby to have HE warhead missles legalized for
use by motorcylists.  A well placed Stinger would go far to increasing
the amount of respect and notice afforded motorcyclists on the roads
of America.
> 
>             MICHAEL L. WICKS
>              Sun Microsystems
>              *****************************************
>              * ....It was a NEW DAY yesterday        * 
>              *          but it's an OLD DAY now!.... *   
>              *****************************************

					Robert Allen,
					robert@sri-spam.ARPA