Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbatt!cbosgd!ihnp4!ihlpa!animal
From: animal@ihlpa.UUCP (D. Starr)
Newsgroups: net.cycle,net.politics,net.auto
Subject: Re: re Seat belts, Helmets and Freedom of Choice
Message-ID: <1597@ihlpa.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 29-Jul-86 14:17:13 EDT
Article-I.D.: ihlpa.1597
Posted: Tue Jul 29 14:17:13 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 31-Jul-86 04:45:19 EDT
References: <472@water.UUCP> <1829@mtuxo.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 61
Xref: watmath net.cycle:1871 net.politics:17836 net.auto:11966


(note--I have edited out a lengthy discussion of whether 
helmet use saves lives)

> There is a purely pragmatic argument for opposing helmet laws:
> It is very difficult to show that helmet ***legislation***
> saves lives.  Some years ago I even published a critique of
> an inept statistical analysis by the Insurance Institute
> for Highway Safety ("Fatal Errors with Fatalities Data,"
> Law & Society Review, 11(3), Winter 1977, pp 589-595)...
> 
> ...I do not know for sure why there is such a discrepancy between
> the effects of helmet use and the effects of legislation.
> My personal speculation is that relatively few people
> who are "forced" to use helmets do so properly.  For example,
> I note that very few moped riders here in NJ fasten the helmet at all.
> These are almost all teen-agers, and it seems unlikely that
> many would wear helmets voluntarily.
> 
> Harvey S. Cohen, AT&T-IS, Lincroft, NJ, mtuxo!hsc


An interesting parallel is appearing here in Illinois.  Last year
the legislature (in an attempt to woo the Saturn plant) passes a
mandatory seat belt law.  At the time, they promised a 50% compliance
rate and a 300-500 per year reduction in the highway death rate.  Well,
it's 11 months later, and the total reduction in the death rate is
32.  Compliance has been running about 35% statewide, highest in metropolitan
areas (where there are more accidents), lower in the boonies.  The
supporters of the law have no explanation for the discrepancy, but
they do have a solution:  stiffer penalties, harsher enforcement,
checkpoints, and so forth.

This is my big reason for opposing helmet laws.  When they are proposed,
they are always accompanied by glowing promises of how many lives they
will save.  When they don't live up to the promises, the legislators
start thinking about what other laws they can pass to Promote Motorcycle
Safety, and those laws inevitably turn out to be further restrictions that
also don't work that well.  While in all measurable ways a helmet law 
wouldn't affect me since I wear mine all the time, who knows what evil
lurks in the heart of a legislator?  How about requiring full leathers
during our 90-degree 99% humidity summers?  How about legislating what
colors your clothes and bike are allowed to be?  How about restricting
night riding, especially on weekends (why not; most fatalities occur between
10pm and 3am Friday and Saturday)?   How about horsepower limits?  You
can rest assured that they won't consider rider education, stricter licensing
for both bikers and car drivers, or "motorcycle awareness" programs,
because these don't produce the instant gratification that Passing A Law
does.

Helmets and seat belts are wonderful things to have when you get into a
crash, but they don't do a damn thing to prevent one.  Passage of helmet
and seat belt laws is an admission by the government that it is unable
or (most likely) unwilling to put in the effort needed to prevent 
accidents.  Since most accidents are preventable, this is a shameful
abdication of the government's duty.

Dan Starr	AMA/ABATE/UMI/AT&T

(My employer has no knowledge and less interest in my opinions, and
undoubtedly would not endorse them.)