Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbatt!cbosgd!ihnp4!ihlpa!dob From: dob@ihlpa.UUCP (Daniel M. O'Brien) Newsgroups: net.cycle,net.politics,net.auto Subject: Re: re Seat belts, Helmets and Freedom of Choice Message-ID: <1616@ihlpa.UUCP> Date: Sun, 3-Aug-86 10:53:24 EDT Article-I.D.: ihlpa.1616 Posted: Sun Aug 3 10:53:24 1986 Date-Received: Mon, 4-Aug-86 04:17:43 EDT References: <472@water.UUCP> <1829@mtuxo.UUCP> <1597@ihlpa.UUCP> <1600@ihlpa.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Lines: 85 Xref: watmath net.cycle:1899 net.politics:17996 net.auto:12104 > BBAAAHHH - it just occurred to me that I must be a sheep. I didn't bother to > start wearing a seatbelt until forced to by the seatbelt law passed last year. ... > But I probably wouldn't have been made > "aware" of this good idea without the law helping make me make a conscience > choice. ... > On the other hand, I also choose to wear a helmet when riding my motorcycle - > been aware of that idea a long time now, but don't want the ... > ... government ... getting > involved by making everyone else aware by passing ... > law. > > Paradoxial, isn't. > Daniel M. O'Brien (ihnp4!ihlpa!dob) Well, my pen pal, Dr. D. Starr sent me an E-Mail reply which he said was ok to share with you all. So... >From animal Fri Aug 1 14:52 CDT 1986 >To: dob >Subject: Re: re Seat belts, Helmets and Freedom of Choice >In-reply-to: your article <1600@ihlpa.UUCP> > >the points you could post it for general amusement) > >I am not at all surprised, and don't find it the least bit paradoxical, that >you gave great conscious thought to helmet use, but needed the cattle-prod (or >is it sheep-prod?) of a law to get you interested in seat belts. Your posting >embodies the fundamental difference between the motorcycle rider and the car >pointer. The feeling I get is that you drive a car for the rather utilitarian >purpose of getting from point A to point B with minimum effort. So it's no >great surprise that, since thinking is an effort, you never gave much thought >to seat belts. On the other hand, you ride a motorcycle for recreation; that >is, you actively want to get involved with the riding process. So you think >about it a lot; you are probably in a state of heightened consciousness when >you're riding. As a result of the heightened consciousness, you *notice* the >many threats to life and limb which pass by in an afternoon of riding, and >because you are *interested in riding* you think about what they could do to >you and how to prevent serious bodily damage. So you thought it out and >decided to wear a helmet (good choice). On the other hand, in the car, the >last thing you want to do is think about driving; if you're thinking at all, >it's probably about your destination and what you will do once you get there. >As a result, you don't operate with that highly-observant "oh God they're out >to kill me" attitude, and you probably don't even notice the various threats to >your continued existence. Even if you do notice them, you aren't devoting much >of your conscious thought to driving, so there's no way for the observations to >really have any effect. Result--you never had a reason to make the concsious >choice of wearing seat belts. > >You are not alone in this (assuming of course, that my long-distance >psychoanalysis is right). I do the same thing--I am a motorcycle enthusiast, >and I drive my old Buick (a perfect Oscar Grope car, by the way) only because I >can't take the bike. Fortunately (?), I once had an eminently avoidable >accident and learned only too well what seat belts can do for you. I also >learned a lot about what I should have been watching for. And worst of all, I >learned all about what happens to your insurance when you rear-end a Ford >Mustang in the wilds of Indiana... As a result, I made the decision to wear my >seatbelt, very consciously, and I also resolved to be more alert when driving >the car--although, despite my best efforts, I would say that I am no more than >50% as aware in the car as I am on the bike. If only I could afford to be an >automotive enthusiast as well as a motorcycle enthusiast, then I could be a >better driver at all times. > >I would not recommend this method for teaching people the value of seat belts. >Not when there are neat thrill rides like the "seat belt convincer" around (did >you ride this thing when it was at the BLabs?). They ought to have that >machine at every drivers license station, and you should be forced to ride it >twice--once with the belt, once without--each time you renew your license. >THAT would encourage people to wear belts! (Now all we need is a "helmet >convincer"...) > >Stay safe and legal, in that order, > >Dan Starr Later, -- Daniel M. O'Brien (ihnp4!ihlpa!dob) AT&T Bell Laboratories IH 4A-257, x 4782 Naperville-Wheaton Road Naperville, IL 60566