Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!nike!cit-vax!amdahl!fai!ronc
From: ronc@fai.UUCP (Ronald O. Christian)
Newsgroups: net.cycle
Subject: Re: Re: The government preventing us from hurting ourselves
Message-ID: <305@fai.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 6-Aug-86 15:01:07 EDT
Article-I.D.: fai.305
Posted: Wed Aug  6 15:01:07 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 9-Aug-86 03:51:49 EDT
References: <1022@im4u.UUCP> <1050@dataio.UUCP> <931@hoptoad.uucp> <436@ll1.UUCP> <3519@amdahl.UUCP>
Reply-To: ronc@fai.UUCP (Ronald O. Christian)
Organization: Fujitsu America, Inc.
Lines: 32

In article <3519@amdahl.UUCP> mat@amdahl.UUCP (Mike Taylor) writes:
>[helmets increase the chance]
>of surviving an accident (I think a generally well-documented fact).
>However, this means other injuries must be treated (broken bones,
>internal injuries, cuts, abrasions, etc.) at some expense. Whereas,
>a motorcyclist who dies in an accident requires no further treatment,

In areas where helmet laws are enacted, spinal injuries increase.
It occurs to me that the reason for this is that people that would
normally be dead are now merely severly injured, due to their helmet
preventing them losing their grey matter.

You make an interesting point about dead people requiring less insurance
money than severly injured people.  Kind of negates the standard argument
about helmet laws, I.E., to save the taxpayer money, albeit in a bizarre
fashion.  Kinda reminds me of that kid in Arizona who said "if I'm going
to crash I'm not even going to hit the brakes.  I'd rather be dead than
spend my life paralyzed."  I wonder if he's still alive.  Me, I wear a
helmet.  Should I strike out, the insurance company is just going to have
to pay my hospital bill.  :-)

But I still think helmet laws suck.


			Ron
-- 
--
		Ronald O. Christian (Fujitsu America Inc., San Jose, Calif.)
		seismo!amdahl!fai!ronc  -or-   ihnp4!pesnta!fai!ronc

Oliver's law of assumed responsibility:
	"If you are seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it."