Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbatt!cbosgd!ihnp4!ihlpf!trinhd From: trinhd@ihlpf.UUCP (Vu) Newsgroups: net.cycle,net.politics,net.auto Subject: Re: re Seat belts, Helmets and Freedom of Choice Message-ID: <653@ihlpf.UUCP> Date: Fri, 8-Aug-86 14:08:49 EDT Article-I.D.: ihlpf.653 Posted: Fri Aug 8 14:08:49 1986 Date-Received: Sun, 10-Aug-86 04:40:43 EDT References: <472@water.UUCP> <1829@mtuxo.UUCP> <1597@ihlpa.UUCP> <1600@ihlpa.UUCP> <1616@ihlpa.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Lines: 92 Xref: watmath net.cycle:1920 net.politics:18107 net.auto:12165 > > 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, > > > AT&T Bell Laboratories > IH 4A-257, x 4782 > Naperville-Wheaton Road > Naperville, IL 60566 *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** Sorry to erase your name but I couldn't agree with you more. Just look at the two examples : one guy crashed in his Fiat X-1/9 but survive and well because he wore a seatbelt (even though he has a lot of bruises and cuts but his life and body are there), one guy crashed without helmet in his motocycle and become paralized and muted for the rest of his life (according to his doctor). Whatever you want to do is your choice but be sure you know what you are doing or you may end up waste not only your own but someone that you loved. Just another guy P.S. "Don't be a fool unless you can't help it"