mjranum@gouldsd.UUCP (Marcus J. Ranum) (08/07/86)
Another one I always like is the "helmets restrict your vision" argument. While this is (arguably) true, there are a few comments I want to make: 1) any rider who habitually shifts lanes relying only on his/her rearview mirrors (or a casual 5 degree turn of the head) won't be on the road a long time. (They'll scrape 'm off with a shovel eventually.) Only the most brain-dead of idiots fail to turn their heads at least 90+ degrees. All it takes is *ONE* little truck, and I am confident that I can hold a straight course long enough to look at what I'm about to lane-shift into. Mind you, it's not the LAW to look where you drive, it's only a good idea. 2) all you libertines and anarchists out there are seldom heard to be bitchin' and wailin' the blues over the fact that most states require *BRAKES* and *REARVIEW MIRRORS* and *TIRES* (with or without treads) and maybe even *HANDLEBARS*. Be real. Nifty things like brakes and such have become so universally recognized as useful that people seldom argue with that law. Time to wise up and understand that helmets are a good enough idea that everyone who has a brain worth keeping should wear one. Since you can't make a helmet part of a motorcycle's standard equipment, making it illegal to ride without one is the next best course. 3) a friend of mine dropped once at a mere 30mph and tore a gash 3" by 1 1/2" out of her Shoei TF250 helmet. She bruised her knees. Let's end this stupid argument for once and for all: would you bareheads out there please replicate this feat and then make a posting to the net after you get out of the hospital ? If you can, with 5 cubic inches of your skull missing, not only will I eat my words, I'll eat the disk drive they're stored on. Knock yourselves out. Live Free mjr "anarchy - it's not the law, it's just a good idea" -- *All opinions expressed aren't even mine, let alone those of Gould, Inc.*
mojo@mp-mojo.UUCP (Mojo Jones) (08/08/86)
I'm sorry, I don't understand how this is even arguably true. When I
put on my helmet, I can't see the edges to the left or right, even by
turning my eyes as far as I can. I *can* see the edges of my sunglasses
when looking straight ahead.
If I'm not wearing a helmet (I've done it, it's been a while), then the
tearing is bad enough to really interfere with my vision.
If I wore goggles, surely they'd be even more restrictive then my
sunglasses.
I don't get it.
Note: I am not arguing in favor of helmet laws.
"There's no government like no government."
Mojo
... Morris Jones, MicroPro Int'l Corp., Product Development
{lll-crg,ptsfa,dual,well,pyramid}!micropro!mp-mojo!mojo
My views usually have little resemblance to those of my employer.mazlack@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (Lawrence J. Mazlack) (08/08/86)
>I'm sorry, I don't understand how this is even arguably true. When I >put on my helmet, I can't see the edges to the left or right, even by >turning my eyes as far as I can. I *can* see the edges of my sunglasses >when looking straight ahead. > >If I'm not wearing a helmet (I've done it, it's been a while), then the >tearing is bad enough to really interfere with my vision. > >If I wore goggles, surely they'd be even more restrictive then my >sunglasses. Actually, the goggles that I use are less restrictive than sun glasses. I buy mine in Germany, but similar ones are available here - and ski goggles are everywhere. However, the best view comes through a clear plastic bubble - which I also use upon occassion (when it is snowing or just plain real cold). It gives you better vision than any other combination. ...Larry mazlack@ernie.berkeley.edu
elevav@ccvaxa.UUCP (08/08/86)
> /* Written 4:17 pm Aug 6, 1986 by mjranum@gouldsd.UUCP net.cycle */ > /* ---------- "Helmets restrict Vision !" ---------- */ > > 2) all you libertines and anarchists out there are seldom heard > to be bitchin' and wailin' the blues over the fact that most states require > *BRAKES* and *REARVIEW MIRRORS* and *TIRES* (with or without treads) and > maybe even *HANDLEBARS*. Be real. Nifty things like brakes and such have > become so universally recognized as useful that people seldom argue with > that law. Time to wise up and understand that helmets are a good enough > idea that everyone who has a brain worth keeping should wear one. Since > you can't make a helmet part of a motorcycle's standard equipment, making > it illegal to ride without one is the next best course. > > Live Free > mjr The law requires any vehicel to have the minimal equipment that make it safe so *other* occupants of the road will not be endangerd. In this sense a helmet is a risk not help... I wear my helmet on any trip that is more then 1 mile long (and always on highways) e r e z z z