kgdykes@watbun.UUCP (08/06/86)
>From: draper@tallis.dec.com > > ... >than 13 mph. my real point, tho, is that i don't agree with your claim >that no helmet can withstand impact stresses > 13mph. personnally, i've >put a bike down at 60-65mph and ended up with some substantial battle >scars on my bell star II and leathers for my efforts. i ended up with >a hell of a headache and 20 minutes of nap time on the shoulder, but am >otherwise no more brain damaged than before. try that with your bare >head or $30 no-name helmet. > I never intended to imply that I personally object to helmets, just the LAWS. I believe in allowing "Let Those Who Ride Decide". You just said "try that with... or $30 no-name helmet." EXACTLY! The law in its glory ALLOWS THESE $30 helmets, in other words the law DOES NOT PROTECT ANYONE but rather serves as an example of intrusive meddling on the part of POLITICIANS EDUCATE, DONT LEGISLATE! Give the people enough information to make DECISIONS dont ram things down throats, but since its "ramming" it must be watered down to the point that it doesnt serve the obvious purpose. AND IF I HEAR ANY MORE ARGUMENTS ON INSURANCE COSTS, I WILL GO ON THE RAMPAGE! Riding a bike isnt the only factor in global insurance rates, LET YE WITHOUT ANY SIN CAST THE FIRST STONE! >"buy a $10 helmet for your $10 head" I know you academics out in netland find it hard to believe, but there are actually riders who believe that "legal" helmets must be safe or they wouldnt be "legal". In other words a lot of $10 helmets are giving some people a lot of false sense of security. For personal reasons, i cannot wear full-face helmets, my open-face LEGALY ENDORSED helmet didnt do me any good when i slid 10yards face down on asphalt, but my beard saved a lot of skin. Maybe the law should force all riders to have beards :-) - Ken Dykes {ihnp4,decvax,allegra,utzoo}!watmath!watbun!kgdykes