bobr (12/13/82)
where I grew up and got my motorcycle license (West Germany), helmets were **absolutely mandatory**. Except for driving my bike from the driveway onto the backyard, I never dream of not using my helmet. Also, here in Ontario you can bet your life on getting stopped "*just*" because of not wearing a helmet. Christoph Bobrowski ,
rich (12/14/82)
Here in Oregon, we were forced to wear helmets for many years. Then the nice folks in the legislature got the idea that maybe we really didn't like being "forced" to wear them and they repealed the law. At that point, I gave a large sigh of relief. Please don't misunderstand that. I WEAR A HELMET every time I get on my motorcycle. To me, it only makes sense that I should and I am more comfortable with it on (keeps my ears warm, keeps the bugs out of teeth, etc). BUT, I DO NOT BELIEVE that something which can have no effect on anyone but the rider's own safety should be made into a law!!! Some reason that because suicide is illegal (big deal) and that "riding without a helmet is paramount to suicide" that it should be mandatory to wear a helmet to prevent (unintentional) suicide. BULL !!! Wear it if you want to. Don't wear it if you don't want to. BUT please don't try to take away our basic freedom of choice.
woods (12/16/82)
I'm not a motorcycle rider, so ignore this if you want, but it seems to me
that if someone wants to take a chance on bashing *his/her* own head in, that
should be his/her own business and the government should not interfere.
It may be stupid to ride without one, but I support everyone's right to be
stupid, as long as no one *else* suffers directly.
GREG
ucbvax!hplabs!hao!woods
menlo70!hao!woods
harpo!seismo!hao!woods
decvax!brl-bmd!hao!woodskpk (12/16/82)
Back when I was an avid motorcycle rider there were several occasions where I was hit in the head by some projectile. Had I not been wearing a helmet, I might not be rwriting this article. Not only that, but I may have lost control of my bike, thus endangering other motorist. That the point courts have cited in upholding helmet laws. I succumbed to the temptation of not wearing a helmet when I was living in Rhode Island (at the time they didn't have a helmet law) but I NEVER rode without one on major highways and Interstates. Furthermore, I NEVER rode without eye protection, ever. It's been over three years since I lived there, but I believe that Massachusets not only has a helmet law, but it also requires eye protection born to be wild, ken kretsch ...houxm!5941ux!kpk
ark (12/19/82)
I have heard only one justification for helmet laws that I find at all plausible. Please understand that I'm not saying I agree with it -- just that I find it plausible. The argument: not wearing a helmet increases the chances that you will be so badly injured in a crash that neither you nor your insurance will be able to cover the medical bills. In that case, someone else has to pay, so they should have a say in it. The counter-argument is, of course, that it just might be that the reverse is true -- without a helmet you would be more likely to be killed outright. Thinking about what it would be like to be hospitalized with severe injuries for several months, I wonder if I wouldn't rather be dead. I don't ride motorcycles ... yet (but would like to someday) Andrew Koenig
kpk (12/20/82)
I, too, have no problem with folks who wish to ride without a helmet, with one important exception. I do not want my insurance premiums to subsidize others' expressions of free will. If you are big enough to ride without a helmet, I hope your big enough to waive coverage. I have no complaint with others expressing their personal freedom (I sound like a Getty commercial), more power to 'em! I don't want to pay for any mistakes they might make. Ken Kretsch
jwp (12/21/82)
I'm not in favor of mandatory helmet laws. I dislike that such interference
with personal liberty . I am in favor of two other things, however:
1) Mandatory eye protection. This could be satisfied by shields on helmets,
or by goggles for those foolish enough to ride without a helmet. Glasses
are *not* sufficient eye protection; it is much too easy for dust, bugs,
etc, to blow up under them. The purpose of this is *not* to protect
the rider, but to protect the rest of society from a motorcycle that
is out of control because the rider just caught a bee in her eye.
2) Rewards, in the form of reduced insurance rates, for those who wear
decently protective clothing on motorcycles. This includes helmets,
leather jackets, long pants, leather shoes that reach above the ankle,
and leather gloves. Alternatively, insurance policies could be written
so that injuries of the type such protection minimizes were not covered
if the appropriate protection was not being worn at the time of an
accident. This should eventually lower the rates for those who dress
sanely for riding.
For the purposes of these two items I include as "motorcycles" all powered
two or three wheeled unenclosed vehicles.
John Pierce, Chemistry, UC San Diego
{ucbvax, philabs}!sdcsvax!sdchema!jwp