kgdykes@watbun.UUCP (07/30/86)
>From: hsc@mtuxo.UUCP (h.cohen) > >>than good -- restricted hearing and field-of-vision, >There is no evidence that field of vision is restricted in any >meaningful way by a motorcycle helmet. There *is* evidence >that hearing is better with helmet than bare-headed. For every study that says there is no vision-impairment, I can dig up one that says there is. Researcher themselves never agree. IT IS NOT CUT AND DRY. As far as hearing goes, that depends on the particular helmet design, and the Law in its wisdom allows all kinds of bull***t to call itself a helmet. My particular helmet is particulary wind-noisy, but it has other personal advantages. >>and a sense of over-confidence. >Pure surmise. I get overconfident, I am not alone in this world. > >...should not attempt >to advance a cause by publishing blatent untruths not BLATENT, i am trying to point out it is NOT CUT AND DRY, research and statistics do NOT CLEARLY show the BENEFITS of helmets outweigh the DANGERS. >...reduces the >likelihood and severity of injuries if fitted and worn with >only a normal and reasonable amount of care. Anyone able to use a "reasonable amount of care" probably wont get into accidents in the first place. (i also mentioned unlicenced, drunk, speeding drivers being the ones who tend to die) Helmets CAN be dangerous in some situations, and not clearly shown to be effective in other situations. Any laws forcing me to wear such an appliance is a particularly rude singling out a section of society based on people's belief that helmets by definition are protective. Why not make everyone wear one? If the politicians REALLY want to protect us naive bikers, why not start putting in place specs and requirements for helmets that might have some chance of doing some good, as the laws & specs stand, they just serve to frustrate personal freedom. - Ken Dykes {ihnp4,decvax,allegra,utzoo}!watmath!watbun!kgdykes