Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Live Free, and Maybe Die When You're Hurled Through the Windshield
Last week the New Hampshire legislature once again rejected a law requiring people to wear seat belts. New Hampshire is the only state that has not passed a seat belt law, preferring to forgo the federal funds that reward such legislation. A state senator who voted against the bill explains:
The citizens of New Hampshire don't like to be told by anyone else what to do. It preserves New Hampshire's way of not succumbing to the bribes of the federal government and New Hampshire's belief that every adult can make his or her own choices in life.
In November 2005 issue of reason, I examined the reasons why seat belt laws are much more widespread in the U.S. than motorcycle helmet laws.
|6.4.07 @ 1:47PM|#
The citizens of New Hampshire don't like to be told by
anyone else what to do. It preserves New Hampshire's way of not
succumbing to the bribes of the federal government and New
Hampshire's belief that every adult can make his or her own choices
in life.
Yeah, right. I guess that's why they keep declining to pass medical
marijuana legislation.
|6.4.07 @ 1:49PM|#
Yeah, right. I guess that's why they keep declining to pass
medical marijuana legislation.
Pwned! Next thread.
|6.4.07 @ 2:02PM|#
Not wearing a motorcycle helmet makes as much sense as not wearing a seatbelt. Some people claim that in bad motorcycle accidents, a helmet just makes that person a better organ donor (as the brain survives while the body is shredded, keeping some organs intact for a while), but what about all the minor accidents where a helmet prevents a low-sider from scalping himself (also wear leathers so you don't scalp the rest of your body). Dropping a bike has got to be much more common than hitting a moving or stationary object and that is the main protection the helmet provides. These laws, while stupid, do point out that some people just don't believe in statistics if they wouldn't do this stuff if not for fear of a fine.
|6.4.07 @ 2:05PM|#
I've never understood the anti-helmet people. I ride bikes, and you can't tell me that a skid lid is killing your motorcycling experience. Then again, motorcycling is seen by many as an act of rebelliousness, so I guess trying to impose rules on that subset of people is a vain effort.
|6.4.07 @ 2:14PM|#
From the article:
But the Senate, which Democrats control 14 to 10, did pass an
amendment to another safety bill that sets up a commission to
encourage seat belt use and study accident statistics.
In other words, the People's Republic of New Hampshire won't compel
you to wear a seat belt, but they will take your money at gunpoint
to line the pockets of bureaucrats who are charged with figuring
out how to merely convince you to do it.
Ramsey|6.4.07 @ 2:23PM|#
I love the anti-helmet crowd. I wear one on a bicycle,
motorcycle, moped, and my horse. I have too much money invested in
this brain to not have that sort of cheap insurance on it.
On the other hand, traumatic brain injuries do make for good organ
donors, and it is probably less expensive to support a vegetable
than to execute a prisoner. When there is no natural selection just
allow people the right to self-select genetic fitness. Darwinian
self determination perhaps?
I just think that there should be tiered insurance policies, where
the consumer could chose to pay more for a no seatbelt/helmet
policy, and insurance companies are allowed to financially rape
your family if the operator fails to employ those devices on a
normal policy. I think that the actuary tables would quickly shift
to absorb some of the more egregious externalities in the
system.
|6.4.07 @ 2:25PM|#
In other words, the People's Republic of New Hampshire won't
compel you to wear a seat belt
You should try Merry Land, the attitude here is "Sit down and shut
up, we know what's best for you" They won't take your money at
gunpoint, they'll just pilfer your bank accounts and attach your
wages. Guns are much too dangerous to allow people to have 'round
here. They might get uppity.
New H would be a breath of fresh air.
Jack|6.4.07 @ 2:29PM|#
I still think the shortage of supply in organ markets is the
reason motorcycle helmet laws aren't universal
Dan, trolling is more effective when you are consistent. More
people fall for it and get genuinely angry
|6.4.07 @ 2:34PM|#
There is a huge difference between far fetched but plausible plans and plans relying on physical impossibilities. Believing that blowing up a fuel line will destroy several city blocks and JFK Airport falls firmly into the latter camp. This deserves about as much media attention as attempted presidential assassinations using voodoo dolls.
Another Phil|6.4.07 @ 2:36PM|#
LIT,
As a motorcycle rider, I wholeheartedly agree that not wearing a
helmet is asking for trouble. I'd recommend wearing a full-face
helmet; I wouldn't want to continue living if I were to lose my jaw
in an accident.
However, I think the point is that people should be free to make
asinine decisions as long as they aren't violating the rights of
others. That doesn't change the fact that riders who don't wear
helmets, or only wear thin brain buckets, are morons.
|6.4.07 @ 2:45PM|#
I have never ridden a motorcyle*, but I have heard some bike
riders claim that wearing a helmet interferes with peripheral
vision and hearing, and it makes them nervous to ride in traffic
with their vision and hearing impaired. Any comments?
Just asking. As I said, I am too big a pussy to even ride a
motorcycle in the first place.
* Okay, not entirely true: I just remembered that when I was in
high school one of my friends let me ride his motorcycle up and
down the street a few times. All I remember was that it was fun and
that my friend kept yelling, "Brakes! Put on the brakes!"
|6.4.07 @ 2:56PM|#
I'm actually surprised. The local news and various polls had
been making it appear that there was strong public support for this
legislation.
Glad, but surprised.
|6.4.07 @ 2:59PM|#
The vision thing is somewhat true, but you hear better with the
helmet on, since it blocks a lot of wind noise.
The only real downside to wearing a helmet and leathers is how
expensive the damned things are. I demand subsidized assless
chaps!
|6.4.07 @ 3:01PM|#
I wouldn't want to continue living if I were to lose my jaw
in an accident.
Really? I tend to think I'd have to lose a lot more than my jaw
before I'd rather be dead (most days, anyway).
|6.4.07 @ 3:03PM|#
Why any motorcycle rider would pass up the opportunity to wear a Pickelhaube is beyond me.
|6.4.07 @ 3:18PM|#
I have never ridden a motorcyle*, but I have heard some bike
riders claim that wearing a helmet interferes with peripheral
vision and hearing, and it makes them nervous to ride in traffic
with their vision and hearing impaired. Any comments?
I've ridden with and without. It's true; a helmet is a significant
limitation. I've also wrecked without one. I saw stars for a couple
of hours and have a bald spot on the back of my head. So I only
ride with a helmet in light or no traffic. Too dangerous
otherwise.
Schultz|6.4.07 @ 3:23PM|#
You don't have to ride a motorcycle to wear a Pickelhaube. Or to have a bald spot.
highnumber|6.4.07 @ 3:44PM|#
ProGlib,
My next door neighbor doesn't wear the Pickelhaube, but
his helmet does look like a German stormtrooper's helmet.
(When he's not wearing that, he wears a little leather biker's cap.
He also has the leather chaps and the little leather vest with the
Judas Priest patch.)
|6.4.07 @ 3:50PM|#
Jacob FUCK YOU.
Do you really believe that New Hampshirens are so stupid that they
need the state government to tell them to buckle up for their own
safety?
Your headline implies exactly that.
If so, what are you doing at Reason?
|6.4.07 @ 3:50PM|#
Dan T.
In other words, the People's Republic of New Hampshire won't compel you to wear a seat belt, but they will take your money at gunpoint to line the pockets of bureaucrats who are charged with figuring out how to merely convince you to do it.
You're absolutely right. Disgusting, isn't it?
highnumber|6.4.07 @ 3:52PM|#
Terry,
YOU FORGOT THREE THINGS:
1. CAPITALIZE EVERYTHING.
2. CANCEL YOUR SUBSCRIPTION.
3. WHO'S WITH YOU IN THE LIBERTARIAN MILITIA?
OTHER THAN THOSE THREE SMALL QUIBBLES, GOOD JOB, TERRY.
|6.4.07 @ 3:55PM|#
You're absolutely right. Disgusting, isn't it?
It is a horror beyond contemplation.
Paul|6.4.07 @ 3:56PM|#
and the little leather vest with the Judas Priest
patch.)
Is your neighbor aware that Judas Priest is a
gay heavy metal band?
|6.4.07 @ 3:58PM|#
I lost my long hot post about this,
but let me sum up my view this way.
If I rode into New Hampshire today
I would not take off my seat belt!
VM|6.4.07 @ 4:00PM|#
*imagines what Highnumber's neighbor's lawn looks like...
imagines.
imagines.
hier
|6.4.07 @ 4:01PM|#
Paul,
I am pretty sure that's what Highnumber was insinuating.
Terry,
Take a chill pill(I recommend Valium, but what ever you can get is
good)and read other articles from Mr. Sullum and this magazine
before you have a coronary.
tunnelhead|6.4.07 @ 4:02PM|#
Terry - two things:
1. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that Jacob was trying
to imply that no residents of New Hampshire wear seat belts about
as much as he was trying to imply that they'd all die in car
accidents. Take your meds.
2. It's New Hampshirites.
|6.4.07 @ 4:08PM|#
It's New Hampshirelings.
I don't see the point of wearing a German helmet in America, if
you're going sans spitze. Now, if bikers wanted to wear
pirate hats, that would be cool, too.
s.m. koppelman|6.4.07 @ 4:14PM|#
Because the owners of fully privatized roads woiuld never impose seatbelt requirements.
highnumber|6.4.07 @ 4:21PM|#
I thought it was
The New Hampshirettes.
I think Phil Spector produced them.
|6.4.07 @ 4:24PM|#
Vermonter,
The "Shire" in "New Hampshire" was screaming for a Hobbit joke, but
I just didn't have it in me today.
Have you seceded, yet?
Vermonter|6.4.07 @ 4:29PM|#
Oh, I warn't talkin just about Hobbits. I was also makin a joke about the stature of New Hampshire men. As opposed to us Vermonters o'course.
|6.4.07 @ 4:32PM|#
Yeah, right. I guess that's why they keep declining to pass
medical marijuana legislation.
Maybe they're not doing it because they don't want to do what YOU
are telling them to do. How bout them apples?
highnumber|6.4.07 @ 4:33PM|#
Oh, and about my neighbor:
Yes, he knows that Rob Halford is gay. He is cool with that.
Although happily married to a woman, he thinks the leather boy
stuff is funny and kind of fun. He digs the 50/60s biker shtick and
loves 80s heavy metal. He's a veteran, so lay off!
|6.4.07 @ 4:36PM|#
|6.4.07 @ 4:37PM|#
Actually, whether it's smart to wear a seatbelt isn't the issue. It's just a matter of who owns your body. You or Big Brother. Not much different from the abortion thing. A little surprised to see how many Big Brother cheerleaders are on a libertarian board.
|6.4.07 @ 4:42PM|#
"I wouldn't want to continue living if I were to lose my jaw
in an accident."
Yeah, but think about how much fun it would be to greet
trick-or-treaters at Halloween!
highnumber|6.4.07 @ 4:48PM|#
A little surprised to see how many Big Brother cheerleaders
are on a libertarian board.
Other than Dan T., who else appears to be a "Big Brother
cheerleader"? Names and quotes, please.
Mike Wazowski|6.4.07 @ 4:57PM|#
What's the article is ignoring here is that New Hampshire may be
the lowest in seat belt usage, but is smack in the middle average
for deaths per 100 miles of road.
Once you get away from the part of the state that commutes to
Boston every day (and would be concidered Massholes) everyone
drives friendly. It was very creepy when i went from Connecticut up
there for college.
|6.4.07 @ 4:57PM|#
"Other than Dan T., who else appears to be a "Big Brother
cheerleader"? Names and quotes, please."
Meh. I heard that season 4 wasn't so bad.
|6.4.07 @ 5:06PM|#
Mike W.,
Massachusetts is way down the bottom of that list.
You'll have to find some other explanation than us Massholes.
I say you blame the moose.
D.A. Ridgely|6.4.07 @ 5:12PM|#
Gimme a B!
Gimme an I!
Gimme a G!
What's that spell?
What's that spell?
What's that SPELL?
Lou Sussler|6.4.07 @ 5:19PM|#
"...the point is that people should be free to make asinine
decisions as long as they aren't violating the rights of
others."
"It's just a matter of who owns your body. You or Big
Brother."
True to a point, I would personally be more comfortable with
repealing helmet and seat belt laws if we also remove the
obligation to give state of the art medical treatment to save
people's asses (or at least try). Whether you're insured or not, if
you are in an MVA, the state is going to transport you to a
hospital and take care of you. The cost difference in treating a
seatbelt or helmet wearing motorist versus one who isn't wearing
such safety devices is staggering and we all pay for it.
|6.4.07 @ 5:20PM|#
There is a fair question about who pays for the morons who don't
wear seat belts or helmets. If their insurance company is willing
to do so, good. But there are plenty of folks without any sort of
insurance who wreck their cars or bikes. Those folks end up in
hospitals, facing bills they can't possibly pay.
Declining to treat them is not an option. I occasionally work on an
ambulance and can testify that we never, ever, check insurance
cards before we haul someone. By the same token, emergency
departments can not discharge or transfer a patient until they are
at least stable.
What happens is this: health care providers charge more to those
who can pay in order to make up the shortfall.
This is not, repeat, NOT, an endorsement of seatbelt and helmet
laws. Nor is it a call for nationalized health care. I'm just
pointing out that there are some externalities to consider.
Also, I do believe that people who don't wear seatbelts or helmets
are morons. I still have a father thanks to a motorcycle helmet.
I'm still alive to appreciate that thanks to seatbelts.
|6.4.07 @ 5:23PM|#
Lou- The state doesn't always pay. The hospital and ambulance services are often left with the cost of providing care.
|6.4.07 @ 5:31PM|#
Bill the drivers/riders for services rendered and garnish if
needed.
You want the freedom? No sweat. You get the responsibility
too.
BTW, when I had my bike, I never rode without a full face helmet,
even before helmet laws. It's an uneeded law, but I like to think
I'm smarter than the average congressgritter.
|6.4.07 @ 5:34PM|#
Speaking just anecdotally, the worst drivers I've ever
encountered were in Massachusetts. Look, someone going eighty in
the emergency lane! With gravel shooting up at my car as they
pass!
An acceptable helmet alternative is any face-covering helmet from
Star Wars.
|6.4.07 @ 5:43PM|#
Yea N.H.!! Keep the government outtta our busness! If I dont want to wear a seat belt its my choice to be less safe, if I want to smoke, make me pay higher medical premiums! But keep it MY choice! How about ENFORCING traffic laws like obstructing traffic for the idiots on cell fones for starters! Or better still pass great laws like Texas and the pervs that rape children go to the head of the line for the death penalty! I love that one!
Paul|6.4.07 @ 5:43PM|#
He digs the 50/60s biker shtick and loves 80s heavy metal.
He's a veteran, so lay off!
Highnumber:
I wasn't suggesting anything bad about your neighbor. It's just
that I grew up in the eighties and remember all the camaro-driving
mullet-heads who blasted Judas Priest while doing brodies in the
parking lot. It was the eighties and frankly, who knew? But then I
moved to an urban enclave with a high gay population, became a
little more worldly, and then one day I looked back at Judas Priest
and thought "Hang on!!!"
Sure enough, they 'came out' (or at least front man Rob Halford
did-- good lord, did he really HAVE to come out- I mean, how more
obvious could you get?!!) forcing a large group of camaro-driving
mullet-heads (not known for
their tolerance of the alt-sexually oriented) to rethink their
affection(!) for Mr. Halford.
|6.4.07 @ 6:42PM|#
Failing to wear a seatbelt is not a victimless crime. Do you know how many people are injured each year by bodies flying out of car windshields? Your right to become a projectile ends at my nose.
|6.4.07 @ 6:47PM|#
Pro Libertate,
I'm not questioning that Massachusetts drivers are among the
nation's worst. NYC drivers may edge us out, but it's a bang-bang
play. Literally, sometimes.
I'm just saying that the quality of a state's drivers doesn't
correlate very closely with its accident rates. Road layout and
traffic patterns are more important.
Fortunately for Massachusetts.
|6.4.07 @ 6:48PM|#
For an article that got linked from Fark, you'd think there'd be more commentary than this.
Paul|6.4.07 @ 7:04PM|#
I'm not questioning that Massachusetts drivers are among the
nation's worst. NYC drivers may edge us out, but it's a bang-bang
play. Literally, sometimes.
Bah, my guess is everyone claims "their" drivers are the worst.
After living in several geographically diverse areas, the worst
drivers I've ever experienced are in El Paso, TX. Bar none.
Oh, and on the helmet law thing, I'm not a big fan of mandated laws
(motorcyclists overwhelmingly kill themselves and no one else--
funeral: closed casket), but wearing a helmet is overwhelmingly a
Good Thing(tm). During the summer, we get these almost daily where
I live:
"I knew it was going over. I tried to lay it down, with the bike sliding in front of me."
Magnotti's motorcycle hit a tree, the State Patrol reported. Magnotti was thrown off with enough force that he was knocked out of both shoes. His girlfriend arrived in time to see pieces of motorcycle flying into the air.
Magnotti thinks a heavy jacket and helmet that he bought with the bike saved his life. He admits his inexperience caused the crash.
"The bike seemed like it was easy to ride," he said, "but at a sharp curve at 65, 70, it wasn't so easy."
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003733627_motorcycle04e.html
highnumber|6.4.07 @ 7:13PM|#
Paul,
I'll bet my neighbor was one of those mullet wearing Camaro
drivers. It's all right now. I lent him Boaz's Primer and
he agreed with everything he read. Still gets excited when he finds
Priest or Maiden LPs at the used record shop, though.
|6.4.07 @ 7:34PM|#
After living in several geographically diverse areas, the
worst drivers I've ever experienced are in El Paso, TX. Bar
none.
A-ha. A-HA! I think I know the reason why...
|6.4.07 @ 9:41PM|#
joe,
Never underestimate the driver's intent to kill as a factor.
Preemptive Troll,
Especially if such projectiles are wearing their
Pickelhaube.
composite|6.4.07 @ 11:18PM|#
It preserves New Hampshire's way of not succumbing to the
bribes of the federal government and New
Hampshire's belief that every adult can make his or her own choices
in life.
Just a question, because I'm too lazy to find out myself, but isn't
the reason most states raised the drinking age to 21 because of,
um, "bribes of the federal government"? Or did NH raise the
drinking age of its own accord....
The Wine Commonsewer|6.4.07 @ 11:39PM|#
...but I have heard some bike riders claim that wearing a
helmet interferes with peripheral vision and hearing, and it makes
them nervous to ride in traffic with their vision and hearing
impaired. Any comments?
Stevo, I AM surprised. I can see you on a Harley.
I'm drinking wine today instead of fertilizing pine trees at Forest
Lawn courtesy of a Grant Daytona Snell Approved motorcycle
helmet.
I rode tens of thousands of miles on a pocket rocket in my wasted
yoot and I don't buy off on the vision and hearing impairment
claims. Not then, not now. Do you know what the wind whistling in
your ears at 60 mph sounds like? I do. It's much quieter with a
helmet.
I'll tell you what makes you nervous in traffic. It's when your
sitting at a red light and the guy roaring up behind you doesn't
hit the brakes 'til he's 30 feet away and you have visions of
traction with years of physical therapy to follow.
I don't ride any more. Too chicken these days.
Ramsey: Why are bike helmets so stupid looking?
I'm not sure what benefit my kid's cheesy bike helmet is going to
be if she's hit by a car. If she falls down on the pavement, well,
okay, but if she's pitched through the air after being hit by some
jerk going 40mph and then lands head first against a curb.
The Wine Commonsewer|6.4.07 @ 11:42PM|#
Oops, hit submit
S/B
I'm not sure what benefit my kid's cheesy bike helmet is going to
be if she's hit by a car. If she falls down on the pavement, well,
okay, but if she's pitched through the air after being hit by some
jerk going 40mph and then lands head first against a curb, I think
she's a goner.
The Wine Commonsewer|6.4.07 @ 11:44PM|#
the worst drivers I've ever experienced are in El Paso, TX.
Bar none.
I'll see your El Paso drivers and raise you, two DC cabbies.
|6.4.07 @ 11:54PM|#
Maybe it's just me, but the bicycle accidents I've had have
never involved moving cars. Drivers in parked cars opening the
driver door right before you pass doesn't count, and this happens A
LOT, especially with cars with tinted windows. You're also much
more likely to hit a mailbox or run over a hard-to-see car part in
the road than to be hit by a car. Drivers are usually too cautious,
if anything, when they see a bike.
Now, the people who ride their bikes on the wrong side of the road
and get hit by a car trying to make a right turn deserve whatever
they get.
|6.5.07 @ 12:08AM|#
> Massachusetts drivers are among the nation's worst. NYC drivers may edge us out...El Paso...DC...
|6.5.07 @ 12:10AM|#
> Massachusetts drivers are among the nation's worst. NYC
drivers may edge us out...El Paso...DC...
----------------
Come to North Carolina when it snows.
"I floored it and it still wouldn't go."
The Wine Commonsewer|6.5.07 @ 12:15AM|#
We're talking about within the US, right?
We are all soooooo ethnocentric. :-)
The Wine Commonsewer|6.5.07 @ 12:21AM|#
Now, the people who ride their bikes on the wrong side of
the road and get hit by a car trying to make a right turn deserve
whatever they get.
An interesting observation. Back in the Pleistocene, before riding
a bike was way cool, we used to ride our bikes all over Hell's Half
Acre. We always rode on the wrong side of the road. Figured it gave
us a leg up on approaching problems. By the same token, we also
figured it was our job to watch for guys making right turns. I
can't imagine trusting that a car overtaking my backside is going
to a.) do the right thing; b.) not hit me. Dude, when you ride
legal, you are at their mercy.
Lieber|6.5.07 @ 1:17AM|#
"Bill the drivers/riders for services rendered and garnish if
needed."
What sort of wages do brain-damaged ex-bikers typically earn?
The Wine Commonsewer|6.5.07 @ 1:21AM|#
What sort of wages do brain-damaged ex-bikers typically
earn?
Point well taken but it sounds as if you assume that somehow the
state must ensure that compensation for something is guaranteed to
the injured party. In reality, that isn't always the case. Nor
should it be.
As Stevie Crown is fond of intoning: Ya pay yer money and ya take
yer chances.
Asharak|6.5.07 @ 1:22AM|#
I don't see a need for seat belt or motorcycle helmet laws at
all. If you're dumb enough not to wear either, you deserve what
might come to you.
And I agree with The Wine Commonsewer about bicycle helmets. Why do
most of them make the people who wear them look either gay or
mentally and/or physically challenged?
|6.5.07 @ 2:32AM|#
As a rider, I can testify that wearing a helmet does affect your vision some. But does the small vision impairment outweigh the danger of not wearing the helmet at all? I'm not sure about that. Then there's this issue: wearing a helmet might give off a false sense of security, so riders might be more likely to ride somewhat less carefully than if they didn't wear one (I'm talking about the non-biker gang types).
|6.5.07 @ 8:59AM|#
There is a fair question about who pays for the morons who
don't wear seat belts or helmets. If their insurance company is
willing to do so, good. But there are plenty of folks without any
sort of insurance who wreck their cars or bikes. Those folks end up
in hospitals, facing bills they can't possibly pay.
Declining to treat them is not an option. I occasionally work on an
ambulance and can testify that we never, ever, check insurance
cards before we haul someone. By the same token, emergency
departments can not discharge or transfer a patient until they are
at least stable.
What happens is this: health care providers charge more to those
who can pay in order to make up the shortfall.
This is not, repeat, NOT, an endorsement of seatbelt and helmet
laws. Nor is it a call for nationalized health care. I'm just
pointing out that there are some externalities to
consider.
Interesting post, #6. You give several really good reasons why we
need seatbelt/helmet laws but then are careful to disclaim that you
endorse them.
Why not? Do you really think that violating supposed right to not
follow the most basic of safety rules infringes more upon the
liberty of the people than sticking them with the costs of
providing emergency health care?
|6.5.07 @ 9:45AM|#
If the cost of medical care after an accident is the justification for having seatbelt and helmet laws, then I want laws against overeating, supersize portions, and fatty foods. I am sick and tired of paying for the "diabetes epidemic" and other obesity related diseases of my fellow americans who havent the sense to do the obvious and stay thin. Anyone so stupid as to let themselves get fat needs a government wake up call, 60 days on a work detail sounds good to me, how about you?
Ramsey|6.5.07 @ 9:52AM|#
Bicycle helmets do look a little cheesy and flimsy, but I am an
absolute believer in the Snell standard level lids. A friend and I
were riding down a steep hill at 35mph, she was just recently
returned to riding after 5 years or so. 200 yards past the bottom
of the hill I stopped to take a photo and she slammed into me at
full speed. She claimed she was looking to the side and never saw
me. She didn't even touch her brakes.
I am 6'6" and 240lbs (2m and 110is kg), and it blew me off my feet.
She spun midair and landed solely on the back of her head. The
helmet was completely shattered, and she walked away with a mild
concussion. I have never seen anyone hit their head that hard, and
I was a paratrooper in the Army, used to hitting the ground
hard.
She is alive solely because I insisted that she wear a helmet.
Sure, it saved her from her own inept riding, but it saved her.
Jason|6.5.07 @ 10:12AM|#
I would agree with a few points. I think helmet technology
really needs to catch up with the 21st century. Helmets look
pratically identical since they started making them.
The thing is seat belts while annoying, do not impair your ability
to operate your vehicle. However a full motorcycle helmet does
impair your perhipheral vision and hearing. They are also hotter
than hell to wear.
I do wonder if it is possible to create a more 'open' helmet that
is more comfortable to wear and give better visual and hearing. I
know some snowboarding helmets are soft normally, but when impacted
immediately harden to provide protection. Maybe those are not
practical at higher speeds?
|6.5.07 @ 10:27AM|#
If the cost of medical care after an accident is the
justification for having seatbelt and helmet laws, then I want laws
against overeating, supersize portions, and fatty foods. I am sick
and tired of paying for the "diabetes epidemic" and other obesity
related diseases of my fellow americans who havent the sense to do
the obvious and stay thin. Anyone so stupid as to let themselves
get fat needs a government wake up call, 60 days on a work detail
sounds good to me, how about you?
While I agree that the government needs to address America's health
problems (after all, the government helped to create it), you have
to consider the costs of any law compared to the benefits.
Obviously, sending every overweight American to fat camp would be
very expensive and rob the economy of most of our workers.
However, given that there are basically no costs associated with
requiring drivers to utilize a safety feature that comes standard
in all cars and the benefits are tremendous.
So we'd be pretty stupid to not pass this law, especially when the
main argument against it is the childish "you can't tell us what to
do"...
|6.5.07 @ 10:28AM|#
"Just asking. As I said, I am too big a pussy to even ride a
motorcycle in the first place."
But man enough to admit it.
|6.5.07 @ 10:57AM|#
So we'd be pretty stupid to not pass this law, especially
when the main argument against it is the childish "you can't tell
us what to do"...
Let's hear it for Utilitarianism! Hip h... (oh, cheering serves no
utility. I'll stop now.)
PintofStout|6.5.07 @ 12:55PM|#
Always wear a helmet for game shows, too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpGw45FyvaU
|6.5.07 @ 3:37PM|#
Ok Dan, how about then we just pass a law requiring a simple
physical test (at the individuals expense - remember there is a
cost to seatbelt manufacuring and installation too) and then just
fine everybody who fails the test, say $500. Actually makes money
for the great sata--er government, and encourages the "responsible"
thing.... My god, I just know that he will soon start advocating
for this, WHAT HAVE I DONE?
That people like Dan T really believe what they say makes me happy
I only have about 30 more years on this planet. I figure it should
take them at least that long to make life unbearably
"sensible."
Amy Alkon|6.5.07 @ 11:55PM|#
Wear a helmet, don't wear a helmet, it should be your choice. But, if you're not going to wear a helmet, and you don't have medical insurance or piles of bucks, please keep a card in your wallet telling the EMTs to leave you as human huevos rancheros on the sidewalk so the rest of us don't have to pay to put your Humpty Dumpty ass back together.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245