mandatory seat belt and helmet laws

(mandatory seat belt and helmet laws)

I'm not, because I think adults should be able to do whatever stupid
things with their own lives that they like

I agree. So long as we (society) don't have to pain for them when they end
up with something like a "Closed Head Injury" and end up with the bill
(paying for their rehab or long term care), "Welfare"!

What I really hate is laws that are made to generate revenue for communities
(States) - In reality, Taxation with out representation!

Guy

"911" wrote in message
om...
(mandatory seat belt and helmet laws)

I'm not, because I think adults should be able to do whatever stupid
things with their own lives that they like

Guy wrote:

I agree. So long as we (society) don't have to pain for them when they end
up with something like a "Closed Head Injury" and end up with the bill
(paying for their rehab or long term care), "Welfare"!

What I really hate is laws that are made to generate revenue for communities
(States) - In reality, Taxation with out representation!

How 'bout "No seatbelt/helmet, no insurance."?

Larry

Some states that have mandatory seatbelt laws allow reduced benefits if no
seatbelts are worn (i.e.: Michigan). But this seldom makes any difference.


"Lawrence Glasser" wrote in message
...
Guy wrote:

I agree. So long as we (society) don't have to pain for them when they
end
up with something like a "Closed Head Injury" and end up with the bill
(paying for their rehab or long term care), "Welfare"!

What I really hate is laws that are made to generate revenue for
communities
(States) - In reality, Taxation with out representation!

How 'bout "No seatbelt/helmet, no insurance."?

Larry

"Lawrence Glasser" wrote in message
...
Guy wrote:

I agree. So long as we (society) don't have to pain for them when they
end
up with something like a "Closed Head Injury" and end up with the bill
(paying for their rehab or long term care), "Welfare"!

What I really hate is laws that are made to generate revenue for
communities
(States) - In reality, Taxation with out representation!

How 'bout "No seatbelt/helmet, no insurance."?

I'd prefer no belt/helmet, no insurance and you are financiually responsible
with no exception for any injury which the belt or helmet would have
mitigated or eliminated.

However around here there is already a high correlation between no
belts/helmet and not having insurance anyway.



The other day we were talking about a friend's father who had one of the
first California Highway Patrol motorcycles with a radio on it. Big, heavy
and high up. He fell over about two blocks from the station. He also stopped
the first suicide attempt off the Golden Gate Bridge.

IT struck me that we have good stats on seatbelts and motor cycle accidents
but I'd bet a nickel the number of lives saved by helmets is not well known.

Mike Painter wrote:

"Lawrence Glasser" wrote in message
...
Guy wrote:

I agree. So long as we (society) don't have to pain for them when they
end
up with something like a "Closed Head Injury" and end up with the bill
(paying for their rehab or long term care), "Welfare"!

What I really hate is laws that are made to generate revenue for
communities
(States) - In reality, Taxation with out representation!

How 'bout "No seatbelt/helmet, no insurance."?

I'd prefer no belt/helmet, no insurance and you are financiually responsible
with no exception for any injury which the belt or helmet would have
mitigated or eliminated.

However around here there is already a high correlation between no
belts/helmet and not having insurance anyway.



The other day we were talking about a friend's father who had one of the
first California Highway Patrol motorcycles with a radio on it. Big, heavy
and high up. He fell over about two blocks from the station. He also stopped
the first suicide attempt off the Golden Gate Bridge.

IT struck me that we have good stats on seatbelts and motor cycle accidents
but I'd bet a nickel the number of lives saved by helmets is not well known.

I work in the field of organ transplantation, here in California.

When the helmet law went into effect, the donor rate dropped by 70%.

How's THAT for a statistic?!?

Larry

"Lawrence Glasser" wrote in message
...

I work in the field of organ transplantation, here in California.

When the helmet law went into effect, the donor rate dropped by 70%.

How's THAT for a statistic?!?

It's very much anecdotal, but it seems to me that the California helmet law
has had an adverse impact on deserving recipients? My state does not have a
helmet law (we do have a mandatory seatbelt law). Here we support the
individual motorcycle rider's right to spill their gray matter onto the
asphalt, but we recognize that one secondary benefit to seatbelts is that
they tend to hold the driver in the driver's seat a bit longer during sudden
changes in direction and potentially allow them to maintain or regain
control of their vehicles perhaps avoiding primary and secondary collisions.

Steve

Steve Furbish wrote:

"Lawrence Glasser" wrote in message
...

I work in the field of organ transplantation, here in California.

When the helmet law went into effect, the donor rate dropped by 70%.

How's THAT for a statistic?!?

It's very much anecdotal, but it seems to me that the California helmet law
has had an adverse impact on deserving recipients? My state does not have a
helmet law (we do have a mandatory seatbelt law). Here we support the
individual motorcycle rider's right to spill their gray matter onto the
asphalt, but we recognize that one secondary benefit to seatbelts is that
they tend to hold the driver in the driver's seat a bit longer during sudden
changes in direction and potentially allow them to maintain or regain
control of their vehicles perhaps avoiding primary and secondary collisions.

A slight change in my statement: The donor REFERRAL rate dropped by 70%.

Larry

On 4 Apr 2004 13:09:40 -0700, (911) wrote:

Nobody rides in my vehicle unless their seatbelt is on, law or no law.
20% of driver fatalities are caused by un-secured passengers being
transformed into missiles that terminate on the drivers body upon
impact.



(mandatory seat belt and helmet laws)

I'm not, because I think adults should be able to do whatever stupid
things with their own lives that they like

FireStorme wrote:

On 4 Apr 2004 13:09:40 -0700, (911) wrote:

Nobody rides in my vehicle unless their seatbelt is on, law or no law.
20% of driver fatalities are caused by un-secured passengers being
transformed into missiles that terminate on the drivers body upon
impact.

Do you have a source for that?

Not doubting it, just wondering where it comes from.