Dan, et. al,

Here's an interesting link:
http://www.bikersrights.com/statistics/stats.html

It's a comparison of motorcycle accident rates between states that have
mandatory helmet laws and those that don't. On balance the rates are lower
in states that don't have helmet laws*.

You may hang around with the best pilots in the country; what of it? Every
year we have tens if not hundreds of fuel starvation accidents, which are
nearly 100% preventable with even a pinch of common sense. My contention is
that you should always assume the worst when it comes to human nature.

On an individual level, there is no question that a pilot with a Cirrus has
the potential to enjoy safer flying than one in a 172. However, I think
logic well supports my position that the perceived safety will tempt some
pilots into situations they don't belong in, possibly resulting in higher
accident rates. Once again the Law of Unintended Consequences strikes.

* I haven't researched this issue carefully enough to say this is totally
conclusive, but I found it interesting nonetheless.

Best,
-cwk.

"Dan Thompson" wrote in message
.com...
"I tend to think this IS a sound argument" This is about the flimsiest
"argument" I've ever seen written, that additional safety equipment, on
balance, makes people less safe because they become more cavalier about
taking risks. It assumes that the people involved are not intelligent
enough to understand the scope of safety benefit and risk reduction being
provided. You must hang around a dumber group of pilots and airplane
owners
than I do.