will this fly?

Colin Kingsbury wrote:
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*.

Yes, and this is the reason that PA repealed the motorcycle helmet law
this year. The data just doesn't support it. Having said that, I still
always wear my helmet. The reason being that I believe I don't take
extra chances with it and thus actually am safer. However, across the
entire population, this just doesn't appear to be the case. Counter
intuitive to be sure.


Matt

("Matthew S. Whiting" wrote)
http://www.bikersrights.com/statistics/stats.html

Yes, and this is the reason that PA repealed the motorcycle helmet law
this year. The data just doesn't support it. Having said that, I still
always wear my helmet. The reason being that I believe I don't take
extra chances with it and thus actually am safer. However, across the
entire population, this just doesn't appear to be the case. Counter
intuitive to be sure.

I've said it before ...repeal all the helmut laws you want - just don't make
the taxpayers pay for your ICU costs when you quickly run out of insurance
coverage

Montblack wrote:
("Matthew S. Whiting" wrote)

http://www.bikersrights.com/statistics/stats.html


Yes, and this is the reason that PA repealed the motorcycle helmet law
this year. The data just doesn't support it. Having said that, I still
always wear my helmet. The reason being that I believe I don't take
extra chances with it and thus actually am safer. However, across the
entire population, this just doesn't appear to be the case. Counter
intuitive to be sure.


I've said it before ...repeal all the helmut laws you want - just don't make
the taxpayers pay for your ICU costs when you quickly run out of insurance
coverage



As long as we don't make them pay for the ICU costs for heart attacks in
overweight people or those with a poor diet, or people who smoke, or
drink, etc. This is a slippery slope that we really don't want to start
down. Tell me what activities you enjoy and I'll likely be able to
provide all sorts of side effects on society from your activities as well.


Matt

Tazpayers shouldn't pay for ANYBODY's ICU costs unless they are in the ICU
as a direct result of government action.

Mike
MU-2


"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...
Montblack wrote:
("Matthew S. Whiting" wrote)

http://www.bikersrights.com/statistics/stats.html


Yes, and this is the reason that PA repealed the motorcycle helmet law
this year. The data just doesn't support it. Having said that, I still
always wear my helmet. The reason being that I believe I don't take
extra chances with it and thus actually am safer. However, across the
entire population, this just doesn't appear to be the case. Counter
intuitive to be sure.


I've said it before ...repeal all the helmut laws you want - just don't
make
the taxpayers pay for your ICU costs when you quickly run out of
insurance
coverage



As long as we don't make them pay for the ICU costs for heart attacks in
overweight people or those with a poor diet, or people who smoke, or
drink, etc. This is a slippery slope that we really don't want to start
down. Tell me what activities you enjoy and I'll likely be able to
provide all sorts of side effects on society from your activities as well.


Matt

Mike Rapoport wrote:
Tazpayers shouldn't pay for ANYBODY's ICU costs unless they are in the ICU
as a direct result of government action.

Yes. I assume he really meant everyone who buys health insurance, but
most of them are also taxpayers. We all pay when anyone with insurance
uses it.


Matt

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:

Yes, and this is the reason that PA repealed the motorcycle helmet law
this year. The data just doesn't support it. Having said that, I still
always wear my helmet. The reason being that I believe I don't take
extra chances with it and thus actually am safer. However, across the
entire population, this just doesn't appear to be the case. Counter
intuitive to be sure.

I think the issue of safety features increasing risk is mainly when
they are new or unusual and people factor them into their behaviour.
If they are something you don't even think about I am sure they
increase safety.
An example would be stall warning systems. By this argument, they
should make flying more dangerous because people are more likely to
fly close to the stall. If there were only a few aircraft with stall
warning systems that would probably be true. However because everyone
takes them for granted and wouldn't normally think of them until they
go off, I 'm sure they do enhance safety.
Australia has had compulsory helmet (and seatbelt) laws for a long
time, and I don't think they decrease safety because Australian riders
take them for granted and so are unlikely to modify their behaviour
because they are wearing one.