Text File

Aittvax.158 net.motorcycles utzoo!decvax!ittvax!swatt Fri Dec 11 12:03:34 1981 Motorcycle Helmet Laws

I am not sure whether Brian Redman's comment ("THEY SUCK") refers to motorcycle helmets or helmet laws. So I thought I would add to the confusion, or at least start a real flame ...

<FLAME ON> I have what must be considered a strange position regarding motorcycle helmets: I believe in them strongly but I object to legislation mandating them. I may owe my life to a motorcycle helmet (I certainly escaped with a minor concussion what could have been a serious head injury), which is part of why I believe in them. But even before that incident, I always wore one.

Even the motorcycle magazines (Except for Easy Rider), vigorously support helmet usage. One of the issues published last year (I forget which one), gave a summary of a study (NOT government funded) on motorcycle injuries. Their conclusions were a little surprising in some ways but in brief:

"crash bars" tend to reduce knee injuries by about the same amount they tend to increase ankle and foot injuries.

good solid footwear (boots that go past the ankles and give firm ankle support) reduce ankle and foot injuries (an amazingly large number of motorcyle accident victims were wearing tennis shoes or worse).

motorcycle helmets of any description reduce head and neck injuries (anti-helmet people often claim they cause an increase in neck injuries in minor accidents). Helmet fit is very important however - poor-fitting helmets give considerably less protection.

full-face helmets are much better than 3/4 face helmets; they protect the jaw and face.

Helmets do not interfere with hearing as much as closed car windows.

leather jackets reduce abrasion injuries (these kind of injuries are in the minority however; most are caused by impact).

In short, If you ride a motorcycle you are crazy not to wear a helmet, and anything else of proven effectiveness.

<AFTERBURNERS ON> However I just as strongly believe that individuals have the right to be crazy even to the risk of their own lives. If the government can mandate helmets, why not jackets, boots, and gloves in addition? I am sure there are misguided people bursting with eagerness to "serve" the public by doing just this.

Joan Claybrook et. al. have already decided that the 1-down, 4-up shift pattern is "safer" than the 5-up pattern (incredibly stupid; I much prefer the 5-up as you can find neutral without looking at the instrument panel and why shouldn't I have my choice?); that throttle tension screws are "dangerous" (also incredibly stupid -- after 1 hour holding the throttle open on my Sukuzi 4-banger, my right hand is too weak and slow to be of much use on the front brakes). Do any of those clowns who decide what is "safer" or "better" ever ride the results? I wonder.

Somebody has also decided that since most states require motorcycles to have their headlights on at all times, why not just fix the switch to "on" and wire the thing to the ignition key -- another incredible annoyance. Motorcycle batteries don't have a lot of reserve and if it's cold, and the bike hasn't been ridden for a while, and it's hard to start anyway becuase of the emission control requirements, the extra drain of powering the headlight (I have a quartz monster) can mean the difference between starting or not.

In spite of all this stupidity, most people would agree that the motorcycles of today are better, safer, more reliable than those of say 10 years ago. Is this a result of governmnet CrusNadaring? Perhaps a little of it. But it is mostly due to (**gasp!**) greed.

The invasion of the motorcycle market by the Japanese Big Four (Honda, Kawasaki, Suzuki, and Yamaha) and created an intensely competitive situation in which sloppy, or even just plain mediocre, engineering dies out very quickly. You can now expect any bike you buy will have solid brakes that won't fade or lock up in hard stops. This is not a new capability -- BMW always had brakes like that even back in the drum days, but BMW was, and still is BMW, beyond the reach of most of us. You can expect that your motorcycle's engine will start and run reliably and smoothly. You can expect your motorcycle will be predictable on turns. And all this excellence doesn't cost you a penny more -- motorcycle prices are about what they were 10 years ago in constant dollars.

Not that the competitiveness doesn't have its drawbacks; a lot of energy is spent on silly issues like styling ("ducktails" and other trim items). Yamaha has made a lot of money with their "low rider" series, which is a "semi-chopped" look. This seating position gives the rider significantly less control than the BMW or Ducati seating where the rider is leaning slightly forward, but if that's what people want ...

Helmet laws (and seatbelt, and airbag, and ...) AREN'T just a safety issue -- they are at the very center of the changing relationship between individuals, industry, and government. Unfortunately I do not believe that if we "get government off the backs of industry ..." it will all be better.

Americans have surrendered totally to the advertising agencies. When was the last time you saw or heard a commercial which gave you any really good reasons to buy a product? A long time I'll bet. Now you buy everything from toothpaste to automobiles because they will make you sexier, or something equally absurd. The American advertising system is a perfect example of propaganda techniques expounded by Hitler in "Mien Kampf": everything is reduced to the lowest intelligence level, and all issues are packaged into slogans.

You can't expect an unregulated free market to produce better products unless the buying sector responds to quality instead of creative advertising. I believe the same forces are responsible for our "image-oriented" political campaigns. Industry absuses exist becuase consumers don't inform themselves about the quality of what they buy, and advertisements don't discuss quality issues because appeals to image are so much more successful.

If individuals aren't interested enough in their own saftey (and their own freedom!) to decide what they need and demand it, I fail to see how the "public interest" is served by officials in Washington deciding it for them. As soon as this government assumes the power of deciding and enforcing what is in my individual best interest over my own judgement, I'm looking for another place to live.

<FLAME OFF>

- Alan S. Watt (decvax!ittvax!swatt)

----------------------------------------------------------------- gopher://quux.org/ conversion by John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org> of http://communication.ucsd.edu/A-News/

This Usenet Oldnews Archive article may be copied and distributed freely, provided:

1. There is no money collected for the text(s) of the articles.

2. The following notice remains appended to each copy:

The Usenet Oldnews Archive: Compilation Copyright (C) 1981, 1996 Bruce Jones, Henry Spencer, David Wiseman.