[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]

Motorcycles & Law & Society


1) You mistakenly assume I've not been a motorcyclist.  I have.

2) My "assumptions" are not.  They are statistical likelihoods.  They came
up during the helmet war battles in California.  Don't allow your desires to
blind you to cold numeric facts.

3) MANY motorcyclists are not well-off.  Old bikes are cheap, much less than
cars.  (Just like cars, the poor aren't buying the snazzy NEW bikes.)  I've
known quite a few guys who rode bikes for purely financial reasons.  (I was
one myself for a while.)  

4) IF you're driving a new bike, you probably have full insurance (and
financing.)  Then you wouldn't be part of the stats that the helmet law was
all about.  It was about state taxes going to medical care, not about
preventing you from hurting yourself.  If we did the latter, we'd ban a lot
of things.

5) Thank you for phrasing that "you APPEAR to be...".  I'm not misinformed.
I could innundate this maillist with relevant stats.  I don't consider that
the goal, and it would mostly be silly one-upsmanship, so I won't.  My
response was to a very immature message from another lister, and had to be
tailored to be understood and appreciated by same.  If you took the message
in context of his message, and of my past messages (although that's hard to
do on an large list), you'd know that I don't speak up when I'm not
ludicrously well informed.  (Purely because I'm too haughty to give anybody
a chance to prove me wrong, so I don't say a thing if I might be. <g>)

        '97 A4Q 2.8 std tranny
        '87 Ford Escort
        '96 Specialized StumpJumper FS M2
        Used to bike (motorcycle)
        Still fly (VFR PPL), but I rent
        Lots of shooting (NRA Life)

>From: Paul_Royal@idx.com
>To the Quattro List:
>I'm sorry I started this thread and this will be my LAST post on the topic:
>Please do not misunderstand me.  Your points are well taken and I
>_do_believe in a mandatory helmet law.
>However, your letter was full of implied assumptions that are just not true
>or fair...re: parents sueing, coverage limits, salable assets etc...Your
>reasonable explanation for helmet laws in the US would have had a lot more
>impact if you left them out.
>     You appear to be as mis-informed as the young ladies at the beach who
>check me out on my bike because they don't realize that under my leathers
>and helmet there beats the heart of a 34 year old bald guy who is really
>not that cool.  I can live with that.  I just love to ride.
>Give me a break (not a brake)
>Paul Royal