|
|
How is it....
|
That my state (CT) can have a mandatory seat beat law but no helmet
law? If the state is so concerned with safety doesn't one follow the
other? Or is the state just following the Feds so they don't lose
|
That's just it: The state ISN'T concerned with safety -- and never has
been. What they're interested in is making money via lots of seatbelt
tickets. As the motorcycling population continues to grow, you'll see
the same government nannyism filter more prolifically into our
demographic. It's happening already.
Tim Kreitz
2003 ZX7R
2000 ZX6R
http://www.myspace.com/dingosanctuary
|
federal highway funding?
|
Indiana is the same way. There are no groups lobbying to get rid of the
seat belt laws (ABATE) like they have for helmet laws.
|
|
Logic isn't a requirement in laws and politics, but in this case the
law actually does make some sense. If you don't wear a helmet, you're
only endangering yourself. If you don't wear a seat belt, you're
putting others in danger, too.
How? The seat belt doesn't only keep you from putting your head through
the windshield when you crash. It also keeps you in the driver's seat
and in control of the car, even during violent maneuvers. Swerve hard
enough when you're not wearing a seat belt and you'll end up in the
passenger seat. It's kind of hard to control the car from there.
|
Following that logic you could say a full face helmet improves vision,
reduces wind noise and offers protection from debris. So to not wear a
ff helmet DOES endanger others.
At least that's what the devils advocate is whispering in my ear.
|
Yeah, but the causal link between no helmet and hurting somebody else
is much weaker than with no seatbelt in a car. A 4000 lb car is much
|
It is? They both seem pretty casual to me. I somehow managed to drive
a cage 20+ years and never lose control of it because I wasn't belted
in. A "June Bug" or piece of retread to the cheek seems much more
hazardous to me.
|
I said "causal", not "casual". Lose control of a motorcycle and you'll
only hurt yourself and possibly put a dent in a car. Lose control of a
car, and you're a big danger to everyone around you.
|
Causal or casual, I just don't see not wearing a seatbelt causing a rash
of accidents.
|
It doesen't. What it does do is when the accident does occur, it reduces
the damage to the occupants of the car. This in turn reduces medical bills
and thus that is why the national insurance companies are all pro seat belt
laws.
Actually, though, the seat belt laws are really nothing more than the
government
pulling the pants down on the motoring public. If you recall about 20 years
ago
the Feds cut a deal with the major automakers that if the automakers did not
want to pay
to put air bags in the vehicles, that more than 3/4 of the states needed to
have
mandatory seat belt laws in effect by 1990, or some such, if that happened
the
feds would not require air bags. The idea was the automakers would lobby
the states for seat belt laws. That didn't happen so the feds required air
bags.
But then they turned around and required seat belt laws even though the air
bag requirements make belts unnecessary. This the local states love since
it
gives the cops another revenue source.
In the US air bags systems are mandated by the feds to fully stop an
unbelted
adult in a crash. However the feds refer to them as "supplemental"
restraint
systems even though they are not supplemental at all. In Europe they are
not required to fully stop an unbelted adult, they really are supplemental
there.
|
A seat belt keeps you from bouncing your head off the roof after airbag
deployment. I've seen video of this with unbelted crash test dummies. A
belt also keeps you from sliding under the steering wheel
(submarining?) I don't see how an airbag alone can offer sufficient
protection.
|
|
|
|
|
more of a danger than a 400lb motorcycle. Also notice that eye
protection is usually required in states that don't have helmet laws.
|
|
|
|
|