Last year, the great state of Pennsylvania rescinded it's mandatory helmet law for motorcycles. Can anyone tell me he logic behind this? The state requires that when someone rides a bicycle, they wear head protection, and you're going to get a lot more speed on a motorcycle than a bicycle, so that, if an accidnet occurs, you're liable to do much more damage from a motorcycle than a bicycle. BUt yet not helmet law for motorcyclce.
Further, how can the state require me to wear a seatbelt when I'm in my car, but no helmet when I'm on a motorcycle? They make me wear a seat belt so that if I'm in an accident, I'm less likely to be injured. Fine. But let's say that I'm in a car, going 30 mph, and I'm hit broadside by another car going 30 mph. And let's compare that to my being on motorocycle going 30 mph and being broadsided by a car going 30 mph. When, do you think, I am going to be in greater need of protection?
What I find truly amazing about all of this is that the law change was made by intense lobbying from motorcycle groups themselves! You'd think they'd be the ones to want the protection. Course, the ones that want to wear a helmet still will. The ones that dont, I hope they have good insurance plans.
The legislature will pass this, but they're against assisted suicide. Seems to me, they're assisting in a lot of unintended suicides by allowing people to ride without helmets.
POLT
Space may be the final frontier, but it's made in a Hollywood basement. - The Red Hot Chili Peppers
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
i'm in favor of allowing morons to weed themselves out of the population. the only bad thing is that when they don't have insurance the tax payers end up footing their bill to pay for their stupidity. there should be an addendum to the bill saying that if you're in a motorcycle accident and aren't wearing a helmet, you get no medical treatment without payment. i vote yea
Post a Comment