Kansas City Star Monday editorial
In one of its more baffling acts of the 2009 session, the Missouri legislature passed a bill repealing the state’s helmet law for motorcycle riders.
Transportation Department Director Pete Rahn is right in saying the move makes no sense and will cost lives.
Gov. Jay Nixon is reviewing the measure. He should veto it.
In a recent poll financed by the state Department of Transportation and conducted by Abacus Associates of Hatfield, Mass., 84 percent of respondents said they backed Missouri’s current law, which requires helmets for motorcyclists and passengers.
If that statute is repealed, wearing of helmets would be optional on state roads but still required on interstates. Riders under 21 would still have to wear helmets on all roads.
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 42 lives were saved in Missouri because existing law boosted helmet use. In states that repealed helmet laws, use of helmets fell from 99 percent to 50 percent and motorcycle deaths rose.
Looking at current trends, Rahn says it’s an especially bad time for repeal.
Traffic fatalities as a whole have dropped in Missouri, but since 2004 motorcycle deaths have nearly doubled. Last year, they rose by 13 percent to 107. This is no time to repeal the state’s helmet law.
Delicious
Digg
Nobody lives forever
And quite frankly, I don't see any huge advantage to living a long life in a world full of nosy busybodies who love nothing more than meddling in other people's affairs. When my time comes, I won't miss most of you a bit. Until then, leave me the hell alone.
And no, I don't ride a motorcycle. In my opinion, the damn things are deathtraps, helmet or no. But if you want to kill yourself on one, be my guest. You're a grown-up, aren't you?
So? Same as smaller, lighter tin can cars
"Transportation Department Director Pete Rahn is right in saying the move makes no sense and will cost lives."
That's also true of the much smaller and lighter cars when compared to heavier vehicles or a bridge abutment - if you're going to be consistent, then you should ban the sale of the Euro-style tin cans that Fiat is probably going to produce here, yes?
Btw, before some enviro-Nazi yaps about the enhanced safety features of some car, the best safety feature is to not get into one. The same safety features could be applied to heavier vehicles and they would certainly be safer than the tin cans. But hey, I guess it's okay to sacrifice human lives to save the planet in some nebulous, undefined way, eh?
You can't repeal the laws of physics, even if you're really, really, REALLY earnest about saving the planet.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2007-08-19-small-cars_N.htm
Excerpts:
Americans are buying more small cars to cut fuel costs, and that might kill them.
As a group, occupants of small cars are more likely to die in crashes than those in bigger, heavier vehicles are, according to data from the government, the insurance industry and the National Academy of Sciences (NAS).
The newest small vehicles, of course, meet today's strict safety standards and can be laden with the latest safety hardware, such as stability control and side air bags. They are safer than ever. And differing designs mean some small cars are safer than average. But even the safest are governed by the laws of physics, which rule in favor of bigger, heavier vehicles, even in single-vehicle crashes.
If the switch to smaller, lighter vehicles continues to grow, the result could be anywhere from dozens to thousands of traffic deaths that would have been avoided in bigger vehicles, according to fatality records and safety forecasters. The number depends on how many bigger, heavier vehicles ultimately are replaced by smaller, lighter cars.
"People are looking for ways to save fuel, and they need to know that if they decide to buy a much smaller vehicle, they are putting themselves and their families at risk," says Adrian Lund, president of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. IIHS, supported by auto insurance companies, follows traffic deaths closely.
--> Global warming is the new eugenics <--