J. Clarke wrote:
rigger wrote:

J. Clarke expounds:

Well, there's the problem. We have motorcycle helmet laws because
guy who splatters his brains all over the highway "harms" the
insurance
company, the EMTs, the street cleaners, etc.

No John, I don't believe that's exactly right; I'll tell you why.
Certainly everyone is much more "inconvenienced" by the incredible
number of auto and truck accidents and associated fatalities, hospital
costs, etc. Did you ever hear of legislation to force car and truck
drivers to wear helmets, or even double shoulder belts? If the idea
was to save lives why aren't some of our glorious politicians doing
something about it? I'll tell you why: Political expediency (votes)
and money (insurance company contributions). Try to make the "average"
person wear a helmet and they will not vote for you, period. And as
far as the money, it's simple: Even the insurance companies don't have
enough money to cause a political party to commit hara-kiri (sp?).

You seem to be agreeing with me without understanding that you are agreeing.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

You seem to be agreeing with me without understanding that you are agreeing.

I'll put it another way so you can disagree with me as needed.
The helmet laws may, in part, be due to insurance lobbies (money
greases the wheels, right) but the deciding factor is always votes
because the payoff for staying in office is what it's all about.
Motorcyclists don't have enough "pull" and the politicians think they
look good by picking at this issue and feel they gain more votes than
they lose. If this was your point I obviously agree.

dennis
in nca