"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Ed Huntress says...

People have proposed it. You could make a very good case for it. But
that,
too, is part of a democracy. That's where line-drawing comes in. The
consensus is that motocycles are something like four or five times more
likely to kill their riders or put them in the hospital, but the public
doesn't want to kill the fun. What they want to do, in roughly half of
the
states, is to keep a risky enterprise from becoming completely nuts.

Excuse me, but where in the constitution does it say that the
government is there to 'keep a risky enterprise from
becoming completely nuts?' And if they do say that, where's
it gonna stop?

Where does it say the states cannot? This is primarily a state issue, Jim,
not a federal one. The default position, absent incorporation of some right
under the 14th Amendment, is that the people of the states, and their
elected legislatures, can do pretty much what they decide they want to do.

Don't try the constitutional angle. It's a complete loser in this case. Ask
your wife. g


I think there are a lot of folks here who think that good
govenment is govenment that does the least neccesary to
accomplish the collective goals.

Well, that's basically what you have. In 1996, a Lewis Harris poll showed
that something over 80% of Americans over age 16 support motorcycle helmet
laws. The NHTSA ran a survey in 1995 that showed almost exactly the same
number. The "collective goal" here seems to be to minimize carnage, or its
public expense, on the public roads and highways.

The public generally supports increased safety requirements for vehicles and
drivers, whether it directly influences them or not. Again, driving and
riding are priviledges under the law, and are subject to a broad range of
legislation.


The more nanny-stuff that gets perpetrated does not really
make folks safer in the long run. Air bags, seat belts,
ABS, traction control in cars simply encourages folks to
drive like nuts.

Something is sure helping the situation. Here are the death rates/100MM
miles, per the US Dept. of Transportation:

1965 5.30
1970 4.85
1975 3.43
1980 3.35
1985 2.47
1990 2.08
1995 1.73
2000 1.53

(Transportation Indicators for Motor Vehicles and Airlines:
http://www.census.gov/statab/www/minihs.html) That's down from over 45 in
1909, BTW. g

They figure that because they paid a lot
for some big SUV they're invulnerable and can drive around
with impunity, not paying attention to what they're doing.

Well, that's another issue altogether.

This is what happens sometimes:

http://www.priceless420.com/Pr020505shortstop1.jpg
http://www.priceless420.com/Pr020505shortstop2.jpg
http://www.priceless420.com/Pr020505shortstop3.jpg
http://www.priceless420.com/Pr020505shortstop4.jpg

Did all the nanny-state stuff save that guy's bacon?
I doubt it. It probably contributed to the crash,
because he felt invulnerable.

I'm going to guess that's an anecdote.

--
Ed Huntress