will this fly?

Dan, et. al,

Here's an interesting link:
http://www.bikersrights.com/statistics/stats.html

It's a comparison of motorcycle accident rates between states that have
mandatory helmet laws and those that don't. On balance the rates are lower
in states that don't have helmet laws*.

You may hang around with the best pilots in the country; what of it? Every
year we have tens if not hundreds of fuel starvation accidents, which are
nearly 100% preventable with even a pinch of common sense. My contention is
that you should always assume the worst when it comes to human nature.

On an individual level, there is no question that a pilot with a Cirrus has
the potential to enjoy safer flying than one in a 172. However, I think
logic well supports my position that the perceived safety will tempt some
pilots into situations they don't belong in, possibly resulting in higher
accident rates. Once again the Law of Unintended Consequences strikes.

* I haven't researched this issue carefully enough to say this is totally
conclusive, but I found it interesting nonetheless.

Best,
-cwk.

"Dan Thompson" wrote in message
.com...
"I tend to think this IS a sound argument" This is about the flimsiest
"argument" I've ever seen written, that additional safety equipment, on
balance, makes people less safe because they become more cavalier about
taking risks. It assumes that the people involved are not intelligent
enough to understand the scope of safety benefit and risk reduction being
provided. You must hang around a dumber group of pilots and airplane
owners
than I do.

Colin Kingsbury wrote:
Dan, et. al,

Here's an interesting link:
http://www.bikersrights.com/statistics/stats.html

It's a comparison of motorcycle accident rates between states that have
mandatory helmet laws and those that don't. On balance the rates are lower
in states that don't have helmet laws*.

Yes, and this is the reason that PA repealed the motorcycle helmet law
this year. The data just doesn't support it. Having said that, I still
always wear my helmet. The reason being that I believe I don't take
extra chances with it and thus actually am safer. However, across the
entire population, this just doesn't appear to be the case. Counter
intuitive to be sure.


Matt

("Matthew S. Whiting" wrote)
http://www.bikersrights.com/statistics/stats.html

Yes, and this is the reason that PA repealed the motorcycle helmet law
this year. The data just doesn't support it. Having said that, I still
always wear my helmet. The reason being that I believe I don't take
extra chances with it and thus actually am safer. However, across the
entire population, this just doesn't appear to be the case. Counter
intuitive to be sure.

I've said it before ...repeal all the helmut laws you want - just don't make
the taxpayers pay for your ICU costs when you quickly run out of insurance
coverage

In article , "Montblack"
writes:

I've said it before ...repeal all the helmut laws you want - just don't make
the taxpayers pay for your ICU costs when you quickly run out of insurance
coverage


First, I'm an engineer talking law G. I have heard that a law like "must
wear helmet" is useful when you are involved in an accident with someone not
wearing a helmet. That is, the lack of helmet is contributing to the injuries.
The city may have the law and not enforce it (or very lightly) but it still
makes the non helmet rider contributory. I heard that some years ago, NYC had
a law against wearing the 4 inch spike heas shoes. They didn't arrest women
(or men) wearing the shoes but it protected the city when the wearer got caught
in a sidewalk grateing and was hurt.

Chuck

Montblack wrote:
("Matthew S. Whiting" wrote)

http://www.bikersrights.com/statistics/stats.html


Yes, and this is the reason that PA repealed the motorcycle helmet law
this year. The data just doesn't support it. Having said that, I still
always wear my helmet. The reason being that I believe I don't take
extra chances with it and thus actually am safer. However, across the
entire population, this just doesn't appear to be the case. Counter
intuitive to be sure.


I've said it before ...repeal all the helmut laws you want - just don't make
the taxpayers pay for your ICU costs when you quickly run out of insurance
coverage



As long as we don't make them pay for the ICU costs for heart attacks in
overweight people or those with a poor diet, or people who smoke, or
drink, etc. This is a slippery slope that we really don't want to start
down. Tell me what activities you enjoy and I'll likely be able to
provide all sorts of side effects on society from your activities as well.


Matt

Tazpayers shouldn't pay for ANYBODY's ICU costs unless they are in the ICU
as a direct result of government action.

Mike
MU-2


"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...
Montblack wrote:
("Matthew S. Whiting" wrote)

http://www.bikersrights.com/statistics/stats.html


Yes, and this is the reason that PA repealed the motorcycle helmet law
this year. The data just doesn't support it. Having said that, I still
always wear my helmet. The reason being that I believe I don't take
extra chances with it and thus actually am safer. However, across the
entire population, this just doesn't appear to be the case. Counter
intuitive to be sure.


I've said it before ...repeal all the helmut laws you want - just don't
make
the taxpayers pay for your ICU costs when you quickly run out of
insurance
coverage



As long as we don't make them pay for the ICU costs for heart attacks in
overweight people or those with a poor diet, or people who smoke, or
drink, etc. This is a slippery slope that we really don't want to start
down. Tell me what activities you enjoy and I'll likely be able to
provide all sorts of side effects on society from your activities as well.


Matt

Mike Rapoport wrote:
Tazpayers shouldn't pay for ANYBODY's ICU costs unless they are in the ICU
as a direct result of government action.

Yes. I assume he really meant everyone who buys health insurance, but
most of them are also taxpayers. We all pay when anyone with insurance
uses it.


Matt

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:

Yes, and this is the reason that PA repealed the motorcycle helmet law
this year. The data just doesn't support it. Having said that, I still
always wear my helmet. The reason being that I believe I don't take
extra chances with it and thus actually am safer. However, across the
entire population, this just doesn't appear to be the case. Counter
intuitive to be sure.

I think the issue of safety features increasing risk is mainly when
they are new or unusual and people factor them into their behaviour.
If they are something you don't even think about I am sure they
increase safety.
An example would be stall warning systems. By this argument, they
should make flying more dangerous because people are more likely to
fly close to the stall. If there were only a few aircraft with stall
warning systems that would probably be true. However because everyone
takes them for granted and wouldn't normally think of them until they
go off, I 'm sure they do enhance safety.
Australia has had compulsory helmet (and seatbelt) laws for a long
time, and I don't think they decrease safety because Australian riders
take them for granted and so are unlikely to modify their behaviour
because they are wearing one.