S
Spud Demon
Guest
Bret Chase <[email protected]> writes in article <[email protected]> dated Sun, 30 Jan 2005 15:08:04 -0500:
>On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 23:56:16 -0500, [email protected] (Time Traveler)
>wrote:
>
>>:|I live in NJ and their rationale is the same as motorcycle helmets.If
>>:|you have a severe accident,and live,you could become a ward of the
>>:|state.Thus the state has a vested interest in you not getting injured in
>>:|the first place.But there is a very,very slight possibility, as a
>>:|revenue generator, in giving tickets to the unbelted.But that can't be
>>:|if you ask the authorities.
>
> that logic is inherently flawed, at least as far as motorcycles go as
>you are far more likely to die and *NOT* become a ward of the state
>while not wearing a helmet than if you are wearing one.
No, the logic is not flawed. But there is an unstated assumption, and you
make the opposite assumption in yours.
Let's divide injuries into 3 categories -- (A) fatal, (B) disabling, and (C)
recoverable. Time (or rather his friends in the NJ legislature) believe
that B is lower if you wear a helmet, and you believe that it's higher.
If somebody has statistics on this, it could settle the question.
-- spud_demon -at- thundermaker.net
The above may not (yet) represent the opinions of my employer.
>On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 23:56:16 -0500, [email protected] (Time Traveler)
>wrote:
>
>>:|I live in NJ and their rationale is the same as motorcycle helmets.If
>>:|you have a severe accident,and live,you could become a ward of the
>>:|state.Thus the state has a vested interest in you not getting injured in
>>:|the first place.But there is a very,very slight possibility, as a
>>:|revenue generator, in giving tickets to the unbelted.But that can't be
>>:|if you ask the authorities.
>
> that logic is inherently flawed, at least as far as motorcycles go as
>you are far more likely to die and *NOT* become a ward of the state
>while not wearing a helmet than if you are wearing one.
No, the logic is not flawed. But there is an unstated assumption, and you
make the opposite assumption in yours.
Let's divide injuries into 3 categories -- (A) fatal, (B) disabling, and (C)
recoverable. Time (or rather his friends in the NJ legislature) believe
that B is lower if you wear a helmet, and you believe that it's higher.
If somebody has statistics on this, it could settle the question.
-- spud_demon -at- thundermaker.net
The above may not (yet) represent the opinions of my employer.
