I have thought long and hard on this subject and have concluded I have just about reached the limit of what I am prepared to accept in terms of restrictive legislation...I believe in the principle of personal freedom, something that now barely exists in Britain and Europe at nearly every level of life and I have difficulty expressing my frustration at the way this is being eroded (eliminated).
Type approval, anti modification rules,the compulsory wearing of Dayglo,random roadside testing etc. etc. etc. Should those laws come to pass in the future, it will be the 'straw that breaks the camels back' as far as I'm concerned...I am simply not prepared to be told what I can and can't do with my own motorcycle (beyond what is reasonable and logical) and what clothes I have to wear while I am riding it...
I'm waiting to see the results of the latest set of proposed laws in France, the deliberations of the EEC with regard to Europe wide legislation and how, and to what degree, those laws will take effect in Britain...
I went on the recent (inneffective in my opinion) MAG protest and will take part in any further large scale protest if it takes place...but if these laws are pushed through in their current form I will more than likely cease to be involved in a pass time that, in my opinion, is having all the pleasure and freedom removed from it...Ian

email (option): ian@wright52.plus.com

Ian, it's fortunate that at the moment, we've got a government that's actually quite sympathetic to motorcycling, not least because Mike Penning. Roads Minister, rides a motorcycle too. And there are quite a few biking MPS these days.

The UK government has rejected a lot of the nonsense from mainland Europe, and recognises that Triumph is a major breadwinner. They understand that bikers are generally very much anti-dayglo, and that that can damage sales. Nevertheless, there are potential long term threats that you already know about.

In London, motorcycling has become so unpleasant (what with cameras nicking you for the slightest transgression and roads that look and feel like Dresden after the RAF firebombed it) that I actually ride very little these days - except on my pushbike. I reserve the motorcycles for trips out of the capital.

But I wouldn't give up motorcycling just yet. The recession can work in our favour too what with fewer people able to police these draconian ideas. Down there in Devon, you're better placed that most people to get on with it in relative peace.

email (option): dannydefazio@sumpmagazine.com

Ian, I'm feeling the same way. 'Traffic Calming' has already removed a lot of the riding pleasure and I think that if compulsory day-glo is forced through then I'll call it a day.

It's a bit strange as I had reflective waterproofs twenty or more years ago, and wear them regularly during the winter or on motorway trips in bad weather. However, the idea that I can't pull on a leather jacket and a pair of stout trousers to ride the bike to the shops will divorce the whole thing too much from any form of normal life.

Here in Belgium, it is now compulsory to wear long trousers and sleeves together with boots over the ankles and gloves on anything bigger than a moped. Crazy rules as somone in full leathers without gloves can be fined but a rider in a long-sleeved nylon shirt with woollen mittens can't !

It's already led to well-publicised fines for a scooter rider who lost a glove and one caught in training shoes...and in the meantime here, no-one sentenced to less than three years for theft or crimes of violence has to actually go to prison as they're "too full".

Perhaps to simplify the statute book, they could scrap all existing legislation and replace it with "Suspected of enjoying oneself whilst in control of a motor vehicle"

Hi Guys,

Fortunately we do not have that situation here in the States as far as road laws go. It's the other things that worry me.

However, my belief is this: Law abiding citizens are easilly caught. It's the real criminals (illegal aliens, drug dealers, violent crime perps) that take up the time and effort to prosecute. They are expensive to catch and keep!

So, to get more bang for your buck in the way of easilly collected fines, come after an upstanding citizen. Remember, we are the ones who have stuff to loose. Petty, picayune things that nickle and dime us to death are a sad erosion of our resources.

Say you are making $10.00 per hour, a $100.00 fine is huge! Then, you get to deal with the courts who take months to get around to you. So, we just pay the fine and move on. See? easy isn't it?

Beware of those politicians who bit by bit take away your freedoms.

email (option): britool51@hotmail.com

strangly enough we don't have those rules in holland yet, but having to wear proper biking gear by law isn't really taking away freedom in my opinion. It's a piece of safety. Same as wearing a safety belt in a car. I spoke to a guy how fell off a bike wearing just a tshirt and shorts and he was only doing 60km/h. He showed me the result of scraping along the asfalt. I will never ever not wear protective gear on a bike. That dude's entire body looked like the surface of the moon. he spent 3 months in hospital and will look like that for the rest of his life. I also spoke with a cop who had to collect a biker of the asfalt wearing nothing more then a tshirt and shorts (and a helmet ofc). It was a nice couple of weeks seening the shrink for him. It is not just you how has to live with the consequences.

The problem is that "the law" doesn't know how to propperly define this law.

email (option): kschaank@hotmail.com

I consider 'freedom' to be about the freedom to make personal choices..What other freedoms are there?...and if you can't make those choices you don't have it. How can you have these decisions made compulsory by someone else and still consider yourself 'free' as an individual?...That is laughable. In this case the level of risk I choose, or do not choose, to expose myself to should be governed by my own assessment of potential risks in my life..not someone elses.
Legally, I can ride a bicycle or a horse on a public road without any form of personal protection..and while I am doing that I can smoke a cigarette...an undeniably risky activity..life is full of activities that carry no legal requirement in terms of my personal safety but which have the same implications for the rescue, emergency and hospital services if they go wrong...rock climbing for example..in fact the examples are endless.
Why should motorcycling be any different?...it's just another one on the list.
To make matters worse the Laws are not made based on a logical assessment of risk but as the result of the politicians desire to restrict a particular activity that THEY have decided is dangerous but which they don't have the courage to ban altogether..
I choose not to ride in a T shirt, shorts and trainers not because I have been told I can't, but because I have deduced that the consequences of even a minor spill can be serious with so little protection...and in the same way if I decide I need to be more visible I will take the neccessary action.
I have ridden motorcycles for more than 40 years and have covered hundreds of thousands of miles...and I consider I am the one that is best qualified to quantify the risks I am taking, not politicians whos views are distorted by misinformation, vested interest and a lack of real knowledge of the subject. Furthermore, most of them have never even ridden a motorcycle...and when, as one of the people they are supposed to represent, I feel legislation is required I'll waste no time letting them know...isn't that how it's supposed to work?...Ian

email (option): ian@wright52.plus.com

I have to disagree with Koan for the reasons in Ian's last post. Just because something is "good" doesn't mean that your freedom of choice can or should be legislated away. Next? Eggs or red meat will be illegal because they cause cholesterol, etc., etc. Our most recent (completely absurd) pending legislation: making it illegal (yes, I said illegal) to make or sell 100 watt light bulbs because they consume too much electricity! You have to buy fluorescent or LED bulbs if you want to light your house, at 10 times the cost, and put up with the weird light they give off. Yes, it's "good" but who appointed the government the arbiter of how I spend my money, on electicity or on the bulbs?

You want safety? I can tell you how to completely eliminate road deaths. Set the speed limit to 25mph and make the penalty either $500 or 2 days in jail, the choice is yours. Of course, everyone would chose the money penalty. And, of course, this will be seen as a honey pot for the government, which means that they would enforce it like nothine else. You say 25mph is too low? But it's good for you and everyone else if we completely eliminate road deaths, isn't it?

Even something which is "obviously" good has at least two points of view. Back in my college days, when seat belt use was not mandatory here in NY, one of the women I dated was in a bad accident with her VW bug. She was not wearing her seat belt and was thrown to the back seat because of the accident. The investigating officer said to her in no uncertain terms that if she had been wearing her seat belt she would not have survived the accident. She would have been crushed in the driver's seat. I am not advocating that people should not wear seat belts, I'm just making the point that we are being brain washed to believe that it's OK to legislate behavior which is considered good or beneficial, but nothing is always the way it seems.

I am a strong believer in personal responsibility, which means (also) personal choice. I am also a strong believer in Thomas Jefferson's concept of government, "that government is best which governs the least." Unfortunately, we are being constantly bombarded, by governments and their left-wing media cohorts, with the opposite principle, that whatever problem there is, government is the solution. It never is, as can easily be determined by a deep look at the problems in Greece. The government controls everything so the country is about to waste into starvation and anarchy.

But I caution Ian and those like-minded that it is never a case of the straw that broke the camel's back. The erosion of liberties is always so slow that most people don't recognize it. Retention of personal liberty needs hard work and constant reminder to ourselves and others that every usurpation of freedom by government is presumptively bad and should be resisted. The world got rid of autocratic rulers who had all the power and could rule by fiat but we are now replacing them, step by step, with autocratic "elected" governments who are leading us to the same conditions of serfdom.

email (option): jonny.rudge@verizon.net

Oh i agree with you there Ian, but you also forget one other factor and that is the stupidity of people. Most of those tshirt riders are riding on rice rockets and only take that thing out of the shed when it is 25degrees C plus and sunny, these guys causes the most accidents, A for not riding so much and B having a brain the size of a peanut. Those guys give the rest of us a bad name and ofcourse the politicians only see those. I'm all for survival of the fittest, but the problem is that they are not only onces involved when they crash. It's more of protecting us from them and them from themselfs.

Oh and politicians are useless anyway

i'm still happy we don't have MOT for motorbikes, although the politicians would like to have so they can make more money

email (option): kschaank@hotmail.com

John, safety belts do safe lifes. If you compare how many people were killed not wearing a safety belt to how many people were "saved" by not wearing a safety belt i'm pretty sure the wearing of a safety belt will win. It's all statistics which also means the odds of surviving due to not wearing a safety belt is present.
You will never ever eliminate road deaths, but wearing protective gear will certainly lower it. That's not due to a goverment telling you that "it's good", that's just fact (research) and statistics.

I'm all for personal responsibility and personal choice etc but if research shows it saves lifes dramatically then why not make it by law? I'm sure you are a sensible guy etc, but there are a lot of stupid people out there. I'm pretty sure it's not the cop or medic his personal choice to scrap you of the road just because you had a "personal choice" not to wear protective gear.

I'm not saying you must do things like this because goverments tell us too, but if reseach etc proves it can significantly save human life then i don't have a problem with it if a goverment turns it into a law.

email (option): kschaank@hotmail.com

Do seat belts save lives ? In the event of a crash, I'm sure they do but I am a committed believer in the theory of 'risk compensation' and it is quite evident to anyone who was driving thirty five years ago or so that drivers with seat belts drive faster as they feel safer.

Not for nothing was it usually a Volvo that pulled out of a side road - they were fitted with seat belts and crumple zones before anyone else and helped to create the idea that it could be safe to pull out in front of oncoming traffic.

Alec Issigonis, the creator of the Mini stated that he would like to fit a spike in the middle of the steering wheel to make drivers more careful (He also refused to allow space in the Mini dash for a distracting radio).

I don't think that I've ever ridden a motorcycle in shorts and I have no wish to but I have ridden up the road and stopped to adjust carbs without gloves on. Road Traffic regulations apply at docks and on the approach to tolls. Are we criminals if we take our gloves off in the queue ? Who has never given up when even the spare pair of gloves has turned inside out on a wet journey ?

I've even been known to ride without a helmet when I've felt it safe to do so...(note the gloves though !)



But hell Koen, you're probably right. The state should be protecting me from myself and in view of my known habit of pissing on my feet after an evening on the ale, will probably compel me to wear 'Pampers' to the pub from now on - and Wellington boots would be a good idea too.

Koen, the fact is that seat belts do not ALWAYS save lives. They also kill.

There are numerous instances of people burned alive in cars because they lost the precious few seconds to escape in a crash, or were locked in by their belt.

There are numerous cases of decapitation by a seat belt.

There are numerous instances of people drowned in cars because of seat belts. In fact, I read a statistic some time ago that more people drown in car accidents than boating accidents in the UK. Maybe that related to just one year. Maybe not. But people reverse off quaysides and drown. They skid off the road into rivers and drown. Etc. Etc.

Seat belts can cause heart muscle damage, which doesn't repair.

Basically, there are two kinds of injuries from car crashes; recoverable injuries, and non-recoverable injuries. People slamming into windscreens, as horrible as that is, usually results in major facial breakages and lacerations. But it usually repairs. Many other seat belt injuries do NOT repair. The situation is simply not as clear as people think.

Seatbelts can also cause huge whiplash injuries. Simply put, successive governments have LIED. The images of people flying through a windscreen was a powerful one when propagandised on TV, but rarely relates to reality. The Transport and Road Research Laboratory did not conduct fair experiments; instead, they set up DEMONSTRATIONS to show what COULD happen, and which often bore little resemblance to real world situations.

It's the same with crash helmets. I can give you examples of where crash helmets have made the situation worse. Indeed, full face lids severely restrict peripheral vision that can lead to accidents. Crash helmets also increase risk compensation. Crash helmets cause great discomfort to many in hot weather resulting in loss of concentration. Also, drivers take less care with a rider dressed up in leathers and a lid, than they would with a rider wearing a bikini. It's human nature. Also, crash helmets can cause whiplash injuries that will kill a rider long before he hits the deck.

But the bottom line, as has been pointed out here on other posts, is this; it should be a question of CHOICE. If you're old enough to drink, smoke, parachute, cross the street and get blown to bits fighting in some stupid war, you ought to have the right to choose whether to wear a belt or a lid.

If the government can GUARANTEE that belts and lids work every time, they would have a stronger moral case (but still not a convincing one). But the government CAN'T make such guarantees. It KNOWS that a certain number of people will be worse off for wearing a belt or lid. Should we all, therefore, demand the right to decide for ourselves?

It's a no-brainer.

For the record, I prefer to take my chances with a seat belt and lid. But that's choice too. Never undermine choice. It's everything. Without it, we're all just compliant drones. Don't take my word for it; ask Soviet Russia.

email (option): dannydefazio@sumpmagazine.com

Hi Koen..I don't get your argument..if, for example, you believe that the wearing of dayglo clothing does decrease the chances of an accident, then exercise your free choice and wear it...
If, as you say, you believe in free choice then where does the law come in? You don't need the law to make your choice any more than I need the law to make mine. That we may make two different choices doesn't come into it...and the fact that a percentage of the population won't think about it too much doesn't mean their free choice should be removed does it? (along with mine)..Free choice is not to be granted on the basis of the populations average IQ surely?
You are also assuming that the research that goes into the various studies is scientifically accurate and well founded.
I think you will find that the recommended safe level of exposure to radiation has been regularly reduced since WW2..indicating that the original research was wrong...Governments and other non governmental bodies frequently 'get it wrong'
An argument could run 'ad infinitum' on the particular validity of the various studies and their findings and such arguments detract from the essential point.
The point is.. Should you be free to decide for yourself in matters of PERSONAL safety..or is it OK for that decision to be taken away from you and made by someone else.
I would argue that whatever facts are presented to me, by whoever it may be and however right or wrong they may be, the final decision on matters that affect me should remain with me..and I can then consider myself free in that regard...Ian

email (option): ian@wright52.plus.com

A little bit of classic "Rush" out of context.

"...You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill;
I will choose a path that's clear-
I will choose Free Will. "

That indeed is the question.

i have another example for you. Do you tell your little kid not to put his little finger in the power outlet or do you let him make his own personal decision?

email (option): kschaank@hotmail.com

I think that we're talking about adults here and not children and that's just the point when considering the 'Nanny State' - it wants to treat us like small children.

I certainly wouldn't fine my children for going near the power socket.

In general, I believe in the philosophy that 'Kinderen hebben recht op blauwe plekken' - Children have a right to bumps and bruises otherwise they'll grow up expecting society to make all their decisions for them.

Sadly, the way it is going that expectation will be realised... ..Ian

email (option): ian@wright52.plus.com

Here in The State of Maine USA, we do not have a mandatory helmet law. We are free to choose whether or not to wear one, it is personal choice. I choose to always wear one, the thought of "scrambled eggs" on the road does not appeal to me. I choose to wear some level of protective gear but I have to admit, wearing an orange vest would be over the top for me! The argument here is that if you "choose" to not wear a helmet and you wind up a vegetable on life support, should I have to pay to keep your ass alive in a nursing home for the next 20-30 years? Maybe a higher risk insurance should be required if you decide to "choose" not to wear a helmet, this way the taxpayers aren't required to bear the burden of the cost for your choice. Also, we have a United Bikers Association that is the single largest lobbying group in the state. Politicians don't dare to even mention the possibility of a mandatory helmet law, they know if they do, that they will certainly not be elected the next time around, this keeps them in their place. Neither Maine or our neighboring state, New Hampshire have helmet laws except that if you're under 18 you must wear one. The Maine State motto is "Maine, the way life should be" and the New Hampshire motto is.....and you have to love this one is: "Live free or die!" Best way to keep these politicians in their place is for them to know that there is a huge voting block out there that could easily swing the pendulum against them. Why can't they just leave us alone!!!

Koen: Seems like you're saying two things at once. First you say you are for personal choice but then you say if it's good it should be legislated. You can't have it both ways. They are mutually exclusive.

I think my example showed that what's considered to be good is not always good or beneficial. That's why it should be an individual choice. You can put up all the statistics you want but you will never convince my friend in the VW that universal seat belt laws should be legislated, instead of being a choice to be made by the individual. (And don't forget Churchill's take "there are lies, there are damned lies and there are statistics.")

You are right, it's not the cop's or medic's personal choice to scape me off the pavement - it's their job and it's why I pay the taxes that pay their salaries - as to which taxes, by the way, I have no choice. And oh, by the way, they have a personal choice to change jobs if they don't like the one they now have. But I don't have a choice whether to wear a seat belt or a helmet.

You also misread my post, I think. I am not saying that seat belts will or will not save lives. I'm saying that an enforced universal 25 mph speed limit everywhere - motorways, parkways, expressways, as well as streets - will necessarily eliminate road deaths because at that speed even a car-pedestrian collision will not result in death, much less a car-to-car collision. But everyone will be up in arms if such a law was passed. So it's not as simple as "if it's good make it a law". It's much more like "if we can get away with it, lets make a law." Some years ago our (US) government enacted a law (or regulation, I don't recall the form) that required manufacturers to put an interlock in the seat belt system which would have made it impossible for the car to start unless the seat belts on occupied seats were fastened. That was a good thing, wasn't it? But it was not that simple. Congress members themselves were so bothered by being forced to buckle up that they repealed the law/regulation the next year. Of course, a congressman will never get a traffic violation for not wearning a seat belt so the result of the repeal was that everyone must wear a seat belt except those who can make the personal choice not to do so AND have the power to get away with it. Congressmen were quick to safeguard their own right to personal choice, but not yours and mine. They can drive around without their seat belts, if they chose to do so, but ordinary folks can't.

But before we get too far afield with the collateral issues, lets recall what we are talking about: who should make the choices in your life, you or the government. If you think the answer can be the government then they will also determine what is good and what is not good and, therefore, what to enforce and what not to enforce, what to legislate and what not to legislate. So an answer like "the government should impose obligations which are good or beneficial" simply doesn't work because they will decide for you what is good and what is not. Once you start giving up your personal freedoms, it's downhill all the way. The king will be back on his throne.

BTW, you mention a comparison of statistics. Is such comparison even possible? Are there any statistics about how many people were saved by NOT wearing seat belts? No? Why not? Could it be that the government doesn't keep such statistics because they want you to believe a certain way?

email (option): jonny.rudge@verizon.net

I may be coming a conspiracy theory follower but i have started wondering whether that is the intention of all this nanny state stuff.
God forbid that i should be forced by some bunch of petty bureaucrats to live in infinite safety for so long that i ultimately die of terminal boredom.

email (option): braunz@paradise.net.nz

John, i'm not saying that if it is good a goverment should make a law out of it. I'm only saying that i don't have a problem with it if they do, but only if it actually can save life. (like stop for a red traffic light or lower speed limits around school areas)

I know you are all trying to find things going wrong with safety belts, but if that number was so high, why didn't they stop making it a law or advise a govement to change it? (just like smoking these days)

I also know you are not going to fine you kids if he does, but the effect is the same. Someone tells a kid not to put high finger in the outlet. The kid feels punished (cries maybe) and if he behaves well he won't do it again. I know you saying, well this is a kid, they don't count, you need to protect them from these things. Ofcourse we do, they are kids, they don't know any better. But is it that different for adults? I've seen an adult fucking around with a metal screwdriver in a 690 volt power dc bus trying to remove a circuit breaker. I told him he was a stupid $%^&%$#$%^&&%$#$%^& and that pissed him off. You telling me I should have let him make his own personal decision?

The problem is the in these cases (maybe not every example is very clear) making a personal deciscion for someone is needed else he ends up dead or injured and people around him suffer from the consiquences as well.

email (option): kschaank@hotmail.com

Koen, you're making numerous mistakes here. No one is arguing that kids should be able to do as they like. Up to a point, it's reasonable to protect people from their own stupidy. But eventually they become adults and you have to let go.

Advising people is one thing. But COMPELLING people to do something is a very different matter. Refusal to wear a seat belt or a crash helmet doesn't AUTOMATICALLY lead to injury or death. It only (arguably) increases the RISK of it (and sometimes wearing a belt or a lid actually causes death).

If you argue in favour of seat belt or helmet compulsion, you might as well argue that pedestrians should wear dayglo jacket and helmets. You might as well argue against rock climbing or surfing or hang gliding or anything else where risk is involved. Ultimately, we could remove all risk, but life wouldn't be worth living.

The government made belts and lids compulsory simply because they're stupid. They over-reacted. They did what they felt was intituive without looking at the wider and deeper implications. All governments, by their nature, are stupid. All governments are comples "organisms" fighting among themselves and, more often than not, making the wrong decisions. That's how democracy works. It's fundamentally flawed. That's why we live with so many stupid laws.

In a sudden storm at sea, smart yachtsmen rush for open water; stupid yachtsmen rush for land, which often sees them being battered on the shore or on rocks, etc. The point being, the "obvious" thing to do isn't always the right thing. Sometimes the truth lies in the other direction.

In the USA, it's been shown time and time again that states that don't have the helmet law have the same death rate as helmets that do have the law.

If someone wants to take the risk of killing themselves, or injuring themselves, they should have that right. It's not the place of government to legislate against such thing. Governments should confine themselves to providing CONDITIONS where people can live their lives according to their own needs and desires, provided it doesn't hurt others.

Finally, regarding your comment about traffic lights, there's actually a very strong case for removing them in urban settings. I'm afraid the argument is long and complicated, but highly persuasive - and it doesn't belong on this forum.

email (option): dannydefazio@sumpmagazine.com

ok, so you would let someone die or get seriously injured eventough you could have stopped him?

email (option): kschaank@hotmail.com

I've watched people start in the TT races and not tried to stop them, so the answer is probably 'Yes', if they want to and are aware of the risks.

I wouldn't be prepared to passenger a racing sidecar, just hanging onto the platform in the paddock scares me witless, but some of my best friends do and I wouldn't dream of encouraging legislation to forbid it. It's their choice.

The children who are forbidden to climb trees or ride an old motorcycle round the woods are the ones who within a few years are quite legally wiping themselves out on street furniture as they crash their low-emission, seatbelt and air bag equipped radially-tyred cars into any immovable object that they can find.

They have no perception of danger and expect the vehicle to keep them out of trouble.

I don't want to live in a world where everything is arranged by society and I'm protected from making my own decisions.

I would say exactly so Koen! I would not wish anyone's death. But without the freedom to choose, no one would have conquered Mount Everest or the South Pole. Ron

email (option): ronpier@talk21.com

I remember when Hunter S Thompson, the legendary US "gonzo" journalist shot himself in the head back in 2005. I had nothing but admiration for him. He lived life to the full, took full responsibility for his actions, and took his life in his hands. Literally.

It's not that I wanted him to die. He wanted out. I just accepted it.

Advise. Inform. Caution. And warn. I'm happy for governments to do that. But people live and die with risk. Get over it.

email (option): dannydefazio@sumpmagazine.com

In my opinion, specifically in the area of personal safety, the Governments job if you accept it has one, is to make as much information as possible available, to make recommendations and to offer advice.
Then to leave the resulting more educated, better informed population to make thier own choices. That is a 'public service' role...and they are there to serve..
The Governments main area of activity regarding safety that involves a legal framework should be to limit one individual or group from harming another individual or group by thier actions...Ian

email (option): ian@wright52.plus.com

I've avoided joining this discussion, as it's really a highly charged area, but I'll throw in my comment.
Laws are becoming more restrictive, and the lawyers are driving the problem, Governments are reacting to liability issues, trying to limit their accountability. If they don't do something, it could be said they were partly responsible. I believe that is what is driving the problem.
I've driven through Maine and New Hampshire, USA where helmet laws are not in effect (in fact, New Hampshire licence plates proudly proclaim "Live Free or Die" , and I've seen motorcyclists stop at the roadside as they cross over the border to remove their helmets. I choose to leave mine on. I personally find the road noise, sting of bugs on the face, and wind ripping at my hair too distracting.
But I can see how some may enjoy the pain, those guys enjoy getting tattoed too.

As for safety belts and helmets causing injuries, possibly yes if not used improperly. One of the most famous US stock car racers (note I didn't say greatest) died at Daytona , directly as a resuly of improperly adjusted seatbelts. His known habits of leaving them slack caused his head to whip and sever his spine on a virtually minor impact with the wall, resulting in more safety devices being required (the HANS device) for future seasons of racing.
By and large however, safety devices are there to save lives. Being thrown from a vehicle or crushed as it rolls over you greatly decrease your survivability in any crash. Laws are intended to protect the majority, even if it means protecting them from themselves.
And if you think your 1959 Chevy Bel Air is safer than your 2009, watch this video..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1Asb3Ad-tg

email (option): vinver@ns.sympatico.ca

GOOD GRIEF!

This is exactly the problem. Someone produces a video like this and claims that it proves a point. And it does. It proves that if you put some dummies in a couple of cars and slam the cars into each other at this particular speed and at this particular angle, one of them comes off worse. Well so what?

If you slam the cars together at a different angle, something else will happen. These are examples of government and/or manufacturing propaganda designed to prove a point, or sell an idea, or force through legislation, or frighten people into submission.

In REAL WORLD situations, lots of other factors come into play, not least the type of person who drives each type of car. They will react differently to the crash test dummies. The driver of either car might swerve faster, or slower, or brake harder or accelerate, or duck, or do any of a number of things. Open windows on modern cars seriously reduces their structural integrity. Relatively minor problems on both modern and old vehicles changes the "experimental" conditions.

These films are not an experiment. They're demonstrations. Often, the engines are removed. Often the dummies are taped to different fixtures. Often, the crash test scientists have to repeat a demo dozens of times to get the result they want. Then they publish THAT video and tell us that it's representative of what ALWAYS happens. Well it doesn't. Speeds affect the result. Tyre choice affects the result. It goes on and on.

For the record, I'm fairly sure that modern cars with crumple zones and collapsible steering columns are safer. On balance, at least. But it's NOT the whole story. Yes, the video is compelling. It's DESIGNED to be compelling. Unless you know the criteria of the "experiment", unless you know how it was handled, unless you know what else happened that wasn't shown on other tests, it's all just chewing gum for the brain.

Do not fall into the trap of believing the propaganda. Remember the famous picture of Winston Churchill toting a Thompson machine gun? That staged picture backfired and gave the Nazi propagandists a field day portraying Winnie as a warmonger.

Question EVERYTHING. The CIA have a good attitude to things like this: "Don't ask what they said. Ask why they said it".

It's often highly revealing.

Lastly, "being thrown from a vehicle or crushed as it rolls over you greatly decrease your survivability in any crash" is not necessarily true. Everything is different - and being thrown from that old Chevy might well have improved the survivability of the dummy in this particular case (and air bags, that have been shown to kill, might have quietly murdered the poor old dummy in the other vehicle).

Check this page and look at the heading CRITICISM:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurance_Institute_for_Highway_Safety

email (option): dannydefazio@sumpmagazine.com

Danny, Exactly why I didn't want to get into this conversation.I guess I've been told, you are welcome to your opinions and I respect that, but I'll not try to debate them with you, I'll keep my postings to the topic of the forum, the BSA M20.

email (option): vinver@ns.sympatico.ca