on 1/20/02 4:16 PM, Bachofen at mbachofen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> That's how it works now in Texas, at least supposedly. A motorcyclist in
> Texas, if he can demonstrate he is insured to a certain amount is not required
> to wear a helmet. The upshot is, police don't enforce law anymore, assuming
> everyone can prove this. Too bad more helmetless riders don't fill out their
> organ donor cards.
> M.E.Bachofen
>
The really bad thing is that if you espouse 'freedom of choice' (with or
without requiring the financial responsibility) peer pressure drives many
otherwise rational riders to not wear a helmet. I've ridden without a few
times (off road) and find it extremely uncomfortable. Even if it were a
legal option in California I would still choose to wear the helmet, but I
know many 'lifestyle' riders who would not (already they wear the little
beanie cap 'biker' DOT helmets) due to this 'image is everything' pressure.
IMO, image is everything *only* in regards to cameras!
--
Jim Brokaw
OM-1's, -2's, -4's, (no -3's yet) and no OM-oney...
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|