helmets in cars- a right that should be recognized

"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
...
> Same reason it's illegal to wear stereo headphones: it impairs your
> ability to hear horns, sirens, and bullhorn instructions.
>

Helmets don't all interfere with hearing.

> The silly part is, these same states who outlaw headphones for hearing
> people will gladly give driver's licenses to deaf people.

Yes, that is stupid. If they are going to allow deaf people to drive
(which, I believe they should, with some caveats), why not allow people to
use headphones while they drive?

Laws like this (no helmets, no headphones but allow people to drive) just
shows how stupidly beaurocratic the State can be.

Around 1/9/2005 2:10 PM, Magnulus wrote:

> "Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>The silly part is, these same states who outlaw headphones for hearing
>>people will gladly give driver's licenses to deaf people.
>
>
> Yes, that is stupid. If they are going to allow deaf people to drive
> (which, I believe they should, with some caveats), why not allow people to
> use headphones while they drive?

The few deaf people I know have been compensating for most of their
lives to live without their hearing, and they can do it very well since
they must actively be thinking about what they're doing and what they
might be missing. When driving, they tend to be extremely cautious,
*constantly* looking for unheard dangers.

John Q. "Rocker" Public, on the other hand, driving down the road with
his headphones blasting not only won't be compensating for the lack of
hearing, but his mind will distracted by the music and not be fully
engaged in the task at hand: driving.


--
~/Garth |"I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie.
Almgren | I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave.
******* | And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant."
for secure mail info) --H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)

Around 1/9/2005 2:10 PM, Magnulus wrote:

> "Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>The silly part is, these same states who outlaw headphones for hearing
>>people will gladly give driver's licenses to deaf people.
>
>
> Yes, that is stupid. If they are going to allow deaf people to drive
> (which, I believe they should, with some caveats), why not allow people to
> use headphones while they drive?

The few deaf people I know have been compensating for most of their
lives to live without their hearing, and they can do it very well since
they must actively be thinking about what they're doing and what they
might be missing. When driving, they tend to be extremely cautious,
*constantly* looking for unheard dangers.

John Q. "Rocker" Public, on the other hand, driving down the road with
his headphones blasting not only won't be compensating for the lack of
hearing, but his mind will distracted by the music and not be fully
engaged in the task at hand: driving.


--
~/Garth |"I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie.
Almgren | I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave.
******* | And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant."
for secure mail info) --H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)

"Garth Almgren" > wrote in message
...
> John Q. "Rocker" Public, on the other hand, driving down the road with
> his headphones blasting not only won't be compensating for the lack of
> hearing, but his mind will distracted by the music and not be fully
> engaged in the task at hand: driving.

So why not ban radios in cars? How are headphones special?

"Garth Almgren" > wrote in message
...
> John Q. "Rocker" Public, on the other hand, driving down the road with
> his headphones blasting not only won't be compensating for the lack of
> hearing, but his mind will distracted by the music and not be fully
> engaged in the task at hand: driving.

So why not ban radios in cars? How are headphones special?

Around 1/9/2005 2:45 PM, Magnulus wrote:

> "Garth Almgren" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>John Q. "Rocker" Public, on the other hand, driving down the road with
>>his headphones blasting not only won't be compensating for the lack of
>>hearing, but his mind will distracted by the music and not be fully
>>engaged in the task at hand: driving.
>
>
> So why not ban radios in cars? How are headphones special?


Because the block out all other sounds.


--
~/Garth |"I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie.
Almgren | I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave.
******* | And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant."
for secure mail info) --H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)

Around 1/9/2005 2:45 PM, Magnulus wrote:

> "Garth Almgren" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>John Q. "Rocker" Public, on the other hand, driving down the road with
>>his headphones blasting not only won't be compensating for the lack of
>>hearing, but his mind will distracted by the music and not be fully
>>engaged in the task at hand: driving.
>
>
> So why not ban radios in cars? How are headphones special?


Because the block out all other sounds.


--
~/Garth |"I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie.
Almgren | I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave.
******* | And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant."
for secure mail info) --H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)

"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
...
>
> So do those 10,000 watt "thump, thump, bling, bling" stereos you find
> in Civics nowadays. And the average luxury car is sealed so tightly
> against wind and road noise, that, if the radio is on at even a normal
> level, most external sounds are thoroughly masked.

My point exactly.

I don't think hearing is so important for driving. Yes, it's nice to
have but not necessary to hear every last chirping of a bird 30 feet away.

My theory- some people just like to pass laws on the "punk factor".
Somebody talking on a cell phone is probably more distracted than somebody
listening to headphones. Yet "respectable" businessmen and well-connected
soccer moms yack on the phone while driving- and nobody better dare question
that "right". In contrast, people listening to MP3's are more likely to be
young and apolitical (personally, my solution would be to put a "line in" on
a car stereo- my brother uses one of those tape deck converters for his
Volvo).

There's a certain orthodoxy, and any heterodox ideos, wheather it's
letting people listening to headphones or wearing a helmet, are dismissed
because they are different or not traditional, no matter what the facts are.

I'm not suggesting that helmets should ever be required for a car. If
your hairdo is that precious, or you simply don't think you are at risk, you
should have the choice not to wear one. I also think mandatory safety belt
laws could be repealed, as long as the person had X amount of health
insurance and was driving alone. If somebody is eager to win a Darwin
Award, have at it.

"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
...
>
> So do those 10,000 watt "thump, thump, bling, bling" stereos you find
> in Civics nowadays. And the average luxury car is sealed so tightly
> against wind and road noise, that, if the radio is on at even a normal
> level, most external sounds are thoroughly masked.

My point exactly.

I don't think hearing is so important for driving. Yes, it's nice to
have but not necessary to hear every last chirping of a bird 30 feet away.

My theory- some people just like to pass laws on the "punk factor".
Somebody talking on a cell phone is probably more distracted than somebody
listening to headphones. Yet "respectable" businessmen and well-connected
soccer moms yack on the phone while driving- and nobody better dare question
that "right". In contrast, people listening to MP3's are more likely to be
young and apolitical (personally, my solution would be to put a "line in" on
a car stereo- my brother uses one of those tape deck converters for his
Volvo).

There's a certain orthodoxy, and any heterodox ideos, wheather it's
letting people listening to headphones or wearing a helmet, are dismissed
because they are different or not traditional, no matter what the facts are.

I'm not suggesting that helmets should ever be required for a car. If
your hairdo is that precious, or you simply don't think you are at risk, you
should have the choice not to wear one. I also think mandatory safety belt
laws could be repealed, as long as the person had X amount of health
insurance and was driving alone. If somebody is eager to win a Darwin
Award, have at it.

"Magnulus" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jim Yanik" .> wrote in message
> .. .
> > If you carefully examine the Earnhardt collision with the wall,you would
> > see that the impact was not that big an impact,for 180 MPH.It was a
> grazing
> > impact,too.Other race car drivers have survived worse impacts.
>
> I watched the replay of it. The car appeared to slow down a bit, but
> then accelerated into the wall. It was just maybe 20 degrees short of a
> full frontal impact. He didn't just graze the wall.
>
> His seatbelt may have also failed in the accident. A HANS device might
> have assisted the seatbelt in keeping him in place. We'll never know
though
> because there was no indepedent autopsy.
>
> At any rate- a typical road vehicle collision is dealing with forces of
> magnitudes less than the typical racecar collision. A helmet for a car
> doesn't necessarily have to be as heavy as a motorcycle helmet, either.
> Nobody will be driving around their cars at over 100 mph, at least nobody
> remotely sane.

What about those in places where roads are designed to handle speeds in
excess of 100 MPH and those speeds are the norm? I suppose those people
aren't even remotely sane being as how they are exceeding the arbitrary
numbers established in the U.S. for revenue collection?