OK, just anecdotal evidence but the ER nurses and doctors at Stanford and a
local Sacramento hospital say they're getting fewer fatalities from
motorcycle accidents since the helmet law went in in CA.  But many more
major spinal injuries, usually the base of the neck which means total
paralysis many times.

Dead is cheaper in this case, if it's true.

Mike

On 9/24/03 9:10 PM, "Tom Young" <tomyoung1@COMCAST.NET> wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Stephen Overmyer" <s.overmyer@UWS.EDU.AU>
> To: <vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 8:08 PM
> Subject: Re: Am stuck in a wheel chair :
>
>
>> At 04:35 PM 24/09/2003 -0400, you wrote:
>
>>    When mandatory helmet laws were introduced in Australia (and indeed
>>    seatbelt laws too) the motivation was more about keeping the cost of
>>    post-accident medical costs down,pressured by insurance companies.
>>    Afterall,they only like taking our money,not giving it back.
>>
>>    Prime motivation was cost saving,not regulating our activities or
> freedoms
>>    although I conceed,that's been a by-product.
>
> In the U.S. one of the stated motivations for these laws was that it would
> reduce the cost to the Government (Federal or State) for the medical care
> involved in treating people involved in accidents who weren't wearing a
> seatbelt or a helmet.  Just an example of how any for of Socialism
> inevitably results in a reduction of personal freedom; for the "greater
> good" personal liberties are curtailed.  As for private insurers, the issue
> should be fairly trivial; victims who aren't wearing seatbelts or helmets
> would receive greatly reduced post-accident benefits.  Only......  that's
> not possible because of the high degree of regulation (disguised as
> "consumer protection") that exists.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Tom Young                       '81 Vanagon
> Lafayette, CA 94549         '82 Westfalia
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
>