HI Bob,

On Wed 2038-Apr-07 18:44, Bob Ackley (1:300/3) wrote to Richard Webb:

 RW> Yep, IOwa motorcycle riders got a helmet law actually
 RW> repealed in IOwa way back when.  I had friends working both
 RW> sides of that one when it came up.

BA> Something over a decade ago the Nebraska legislature, at the behest
BA> of the federal DOT bureaucrooks, passed a motorcycle helmet law. 
BA> The *people* of the state of Nebraska repealed that law with a
BA> petition drive sponsored by various organizations of motorcycle
BA> riders.  DOT bureaucrooks went absolutely ballistic and threatened
BA> to cut off Nebraska's highway funds if the legislature did not
BA> immediately re-impose that law.  The legislature rolled over and
BA> played dead for the feds, and passed a new helmet law.  Had *I* been
BA> the governor I would have announced that (a) I would veto another
BA> helmet law and (b) the day federal funds were cut off would be the
BA> day that I-80 would not be patrolled or maintained - to include
BA> plowing snow and finding, investigating or cleaning up any accidents
BA> or other mishaps - until those funds were reinstated.

Dig that!

 RW>  My dad said it was a sad
 RW> day for the people of IOwa when they repealed it.  My old
 RW> man rode his Harleys and other bikes for years, and never
 RW> mounted one without his skid lid, and I wasn't allowed to
 RW> either back when I was doing a lot of playing off road with
 RW> small motorcycles as a kid.

BA> The fact that the state doesn't tell you that you HAVE to wear a
BA> helmet doesn't mean that you cannot wear one.  It's a freedom thing.

AGreed, I've always said that failure to use proper safety
equipment should also mean that your insurance company
doesn't pony up.  Better and much more effective than
legislation imo.  What was that one group in Iowa?  Abate?
American bikers against tyrnaical excesses or something like that iirc. 
Bet they were active in the NEbraska thing too.

BA> The only law a state needs on the books WRT motor vehicle safety is
BA> that the failure to use protective equipment is grounds for being
BA> held at fault for injuries
BA> such equipment would have prevented or mitigated.  That's for
BA> helmets *and* seat belts (I have worn seat belts religiously since
BA> about 1960). 

INdeed, the way I"ve always thought of it, but my dad was
far from a libertarian.  Dad is of the belief that sometimes you have to
protect man from himself, by legislation if
that's the only way.  I figure that if a man needs regs and
legislation to protect him from himself, then, maybe he
needs to be left free running, HE'l take care of the
problem, hopefully before he
contributes to the gene pool.

Regards,
           Richard
--- timEd 1.10.y2k+