Hey, that was my ignorance--Brandon was just agreeing with me! O.K. maybe
we share this ignorance--anyway... My point is that NHSTA helped fund the
"leg protector" study, or some study of the study, right?--correct me if
I'm wrong. That might have been the kiss of death to motorcycling right
there, because the protectors themselves were so damned dangerous. Now, I
look at the Florida State Legislature info on our "no-helmet" law and see,
IN THEIR OWN WORDS FROM THEIR OWN STATISTICS, that there is NO statisical
support for the "burden on society" theory on helmetless riders, and
therefore no data to support the $10,000 insurance rider on the bill.
Their recommendation? -- Keep the requirement for the insurance (after all,
insurance companies throw the best parties and have deeper pockets than
those meaningless constituents of ours...) My point is there is always a
downside to big government--sometimes it's worth it... sometimes not.
They will not always do what is right--just what seems popular. A tiny
industry like the motorcycle makers (compared to Daimler -Chrysler, Ford,
et. al.) don't even have the money and hookers to sway state government
much--let alone the NHSTA!
Flame-on, (but go to the A.M.A. site and peruse the govnmt section) I'm
wearin' my Two Bros Kevlar britches!!!!!!!!
P.S. The Hippo's look a lot better than when I had 'em on the "nekkid" bike
and work real good!!
----------
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: Multiple recipients of list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: NHSTA form
> Date: Wednesday, February 16, 2000 8:48 AM
>
> Sorry Brandon, but I find your ignorance troubling.
