Motorcycle Helmets, Law Of The Land In US?

[salm]

2.15? Please tell me you mean .215. 2.15 you'd be pretty dead, if my health classes serve me well.

No, every now and then you read of heavy alcoholics stopped with 4 or more per mill.

[Beowulf]

If you built the speed limiter into the engine control computer, it would be difficult to remove. You'd have to replace the engine control computer with an aftermarket unit: an expensive proposition even if you assume that there are no removal fines to back up the legislation. I think the people who say this are assuming it's some kind of bolt-on module that you can remove with a Philips-head screwdriver.

It's actually probably in the ROM chip, given that all engine computers now days are digital embedded solutions. So it'd really just be a question of replacing the ROM chip, which isn't very expensive actually, or even just re-flashing it, which would be extremely cheap.

[Flagg]

Interestingly, the anti-helmet people have a pretty good argument against the full face helmets. They actually do limit your ability see and hear your surroundings if you always wear it with the visor down. Of course the obvious solution is to not wear it with the visor down.

I wear a full-face helmet. Prior to getting it, I wore open-face helmets since my workplace didn't have full-face helmets that fit me (I have a large head). My full-face helmet doesn't affect my hearing, since it doesn't cover the ears any more than any open-face helmet that would actually pass DOT testing. As for vision, I have a better time seeing while driving with the visor down. It doesn't block any part of my field of vision, plus it does a better job blocking the wind and insects.

Could have just been wearing a helmet that was too big for me. Plus it did cover my ears.

[Flagg]

My favorite was always the "seatbelts kill more people than they save!" line of horseshit that I never bought in to. Yeah, in some instances seatbelts can kill you. If you're wearing one improperly it can cause serious internal injury in an accident.

For example, the numerous idiots around who put the shoulder belt behind them and only wear the waist-belt that cuts you in two? I hate that shit. "It's uncomfortable." Horseshit. I don't even notice it anymore.

In my old GEO Metro the fucking shoulder strap cut into my neck like a bitch. I would have to pull the neck of my shirt up and wrap it under so that my neck wasn't scratched to shit.

[Drewcifer]

A quick search of Google reveals that engine chip mods and performance replacement chips are readily available online and appear to be fairly easy to install.

Back to helmets, how the hell can disregarding safety be considered a freedom? Freedom to clean the gene pool?

Then again, I live in a country where you can buy spray-on freshness and products can be both new and improved. I'm not sure whether Orwell is laughing or crying in his grave...

[Darth Wong]

A quick search of Google reveals that engine chip mods and performance replacement chips are readily available online and appear to be fairly easy to install.

If someone wanted to design a system so that you could not circumvent it easily, he would be able to do so. The fact that they build the control logic onto an easily replaced chip is clearly an indication that they had no particular intention to make it difficult to modify.

Back to helmets, how the hell can disregarding safety be considered a freedom? Freedom to clean the gene pool?

Well, it's like the freedom to drink alcohol or the freedom to smoke cigarettes. Lots of people do it, therefore it's a "right". When you think about how people decide what's a "right", you quickly realize that it's really just about what most people want to be able to do.

That's one of the reasons that the same people who rail against seatbelt laws have no problem outlawing gay marriage, womens' sex toys, or abortion; it's not a freedom they personally expect to ever need, therefore it's not important and not a real "right".

[Napoleon the Clown]

If someone wanted to design a system so that you could not circumvent it easily, he would be able to do so. The fact that they build the control logic onto an easily replaced chip is clearly an indication that they had no particular intention to make it difficult to modify.

Ah, but such cars would suffer in sales. People like driving fast, and if you do something to make it impossible for them they'll just drive something else. Legislating it would be difficult too. Car companies have a lot of economic sway, which easily translates over to political sway. It'd also be a good way to avoid reelection, as a lot of people would get pissed off over not being able to drive recklessly, er fast, anymore.