An article on the Bangornews.com website supports a proposed helmet law for the state of Maine. Written by the anonymous “Bangornews.com Staff”, who could be a group of high school interns, it makes a lot of assertions and concludes the bill should be supported. End of story. So, what’s the connection to flying saucers?
People who fervently believe flying saucers exist, will tell tales of sightings and close encounters and quote others who have had the same experience. There’s no need to examine the evidence presented because they already know it’s true. Those who disagree are dismissed as beyond hope as the writers, from their elevated position, can so clearly see. Random statistics from an arbitrary period of time will support their claim, relating those statistics to other longer or different periods isn’t done because, well, … because. But most importantly, no matter how many times someone else examines and demolishes the stories and assertions, another believer will spring up making the same claims as though the previous disproof never took place. It gets old and tiring.
This article begins citing some judges from 30 years ago who claim injured motorcyclists cost everyone a lot of public money. Why motorcyclists were singled out isn’t clear since the same could be said of automobile drivers and since many more drivers are hurt in cars, the numbers there are much higher.
The number of activities where head injuries could be reduced if everyone had to wear a helmet is huge. Why is there no outcry to mandate helmets for downhill skiers or horseback riders? Automobile drivers themselves would benefit if they had to wear helmets but there are far too many drivers for a politician to propose that, better to attack a smaller group and score points with the constituents to show his concern for safety and of course the regulations won’t apply to most so it’s easier to pass laws like that.
The article cites 22 people were killed in motorcycle accidents, the highest number in a decade. Highest by how much? One? And what is the long term trend, down? And when a period from 1991 to 2003 is cited, why? Ever see a stock promoted by someone selectively citing statistics on upward movement in a down market when a longer trend shows just the opposite?
The article continues with many “estimates” of money and lives that could have been saved. How were those numbers generated? Pulled from thin air? (Over 50% of the population has been abducted by aliens and doesn’t know it! Something must be done!)
To show their balanced view, they cite the AMA’s view that helmets don’t prevent accidents and quickly dismiss it with a figurative “So what?” and just forge ahead to their conclusion the bill should be supported,… because they said so.
Well, pardon me.