The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Righting Religion

2.21.07 @ 12:01AM

MEGAN BASHAM REPLIES
Re: "unsigned"'s letter (under "Culture Wars") in Reader Mail's The Real Democrats and Megan Basham's Blogging With Bile:

First, the Edwards camp chose these two bloggers precisely because of their popularity among the far left base -- this indicates that their views are supported by enough people that they caught the attention of a national presidential campaign, and that makes what they wrote very relevant.

Second, though I wasn't speaking specifically of higher education, but rather of the party leaders they produce, classes on university campuses that "honor Buddha and Allah" while disparaging Christ abound. (Political science, history, and literature classes jump most readily to mind. Math and Science courses are, I believe, for the most part still safe.) My intent was to briefly describe the Republican Party before grassroots Christian organizations had begun to wield influence within it.

Finally, I do not argue anywhere in my column for the suppression of hate speech against evangelicals or Catholics. And at no point did I suggest that legislators or the courts do anything to mitigate Marcotte et al.'s bigotry. In fact, I clearly said there is nothing we can do about such attitudes except reach out on a personal basis to those who espouse them.

I wonder: does the writer who wishes to remain anonymous think that African-Americans who object to racist opinions are trying to impose their views on others?
-- Megan Basham

Mr. "Unsigned" seems not to want anyone to suggest a "specific set of religious beliefs" should "influence government policy." Too late for that....the Founding Fathers framed their documents and based our laws on a specific set of religious beliefs. He seems to have overlooked that minor detail.
-- Sue Gray
Roswell, Georgia

HELMET COOL
Re: Reid Collins's Decider Rider:

The helmet law debate is typically one of personal freedom vs. public expense. But this debate rarely considers the motorcycle helmet's meager percentage of effectiveness. Nor does it consider precisely why motorcycle helmet laws save lives, which they indeed do. Underneath it all, however, there seems to be a double standard when it comes to public perception and motorcycle safety.

The primary reason that helmet laws save lives is because they discourage riding, far more than by any other factor. This is backed up by DMV data from states that switched from one side to the other on helmet laws. While new motorcycle registrations will stall or even drop under the shadow of a helmet law, the percentage of motorcycle accident victims killed remains essentially unchanged. And there is no direct measurement that indicates an actual reduction of risk to the rider.

If there were a mandatory helmet law for convertibles, you'd see the same effect. As with motorcycles, gross fatality totals could "prove" that helmet laws save convertible drivers' lives as well as the public's dollars. But the real lifesavers would be garaged convertibles -- gathering dust and rust. Yet stubborn convertible drivers would face exactly the same degree of risk out on the road, with or without a helmet law. And convertible helmet law advocates would be just as wrong as the current bucket brigade.

When mandatory helmet laws come into force, there is less incentive to buy or ride a motorcycle. Conversely, encumbered riders flock to bordering states that let them choose. And many touring riders conspicuously avoid spending time and money in states with mandatory helmet laws. With fewer bikes, there are fewer fatalities. It's that simple, and the data is indisputable.

But what about the actual benefits of wearing a helmet? According to accident data from NHTSA, helmet laws reduce gross fatalities without reducing risk to riders. For starters, helmets don't prevent accidents, and riders in accidents almost always get injured. So helmets come into the equation only after an accident happens. Yet about 3 percent of riders in accidents get killed, regardless of whether there's a mandatory helmet law in effect. If helmets were as effective as seatbelts are, you'd see a stark difference. But it just isn't there.

Let's suppose that helmets really are the magic bullet they're cracked up to be. Why stop at motorcyclists, who account for less than one-tenth of all serious head injuries? There are slightly more pedestrian fatalities. Our senior citizens are notorious for conking their noggins, too. In fact, there are several groups that account for more than motorcycle accident victims. But reporters never cap off these stories with "and he wasn't wearing a helmet." Who'da thunk it?

Auto accident victims account for the lion's share of serious head injuries -- almost half of the total. And using NHTSA's own prediction formula, we'd save five times as many lives by mandating helmets for automobile drivers. But there's a reason that nobody is clamoring for helmets in cars or crosswalks. It's because helmet laws are okay as long as they apply to the "other guy."

Non-riders -- people who can't even drive a motorcycle around a parking lot without crashing -- are often self-styled experts on motorcycle safety. And these same people are overwhelmingly in favor of mandatory helmet laws. Perhaps it's because they think motorcyclists are crazy enough to ride at all, and are therefore in need of adult supervision. Or perhaps it's because they remember seeing a couple of Darwinian nut cases on bikes, but don't seem to notice the thousands of responsible riders on the road.

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Education, Business, Religion, Abortion, Global Warming, Constitution, Law, Founding Fathers, NATO, Africa, Energy