PittGirl needs an explanation.

I don’t get it:

It is perfectly okay in PA to ride a motorcycle with no helmet (Hiya, Benny) but the police want to make it so they can pull over people encased in cars if the passengers appear not to have a seat belt on?

I’m all for the seat belt law and I wear my seat belt, but I don’t understand why one is okay by cops and the other is not.


  1. john altdorfer
    March 13, 2006 11:38 am

    For the life of me, I can’t figure out that one either. Only thing that comes to mind is that if you have a wreck at 50 mph or more on a bike, there aren’t many possibilities outside of death. Wearing seat belts in a car can greatly reduced the likely hood of death and serious injury during high speed crashes. But hey, if a biker can decide not to wear a helmet barrelling down the interstate, why can’t I drive to the Giant Eagle unbelted? Actually, I always wear a belt when I drive, plus a helmet to protect myself from any bikers who might crash through my windshield.

  2. Anonymous
    March 13, 2006 5:13 pm

    Quite simply – the seatbelt law is just as unconstitutional as the helmet law was, however, bikers were willing to take a stand and fight it, motorists are not.

  3. john altdorfer
    March 13, 2006 6:02 pm

    Actually, since operating a motor vehicle is a privilege granted by the state (it’s not a right), then the state might just be able to make the rules about who wears what.

    Taking a stand? Who knows. Maybe there are better fights to worry about than letting your freak flag fly when you ride.

  4. Amos_thePokerCat
    March 14, 2006 7:52 pm

    Actually, anonymous is right. The WSJ did an article about helmet laws last year. Moral: Be organized, hire a lobbyist.

    Are there better fights? Eh. I will take any win at rolling back .GOV, any where, anytime I can.