Ok, so some things in the golden era were not too cool...

[LizzieMaine]

Please let's not get into the drug stuff. It is a very violently sore point with me, and my bile has perked enough for this week as it is.

I think it ought to be illegal to manufacture a car with cupholders or a cell-phone charger. If you want to eat, eat. If you want to yap on a phone, yap on a phone. If you want to drive a car, drive a car. But don't combine them.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

Another thing about the Golden Era that I find totally "not cool" is the involuntary exposure to second hand cigarette and cigar smoke- especially for children. My rant on that subject as to my own childhood (50's and 60's) could fill a few volumes.....but I'll spare the reader.

I remember a Mad Magazine cartoon from many years ago of a kid and his family of heavy smokers. The comic strip depicts the various family activities shrouded by a continuous cloud of secondhand smoke. In the final panel the kid gets sick and the doctor is advising his parents that he won't see twelve if he doesn't quit smoking.

 

[ChiTownScion]

I think it ought to be illegal to manufacture a car with cupholders or a cell-phone charger. If you want to eat, eat. If you want to yap on a phone, yap on a phone. If you want to drive a car, drive a car. But don't combine them.

As I understand it, that's how cars are sold in Germany: sans drink holders. And it reflects that same philosophy: driving demands full concentration, and that is what you're supposed to be focused upon.

Personally, I think the mandates of local condition govern such decisions in the US. Heading west on US 12 outside of Harlowton, MT, is a whole different universe than, say, heading west on US 12 out of Whiting, Indiana. That cup of joe is de minimus when you likely won't see traffic for hours, but it could get you killed in an area where drivers are, to put it politely, more territorial, predatory, and plentiful.

 

[HudsonHawk]

Please let's not get into the drug stuff. It is a very violently sore point with me, and my bile has perked enough for this week as it is.

I think it ought to be illegal to manufacture a car with cupholders or a cell-phone charger. If you want to eat, eat. If you want to yap on a phone, yap on a phone. If you want to drive a car, drive a car. But don't combine them.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to get into drugs specifically, only making the point that you can't have effective laws without the government specifically making violations of those laws illegal. That, and seat belts are one thing, as they really only directly affect the individual who makes that choice (assuming we're not talking about infant car seats and all), but other aspects of driving, such as the cellphones, affect others. It's *not* the government trying to save us from ourselves, it's trying to save us from the yahoos.

 

[buelligan]

I think it ought to be illegal to manufacture a car with cupholders or a cell-phone charger. If you want to eat, eat. If you want to yap on a phone, yap on a phone. If you want to drive a car, drive a car. But don't combine them.

I think thats what Dodge had in mind when it made the cup holders in my old 1998 Dakota, I swear those things were specifically designed to ensure upon turning a corner or a sudden stop you drink would end up landing on the floor completely upside down. It was better at doing that than cats are at landing on their feet.

 

[Vintage lover]

I am one of those people who always felt uneasy when looking at old hospital or medical photos. I would not want to have to rely in medical knowledge and practice from the 1960's back. I must say that I am glad to have never met someone with polio or Spanish flu nor have I ever seen an iron lung in person.

I am also glad to have modern head protection whilst on my motorcycle. While I am completely against helmet laws, I personally use one (which cost me an arm and a leg) about 99% of the time I ride. When T.E. Lawrence died, his attending doctor became a supporter of helmets; claiming that a helmet would of saved Lawrence's life. Even when helmets became more popular, my understanding is that most of them weren't designed to be used on motorcycles, but intended for car racing. Even still, Evel Knievel was a big supporter of helmets, and credited his Bell for saving his life when his jump at Caesar's failed. Vintage helmets really don't hold a flame to the ones available today. The nice thing is that Bell is making the Bullitt now, which had vintage looks and modern protection and visibility.

Also, I am glad to live in a time where the speed limit on the interstate is not 55 MPH. I may or may not shatter the current one every time I get on the freeway, but still! I am going to stop rambling now

 

[LizzieMaine]

In the Era in Maine, a speed above 45mph on any public way was considered prima facie evidence of reckless driving. (And I wouldn't mind seeing that law come back -- most of the roads here today are little changed from the roads of 75 years ago, but are filled with drivers who feel 80mph is too slow...)

 

[Renault]

Speed limits are a fun and funny thing! Folks can get pretty passionate over them. One of my duties for about 12 years was speed zone surveys in our district. In the old days before we had radar units to do the studies, we used two box mirrors set up on roadway and a stopwatch! Time between reflections set at a certain distance. Almost all states use the 85th %tile method to arrive at a speed
Limit on most roads where a max limit is not set.

 

[Fading Fast]

I am one of those people who always felt uneasy when looking at old hospital or medical photos. I would not want to have to rely in medical knowledge and practice from the 1960's back. I must say that I am glad to have never met someone with polio or Spanish flu nor have I ever seen an iron lung in person.

I am also glad to have modern head protection whilst on my motorcycle. While I am completely against helmet laws, I personally use one (which cost me an arm and a leg) about 99% of the time I ride. When T.E. Lawrence died, his attending doctor became a supporter of helmets; claiming that a helmet would of saved Lawrence's life. Even when helmets became more popular, my understanding is that most of them weren't designed to be used on motorcycles, but intended for car racing. Even still, Evel Knievel was a big supporter of helmets, and credited his Bell for saving his life when his jump at Caesar's failed. Vintage helmets really don't hold a flame to the ones available today. The nice thing is that Bell is making the Bullitt now, which had vintage looks and modern protection and visibility.

Also, I am glad to live in a time where the speed limit on the interstate is not 55 MPH. I may or may not shatter the current one every time I get on the freeway, but still! I am going to stop rambling now

Two things, one, while I agree that I wouldn't want to be back in pre-1960s medicine, I really, really, really wouldn't want to be back in pre-1920s / 30s (or so) medicine, when it was more or less butchery and prayer versus science and skill (with obvious exceptions and one-offs).

And this line from your comments, "While I am completely against helmet laws, I personally use one," is awesome and reflects how I feel about most laws that restrict an individual's right to do things that may hurt him or her. I am all in favor of a reasonable balance of laws circumscribing actions that may hurt others (speed limit is a great example - a balance needs to be struck), but if you want to ride your bike without a helmet, that's your choice to make (even though, like you, I wouldn't choose to). I think we had more respect for that type of personal freedom in the Golden Era.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

Two things, one, while I agree that I wouldn't want to be back in pre-1960s medicine, I really, really, really wouldn't want to be back in pre-1920s / 30s (or so) medicine, when it was more or less butchery and prayer versus science and skill (with obvious exceptions and one-offs).

Heck, I wouldn't even want to go back to early 1980s medicine when many contracted AIDS after receiving blood transfusions. This was just before they started to test the blood for HIV.

 

[Zombie_61]

Speed limits are a fun and funny thing...Almost all states use the 85th %tile method to arrive at a speed limit on most roads where a max limit is not set.

Around here I'm convinced the authorities had someone drive down each street at what they believed to be a safe and reasonable speed, and then they set the speed limit 10 miles-per-hour below that.

...And this line from your comments, "While I am completely against helmet laws, I personally use one," is awesome and reflects how I feel about most laws that restrict an individual's right to do things that may hurt him or her. I am all in favor of a reasonable balance of laws circumscribing actions that may hurt others (speed limit is a great example - a balance needs to be struck), but if you want to ride your bike without a helmet, that's your choice to make (even though, like you, I wouldn't choose to). I think we had more respect for that type of personal freedom in the Golden Era.

Here in the U.S., unless you live and ride in Illinois or Iowa you don't have a choice. Well, you do, but at the very least you run the risk of being cited and fined for riding without one.

But helmet and seat belt laws weren't created to prevent people from hurting themselves and/or others...not really. Sure, they were sold to the public under the guise of public safety, but they were really enacted because the state governments were tired of paying a small fortune in medical bills for uninsured cyclists and motorists. Money was the primary motivating factor, not safety. Not that there's anything wrong with that, in this case; lives were saved as well as money. And I know a few motorcyclists who are convinced they're alive today because they were wearing a helmet when they needed to be. There are valid arguments against motorcycle helmets--their weight causing rider fatigue, for example--but seat belts are really only a minor inconvenience when you compare the benefits to the disadvantages (if there are any).

 

[Renault]

Around here I'm convinced the authorities had someone drive down each street at what they believed to be a safe and reasonable speed, and then they set the speed limit 10 miles-per-hour below that.

On residential streets like in neighborhoods, they probably do! Or they use a blannket city council minute order to cover streets with a certain traffic capacity, driveway saturation. Generally all that is required is some kind of "engineering" study. Keep them fairly current, And that would qualify.

 

[Vintage lover]

Here in the U.S., unless you live and ride in Illinois or Iowa you don't have a choice. Well, you do, but at the very least you run the risk of being cited and fined for riding without one.

In New Mexico there aren't any helmet laws for people over the age of 18. We do have a universal seat belt law, which I find rather odd.

@V.C. Brunswick, Lots of the public are still uninformed about AIDS. I remember how my Elementary School actually had somebody with AIDS come in and let us ask him anything. Even after getting a short lesson on it, we weren't sure what to ask. There is an effort to fix the problem, but I just can't imagine how terrifying it's emergence must have been back then.

@Fading Fast, calling pre-1920's medicine butchery is a huge understatement. When Henry VIII needed a limb amputated due to diabetes, none of his doctors dared propose the procedure because it would of been tantamount to proposing regicide. It is a horrific atmosphere when basic hygiene is a new newfangled belief, and calipers were a trade secret.

 

[Stearmen]

Here in the U.S., unless you live and ride in Illinois or Iowa you don't have a choice.

I think this map is up to date. If you are over 21, you do not have to wear a helmet in most states.

 

[Zombie_61]

In New Mexico there aren't any helmet laws for people over the age of 18...

I think this map is up to date. If you are over 21, you do not have to wear a helmet in most states.

I stand corrected. By the way, last I heard the age restriction in Delaware was for riders under the age of 19, so that map is 98% correct.

 

[tonyb]

Should I ever find myself in need of an organ transplant, I'll relocate to a state where riding motorcycles without helmets is legal.

 

[LizzieMaine]

As long as you don't need a brain transplant.

 

[tonyb]

Oh hell, I needed one of those a long time ago. That the old one is still functioning even at this diminished level, considering all it has been through, is testament to ... I dunno, the will to live, I suppose.

 

[tonyb]

But to address the underlying issue ...

I like to think that I will do what's right for myself without it being imposed by law. But then, I'll admit to riding motorcycles sans helmet during the brief period when there was no helmet law in this state. And I didn't routinely use seatbelts until the law mandated it. And I smoked, heavily, until a health crisis finally had me accepting that I wasn't immune to the laws of nature.

 

[Fading Fast]

Away from the individual freedom versus the Nanny State philosophical / political issue - here's an additional challenge I have with laws that "protect" the individual from himself. My father loved smoking; smoked all the time; smoked after his mother, a smoker, got cancer from it and died; smoked well after 1964 when every honest person knew it could kill you, and smoked despite aggressive encouragement from his family to stop. Why did he smoke - because, as said, he loved it. Finally, in the mid-1970s he quit cold-turkey.

Then, in 1990, he died from lung cancer at the age of 64 - described to us by the doctor as classic smoker's lung cancer (I think he had better phraseology). My mother has asked why since - "why didn't he quit sooner?" I always tell her because he didn't want to; because he loved smoking and consciously or subconsciously decided that the risk of cancer was worth the immediate reward of smoking (I am kinder in my manner to my mother, but that is the gist of it).

Say he had quit in 1964 and lived to the age of 82 - would he have been better off or did the pleasure of smoking for another decade or so outweigh the extra years of life? Or say if he had quit in '64 and, then, he had gotten run over by a car in 1993 - he would have given up 10+ years of smoking joy for six more months of life (probably not a trade he would have made).

Only the individual can make his own risk-reward trade off. I hate smoking and hate being around smokers. When I see people smoking my emotional response is - stop, you're killing yourself. Then I remind myself that it is that person's choice to make. How do I know how much they value the joy they get from smoking versus the risk that they will shorten their life? Who am I to decide for them? Only the individual can make that decision.

I have grappled with this, basically, my entire life. And as someone who thinks all public smoking should be banned (now you are talking about hurting others - separate philosophical issue), I can't see any reason that each person shouldn't make that decision for themselves. Same with helmets and seat belts. Now as to the societal risk of hospital expenses etc. - if society chooses to take on the care of others out of charity (which is what our public services purport to be), then it should do it charitably by not then claiming power over the same person to stripped them of their freedom.