Bike Helmets

The news article, "Helmet law battle revived," Feb. 25, states that the pro-helmet supporters have "statistics" which show that the helmet law "saved" 11 lives and that the number of motorcyclists admitted to the Maryland Shock Trauma Center with serious head injuries decreased by 17 percent.

While I do not dispute that there were 11 less motorcycle fatalities or that Shock Trauma cases decreased, I do question whether all the statistics were taken into account. I do not feel that these reductions should automatically be attributed to a mandatory helmet law.

I did not see any mention in the article of motorcycle usage in our state. Did it decrease because of the helmet law? If so, could this not account for a reduction in fatalities?

Did more people attend a motorcycle safety course during the last year? With or without helmets, if people operate their vehicle in a more defensive and responsible manner, there should be a drop in accidents.

There was also one figure not mentioned which cannot be easily calculated, and that is the percentage of freedom that every citizen of our state loses when government imposes restrictions on those citizens in matters of personal choice.

Gov. William Donald Schaefer has promised to veto a repeal bill if it reaches his desk. There are many taxpaying voters in this state who hope that our next governor will not carry such restrictive attitudes about personal freedoms into office when the next term starts.

Steven P. Strohmier

Dundalk

Earth Park

The Sun Feb. 22 printed a brief story about the doom overpopulation allegedly will cause to the world by 2100. My recommendation is to take this with a large grain of salt.

Such doomsaying stories proclaim that the end of the world will be caused by pollution, overpopulation, famine or lack of natural resources.

Of these four dooms, the first three are merely aspects of the fourth. Wealth, which is founded on natural resources, negates the first three "dooms."

In short, if everyone on the earth could be made as wealthy as the average American, most of these "dooms" would prove illusory.

Achieving that worldwide prosperity would take immense amounts of natural resources, and David Pimentel, the article's doomsayer, would no doubt argue quite correctly that such quantities of resources are not available on the earth.

That is where his argument collapses. We have not been limited to the earth in our search for resources since Oct. 4, 1957, the day the Soviet Union launched Sputnik.

Both manned and unmanned missions since then have proven that human beings can survive in space and that the solar system contains everything needed for all sorts of industrial activity: metal ores (even pure metals), organic compounds, water and, most importantly, an inexhaustible energy source -- that vast, unshielded fusion reactor called the sun.

If we wanted to, we could by 2100 move out into earth or lunar orbit all of our industry, even perhaps our agriculture, and turn the earth into a park.

Incredible? Yes, but no more so than computers, interstate highways, supersonic aircraft and manned landings on the moon would have been to our great-grandparents in 1894.

Amos Hale Adams

Baltimore

Get Back

Mike Littwin's recent column (Jan. 23) regarding a reunion of the three surviving Beatles was the ultimate in selfishness. Not everyone got to experience Beatlemania the first time around.

Because of a quirky twist of fate, I missed the beginning of Beatlemania -- in fact, the whole phenomenon. I wasn't born until the summer of 1964. It wasn't until 10 years later that I became a fan, and that was obviously too late.

I was 16 in 1980 when John Lennon was murdered, and I grieved just as the older fans did. I knew then that a full Beatles reunion would never, ever occur.

I did, though, hold out hope for the other three. I was lucky enough to see Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr in concert, though individually.

Hope of a Beatles reunion has been --ed countless times for me over the past 20 years. Despite the loss of John, I still crave the chance to see George, Paul and Ringo together again -- whether in the studio or live.

Would a reunion be the same? No. Even with John, it would not be the same. Would John be missed? Absolutely.

But please don't deny the rest of us, who missed Beatlemania the first time, the joy of seeing the Beatles together again, in any incarnation.

Kendra Roberts

Catonsville

Radar Detectors

Once again there is talk of making radar detectors illegal. One would suspect that any device designed, manufactured and sold for the only possible purpose to circumvent (read "break") the law should be illegal.

However, in defense of the thousands now in use, the following must be considered:

Our speed laws are set at a maximum of 55 m.p.h., with the logic that, we are told, if upped to 60, average speeds would increase from the present 70 to 80. The only way to keep traffic at 70 is to announce 55. Ridiculous!

It has been suggested that speed laws be posted at realistic limits and that these limits be enforced. Fifty-five should mean 55 as 65 should, we hope, mean 65.

A $10 fine for every mile over should show that the state and the voters mean business. Those not trusting the accuracy of their speedometers would learn to take a few miles off their speed.

There follows the argument that our present radar is not capable of recognizing the difference between 65 and 70.

This, too, is ridiculous. We know a hand-held radar can detect a tiny baseball at 96 mph. Are we to believe that a car-mounted device cannot detect a two-ton automobile at 66?

Signs welcoming motorists to Maryland announce SPEED STRICTLY ENFORCED. Such a boast evokes more pathos than humor, and is (or should be) an embarrassment to every Marylander.

Richard G. Ballard

Sparks

Flat Tire Turns into Mind-Blowing Experience

I recently had an experience which renewed my faith in people and society.

I was returning from a weekend in Washington, when my tire blew out. As a graduate student at the Johns Hopkins University and as a "competent woman of the '90s," I decided that I could surely change my tire.

So what if I had never changed a tire before? I had watched people change tires in the past; how difficult could it be?

I popped my trunk and located the spare tire and the lug wrench, no trouble. But I could not figure out how to release the jack.

Five minutes later, I was still standing on the shoulder, waving my arms frantically for help, when a large Harley Davidson pulled over and a leather-bound man in his mid-40s sauntered over.

Unfortunately, he told me, he had a bad back and therefore couldn't help me change my tire. However, he volunteered to call AAA. My jaw dropped as he reached into one of his many pockets and withdrew a cellular phone.

He told me that it was his first opportunity to ride his Harley since he hurt his back.

When he managed to get through to the dispatcher, she told him I would have to wait for an hour and a half because they were so busy. He volunteered to wait with me, but after thanking him, I sent him on his ride.

After about a half hour, a car pulled up and a goateed young man (who I later discovered had attended JHU as an undergrad and currently attended UMBC as a graduate student) stepped out. He told me I was being silly waiting for help. He freed the jack and began the rather uncomplicated job of changing my tire, explaining each step to me as he went along.

Just as he was finishing, the Harley rider returned. And he brought me lunch!

I couldn't believe it. Both men's kindness and generosity amazed me. It really renewed my faith in the inherent goodness of people.

If the men who assisted me happen to read this letter, thank you both again. I hope to repay your kindness one day by helping someone else.

Loren J. Weiss

Baltimore