Via Fark, the Associated Press reports:

A man tried to use a stun gun to fend off a carjacker and ended up being shot five times.

...While trying to reach for his money, the man also pulled out his stun gun and shocked the carjacker. But the carjacker reacted by shooting the man at least five times, [Atlanta police Sgt. Lisa] Keyes said.

...Keyes stressed the importance of simply giving up the vehicle when confronted by a carjacker.

Bzzt, wrong. The correct answer was: "Quit messing around with Tasers and get a real gun."

The Arab News reports:

MINA, 29 December 2006 — The increased security vigilance in the holy cities has been a headache for motorcycle drivers used to scooting around town without proper paperwork or helmets. This is also the first Haj where motorbikes have been banned from the holy areas of Makkah and Madinah.

As of yesterday, officials have already impounded about 350 motorbikes since heightened security operations began earlier this month, according to an officer who didn’t want to be named.

...At a press conference held in the tent city of Mina at the General Security Headquarters, Maj. Gen. Mansour Al-Turki, Interior Ministry spokesman, said he prefers not to call it a “ban”, but rather simply a way to make the traffic more organized and the safer. [sic]

Of course, just about every year during the Hajj pilgrimage, hundreds of people get trampled to death on foot. If safety is such a concern, perhaps it would be better to call the whole thing off.

More importantly, with this ban, Saudi Arabia now joins China and Nigeria on the list of countries banning motorcycles from certain areas. They are also three of the least-free countries on the planet, with three of the worst human rights records around. Call them the Axle of Evil.

I've never shied away from criticizing China's lack of civil rights and basic human freedoms. But this time, they've gone too far. McClatchy Newspapers reports that city officials in Guangzhou, China are banning motorcycles:

GUANGZHOU, China - When officials decided that swarms of motorcycles and scooters had become a plague on the streets of this huge city, they didn't wobble in their course of action.

The solution? Ban motorcycles.

As of Jan. 1, the city's 260,000 or so registered motorcycles will be forced off the roads. Tens of thousands of people who use the vehicles to make deliveries or otherwise earn livings must turn in their motorcycles or take them out of the city.

Despicable. That's communism for you.

I got my recent speeding ticket in part because I simply didn't notice the rather unobtrusive signs on which the speed limit for that particular road was posted.

I feel pretty sure, however, that I would have noticed the limit and slowed down accordingly if only Tokyo's traffic authorities had used the Danish approach. (Warning: mildly NSFW)

Tokyo should adopt this tactic immediately — lives are at stake! (Found via Helmet Hair)

Via Fark, the Evening Standard reports on another Brit who probably wishes he were allowed to carry a gun.

Liberals like to make fun of the Robert Heinlein saying that "An armed society is a polite society." There are plenty of arms in Iraq, they'll say, and things don't seem too polite over there.

Yeah, well Iraq is in a state of war. London isn't. And if Londoners were allowed to carry any sort of weapons — guns, knives, pepper spray — for their personal defense, I'd bet we'd be seeing a lot less of this sort of thuggery. (Via Instapundit)

FOLLOW-UP:
Here's a disturbing video of another Brit who would have been better off shooting a gun instead of a camera.

I got a dreaded "red ticket" (actually pink) today for going 87 km/h in a 50 km/h zone. That may sound like a lot, but it was actually quite a reasonable speed given the road and the conditions. I've ridden at that speed on that road hundreds of times with no consequence. Now I have to attend a one-day class on safe driving, plus I received a whopping 6 points on my license.

Unfortunately, there was no bowing my way out of this one: A platoon of cops had set up a little ticket-giving operation by the side of the road, registering your speed with a radar gun, and printing it out on the ticket as proof. And since practically everyone exceeds the 50 km/h limit, the cops were giving out tickets as fast as they could pull people over and process them. At a bike shop later on, someone told me the cops always set up these "ticket traps" toward the end of the year, to meet quotas and earn bonuses.

When I had tried to get the cop to let me off with a warning, he pointed to a thick stack of receipts from tickets he'd already written for other people that morning, and said, "If I let you go, it wouldn't be fair to them."

Maybe not. But it's not fair to suddenly and strictly enforce a rule that everyone regularly ignores, either.

Via TokyoTom (who found it linked here), the Telegraph reports:

Most traffic lights should be torn up as they make roads less safe, one of Europe's leading road engineers said yesterday.

Hans Monderman, a traffic planner involved in a Brussels-backed project known as Shared Space, said that taking lights away helped motorists, cyclists and pedestrians to co-exist more happily and safely.

..."It works well because it is dangerous, which is exactly what we want. But it shifts the emphasis away from the Government taking the risk, to the driver being responsible for his or her own risk.

Wow. That's an article tailor-made for this blog if ever I saw one. Thanks, TT. Unfortunately, despite the apparent success of the above program, I doubt the EU will drop its regulate-everything mentality any time soon.

At TheTruthAboutCars.com (which is a great site even if it is about cars), Robert Farago has a nice little piece about the unintended negative impact of excessively strict, and excessively enforced, speed limits in England:

The national government has “ring fenced” the money generated by speeding tickets: mandating that local “safety camera partnerships” must spend the revenue from speed enforcement on speed enforcement. This supposedly virtuous circle has led to an explosion of speed cameras, a huge increase in speeding tickets and a very nasty unintended consequence. Just as Prohibition eroded the American public’s respect for law and law enforcement, the United Kingdom’s extremely effective anti-speeding jihad has undermined the public’s respect for the police.

At the risk of alienating road safety-minded readers, many of whom have suffered personal losses from traffic fatalities, the issue of the public’s faith in its police force is far more important than speed-related road safety. When a law criminalizes a behavior practiced by the majority of its citizens, it criminalizes its citizens. When the police rigorously enforce this law, hypocritically enough, the public comes to resent the police.

I believe that speed limits are mostly useless, especially on wide-open highways. People drive (or ride) at a speed that's safe given the road conditions at the time, not because of some law, but because they don't want to die. And the reckless daredevils who blast along at unsafe speeds aren't going to obey the law anyway.

Big Ben emailed yesterday to say that Japan is soliciting comments from the public on its horrible new parking law. He writes:

I wish I had heard about this earlier, since the deadline is tomorrow. It's not like they went out of their way to tell anybody about it or anything.

Indeed. Here's a link with information on how to share your opinion on the law with the powers that be. Today's the deadline, though, so whip out that Japanese dictionary and get cracking.

The traffic cops (not parking inspectors, but actual police officers) were out in force today. It seemed like every major intersection had a motorcycle cop stationed at it, just waiting to nab people for the slightest offense. While riding around town doing errands, I myself was pulled over twice — once near Shibuya and once near Roppongi. Both times, my offence was grave: moving my scooter between or around lanes of cars to get to the head of the line at a red light. (Apparently, this is legal in some places and illegal in others. I think the rule is that you can't do it where there's a yellow line between lanes instead of a white one.)

Anyway, I talked my way out of both tickets. I've talked my way out of tickets before, but never two in one day. Man, I'm good.

I've blogged quite a bit about Tokyo's new parking restrictions, but I had never seen the parking inspectors in action — until today.

I was having brunch at a sidewalk cafe with the Tokyo Riders. Our bikes were lined up at the edge of the sidewalk — not bothering a soul, as the streets were pretty much empty. Then, suddenly, we noticed two elderly men with clipboards and construction worker-style reflective vests heading toward us.

Fearing the worst, one of our group rushed over to talk to them. Here's a shot of him fighting the power:


"They're going to ticket us unless we move our bikes," he yelled back. So we got up, moved our bikes a few feet off the public sidewalk and onto a private plaza — outside the inspectors' jurisdiction — and went on with our brunch. The elderly inspectors walked on, satisfied that they had managed to have some effect on the outside world, even if only an annoying and inconsequential one.

I used to think the only purpose of the new restrictions was to raise money for the government through fines. But now I see it has another purpose: giving aimless oldsters something to bother people about besides how they sort their garbage.

I wrote the following as a comment here, but I've been meaning to blog about it for two weeks now, so I'm repeating it as a full post.

I actually lucked out and got a parking pass for the underground parking at the office building across the street — even though they're supposed to be for people in that building only.

Basically, my clever technique involved asking the kindly ojiisan running the parking area if I could have a pass. It went down like this:

ME: I'd like a parking pass, please.

KINDLY OJIISAN: Sure, what company do you work for?

ME: [Company name].

KO: Are they in this building?

ME: No, we're right across the street.

KO: Oh, sorry then, but parking is for people in this building only.

ME: I see... I really need to find a parking space because of the new law.

KO: Yeah, I know. [beat] Here, have a pass anyway.

The KO got several of my most heartfelt bows in return. Which, indeed, may be why he gave me the pass. In another country, he might have wanted a bribe. But here, the chance to get a little respect was all it took.

The Kneeslider, via Instapundit, spotted a fascinating Wall Street Journal "Review and Outlook" piece. It reports that as America's highway speed limits have increased, the rate of injuries from car crashes and accidents has gone down:

In 2005, according to new data from the National Highway Safety Administration, the rate of injuries per mile traveled was lower than at any time since the Interstate Highway System was built 50 years ago. The fatality rate was the second lowest ever, just a tick higher than in 2004.

As a public policy matter, this steady decline is a vindication of the repeal of the 55 miles per hour federal speed limit law in 1995.

Read the whole thing, including the amusing predictions of doom and destruction by opponents of the repeal back in 1995. And here's a chart from the article showing the decline in fatalities, injuries, and crashes per vehicle mile traveled.

Sure, we need government for certain things, but we don't need it to micromanage every aspect of our lives. People generally drive at safe speeds not because the government tells them to, but because they don't want to damage their car or injure themselves. In other words, most people are smart — smart enough to avoid traffic accidents, anyway. Sure, some aren't. But the freedom of an entire people should not be restricted to a level suitable only for the most reckless or foolhardy among them. It's a point I've made before in posts like this one, this one, and this one.

The WSJ piece concludes:

We are often told, by nanny-state advocates, that such public goods as safety require a loss of liberty. In the case of speed limits and traffic deaths, that just isn't so.

It rarely is.

FOLLOW-UP:
The 55 miles per hour limit might have been an unnecessary limit on personal freedom, but why didn't it at least reduce traffic accidents? The Kneeslider offers an explanation:

With safer roads and not having to constantly be on the lookout for radar speed traps, ready to jam on the brakes at a moment’s notice, people could actually relax and drive.

One of his commenters adds:

one thing that speeders and non-speeders alike ignore is the fact that if all traffic is moving at about the same speed it is safer. so you raise the speed limit and people that previously went slow merely because they didn’t want a ticket now drive at the same speed as the rest of the traffic, which is safer.

Pundits often accuse government of being ineffectual. That's too kind. Often, it makes things worse.

Mutantfrog emailed me a link to this Taipei Times story about Taiwanese bikers demanding the freedom to ride the country's roads:

More than 1,500 motorcycle owners from across the nation yesterday took to the streets of Taipei on their bikes yesterday, demanding that the government establish a clear timetable for opening more highways for bikers.

The demonstrators rode their motorcycles to Taipei City Hall and the Legislative Yuan, while chanting "Return our road rights" and "Bikers aren't criminals" in front of the two buildings, led by the spokesman for more than 68 motorcycle dealerships across the country, Chen Feng-yun (陳豐運).

The demonstration was the 12th major public event organized by motorcycle dealerships since the country's first motorcycle protest — also led by Chen — in 2003.

Motorcycles with an engine capacity of more than 150cc did not become legal until Taiwan joined the WTO four years ago, but the right to drive them on various highways has been granted grudgingly.

Read the whole thing. It's just another example of bikers getting involved in the political process when their rights are threatened.

I've blogged before about how bikers, with their tight focus on specific issues, can be a powerful political force. And when Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm vetoed a repeal of the state's helmet law, some of them weren't very happy.

Now, the Oakland Press reports that one anti-helmet-law group, ABATE (American Bikers Aimed Toward Education), just might sway the Michigan gubernatorial election coming up on November 7th:

It didn't take long for the motorcycle group ABATE to cast an endorsement for Republican Dick DeVos after Gov. Jennifer Granholm vetoed legislation that would have allowed bikers to ride without helmets under certain conditions.

Whether it can sway the election is debatable.

"With the passage of time, they have become much better organized, much more aggressive," said Bill Ballenger, editor of Inside Michigan Politics and a former state lawmaker.

Ballenger cited the 17,000-vote win for John Engler in the 1990 governor's race and the 5,800-vote win for Attorney General Mike Cox four years ago.

"They really go after people in primary elections," Ballenger said. "They've become much more of a force. The question is: Can they make a difference in the general election? The jury is still out on that. They could be a factor, but it's going to take a very close election."

Organization and a deep personal stake in the issue at hand certainly help explain why Michigan's bikers are having such an impact on politics. But another reason may be that they simply don't like other people telling them what they can and can't do with their own lives.

Sure, in the big picture, being forced to wear a helmet is a pretty trivial infringement of one's personal liberties. But it's an infringement all the same, and ABATE members have decided they won't stand for it. When bikers say they like the feeling of freedom, they're not just talking about the wind in their hair.

Here's a picture of my scooter parked on the sidewalk in Shinagawa — illegally, under Japan's new parking restrictions:


As you can see, it's blocking the way, creating a hazard for innocent pedestrians.

(Note: This photo is for illustrative purposes only. I would never condone such thoughtless, criminal behavior.)

At Best of the Web, James Taranto uses the headline "World's Smallest Violin" for news items about the supposed harships of people for whom one is unlikely to feel much sympathy. Michelle Malkin does the same thing, using "Boo Freaking Hoo" to describe, say, UN complaints that the US undermines it with criticism.

I may have to come up with an equivalent phrase of my own to connote my utter lack of concern for Japan's parking inspectors, who, according to the Mainichi Shimbun, are facing difficult working conditions:

Shinji Fukuda, 57, and Ryuji Murakami, 60, are among the ranks of parking inspectors in Tokyo. In a recent day's work, they arrived by bus at a busy area in front of JR Kameido Station in Tokyo's Koto-ku, 2.2 kilometers away from the police station that sent them.

The workers immediately spotted two vehicles parked at an intersection in front of the station. But in the moment they took their eyes off one of the vehicles, it was gone.

...Work regulations are strict, and the workers are not even allowed to buy juice from vending machines during their shifts. Their 30-minute break during their second shift ended after they had drunk a sports drink at an office near the police station.

The two workers belong to a cooperative association under the jurisdiction of the Tokyo Metropolitan Government's Transportation Bureau, which was commissioned by police to carry out inspections. Murakami, who began working as a parking inspector in June, swapped his leather shoes for sneakers after he began to suffer knee pain from the job. Fukuda, who formerly worked in an office, suffers from back pain.

Oh, the humanity!

The Associated Press reports that Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm has now vetoed a bill that would have repealed her state's motorcycle helmet law, saying "On this issue, the evidence is clear: Motorcycle helmets save lives and reduce serious injury." But as I've noted here and here, it's not so clear at all.

Granholm also made an economic argument, saying that the cost of treating helmetless riders' head injuries would be too high. But if helmetless riders are really so much more likely to die in crashes than helmet-wearing riders, the medical costs of treating them should be lower, on average, since you can't treat a dead person. In fact, it might actually be the case that helmets increase health care costs by letting riders survive impacts that by all rights should have killed them instantly. But that possibility doesn't appear to have been considered by Gov. Granholm, who saw an opportunity to limit the freedom of adults in Michigan, and took it.

Here is the original Florida Today report cited in the Associated Press article I discussed in this previous post, about media coverage of the impact of the repeal of Florida's motorcycle helmet law.

Florida Today actually did a marginally better job of reporting the data accurately than the Associated Press did. Here's the key part:

A FLORIDA TODAY analysis of federal crash statistics for Florida revealed a drastic upward spike in motorcycle fatalities involving riders without helmets since the repeal took effect. Annual statewide "unhelmeted" fatalities mushroomed from 22 deaths in both 1998 and 1999 to 250 deaths in 2004, the most recent data available.

That represents an 11-fold increase. By comparison, 270 Florida riders without helmets were killed during the entire 1990s, when the practice was illegal.

But by the same token, motorcycle registrations shot upward 87 percent since the helmet repeal took effect. Annual registrations increased from 238,229 to 445,896 from 2000-04, the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles reported.

Total Florida motorcycle fatalities have increased statewide since the helmet law's repeal. The yearly death toll leaped from 259 in 2000 to 432 in 2004 — a 67 percent jump — National Highway Traffic Safety Administration data shows.

The Florida Today story seems to indirectly acknowledge that it's the legalization of helmetless riding that's responsible for the rise in helmetless deaths. It also reports the actual data for the rise in motorcycle registrations, and pretty much admits (with the phrase "But by the same token...") that this increase is responsible for the rise in total deaths.

However, it stops short of admitting that registrations have increased much more rapidly than deaths. Using data from this chart and this chart from the Florida Today article, I calculate that there were 139 rider deaths per 100,000 motorcycle registrations in 1999, the year before the helmet law was repealed. Yet in 2004, the last year for which full data are available, the rider death rate had declined to just 97 per 100,000.

If you ask me, that's the real story: Why has riding a motorcycle in Florida apparently gotten safer since the repeal of the helmet law? There are lots of possible explanations — bikes are becoming more reliable, riders are getting more training, people are registering bikes yet not riding them very much — but the reporter seems unwilling to even ask the question.

FOLLOW-UP:
Errors like this have a way of spreading as one newspaper cites another, growing less and less accurate in the process. For example, here's a self-righteous editorial from the Walla Walla, Washington Union-Bulletin, which cites the Florida Today report with regard to the increase in rider deaths, but doesn't even mention the much larger percentage increase in bike registrations.