Readers Split on Bill to Ease Motorcycle Helmet Use & Vehicle Inspections

In the recent non-scientific Sunday Poll neither side got more than half the votes — a lot were like me — in the middle.

Q: Should Gov Parsons sign the bill relaxing motorcycle helmet requirements, vehicle inspections; raise registration & license fees?

• Definitely yes! 2 [6.45%]
• Yes: 2 [6.45%]
• Hmm, I suppose: 7 [22.58%]
• Neither yes or no: 4 [12.9%]
• Hmm, I don’t think so: 2 [6.45%]
• No: 3 [9.68%]
• Definitely not! 10 [32.26%]
• Unsure/No Answer: 1 [3.23%]

I don’t think motorcycle riders should be allowed to ride without a helmet. If signed, the law would allow those with health insurance to ride sans helmet. Will those without health insurance continue to wear a helmet, or will they ride without knowing it’s unlikely they’ll get stopped?  I’m also a fan of vehicle inspections, even though they’re a pain. These can find problems that should be fixed for the safety of everyone else.

I do like that the bill will permit left turns onto one-way streets — basically because everyone already does it.

— Steve Patterson

Sunday Poll: Should Gov Parsons Sign Bill To Ease Motorcycle Helmet & Vehicle Inspection Requirements; Increase Vehicle Registration Fees?

A bill on the desk of Missouri Gov Parsons, if signed by July 14th, would change a number of things, including:

• Allow motorcyclists 18 and older, with health insurance, to ride without having to wear a helmet.
• Cars 5-10 years old, with less than 150,000 miles, would no longer need safety inspections every two years. Vehicles older than 10 years or with 150k miles would still need state inspection. No mention of emissions testing.
• Increase vehicle registration and drivers license fess.
• Allow a left turn on a red light. Currently Missouri law doesn’t permit these turns. I blogged about this in 2015, see Left Turn On Red Not Allowed In Missouri.

This bill on the governor’s desk is the subject of today’s poll.

Today’s poll will close at 8pm.

— Steve Patterson

Readers Not OK With Legislators Introducing “Bait” Bills

When I first read about a Missouri legislator’s bills requiring gun ownership I quickly became upset. I became more upset when I read he’d introduced them to “bait the left.” Then I remembered applauding when I heard about a bill in Georgia:

HB 604 would amend Chapter 1 of Title 35 of the Official Code of Georgia so that “any male 55 years of age or older shall immediately report to the county sheriff or local law enforcement agency when such male releases sperm from his testicles.”

The bill was sponsored by five female Democratic representatives, including Rep. Dar’Shun Kendrick (D-Lithonia). 

Kendrick made waves online after she tweeted she intended to introduce a “testicular bill of rights” that would seek to regulate male sex organs. It was in response to the House’s passage of HB 481, dubbed the “heartbeat abortion bill,” that would ban abortion after a fetal heartbeat is detected – usually at around 6 weeks. (WCNC)

Most likely this is a case of people object to such bills when they’re opposed to the point being made. Although the Georgia bill is in response to other legislation that had passed, that’s not the case with the Missouri bills.

Here are the non-scientific results of the recent Sunday Poll:

Agree or disagree: I’m OK with legislators introducing bills simply to “bait” those with opposing views.

• Strongly agree: 1 [3.57%]
• Agree: 2 [7.14%]
• Somewhat agree: 1 [3.57%]
• Neither agree or disagree: 2 [7.14%]
• Somewhat disagree: 2 [7.14%]
• Disagree: 5 [17.86%]
• Strongly disagree: 15 [53.57%]
• Unsure/No Answer: 0 [0%]

— Steve Patterson

Readers Skeptical About Major Earthquake in Their Lifetimes

Earthquakes happen all the time, we just don’t feel them. I’m nearly 52 and have never felt an earthquake.

My oldest brother was living in the San Francisco Bay Area during the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake, my other brother was living in the Los Angeles area during the 1994 Northridge Earthquake. A close personal friend was living in Seattle during the 2001 Nisqually Earthquake. My relatives in Oklahoma have all felt their frequent, but minor, earthquakes. I’d be ok with never feeling one, but that time may come.

Here in St. Louis we’re part of at least two seismic zones:

With the New Madrid fault just a hundred miles south of St. Louis, it’s long been known that the region is at a greater risk for an earthquake than other parts of the Midwest. But new research indicates that St. Louis is part of an area that has seismic activity of its own.

Geologists have identified a new seismic zone stretching from St. Louis to Cape Girardeau along the Mississippi River called the Ste. Genevieve Seismic Zone. Their research indicates that the zone is capable of producing moderate earthquakes every few decades and has the potential to produce a major earthquake every 2,000 to 4,000 years.

“It’s a roll of the dice, right. If you’re unlucky, it could happen in your lifetime. The odds are not high,” Indiana University Geologist Gary Pavlis said.

A moderate earthquake measures about a magnitude 5 on the Richter scale. Pavlis said they can be felt but would only dislodge a few bricks here and there.

While the Ste. Genevieve Seismic Zone may not produce anything major in our lifetimes, the same can’t be said of the New Madrid Seismic Zone. OK, someone who’s 90 might not see the big one in their lifetimes, but those in your 20s may. It might happen next week.

There is broad agreement in the scientifc community that a continuing concern exists for a major destructive earthquake in the New Madrid seismic zone. Many structures in Memphis, Tenn., St. Louis, Mo., and other communities in the central Mississippi River Valley region are vulnerable and at risk from severe ground shaking. This assessment is based on decades of research on New Madrid earthquakes and related phenomena by dozens of Federal, university, State, and consulting earth scientists. (USGS)

Those in floodplain areas might experience the worst of it, because of liquefaction of the soil.

In the recent non-scientific poll more than half don’t expect the big one to hit St. Louis in their lifetimes:

Q: Agree or disagree: A major earthquake will “wreck” St. Louis in my lifetime.

• Strongly agree: 3 [10.71%]
• Agree: 2 [7.14%]
• Somewhat agree: 7 [25%]
• Neither agree or disagree: 1 [3.57%]
• Somewhat disagree: 3 [10.71%]
• Disagree: 6 [21.43%]
• Strongly disagree: 3 [10.71%]
• Unsure/No Answer: 3 [10.71%]

Hopefully they’re correct.

— Steve Patterson

Readers Split on Missouri Hyperloop

My grandfathers saw many new things during their lifetimes. Both were born in the 19th century, 1886 & 1899. Transportation changed dramatically during their lifetimes. With that in mind, I’d like to think the hyperloop concept can become a reality in my lifetime.

A Hyperloop is a proposed mode of passenger and/or freight transportation, first used to describe an open-source vactrain design released by a joint team from Tesla and SpaceX. Drawing heavily from Robert Goddard’s vactrain, a hyperloop is a sealed tube or system of tubes through which a pod may travel free of air resistance or friction conveying people or objects at high speed while being very efficient.

Elon Musk’s version of the concept, first publicly mentioned in 2012, incorporates reduced-pressure tubes in which pressurized capsules ride on air bearings driven by linear induction motors and axial compressors. (Wikipedia)

Being among the first in the world to have a hyperloop, St. Louis to Kansas City, is great for the imagination. We spent 2 nights last weekend in Kansas City, I drove all but about 45 minutes of the round trip. The idea of getting there in a half hour rather than nearly four hours is incredibly appealing. The boost to both regions, and to Columbia MO at the halfway point, would be huge.

The skeptic in me, however, takes over my brain — kicking aside the dreamer who’d go to KC just for lunch. The season 4 episode of The Simpsons called Marge Vs The Monorail keeps coming to mind.

Driving the route for hours helped me see lots of potential problems. The engineers that say, for nearly $10 billion, a St. Louis to Kansas City hyperloop is feasible likely figured a lot of this into the costs.

Despite the numerous obstacles, I do think it’s worth keeping tabs on to see if it develops into a viable transportation option. It was in the recent news:

Saudi Arabia has pulled a planned deal with Virgin Hyperloop One after Sir Richard Branson said he would freeze ties with the kingdom until more details are known about the disappearance of the journalist Jamal Khashoggi, according to people briefed on talks between the parties. The two sides were planning to sign a deal for a new feasibility study at a ceremony during the upcoming Future Investment Initiative conference in Riyadh, the people familiar with the situation added. The deal would have focused on manufacturing, knowledge transfer and route alignments for the futuristic transport system. (Financial Times)

Another source says Virgin HyperLoop One says the project has not been cancelled. Undisputed is the fact that billionaire Sir Richard Branson resigned as chairman of Virgin Hyperloop One.

In the recent non-scientific Sunday Poll readers were split:

Q: Agree or disagree: Missouri can’t afford a “HyperLoop” between St. Louis and Kansas City.

• Strongly agree: 6 [25%]
• Agree: 3 [12.5%]
• Somewhat agree: 2 [8.33%]
• Neither agree or disagree: 1 [4.17%]
• Somewhat disagree: 2 [8.33%]
• Disagree: 4 [16.67%]
• Strongly disagree: 4 [16.67%]
• Unsure/No Answer: 2 [8.33%]

The agree group totaled 45.83% while the disagree group totaled slightly less at 41.67%. Again, these are non-scientific.

If hyperloop becomes viable, being among the first in the world would bring positive attention and money to Missouri. In the meantime hopefully voters will approve Proposition D on November 6th.

— Steve Patterson