The Case Against Motorcycle Helmet Laws
This is not a public health issue.
If you have a strong disregard for your own health and safety, you are free to express it in all sorts of ways. You can smoke cigarettes. You can gorge on fast food five times a day. You can go live among bears in Alaska.
You can stagger through the worst part of town at 2 a.m. You can become a trapeze artist. You can join the Marine Corps. But if federal regulators get their way, you will not be able to ride a motorcycle without a helmet.
That's already the law for all riders in 20 states and the District of Columbia. Other states require head protection only for minors or passengers. And in three states—Illinois, Iowa, and New Hampshire—all riders are free to feel the sun on their scalps and the wind in their hair.
This small zone of personal autonomy causes great annoyance at the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), a federal agency. Last week, it urged that "everyone aboard a motorcycle be required to wear a helmet." Polls indicate most Americans agree.
The reasons are obvious enough. From 1997 to 2008, the number of motorcycle fatalities more than doubled, while total traffic deaths were falling. Two out of every three bikers killed were not wearing a helmet. Said NTSB Vice Chairman Christopher Hart, "It's a public health issue."
Oh, no, it's not. A public health issue arises when masses of people are exposed to illness or injury by dangers beyond their control—contaminated water, sooty air, natural disaster, marauding bands of hyenas—or when I get a serious disease that I may pass on to you against your will.
In these cases, government action is necessary. It's perfectly legitimate for governments to regulate pollution, build levees, and require people to get vaccinations.
But riding a motorcycle without a cranial cushion poses no danger to anyone except the rider. Skull fractures are not contagious. The public is not at risk if I decide to mount a Harley with nothing but a pinwheel hat on my head.
The mandatory helmet crowd, however, insists there is a threat to the public: the threat of being forced to cover the medical costs of bikers who are injured or disabled. Notes the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, "Only slightly more than half of motorcycle crash victims have private health insurance coverage. For patients without private insurance, a majority of medical costs are paid by the government."
Under the new health care law, of course, everyone will have to obtain coverage. But even then, the premiums of healthy people will have to cover the costs of motorcyclists' injuries.
The complaint has a point, but it considers only the costs of motorcycle accidents, not the—yes—benefits. At the risk of sounding macabre, let me note that a 50-year-old biker who dies in a wreck saves us money, since he won't be around to collect Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid in his old age. A 20-year-old fatality may yield a harvest of excellent organs for patients awaiting transplants.
Besides, the argument on safety and medical costs is one that proves too much. Brain buckets reduce the chance of being killed in a wreck, but federal data indicate that most of those who die in motorcycle accidents would be killed even with a helmet. So it's safe to assume that most of those seriously injured would be laid up in the hospital either way.
The real danger is not from riding a motorcycle without a helmet, but from riding, period. If you crash a hog at 70 mph, your head is only one of the body parts that will come out much worse for wear. If we're justified in requiring helmets to save medical expenses, why not simply outlaw motorcycles entirely? That would prevent a lot more death and injury.
It's also hard to see why we single out motorcyclists for the sin of saddling everyone with higher health care costs. Plenty of patients suffer from self-inflicted ailments—lung cancer from smoking, liver damage from drinking, diabetes from eating unhealthy foods, AIDS from unprotected sex. Yet we don't ban these activities.
Why not? Because we retain a respect for individual freedom and choice—even in matters of life and death, even when individual choices have collective costs. Motorcycle helmet laws are an unwarranted exception to our normal, sound approach, which can be summarized: It's your life, and it's your funeral.
COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
'Mandate vaccinations?' When?
You stole my line!
Try to put a child in public school without vaccinations and see what happens.
It isn't that hard, at least here in Oklahoma. They try and act like you can't do it, but you can. Basically being a contentious objector is all it takes. It is quite strange. When you first ask the school, the boy scouts, ect, they all say it is mandatory. If you press a little, they then concede that it isn't.
Should read conscientious. Spelling is hard.
Sometimes you need to be contentious to get any traction.
Yeah I didn't see any problem with the first one.
I have never seen any news reports showing parents winning that particular battle so i will have to take your word on that one.
Or course you haven't seen any news reports. It's not the kind of thing the news would cover and winning that 'battle' isn't really news. In my district you fill out a couple of forms and you're done.
Dear god I need a new handle.
Dont let your UN-VACCINATED kids around my grand kids. Because if they get sick and die, your the first one I will sue. Followed by the school for letting your disease ridden kids in there in the first place.
Semi-related, but would have been better for the morning links.
The packets can sell for as much as $35 an ounce....The chemicals are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration for human consumption....The Drug Policy Alliance, which advocates legalizing marijuana, says banning K2 and other similar substances, will create an illegal market for the drug.
It'll be interesting to see if this actually happens. If it does, The Drug Policy Alliance and other advocates will have a real-time, cause-and-effect example of the law of unintended consequences. Not that it would matter much. Have we as a nation (meaning us citizens, not just the DEA and FDA) learned anything from the original Prohibition?
Well, we did repeal it, so I guess that counts for something.
Yeah, we repealed it and then went about criminalizing everything else.
I only said it was "something."
Helmets induce dangerous conduct. If I ride without a helmet, I ride no faster than 40 mph, because at higher speeds the wind makes my glasses wobble and my eyes dehydrate (requiring frequent blinking). Thus, without a helmet I ride at safe speeds. But if I have a helmet on, these risks disappear and I rev up to 100 mph, a much more dangerous speed.
Sneakers induce dangerous conduct. They make me inordinately fleet-footed.
Reminds me of a game theory class, where the professor made a similar argument, and claimed that if cars had a stake sticking out of the steering wheel that would kill you in any accident, driver safety would improve. Everyone would be driving at 30mph but there would be no accidents.
I drive a Jeep. in the summer, I take the doors off and ride topless. Coincidentally, I like my woman how I like my Jeep, "topless and dirty". Anyway, when the doors are off and the top is down, I drive a bit more carefully, especially at intersections where I am vulnerable for being t-boned. Now I am not sure that being t-boned sans doors is any better than with them, but I imagine that it would be helpful to have something between me and the other car.
I also work in CT and live in MA, so I see people on motorcycles both with and without helmets. I am not sure I can tell if any of them are driving differently, but I can tell you that most people prefer going sans helmet as evidenced by the number of people who stop at the border to either remove or put on their helmet depending on which way they are going.
Another related personal story...
A few years back, I had a. . . well, lets call it a health issue that required me to go to the hospital. Apparently, my insurance was not set up properly by my employer so the hospital could not use my card. I spent an hour talking to some kind of a social worker so they could find a way to get the government to pay. They started asking me all sorts of questions, and I was getting sick of the intrusive questions and asked them to just bill me, but the stupid bitch kept insisting that I should try to get coverage. I finally told her that my ass (literally my ass, and no it had nothing at all to do with anything kinky. If thats what your thinking, you should have your brain washed.) is in pain and I had to yell at her to JUST SEND ME THE BILL. I eventually paid the $300 bill even though it took six months. The reason why it was only $300 is because I knew I was the one paying for it and I told the doctors to only do the things they thought were absolutely necessary. I should note that back then (1999) I was not a libertarian and I had no issue with getting government cash, but I was impatient and my ass was in pain. Anyway, if motorcyclists suddenly realize that they may have to foot the bill for head injuries (as if head injuries were not enough) they may decide to wear a helmet. This of course assumes that ass injuries are less expensive than head injuries and taking care of road rash is easier than dealing with serious neurological disability.
Were you the pinhead on the I5 doing 40mph in a motorcycle the other day?
"Plenty of patients suffer from self-inflicted ailments?lung cancer from smoking, liver damage from drinking, diabetes from eating unhealthy foods, AIDS from unprotected sex. Yet we don't ban these activities."
No ideas, please!
No kidding. My thought when I read that was "yet." Obamacare makes every health-related decision a public policy decision.
I almost wish people would stop giving the government ideas.
Incandescent light bulbs have been banned, presumably because they are less efficient and therefore have a larger "carbon footprint". Well, if thats the case, why dont we just ban cars. Anyway, I am not a fan of the "green" light bulbs and I am going to stock up on incandescent bulbs for my own personal use. Also, I am considering selling these bulbs on the black market.
As a rider, I don't even go down the driveway without full protective gear, and encourage all riders to do the same. I think non-geared riders are stupid, but it's their choice. Doing things others consider foolish is the benefit of living in a free society.
This. I did a low-side going 20 when I was learning, and there was a huge skin difference between my legs, where I was wearing khakis, and my upper body, where I had a protective jacket and helmet. (I dislocated my shoulder too, but that was going to happen anyway.)
You don't need to be on a motorcycle for that - I dislocated my shoulder on my pedal bike when I went ass over appetite as my chain slipped on an uphill pump. And no, I don't wear a helmet.
In at least a few contries (the UK for example) you can be denied health care if you do not loose weight, quit drinking and quit smoking.
http://www.freerepublic.com/fo.....9438/posts
We don't ban those activities but it is coming SOON.
I dont care if health care providers deny people insurance due to their lifestyle choices. It is health insurance, it doesnt really work if the insurance company has to pay out more than it collects. Those fucktards that are too unhealthy for insurance can try to get help from charity. For those born with terrible conditions, it sucks to be them, but health insurance companies do not and should not have an obligation to pay for their medical costs. Families, friends, neighbors and charities should take care of the sick who do not have insurance, but they are not obligated. Government should have nothing at all to do about the sick unless they are a epidemic contagion risk. Our reliance on government to take care of people has taken some of the burden off the community. Government is not the community it is the rule of law. Law is force and you cannot use force to make people do something they are not otherwise obligated to do even if it is a good thing to do it. The people in the UK are even more fucked than the US. In the UK, their retarded govt healthcare system is in full effect and it is subject to the whims of govt bureaucrats rather than health insurance companies that have to maintain a reputation and protect a bottom line. Their reliance on government is even greater than ours. These days, getting help from your family for an expensive health care issue amounts to finding the smart relative who understands the government regulations and knows how to fill out the right forms.
Let the decider ride!
I wear a helmet at all times: Going to the mailbox. At the dinner table. Shaving. One cannot be too careful. Besides, if I bruise my head and have to go to the emergency room, my fellow Americans--who have accepted the premise that they are my keeper, and I theirs--will have to pay for my treatment. So I'm being a good and conscientious citizen by wearing a helmet, as well as doing my part to reduce the national debt. We're all in this together. Wear your helmets, kids!
Be sure to wear your knee pads and reflective vest or Mark Ames will have to spit on you.
I don't know who Mark Ames is and I don't care.
I wear two condoms when computing - you know computer viruses...and the two condoms add a little extra "heft"
I wear a Nerf Condom, it adds about four inches of length and an inch and a half of girth.
damn, mine is only 4 inches, but some girls like'm that wide.
Steve,
I don't think Mark Ames would agree.
"Anytime anyone says anything libertarian, spit on them. Libertarians are by definition enemies of the state: they are against promoting American citizens' general welfare and against policies that create a perfect union. Like Communists before them, they are actively subverting the Constitution and the American Dream, and replacing it with a Kleptocratic Nightmare."
http://exiledonline.com/the-ra.....-lameness/
What a douche-nugget.
I forced myself to read the whole thing, and some of the comments.
I need to puke now.
STEVE LIKE BUTTFUCKING MARK. STEVE LIKE PRACTICING HIS AMES WITH TARGET THAT LOOK LIKE MARK. STEVE WANTS TO WIPE POO ON MARK AMES SHIRT MANY TIMES.
Sombody needs help to develop a larger vocabulary.
He seems to like the word petulant. How fitting.
Oh wait, the same guy behind this stupidity.
For a guy I didn't realize existed until a day or two ago, he's really making a strong case for the least focused, most retarded, rabidly anti-minority-political-movement hack out there. At least Jonah Goldberg has focus.
I admit, it feels good to be hated. It almost makes your political beliefs seem relevant.
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
Really feels like we're somewhere between laughing and fighting. We're definitely not ignored anymore.
You know you've got an avowed enemy when they recognize libertarianism as independent of Team Red/Blue, conservatism and liberalism, and still hate your fucking guts.
How the hell did you manage to read that whole thing?
Helmet laws, like laws banning trans fat, Four Loko, Happy Meals, etc., represent the worst kind of nannyism.
I'm not sure how this nannyism found its way among the traditional pillars of liberalism (promoting equality of opportunity and lifestyle liberty), but I'd like to see it go asap. These kinds of thoughts are more appropriate for the religious right...
It's because liberalism was hijacked by the Left, MNG.
I'm talking about left-liberalism not classical liberalism.
Take a look at some of the classic examples of laws that illustrate the libertarian/liberal split that the left holds as iconic: the Civil Rights Act, Title IX, the ADA. Agree with the methods and aims or not the liberals who championed them hoped they would open up economic and lifestyle opportunities for groups traditionally finding it wanting (minorities, women and the handicapped). Do even contemporary liberals point to some nannyist law as iconic? I submit their inability to do so is because such does not belong with liberalism.
There is more then one way to be motivated to enact such laws, MNG. One is what you mentioned, the other is just for the pure pleasure of pushing people around. I submit that you are the oddball here and that most "liberals" supported them for the reason I just pointed out.
They want to be in charge of everything, and those were just stepping-stones to establish the principle that the Central State is empowered to do so.
"most "liberals" supported them for the reason I just pointed out."
I don't know, I don't get that from the ones I know. Best to give the benefit of the doubt...
Best to assume the worst in people and be pleasantly surprised when they do something different.
Do even contemporary liberals point to some nannyist law as iconic?Uh, the whole notion of inherently nannyist "targeted" carrot and stick taxes to enforce "correct" behavior is iconic to contemporary left/liberals
"Public health" is a sacred duty of government to contemporary liberals. "If one child is saved...".
It is because we still have huge strains of puritanism. Some people just can't abide by the idea of other people doing things they find objectionable. Even though no one is a "Puritan" anymore, the attitude lives on today.
I think one can distinguish between objecting to what others do "for their own good" and doing so because one is angered/upset that anyone is doing the objected to thing. Consider the difference between opposition to helmet laws ("for their own good") and homosexuality ("ick!").
Both are stinky, either paternalism and bigotry/small-mindedness...
But the logic behind homosexuality laws and helmet laws is the same. In both cases the idea is that the government should criminalize behavior that the majority finds unsafe and objectionable. The people who believe that homosexual conduct should be illegal think that they are helping people by preventing them from becoming homosexuals just like the helmet law people think they are helping people by making them wear helmets. They are two sides of the same coin.
A great deal of the people I know that support criminalizing homosexuality did not have homosexual prevention as the only goal, they honestly just didn't want "that" going on.
Think "flag desecration" laws. Those who support them don't even pretend such laws are for the benefit of the flag burners but are to keep "that" from going on.
I am not accusing you of anything but ... Do you spend time hanging around the Westbrough Babtist Church? Groups (or even individuals) who support criminalizing homosexuality are extremly rare nowadays.
The Texas and Montana GOP Platforms have planks advocating the outlaw of Sodomy and other 'homosexual acts'....
And this.
http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t2992010.pdf
More than a third of the nation supports making homosexual acts between consenting adults illegal.
Note: The data for 2010 are based on telephone interviews with a randomly selected national
sample of 1,029 adults, 18 years of age and older, conducted May 3-6, 2010.
That aint many people to base a theory on. How many conservatives were involved in the poll? How spread out across the nation? How many were deeply religous conservative as opposed to agnostic conservatives?
There is probably some truth in it but for any credibility it needs many many more participants.
Heck if i used a small enough data pool i could prove that every 38 year old white male in america looks JUST LIKE ME 😀
as for Texas and Montana Rebublicans and sodomy laws .. Have you ever had to choose a represenative that was accurate on most subjects but turned into a wing nut on one subject? I cant swear to (i dont live in texas or montana) that but it may be what happened.
Dude, surveys with a N of 1,000 if randomly chosen are going to be pretty representative of the nation's population. That's about the same number used in Prez polls with a "margin of error of + or -3"
True to a point, those who want to out law gays, do not realize that its a normal behavior for some people, its not a choice any more than they chose to be straight. Its all religious based and I for one do not want any religion telling me what I can or can not do. Our country was founded by Liberals, as the conservatives were rooting for King George. The fore fathers did not want ANY religion to dictate any kind of law, in fact they spoke out against Christianity many times. But how does being gay have to do with wearing a helmet on a motorcycle????
Its only stinky if you dont clean up after the sex.
It's the inevitable result of the paternalistic, "my brother's keeper" mentality at the root of what we now call liberalism. Is there anyone here who has dependents who has not imposed dictatorial "for your own good" rules on them?
Here's what you trumpet as liberal achievements: telling restaurants they have to serve everyone; telling colleges they have to spend an equal amount of money on men's and women's sports; and telling people they have to reserve parking spaces for a class of people. Are these really that far divorced from telling people to eat their vegetables or buckle their seat belts?
No. Slippery slope. Camel's nose. Edge of the wedge.
What about camel's toe?
I'm all for camel toes in my tent.
If I see a camel toe, I pitch a tent.. just to be safe..
"Are these really that far divorced from telling people to eat their vegetables or buckle their seat belts?"
Why, yes imo. You focus on the impositions, but supporters point to the opportunities they open up for the restaraunt customers, the young girls who want to play sports, and the handicapped shopper.
I only focus on the impositions because they are the primary means of achieving the goals. If you want to say that the ends justify the means that's a defensible (incorrect, imo) position, but you need to own the means as well as the ends.
I'll concede that. Liberals are willing to make a "devils bargain" with governmental coercion to get to certain ends. Libertarians play a crucial function imo by always reminding us of the potential danger of such thinking, though where we depart is we are not willing to "throw the baby out with the bath water" so to speak.
I'll concede that. Liberals Statists are willing eager to make a "devils bargain" with governmental coercion to get to certain ends. Libertarians play a crucial function no function whatsoever imo by always reminding us of the potential danger of such thinking (because we don't give a shit what those rat bagging tea fucking Libertarians think and ignore them regardless of the situation), though where we depart is we are not absolutely willing to "throw the baby out with the bath water" so to speak.
FIFY
...where we depart is we are not willing to "throw the baby out with the bath water" so to speak.
Which is why lefties favor gate rape as long as it might prevent one terrorist attack.
Forcing you to eat your veggies and stop smoking as long as it might prevent one death.
Forbid you from taking recreational drugs, even if you have to be imprisoned because drug use might ruin your life.
You're "baby" is bullshit, what get is coercion.
These nanny state laws are Bad BUT the wellfare nanny state laws are Good? Both are liberal ideals that take responsibility away from the individual and place it on the community.
This is unhelpful in my opinion. Minarchists who support tax paid police also support taking responsibility from individuals and placing it on the community (I could also include anti-fraud laws, I mean, why can't the responsibility be on the target of the fraud?).
Good point. That's why I'm not really a minarchist. More like a reasonable-archist. Not sure if there's a word for that.
There is such a word. It's called a minarchist.
Not really. I'd be willing to tolerate a government that goes quite a bit more than the minimal state.
What we got now is so fucked up, my hopes for something better are pretty beaten down.
There is a large measure of responsibility on the victim in the minarchist model: he has to recognize the fraud, report it, and help prove it.
A means-tested safety net for the truly needy wouldn't be so bad. Of course that ain't what our current entitlement programs are -- they are all geared towards making government bureaucracy an integral part of every middle class person's life.
I'll agree on means testing, I'm all for it.
So you're still OK with some pencil-necked geek in the Beltway picking your pockets at his or her whim to redistribute your property, eh? Jeez....
Wouldn't go so far as to say I'm OK with it. Just see some bureaucracy as a fact of life and it's a better use of my time to tolerate it a bit as long as it doesn't get out of hand. Would much rather see any safety net programs done at the county or state level than Federal.
Why not just create a better environment for private charity? Why does the government need to collect more money just to distribute it to more things when private donations, volunteering, and gifts do it so much better? We already have great homeless shelters in place; the problem is bums don't want to raise themselves up when they can get handouts from the government.
It is the community's responsibility to enforce its laws not the individuals. Police (should) apply laws equally to all and all are responsible for paying for them. Wellfare Force the many to support (pay for) the few. If you are claiming that being forced to take responsibility for others is actually for my own good .. then i will have to disagree with you...
In both cases there is a problem (robbers/trespassers and poor people) which the community is asked to support efforts to ameliorate.
You don't ask the victim of robbery, trespass or fraud to take care of the problem. Are you against personal responsibility ;)?
I freely admit that enforcing laws are the community's responsibility (robbers / tresspassers).
BUT supporting poor people imposes a responsibility on others and gives then no return. Is charity a function of government?
Having the victim take care of the problem is vigilantisim not personal responsibility. Usefull but with limitations :D.
You don't ask the victim of robbery, trespass or fraud to take care of the problem. Are you against personal responsibility ;)?
No, but you are, and you're making a faulty assumption. The flip side of your argument is that the legal structure of the system also prevents individuals from taking care of the problem - and it's getting worse (see Bloomberg, Daley, D.C. etc.).
You assume the limitations on the populace imposed by government is proof of the inability of the populace to perform the same function.
You seem to be stuck on the concept of the capable government/helpless populace scenario, and would be quite surprised at the capabilities of, say, an early frontier wife.
There was a time when charity was available and relatively unencumbrered to take care of the impoverished and similar problems, but populaces around the world found it wanting and started to push for and accept government intervention. I don't think all those populaces were duped or stupid, I think it at least appeared to many as if private charity was insufficient.
Maybe so, but to have a balanced view of those times one must also admit a lot of the suffering that needed relief was caused by ambitions of governments and that there were (and are) folks who want philanthropy centrally run because they think the wrong people are involved or they think everything must be done in their preferred technocratic manner.
Sooooo you believe that government can say "I dont think you are giving enough so i will just TAKE SOME MORE and give it out to people i think need it more than you do." ?
Because that is EXACTLY what you just said.
[I don't think all those populaces were duped or stupid, I think it at least appeared to many as if private charity was insufficient.]
And it appeared to many more that votes could well be bought by providing benefits beyond a minimum.
The more beyond the minimum the more purchased votes could be realised.
So...people can be counted on to take care of people though private charity but people are also wicked enough to vote for welfare programs simply out of their self interest...
Well, when you put enough people on the welfare rolls, you basically assure the continued support of that % of the population. As welfare programs grow incrementally, the captive portion of voters tend to grow in lockstep.
This isn't rocket science. If one group says they will continue giving away free shit and another says they want to take that free shit away, there will always be a large % of the recipients of the free shit that will vote solely on the continuation of the handout. Especially when the party giving away free shit plays class-warfare with those they are taking from and vilifies them regularly as "greedy" for wanting to keep the fruits of their labor when it is "fair" to give it to those who are "less-fortunate," or some other such rabble-rousing term.
Probably because your traditional pillars of liberalism haven't existed since tie-dye was in. Now acting in the name of equality and lifestyle liberty mean losing votes. But fear not they are more than happy to act on consolidating power for their own, which is funny since the ruling class rotates between the flavors of chocolate and fudge.
Liberals want to legalize pot and ban happy meals. This to me is confusing. I am all for legalizing pot, but its not like its more healthy than happy meals. In fact, when I smoke pot, I have a strong desire to get a happy meal. . . OMG liberals are out to fuck with my ideal saturday night!
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-.....cy-charges
I missed this yesterday. Wow. I can't say I have any sympathy for Delay. He is a crook. But at the same time, if it were up to me, what he did wouldn't be illegal.
Tom Delay is mandating helmet use? Then he does deserve jail time.
Motorcycle helment laws (and their close cousin, seatbelt laws) are a perfect litmus test for libertarian beliefs. If you think people need to be saved from themselves and that it's OK for governments to pass laws to do that, you're not a libertarian, you're a fucking dipshit moron asshole wannabe tyrant.
Next up, motorcycle seatbelts!
Airbags.
Child-seats.
And put all those things in boats, too. Some are too old for 2 wheelers.
Notice it's illegal for a child to ride a bike without a helmet, but there are no seat belts on public school buses?
You know, that's funny. Having been ticketed a couple of times and paid the state a hundred bucks for the crime of not wearing my seat belt I have become so paranoid that when I pass a cop on my motorcycle I instinctively reach up to check for my seat belt and experience a moment of panic when I see its not there.
I moved to Ohio this summer from NY. There is no helmet law here in OH and the vast majority of riders don't wear helmets. I have also noticed that the vast majority of cycle riders are old farts on Harleys, like me, and most of them still have their old hippy hair, unlike me, balding and gray though they are. Pretty damn unattractive, I have to say.
I've never understood why someone would want to not wear a seat belt or helmet.
That doesn't mean I want the government mandating it, mind. I just don't get why you wouldn't wear one.
I've never understood why someone would want to not wear a seat belt or helmet.
That doesn't mean I want the government mandating it, mind. I just don't get why you wouldn't wear one.
I've never understood not ctrl-F-ing to see if the handle exists.
Mind boggling I tell ya.
I've never seen anyone get so torn up over an unregistered name that countless people have probably used.
Four wheeled motorcycles with completely enclosed safety cage, seatbelts and airbags. I will call it a quadruple wheel motorized bicycle car, or car for short.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.co.....sures.html
61% oppose new airport security measures, at least according to that poll. Maybe there is hope yet.
Are'nt you going to dissect that poll methodology John? What gives?
If you two ever meet in life I'd have the hotel room already set up. The grudge fuck will be epic.
The John/MNG rivalry is what keeps me coming back to H&R.
I'm so sick and tired of the "you cost the government money" line. It's fucking bull shit. Why don't you just stick a tag on me and furnish my neck with a cow bell and be done with me already.
I never asked the government to do half the shit it does on "my behalf."
In Canada everything comes down to that now: How much you cost.
Our public health system is ANYTHING BUT COMPASSIONATE. It's cost-centric and not human-centric.
In theory, we're enlightened, in practice it's lights out.
So what do they call "death panels" in Canadian?
Death panels, eh.
+1
Don't you also have to have the French Version of the name as well, eh.
There is an extra "u" somewhere I believe
Do you think any market based system is not going to be "cost-centric?" WTF?
Right, but there is no pretense of a guarantee of care under the market systems the way there is for the public ones. If you're going to extract money from me at gunpoint for the purpose of providing all of society's medical needs, the care had damn well better be there when I need it.
If everyone had to pay for their own health care, hospitals would not be able to rely on getting money from the government.
They know someone with deep pockets is going to pay so they charge exactly what they know they will receive from said deep pockets. Its like a car dealership. If I go into a dealer and essentially say "money is no object" those fuckers are going to sell me everything under the sun. They will bedazzle my fucking car with diamonds if they know the goddamn purse is limitless. Right now, health insurance companies control the cost to a certain extent. When government "controls" costs, there will be no reason to expect a trip to the hospital to go down. You want to know what will happen to the cost, look at military contracting as a model.
If you think that having the government pay is a good way to reduce the burden for the poor, you are sadly mistaken. The cost of taxes, government debt and "quantitative easing" that will result from the governments noble deeds will eat any growth the private economy makes and this will make it even more difficult for the poor to become middle class, and the middle class to become wealthy. If you believe there is a growing gap between rich and poor and that the rich get richer, then this level of government intervention in the economy will only exacerbate this issue. It is an unsustainable system. Government cannot spend more money while the private economy is shrinking or flat. Eventually, America will run out of good will, which is the only thing making our dollar worth anything at all. Once the dollar fails, we are completely fucked.
The cost canard is how most people are swayed to support laws such as this. However, society would save much more money by requiring occupants of automobiles wear helmets--and yet most people would deem this argument silly. However, there is no logical difference between auto and motorcycle riders/ passengers. If it is solely a matter of saving money, make it mandatory for everyone. Otherwise, let's please keep the government out of our personal decisions.
Your know what? Helmets reduce head injuries. Helmets for everybody riding in or on vehicles is a GREAT IDEA. Studies have shown that in motorcycle helmet law jurisdictions, helmet-wearing motorcycle riders and passengers stand a better chance of surviving a major accident that car drivers and passengers. Why? For a significant number of people killed in vehicle accidents, the cause of death was head injury. In jurisdictions with helmet laws, motorcycle helmet wearers suffer fewer fatal head injuries. Q.E.D. ;^}
Chapman's article is a good brief against forcing people to wear helmets when riding motorcycles.
However, as we are debating this policy, perhaps we ought to look at some further information on the subject:
1. http://www.physorg.com/news76185258.html
2. http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/in.....Helmet.pdf
It seems like there is reason to wear a helmet to protect against brain injuries and their more likely life-long adverse effects on the productivity of individuals, which medical costs do burden taxpayers a heck of a lot more than a broken or lost leg or arm. At some point, those who are libertarians have to look at societal costs for something...
The question to also keep in mind is how much is one's "freedom" really hurt here in enforcing a motorcycle helmet law?
This reminds me of what people were upset about in New York City 35 years ago when the city passed a law requiring people to pick up their dogs' poop from the sidewalk. People said, "Fascist law!" and other rants, and eventually, the sidewalks were cleaner and not as smelly, and last I checked, people did not feel that law led to a dictatorship in that city. Again, some public policies can be enacted that are not so sweeping as to define one's belief in socialism or libertarianism.
There's nothing contra-libertarian about telling people to pick up the litter their chattels leave on the commons, especially when said litter is a biohazard.
It's rather different from telling people they have to protect themselves from themselves under pain of legal sanction. It's true that the injured cost the public money, but that is a burden the public has shouldered itself. There's nothing inherent about it; the public can (and should) lay it down at any time.
Xenocles, I'm glad you raised this point because your point about the public shouldering the burden is where libertarians tend to lose most people.
Most people are not going to say we as a society should not shoulder that burden. And that's because we know the person with the brain injury likely needs help beyond any one individual's family in most instances.
And as we are talking about an activity that is akin to sport (most motorcyclists are riding for leisure, not to commute to work), the real question is why not wear a helmet since it does reduce brain injuries and the significant brain injuries by at least a third?
"the real question is why not wear a helmet since it does reduce brain injuries and the significant brain injuries by at least a third?"
But Mitchell where does this paternalistic logic end? I mean, by this logic you end up supporting laws like the Happy Meals ban or coerced salt restrictions (I mean, "the question is why not restrict x as it is known to increase bad result y by a third").
As a utilitarian I buy the argument in On Liberty that allowing everyone to explore these kinds of decisions for themselves as long as they do not directly harm another leads to the maximization of human welfare. I get a lot of heck here for not being a deontological libertarian, but I think utilitarianism can undergird a significant amount of libertarianism.
The problem with utilitarianism is that literally anything can be acceptable (even required!) as long as the hedonistic calculus supports it. It sounds mathematically objective, but it's not; the values of the variables are completely subjective. Two people applying utilitarian methodology to the same problem can easily come up with completely opposite results - that's why I mostly think utilitarianism is in practice little more than a tool used to justify what one already believes.
Excellent points. I guess I'm not sold on "preference utilitarianism" which I see as having more risk of that problem. I think utility can have an objective sense, though admittedly one that will vary for different people in different circumstances.
There are two strands of libertarianism:
1) Libertarian utilitarianism, which claims that libertarianism is the best way to achieve the increase in utility (well-being) for every human living in a society.
2) Libertarian naturalism, which dogmatically states that liberty is the ultimate guiding principle as enshrined in a "natural law" that is pretty much arbitrary and disconnected from reality, without taking into account breakthroughs in the psychological and evolutionary sciences.
Utility is definitely objective, we just don't yet have the neuroscientific tools necessary to measure the brains of everyone and how their well-being changes after performing certain actions, etc.
The goal of society should be to devise ways of maximizing well-being and minimizing suffering over the long term (Sam Harris is one pioneer pointing this out in his book "The Moral Landscape"). Morality will soon be a science and no longer at the whim of religious and socialist demagogues who draw what is moral from their own respective dogmas.
I find libertarianism the best way currently devised to achieve the goal of improving the well-being of people as much as possible, BUT I'm willing to change my mind if it this is scientifically refuted. To me, more freedom NOW or more taking-away-from-productive-working-people-enabling-more-science-and-inventions-and-giving-to-unproductive-poor NOW is irrelevant if you don't maximize utility over the longest period of time - those extra utils might just come in handy in the future if an asteroid threatens to wipe out humanity.
There is no point in making the brilliant scientist struggling to fix aging and dying (and the whole economy that supports him with food, clothes, etc) pay up in taxes to support the ignorant and the lazy - better to give them a less cozy life now AND allow the scientist to help make as many of them immortal as possible.
The whole purpose of the economy and of society should be to buy extra free time for scientists to help them produce time-saving inventions further speeding up progress in a (hopefully) never-ending cycle.
I think you often bring up a number of good points - I don't think it can be said better than "On Liberty that allowing everyone to explore these kinds of decisions for themselves as long as they do not directly harm another leads to the maximization of human welfare"
I agree that most people are probably willing to (collectively) pick up the tab for most emergency cases (though I do not agree that that fact permits the willing to coerce the unwilling). More to your point,are there any data that show a similar willingness in cases of gross negligence? I would guess that they are not so eager there.
A patient's need does not constitute a valid claim on my property. I might be convinced to help out depending on the case, but I bristle at being forced to.
From where I stand, there is no reason not to wear a helmet. I wear one myself when I ride, along with gloves, a protective jacket, and at night reflective gear. I typically skimp on the legs and feet, but that's my decision, just as the helmet should be for all.
I might be convinced to help out depending on the case, but I bristle at being forced to.
And I bristle even more at being forced to help, and in turn that money used for political bargaining, and not for its intended purpose.
"A patient's need does not constitute a valid claim on my property."
Why not? See, I think a human being's need can certainly over-ride a property claim. With all due respect the opposite view strikes me as inhumane (putting title derived from property above of human welfare).
But before I get the endless attacks here I need to say that I think property rights have a utiltiarian value. That is a society is nearly always in the whole and the long run better off as a rule with the incentives that a stable system of property laws brings with it. People tinker with that at their peril. However, I don't go for deonotological ethics that would a priori place property above human needs. Human need should trump any other abstract ethical concern divorced from human welfare, as the bible says "the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath."
It is up to the sovereign individual to provide for his own needs. If he cannot, then he must do without or persuade someone else to freely & willingly assist.
If "need" justifies using the force of law, w/ Government as an intermediary, to take from one & give to another, then theft, robbery, & etc. are equally justified (as long as the perpetrator can prove that he, or his beneficiary, had "need").
Since the only functional differences are the nature of the "force" applied & the agent(s) collecting & distributing someone's property, intellectual consistency dictates that either both are justified or neither are justified.
I have a persistent need to be secure in my person and property. Therefore by taking my property from me under threat to my person you are denying my needs.
1. What standard do you use to determine which need is greater?
2. What makes your standard authoritative?
My standard is what will do the most good for the most people, with everyone's good counting equally.
What makes it authoritative is that human welfare matters more than anything else. What makes an opposing view authoritative?
"What makes an opposing view authoritative?"
You have begged the question. You have defined the standard as human need and justified it by saying that human need is the most important. If it's your intention to define that as an axiom, very well. But others have the right to so enshrine their beliefs.
You assert that it is justifiable for one agent (the government) to use force (Law & punishment) to take from one person & distribute to another according (injured biker) to "need".
Do you also assert that it is justifiable for another agent (a desperate father) to use force (threat of violence) to take from one person & distribute to another (his sick child)?
"My standard is what will do the most good for the most people, with everyone's good counting equally."
Who determines what will do the most good? by what standard is "the most good" measured?
How do you know that the money taken from me to support the injured biker would not otherwise go to benefit a dozen other people, thereby doing more good for more people?
"My standard is what will do the most good for the most people, with everyone's good counting equally."
Isn't that basically the rhetoric that has resulted in the deaths of roughly a hundred-million people in the past century or so?
I mean, what are you doing on Reason if that's your philosophy?
Or are you a sat-bot?
Plus, unlike with sex offenders and sand Nazi terrorists, few people believe that motorcycle riding deserves starvation to death on the streets.
most motorcyclists are riding for leisure, not to commute to work
Funny thing that it would be much more environmentally friendly if everyone rode motorcycles.
This. Also Mitchell, you may not have visited NYC in the past couple decades but I assure you it DID in fact become a dictatorship. A mayor that flouts the will of the citizenry by claiming an illegal 3rd term, a mayor that is on a crusade to ban salt, soda, trans fats, & drinks containing raw egg, a mayor who is so opposed to the existence of the 2nd Amendment he sends city police officers 4 states away from their jurisdiction to entrap VA gun dealers by illegally attempting to purchase firearms, a mayor that sides with private developers to take property away from homeowners so a private university can expand and a sports team relocates to Brooklyn, & a mayor who, in a fit of pique because he did not get his way on congestion tolls for motorists, is removing traffic lanes and installing wide concrete medians and planters to "calm traffic". If it looks like a dictator, if it talks like a dictator...
But the helmet law did not lead to those things you decry, l0b0t. And I still don't see how it is a dictatorship in any way that approaches a military dictatorship in Latin America or the Soviet Union. The rhetoric is way too far ahead of the factual examples. Torture, rendition and out of control DAs who railroad poor people into confessing for crimes they did not commit are things we should save such rhetoric for.
And even this statist is on the side of those who do not support public subsidies for developers and sports teams. Before Kelo woke up most libertarians, Ralph Nader and liberals (yes, the dreaded liberals) were the main folks shouting out against those deals--and of course were ridiculed as anti-sport or anti-capitalist as if that ended the argument, and sadly it often did.
I also am on the libertarians' side on the 2nd Amendment and find Bloomberg to be all too typical of the urban elitist who has no understanding about why people want guns and why guns can be useful.
On the recent actions in both NYC and SF to attack soda, trans fats and raw eggs, I also believe that is going overboard and there are other ways to promote healthy eating habits, starting with education at school. My children are in a public school district in San Diego County, for example, that has taken an active role in their science classes in middle school to teach them about healthy eating, and to be careful about consuming too much sugar and fats. I don't consider that propaganda by our local public school, but simply an attempt to balance the incessant advertising of the food that is high in sugar and fat content.
This is a long way of saying, a law that says to a motorcyclist, wear a helmet, is not the type of infringement of "freedom" we ought to be focused on when we maturely weigh risks, costs and benefits.
I did not claim an equality in brutality between NYC, the CCCP, or any military junta. A benevolent dictatorship is, however, still a dictatorship. Did the curb your dog law lead to all the other encroachments upon our liberties? Directly no, but the slippery slope was canted towards oppression. Are the things I listed equivalent in moral outrage to torture, rendition, & out of control prosecutors? Perhaps not until they being applied to you but we have out of control prosecutors, & state sanctioned torture here in NYC too so I really don't get your point. Are you trying to say don't sweat the small stuff, only get upset over the REALLY egregious violations of our liberties?
Especially without entertaining the idea that if we do indeed wait until the infringements upon our liberties are so egregious that it shocks the sensibilities of everyone that it is very likely too late to do anything about it.
Curbing salt may not be on the order of The Great Leap Forward, but if we wait until we start seeing our own Great Leap, it's way too late to reclaim any sense of liberty.
Good way to put it, l0b0t. Soft paternalism leads to soft tyranny.
Mitchell may mean well, but he's not seeing the bigger picture, nor the potential consequences.
It sometimes sounds like NYC is just a big HOA association.
Who is the "we" you keep mentioning?
it's a division of THEY, a wholly owned subsidiary of US Inc., Princeton, NJ
"This is a long way of saying, a law that says to a motorcyclist, wear a helmet, is not the type of infringement of "freedom" we ought to be focused on when we maturely weigh risks, costs and benefits."
Uh, actually, yes it is. When you want to combat wildfires, doesn't it make sense to put them out when they're small?
No. That's super totalitarian. If assholes can go around spending my tax money putting goddamn bluebonnets all over and building these deserted parks everywhere, how dare you tell me "Don't Mess With Texas" and charge me a fee for putting something on the ground. If you don't like it, pick it up. If you don't want your kid to get whooping cough from my kid, better stop taking your 2 month old out during outbreaks. It's called personal responsibility and mind your own fucking business.
You're correct, it is a matter of personal responsibility. Pick up your own goddamn trash.
And get the hell of my lawn.
Seriously. I dig libertarianism, but ideas like Ray Ray's make the rest of us seem like tools.
"...life-long adverse effects on the productivity of individuals"
Anyone who does not produce to their maximum capacity is an enemy of the state!
You are missing the point. The issue comes down to the purpose and role of government.
Government should protect natural liberty. Government is force. You cannot force people to do things, unless those things cause direct harm to another persons individual liberty. Everything a person does has consequences. If my actions result in harm to another persons life liberty or property, then I should be held accountable by law. If I get into an accident and I am not wearing a helmet, nobody is OBLIGATED to bear that cost but me. If my family, friends and community CHOOSE to help me with my burden, then that is a choice and the government cannot FORCE them to help. The only burdens society has is the burden it imposes upon itself by choice. As far as lost productivity etc. . . these burdens are delegated by the free market to the persons responsible. If I get into an accident and due to a brain injury, I cannot do my job well, then I will lose my job and be replaced by someone who CAN do the job, this is MY burden.
Regarding dog shit, first of all, there is a public health issue with having dog shit on the sidewalks, just as there is a public health issue with having people shit on the sidewalk. Feces can carry and spread disease and its not the kind of disease you get just from making a poor decision, like doing heroin or having unprotected sex. Wearing a helmet does not present the same kind of public health issue. Head injuries are a health issue for the individual, just like AIDS. If you are not concerned about getting AIDS, then by all means, feel free to fuck hookers sans jimmy hat. If you dont mind being bound to a wheel chair, eating through a straw, and pissing your pants every time someone revs up the microwave, feel free to ride sans helmet.
Exactly. They made the bed now lie in it. The problem is people love the perk of a universal system but completely under estimate the trade off of giving up personal choice and ceding it to the state.
It doesn't enter their heads. Only at their most critical point do they realize their opinion or choice don't matter because you hit a big, bureaucratic wall telling you what's best for you.
At that point, people STILL accept the trade off but a person with any shred of dignity and intellectual abilities doesn't.
I tell you. Boy did I have to fight to keep my father alive. In the States, from what I gather, you fight insurance companies, here you fight the state.
And the reason why people are growing tired of it is because they shouldn't be arguing with the state.
In the States, from what I gather, you fight insurance companies, here you fight the state.
Thanks to crony capitalism, it's two sides of the same coin.
The question to also keep in mind is how much is one's "freedom" really hurt here in enforcing a motorcycle helmet law?
The question to keep in mind is "why should I give a fuck what you think?"
Just hope all you freedom loving anti-helmet wearing tards remember to sign your donor cards. At least somebody should benefit from your stupidity . . .
Here is what the fuck you don't get.
Not advocating that the state demand people to wear helmets under penalty of law != advocating that people not wear helmets.
Not one person has advocated that people shouldn't wear helmets, fuckface. People here simply object to the state telling them they HAVE to wear them, or else.
Why the fuck is it so hard for statists to grasp such a simple idea?
Statists don't grasp anything but the power rush they get from being/seeking to be our parents/overlords.
Winter Soldier, here, could be either a liberal or a social conservative; it's hard to tell from his post. But he DOES advocate what both of the above seek: A smothering, nannying/paternalistic ultra-state.
I've read screeds by his kind over the years. One of them suggested lining up petty lawbreakers and shooting them in the backs of their heads. Another wanted a one-year, no-parole mandatory sentence for anyone caught littering. Another advocated banning caffeine, alcohol, sugar, and went so far as to advocate for medical research to figure out how to prevent adrenaline rushes and other natural body-chemistry products.
We are soooo fucked.
Nah, they just want to achieve Equilibrium.
Not a "Statist" at all. I do not like helmet laws, nor seatbelt laws for that matter. Just pointing out that your love of liberty should at least benefit someone when your accident comes.
Just pointing out that your love of liberty should at least benefit someone when your accident comes.
It will if I choose for it to. If not, tough shit.
Funny, you sound like a statist, especially when you trivialize with phrases like "your love of liberty".
If you choose to read it that way, fine . . .
You assume that "love of liberty" means "love of not wearing a helmet".
I realize this has already been pointed out in other responses, but I am hoping that repetition will help you finally get it.
Donor card? Fuck that.
All my parts are going into the furnace with me.
I plan on being "buried" in China. If some of my parts happen to make it to the black market and my family benefits it will be purely accidental.
gives new meaning to "death benefit".
I plan on being "buried" in China.
I'm sure there's some toxic waste dump that has room for you.
This is how mutants are born. He will be reanimated by toxic waste. His genes will mutate and mix with some kind of a lizard and then he will cross the sea of Japan and terrorize Tokyo.
Of course, if it were an American toxic waste dump, he would mutate into a super hero, with sweet powers.
[Donor card? Fuck that.]
Out of the mouths of babes. "Gift of Life" is one of the great social scams of our times, generating huge incomes for hospitals able to plug in parts and never, ever, compensating the "donor" or his heirs.
The donor cards sounds good in principle, but I'm afraid I can't take the risk. As much as I'd like my tissues to live on, corrupting the bodies of others should my brain be utterly destroyed, I'm afraid a donor card could interfere with my business with Alcor in the event my body was injured beyond survival but my brain undamaged.
"If we're justified in requiring helmets to save medical expenses, why not simply outlaw motorcycles entirely? That would prevent a lot more death and injury."
Why not outlaw cars entirely???
Funny how it MUST always be the minority that is oppressed, because that is the very nature of oppression that the majority cannot acknowledge nor comprehend.
By any objective standard, cars are far, far more dangerous than motorcycles (in absolute terms, not percentage - but why would that even matter???).
"By any objective standard, cars are far, far more dangerous than motorcycles (in absolute terms, not percentage - but why would that even matter???)."
Not by the standard of danger to operators and passengers. If you doubt this, evaluate the results of collisions with large objects. There is no speed, impact angle, or object for which the riders will emerge in better condition than the car pax.
I'm talking in terms of overall numbers of death - the number of people killed in automobile crashes versus motorcycle crashes. I agree on a per mile driven that motorcycles are much more dangerous than cars.
I believe there is about 40K deaths due to automobile accidents (I will look it up on wikipedia later). I doubt that even a tenth of that is due to motorcycles.
So, if the argument is to save lives by restricting an aspect of operating a certain vehicle, how is that logical when you can save ten times as many by restricting another vehicle, i.e., cars? Why not set the speed limit at 20 miles per hour for cars? - that would save far, far more lives than having motorcycle riders wear helmets...
My point is merely the faulty logical thinking of humans, who justify limiting others freedoms, but never their own, even though there own behavior (driving a car) kills far, far more people than riding a motorcycle.
But again, freedom for what I want to do, but not for you (because oooh - motorcycles without helmets are dangerous!!!
The reason the rate matters is that it provides an apples to apples comparison. I would never, ever advocate this, but if you forced all motorcycle riders to become car drivers that group of people would die at a lower rate, which would result in fewer overall road deaths. Going the other way, if you forced all car drivers to become riders, there would be far, far more road deaths. Banning all motor vehicle use would have much farther-reaching consequences that would have to be factored in to provide a true comparison.
Standard libertarian disclaimer applies.
How about if you had all motorcycle riders AND car drivers become pedestrians?
Like I said, that policy would have far-reaching consequences that would need to be considered to make a true comparison. For instance, it would require people to move to within walking distance of their jobs and stores (and require them to shop for food more often, since they can't carry as much in one trip). It would require a total reorganization of infrastructure. All these factors have a price. To the utilitarian, if the saved lives add up to more than the cost, you do it.
The loss of liberty happens to not be one of the effects in the equation, but it is so high that I dismiss the policy without even running the numbers.
[Why not outlaw cars entirely???]
Can you imagine if Karl Benz invented the automobile yesterday? Shut your eyes and imagine the myriad government hearings. "You mean to tell me you are advocating machines,carrying people racing towards one another, passing each other at a mere four feet?"
"Think of the churldren!!"
Film of our test results at 11.
All people should be encapsulated in an organic flesh bubble filled with nutrients. Their minds should be hooked up to a computer system that simulates real life and their bodies should be used to generate electricity. This is the ultimate goal of the progressive agenda. It is renewable energy, perfect public healthcare, and free food and shelter for all.
Ehh... dont even bother hooking up the brains... waste of energy.
A looooooong time ago, Tony Randall (noted anti-smoking crusader) was on Johnny Carson's show (I told you it as a long time ago). Carson asked him why he wasn't trying to keep people from drinking, since that is also bad and unhealthy.
Randall's response: "But I *like* to drink."
Ladies and gentlemen, this is your nannytarian, unmasked. "I disapprove of you doing things I do not enjoy. And what I enjoy most of all is telling other people how to live."
I'am here from the government to help you run your life because your to fucking stupid.To the government and other nannies take a long sweet suck off the sloppy end of fuckstick,asshole
your to fucking stupid
Um...
Exactly.
People who refuse to wear a helmet deserve to have their heads bashed in. But only if they have a wreck. No need to spend any tax dollars on this. It's self enforcing for free.
The goverment only cares about your saftey so much that it has to do something,,AN who eles cares the insurance compaines, care about you as well, Not to mention all them people who wish to push thier will on you because they care..
The goverment only cares about your saftey so much that it has to do something,,AN who eles cares the insurance compaines, care about you as well, Not to mention all them people who wish to push thier will on you because they care..
The goverment only cares about your saftey so much that it has to do something,,AN who eles cares the insurance compaines, care about you as well, Not to mention all them people who wish to push thier will on you because they care..
To spice up the discussion.
Should parents be required to make sure their kid is wearing a helmet?
No.
It's also hard to see why we single out motorcyclists for the sin of saddling everyone with higher health care costs. Plenty of patients suffer from self-inflicted ailments?lung cancer from smoking, liver damage from drinking, diabetes from eating unhealthy foods, AIDS from unprotected sex. Yet we don't ban these activities.
Why not? Because we retain a respect for individual freedom and choice?even in matters of life and death, even when individual choices have collective costs. haven't yet worked out the details of how to do that
FTFY.
As a middle-aged guy who just started riding this year, I would just like to point out that it is seriously fucking awesome.
That is all.
Fag.
I know there's a joke there about wearing chaps and something about seeing my helmet, but I just can't quite put it all together.
Should parents be required to make sure their kid is wearing a helmet?
There's that word (required) again...
Yep, there it is, as part of a question.
The more complex wording would be something like...
Would it be considered neglectful for a parent to allow their child to ride without a helmet?
Only if it is not codified into law, Neu. We had enough laws a good fifty years ago.
It is only neglect if the child is incapable of understanding the risks. I would say infants and children under age 10 would not understand the risks.
That said, I think the law should be reactive, not proactive in this regard. I say this because "endangerment" and "neglect" are very subjective. We as a society cannot tolerate the state running around looking for things it deems "neglectful" as this opens the door to some serious civil liberties concerns. If the laws are reactionary, then parents are prosecuted after the fact. In this situation, the circumstances of the accident can be examined in court by a jury and this way we can minimize any harm to civil liberties.
A good example of this is the case of the kid who shot himself with an Uzi at a gun show. Of course, normally letting a child use an Uzi under proper supervision is relatively harmless as long as the child is strong enough to wield the weapon and if not, the parent or guardian or someone should "help" fire the gun. If letting a kid fire an uzi were considered neglect or endangerment, then anyone could be arrested for this even though they are watching the child and supervising the activity. If despite proper supervision, the kid still gets hurt, then it is not neglect, but if the parent or guardian made some kind of error like handing the kid the uzi barrel first, safety off and auto on, then this could be considered "endangerment" by a jury.
I would say infants and children under age 10 would not understand the risks.
Pretty good research out there about the difficulty that adolescents have assessing risk, but you get to the core of the issue.
When I was ten, I was running around in the woods clobbering my friends in the head with sticks. I guess I had to asses certain risks, but I really dont know.
I admit, I did not look into the studies, but I wonder about a few things. How do the studies define risk and how do they determine whether or not a child has considered the risk. I did some stupid shit when I was ten knowing full well that it was dangerous. My priorities may have been off, but risk is relative and each risk has its own possibility for reward. Perhaps children favor reward more than risk, but I would not totally discount their ability to assess risk simply because they are keen on impressing females.
Why not just leave it up to the insurer? What are the unintended consequences of voiding the insurance policy if the rider/passengers are not wearing head/vision protection?
W/o the helmet, there is increased risk of more significant brain injury. This is more likely to result in tax payers having to pay for social security disability for the rest of that person's life.
The problem then Amy, is the welfare state not the helmetless rider.
So, l0b0t, what is the solution for dealing with that incapacitated individual?
I neither know or care. That is a matter for that individual, their family, & anyone they might convince to help them. To use the government's monopoly on force to confiscate from strangers is, IMO, evil and immoral, no matter the reason.
Would it be considered neglectful for a parent to allow their child to ride without a helmet?
That depends. The prerequisite for this assumption is a belief that only bad things happen.
The prerequisite for this assumption is a belief that only sometimes easily avoidable bad things happen.
Fixed for ya.
I personally believe you are stealing desperately essential pleasures and lessons from children by constantly increasing infantilization and cocooning of children in the fruitless quest to eliminate risk.
There are certainly tendencies in this direction and I agree with the general point. That said, it seems this is largely a tendency to not make distinctions between truly risky behavior (e.g., helmetless riding) and slightly risky behavior.
But children, of course, learn this distinction from their parents, for the most part.
Building levees and requiring vaccinations are not legitimate powers of government. If you want to live in a flood-prone area, that's your decision. It is not a public health hazard that your house floats away, and if you refuse to protect your kid from disease, shame on you, but that's also your decision. Even the fact that vaccines are far more effective when nearly everyone has one doesn't mean those who do get them can force parents to put their kids through medical procedures they object to. And no foods CAUSE diabetes; please don't promote that lie, the government doesn't need another excuse to control us.
OK, maybe I'd buy that levees aren't a legitimate government concern. But vaccinations?! Come on now. That's a totally justified use of coercion.
Maybe you're not a parent, so you're not aware how vulnerable babies are for their first year or so. It takes a while to immunize them against the major communicable diseases. In the meantime, they are defenseless against the irresponsibility of others' parents who do not vaccinate.
Maybe you're not a parent, so you're not aware how vulnerable babies are for their first year or so. It takes a while to immunize them against the major communicable diseases. In the meantime, they are defenseless against the irresponsibility of others' parents who do not vaccinate.
Then keep them indoors. There, problem solved.
"Then keep them indoors. There, problem solved."
If air were privatized, I might accept that. Unfortunately we haven't yet figured out a feasible way to do away with all forms of commons. Where commons DO exist, there is nothing unlibertarian about enacting laws to punish those who damage them or render them unsafe for others. Going unvaccinated is just such a behavior.
If vaccination of infants is effective, why would those who have been vaccinated be at risk? The argument is weak.
1. Herd immunity. Do we really need to hash out the effect of vaccines on disease risk as the percentage of a population using them changes? Again?
2. See Mike Laursen's post upstream. By not challenging the assertion that it takes a while to vaccinate infants, Coeus implicity accepted it. For the purpose of further posts in this thread that reference it, it is a given.
+1
they are defenseless against the irresponsibility of others' parents who do not vaccinate
What a load of horse shit.
-A. Parent
Explain, please.
I'm well aware of the facts. But that's exactly the thinking that always gets us in trouble. What about religious objections? What about freedom? When did the state get the right to parent? Sure, your argument is valid, and I understand it. But where is the line then? Couldn't other arguments be made about public education or even physical conditioning of kids, arguing it's for "everyone's" benefit? That it's healthier? Does that mean the government has a right to execute you for getting sick, because you are a public health risk? I know it's extreme, but the logic is the same.
Also, just because many diseases are airborne doesn't mean that there is a substantial risk of microbes floating a mile away. You can keep your kid locked away if you feel it's a worthy trade-off.
That was supposed to be in the above exchange, sorry.
Here's a thought. How about the state gets out of the one size fits all business and tells people "Look, you wanna ride a bike without a helmet then sign this paper absolving other people having to pay for your medical expenses and get yourself personal liability insurance."
You know, like a grown up.
Naive?
Is that what has been called libertarian paternalism? Sounds good to me compared to the nanny state status quo.
Does to me too. No clue what you call it.
Sorry, but after reading the term "libertarian socialism", I'm very skeptical of hybridization.
Here's a thought. How about the state gets out of the one size fits all business and tells people "Look, you wanna ride a bike without a helmet then sign this paper absolving other people having to pay for your medical expenses and get yourself personal liability insurance."
Sounds like Texas. You're only allowed to not wear a helmet if you have insurance.
I would be curious to know more about these 'statistics" The Feds are always very quick to quote percentages that are slanted to show what they would like to see to make their case.
1. How many more motorcycles are on the road from 1997 to 2008? Maybe double?
2. How many of the deaths would a helmet have prevented? Why do they automatically consider they were all head injuries?
3. How many of the total number of accidents might have been prevented if the rider did not have his field of vision slighted?
4. How many of these fatalities were new or inexperienced riders without even an hour of a safety course?
I have been riding over 40 years. I personally know of 5 people that died in bike accidents. Not ONE would have been saved had he been wearing a helmet and one might have lived had he not been. A bystander pulled his helmet from his head and very likely broke a cracked bone in his neck.
We do not need more laws. We as a society have already turned way too much of a police force from "protect and serve" to "generate revenue". Politicians are not concerned with me dying in a bike accident near as much as they are motivated by the fines generated enforcing the law. Is that why history shows us that most of the useless, senseless, laws are developed in periods of a poor economy?
What is missed in the article, & in much of the subsequent discussion, is the question, "who owns Me?"
If I own Myself, these questions (to wear or not wear a helmet; smoke; etc.) are matters of my own conscience. No one else has the proper authority to interfere w/ my choices [so long as I do not commit aggression against the equal rights of others].
Declaring or exercising authority, individually or collectively, to interfere w/ those choices claims ownership of Me.
The same would apply to seat belt laws.
IF liberals really gave a shit, they would mandate:
Full NASCAR-spec roll cages in every passenger vehicle
Flame-retardant clothing and helmets
Restrictor plates making it impossible for Joe Average to break the max national speed limit
...but they don't. Hypocrites.
I'm down with this.
Don't miss next week's episode: "The Case Against Car Seat Belts Laws"
Something something pays the bills something dance to something tune.
it's so right,thank you for your saring
I disagree strongly with the writer of this nonsense.
Using his argument, seat belts in cars should not be mandatory, nor should baby seats in cars, etc. etc. etc.
The greeks said: "all things in moderation, nothing in excess".
I think that too much libertarianism is an excess we cannot live with. When the lives of people are less important than an ideology, then something is seriously wrong with the ideology.
Awesome dude, thanks.
I think that too much libertarianism is an excess we cannot live with.
That's because you're an idiot with no ability for abstract thought. If you want a car with seatbelts, then buy one. We don't need a mandate to require safety measures from manufacturers. Do you really believe that the government is the only thing that keeps you safe?
So then, what is your opinion on a moderately honest man? Do you trust your life to a somewhat professional doctor? Would you leave your kids to a babysitter who just usually puts their welfare as her number one concern? There are two possible answers to these questions; either you yourself have an extreme ideology which may cause loss of life, or you are a hypocrite without realizing it.
If they really cared about my safety, they'd make me sit at home and smoke dope all day.
Smoking is too dangerous, you could burn something. It would be an IV drip.
An IV could get infected...
Hi Steve,
This is simply another case of bait and switch "Government Style." First you are given "free" emergency medical services by law at your local hospital. Then the government looks at the real costs and decides that they are too high. What is the best course of action? HMOs have decided that treating problems earlier reduces total cost. But treatin accicent victims in advance of the accident is a relatively difficult thing to do. In the cse of motorcyclists it involves a helmet - to stop major medical costs of treating the accident victims.
Typical Government ploy - provide a "benefit." Net discover that it has attendant costs. Limit costs by limiting behavoir.
How many of th emorotcyclists injured end up on life support for yers or decades? Wouldn't society be better off if they died on impact?
NO, says Government - every life is sacred. We need these people - as taxpayers or benefit receivers to maintain the populace in our total contol.
Screw mandating child safety seats too. If only for those that missed their chance to legally snuff junior either in the womb, or beyond that magical 6 inches.
Fucking baby seats.
A perfect example of our soul-crushing nannytarian overlords stealing one of the ultimate joys of childhood: sitting in your mom's lap (in the FRONT SEAT- OMG DANGER OMG!!!!11), looking out the window at all the cool stuff of which the world is made going by.
Fuck.
A comment upthread about donor cards got me thinking about this. When you die, are there property rights to your body? Do your heirs have a right to do with your body what they wish? Do you have to make this known in your will?
It seems to me that once you cease to be alive, your body is 1) a piece of property to be used by the owners as they wish. They can sell parts on ebay or haul you over to China to make a tidy profit (if they could get a chartered flight and a bunch of dry ice).
The alternative is 2) your body is a pile of biohazard that the state can claim and immediately dispose of at their discretion. They could harvest your organs at will since you no longer have rights.
Or 3) the rights of your heirs are contingent on the overriding needs of the state. If there is an overriding need by the state, they can appropriate certain parts of your heirs' "property." Call it some form of imminent domain. Once they are done taking what has a public interest, the remaining part of the property can be retained by the heirs to do with as they please.
I know the way it should be, but how do you guys think a court would rule on this if, say, someone wanted to take their dead wife's body to China, as expressed in the wife's will, to sell off shit. Could a court stop them? Under what statute?
Sloop, you have stumbled onto an iceberg tip here. Once, most states treated a dead body as chattle property, the legal next of kin having most rights (and responsibility) of disposal. Enter the altruism called..."Gift of Life" (or Parts is Parts).
With the advent of technology, parts can now be "harvested" and used for transplantation and/or experimentation. A cottage industry engaged in by the largest of the teaching hospitals to avail themselves of these parts. Today it is a billion dollar industry and most large urban hospitals are on board. Long bones, skin, eyes, pituitary glands, joints and probably penises are extracted. The reward for the hospitals are huge fees for transplantation. It is so large Gift of Life has a political wing that rivals the major political parties. State laws have been passed that supercede wishes of reletives in many cases and mndate hospitals of any size notify Gift of Life of the death prior to notification of reletives. They crow about how the tissues are taken "at no expense to the family".
Nothing, from religion to breast feeding can be found on the internet without some negative information, however small. Do a Google search on Gift of Life. They scrub the internet daily to expunge any derogatory comment. Try to get a detailed description of the "havesting" proceedures of long bone removal and ass skinning. It's much like abortion, graphic pictures of the proceedure are deemed pornographic. Attempt to glean how much is made by the medical industry in the transplant field.
Altruism indeed, and arguably of value. However, with the hundreds of millions in income from such an industry, why is the only one fucked the donor and heirs?? If the parts are that valuable they could at least pop for the funeral expenses for whats left. They will tell you that they pay nothing to discourage the selling of body parts by third worlders. Moreover, how is it that the state can endow a for profit enterprise with more rights than a surviving heir?
Do the search and remember those favorite words of Watergate. 'Follow the Money".
When I die, I'm donating my body to science fiction.
how do you guys think a court would rule on this if, say, someone wanted to take their dead wife's body to China, as expressed in the wife's will, to sell off shit. Could a court stop them? Under what statute?
I suspect the Morticians' lobby has managed to place some sort of bullshit law on the books requiring any deceased person's body to be "properly" embalmed before it may be transported, thereby rendering it useless for the purpose you had in mind.
Yay, regulatory capture!
This is the same lobby that has barbered some states into mandating the embalming and purchasing of caskets for ALL decedents, even those going to the crematorium.
Nonsense. Provide documentation please. Since enaction of FTC Trade Regulations in the late 70's embalming is NEVER mandatory, even with funerals involving viewing, and while some "container" is necessary (usually a crematory requirement) to burn up grandma it sure as hell isn't necessary for it to be a casket.
You make think little of the funeral industry but it certainly doesn't merit outright fabrication and slander. They are near the bottom of the list of top consumer complaints each year.
Well it WAS the law in Florida until at least 1984 (when the FTC changed the rules, not the "late 70s"), we had to purchase a wooden casket and have my brother's body embalmed, so fuck you Doofus. Also, the death industry is awash with shoddy practices, malfeasance, gross negligence, & malpractice. Jessica Mitford's The American Way Of Death is a great primer. http://www.amazon.com/American.....0679771867
Ah, so you're talking about what WAS in 1984, but is NOT today. Good argument.
Oh, and Mitford. Her tome was about as accurate about the funeral industry as nader's was about the auto industry. Her fit of pique was mostly about Christian practices as she was (yet another) supposed athiest, she just happened to write an essay about funerals. She sensed public interest and penned her "expose'" to cash in on a cheap book (by her own admission). If memory serves she was an early communist and union advocate, a fitting hero for a petulant liberal.
Wow, the author whose work led to the very rules you are crowing about liked unions so we better not listen to ANYTHING she had to say. You demonstrate great critical thinking and reading comprehension skills there Doofus.
Also, here is a nice read about rent seeking, states that require one's casket be purchased from a licensed mortician. (PDF)
http://tinyurl.com/27bkvdf
Nice try. From the FTC General Funeral Rule:
[the funeral provider may not refuse, or charge a fee, to handle a casket you bought elsewhere]
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pub.....pro19.shtm
Your move.
Nice. I present evidence and rather than counter argument, you engage in ad hominem attacks upon the author, classy Doofus. Also, the 2nd link is to a study about STATES that require one to purchase caskets ONLY from licensed morticians and you counter with unrelated federal rules about fees. Your trolling = FAIL.
You present anecdotal evidence and I present language from the fucking FTC Rule. How hard is it to Google up the fucking RULE?
As an aside, as a supposed libertarian (or are you just another run of the mill adolescent liberal?) the Federal Trade Commission established a pricing and practices rule on an entire industry that is one of the smallest of small business, largely engaged in commerce on a sectional city basis. The FTC solicited complaints from a 10 year period of time. Receiving few Arthur Angel (Chief Counsel for the FTC) authorized the FTC to solicit PAID depositions and came up with 1000. A thousand complaints in a 10 year period of time when (I'm guessing) hundreds of thousands of transactions had occurred. Mos of the complaints had either been resolved through fraud statutes, or were ruled incoherent or unreasonable. And yet a mope such as yourself advocates such treatment on bog about fucking Libertarianism??? I was required to follow this case as a student. It revolted me then and enrages me now.
Wear a bag over your head kid, you ain't cutting it.
Nice, more ad hominem attacks and claims of fact that are tangential at best. Again, your critical thinking and reading comprehension skills could use some work (I complain about rent seeking and you think I'm either a supposed libertarian or an adolescent liberal?!?). Enjoy your weekend Doofus.
And here is a letter to the FTC from Arthur Angel himself claiming that the rules you are so enamored of are ineffectual in curbing funeral home abuses.
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/rulemak.....ent061.PDF
All I know is if I see another "Look Twice, Motorcyclists are everywhere" sign I'm going to have a conniption. Why the fuck do I need to watch out for motorcyclists when they're the one's practicing a dangerous hobby?
Uh, 'cause you're engaged in a dangerous activity with a whole bunch of other people engaged in a dangerous activity sharing public space, and mutual cooperation, consideration of others, & paying attention to what the fuck is going on around you is necessary to minimize & manage the risks you pose to yourself & everyone else on the roads.
I always see those stickers and I say, "Yeah, they're everywhere. Especially zipping up the lane line to dart in and out of traffic."
You won't need any signs if your horn sticks behind a dozen Hell's Angels stopped at a red light.
Try driving in Ohio without wearing your seatbelt. Be prepared to pay a fine.
###
Yet we don't ban these activities. Why not? Because we retain a respect for individual freedom and choice...
###
No, it's just because we haven't gotten around to those yet. We're always giving up freedoms, particularly when public health is the excuse.
I'm old enough to have a father who was endlessly enraged by seat belt laws. Who complains now?
We've given up endless freedoms to health care through the FDA in prescription laws, licensing, regulation, import bans, and gag rules on manufacturers.
Yeah, people get excited about Obama "soclializing" health care, but our health care freedom has already been nationalized 95%. Who, besides crazy folks at Reason, actually wants to get back any of the health care freedoms we've lost?
If the stats show that forcing car drivers also to wear helmets would reduce public health-care costs, I think car drivers should also have to wear helmets. It's the same argument.
Anyone have a link to the government study that says most people would die even with a helmet?
Get your laws off my body.
The once unbridled West has been suckled dry. It sags, like a heavy load. There is profanity everywhere, yet no fucking free speech. We are slaves to the nannystate built by the frat boy and the turbo slut.
You make think little of the funeral industry but it certainly doesn't merit outright fabrication and slander. They are near the bottom of the list of top consumer complaints each year.
You make think little of the funeral industry but it certainly doesn't merit outright fabrication and slander. They are near the bottom of the list of top consumer complaints each year.
Wow; I've never seen a more compelling argument.
It's not *every* day we get a shill for the morticians' ghouls' lobby to come scold us.
And apparently I am either "a petulant liberal", "an adolescent liberal", or "a supposed libertarian" for daring to complain about ghoul's lobby rent seeking at the state level.
Hmmm, do I detect a man of straw here? You still haven't given the guy a compelling public interest in the federal government regulating what seems like local commerce or where local fraud laws would remedy the problem, if there is one.
Hello. My friend
=== http://www.aeooe.com ===
Dedicated service, the new style, so you feel like a warm autumn!!!
WE ACCEPT PYAPAL PAYMENT
YOU MUST NOT MISS IT!!!
thank you !!!
=== http://www.aeooe.com ===
I agree with allowing motorcyclists to spread their gray matter across the interstate, but with two stipulations: All bikers must relinquish their rights to receive government assistance for themselves and their families while also carrying insurance to cover their own and their families' expenses in case of injury, disability or death.
This is a pretty dense argument.
Ever drive on the freeway and have your windshield get hit by a rock?
Now imagine that there's no windshield, so the rock hits your face.
How well do you think you'll be able to drive when that happens?
There's enough flying debris on freeways and major roads to make this a public health concern. It's not legal for the same reason drunk driving isn't legal - we have to be on the same road as you.
There's no requirement that riders wear full face helmets (or even a helmet with a face shield), so it's still possible that you can get hit in the face with a rock while complying with the helmet law.
Why stop at mandating helmets, though? You can still get hit in the hands or the neck with a rock; these are the clear equivalent of drunk driving as well. Maybe we'd be better off if we just banned motorcycles.
Best quote I've ever seen concerning wearing a helmet, from a professional racer, "People who don't think they need to wear a helmet to protect their brain, are probably right".
Here's the punch line, if the new law simply stated that if you were in a motorcycle accident with no helmet that Medicare/Medicaid didn't have to fix your sorry ass, Dick Armey and the Tea Party would start shitting bricks into their government issued bedpans.
That was your ad-hominem attack of the day.
"...we don't ban these activities."
They're working on it.
There is no helmet law in Florida either.
You should be able to ride w/o a helmet. But if you do so, it should be mandatory that you're also an organ donor.
surely personal care.
the 1966 federal helmet law was passed because the consulting firm of peat, marwick and mitchell stated that the law would reduce victims by 50%. not only did this not happen but the complying states saw increases in their percentage rates per each 100 accidents. president ford signed a repeal of this "blackmailed" (loss of 10% highway funding) law in 1975 but the USDOT, NYTSA and IIHS keep perpetuating the myth that helmet laws are working. there have been some bikers who have been saved by helmets and have been made examples of but the truth is that dead bikers don't talk so you hardly ever hear of the complete failure of mandatory helmet wearing. in an accident where the head is involved one of two things will happen or both, a swelling of the brain causing oxygen starvation (fatal) or a broken neck (up 750%) since the law. the biggest number of victims can be associated with ruptured hearts and internal injuries accounting for 67% whereas the head is involved in only 15% before and 14% after helmets. the feds try and show how great helmets are by using the death rates per each 10,000 registrations, a statistic that is controlled by both the weather and the economy. a true statistic is that every state helmeted or not all have at least 100 motorcycle accidents which are not controlled by any other factor except that it took place and the stats generated (higher death and injury rates in the helmet states) can not be fudged. either the feds are stupid when it comes to statistics or they are masters at lying. my 25 years of research was instrumental in the 1975 repeal of the federal law and it still holds true today, that helmets do not prevent an accident nor do they offer much protection after and may in some cases even contribute to an injury or fatality. so my fellow bikers, don't become a "crash test dummy" for the feds to find out if helmet will work in a crash avoid it by riding smart and defensively.
Great article, I never really made the comparisons that were presented here.
I would have to support letting people do what they want to do in almost all cases, except this one. I relate this to wearing seat belts in cars... that is the law and it is in place to protect the car riders. Similarly requiring a helmet is in place to protect the riders. Neither one of these affect other people, so that argument for riders not to wear a helmet is invalid.
In the end, people are going to do whatever they want. If the law is in place and they don't like it... either break the law or don't ride anymore. The law isn't in place for no reason, there is a valid reason for it.
Yes Mr Chapman, you can justify riding without a helmet but how would you like to be the one who tells the motorcyclist loved ones that he/she is paralized for life, brain injuries but not dead, or they are deceased? It is not an individual's choice, they need to think how it affects the ones around them. My son wore a helmet and thankful he did, at least he is alive. He had a swollen brain but with no damage, but he sustained spinal injury which is permanent and a theorasic tear. My friends husband a week later, after I begged him to wear a helmet and he said I have been riding for 25 yrs. and nothing is going to happen to me. He was hit, he was in surgery for 8 hours trying to put his face back where it use to be. After he recovered, he could not function at work, lost his job, had emotional problems which caused his 25 plus year marriage end. He had to be sent home to his parents to deal with. He left a wife and daughter in a place they did not choose, he chose it for them. I think if you ask them, they would choose their home that they had to sell, spending the family time that they use to share, his wife would like her old husband back.
I would like to see my 6'3" son walking on his 21 birthday not in restraints in intensive care! Like most decisions, there is a domino affect, as ADULTS we should try to think of someone other than one's self.
What about seatbelts? They are required by law but it does not affect others (is not a "public health issue") if people do not and yet it is a law. and people who do are a lot less likely to die in the event of an accident when they wear their seatbelts. Same with helmets on motorcyclists.
I live in Nebraska, the death rate of those with out a helmet is at 18%. In Iowa they dont require one, and the death rate there is 94%. Think of that just for a second while you imagine your son or daughter riding their motorcycle just before it broadsides a car that pulled out in front of them while they are doing 65 mph. Think of there brains scattered all over the road, and the young man that has to pick them up with a shovel and put them and the other body parts into the bag. Now Imagine them instead in an ambulance with a much greater chance of survival even if its in a wheel chair for the rest of their life. Which do you prefer? Body bag or wheel chair? I know which one I would want. Helmets SAVE lives.