TheIronWarrior
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 423
- Reaction score
- 329
- Points
- 63
- Location
- Halifax, NS, Canada
Where that argument falls apart for me wouldn't be applicable to the US, but with Canada's universal healthcare, someone who gets insane road rash and needs skin grafts or ends up in hospital for a while for whatever other crash related reasons directly impacts everyone, since we all pay in to everyone's healthcare, and we all rely on the same services so if he's trying up a bed, that's a bed someone else might have needed.Personally I believe people have the right to be idiots with their own safety. Don't believe in seatbelt laws or airbag requirements in cars, but I wear a seatbelt and wouldn't buy a daily driver without airbags. Don't believe in helmet laws either, but I'm an ATGATT guy. Ride your ride. Live your life. Your liberties only end when they infringe upon the liberties of others.
The other arguments are less tangible, but for instance if someone was involved in a car-on-bike collision, the emotional damage due to watching his brains scatter over the pavement and feeling at least somewhat responsible for that... Though if everyone just drives safely we have no need for "safety" devices.
There's also the argument that as safety devices have improved, people's acceptance of risk has risen. I'm reminded of the video of a crash test between an old Bel Air and a modern Malibu. The Bel Air is destroyed and the test dummy battered. The Malibu takes a beating, but the passenger compartment and simulated occupant are relatively unscathed. If you know crashes are much much more survivable, it seems people tend to care less about DRIVING safely and rely on the inherent safety of the vehicle.