Helmet law

[OriginalRocket]

I feel naked without a helmet. The windblast is annoying, the wind noise is damaging to hearing. Not to mention the bugs pelting your face. I've seen motocycle/scooter crashes, and they look like they hurt. I can't fathom why anyone would ride without a helmet. I like living, and living with my face intact.

I ride full armor, and am always looking at new, improved tech!

I'm with the crowd of "if it saves me money..."

 

[Mike Cash]

Teachers, parents, and others have been doing just that for years. It's just that most people don't want to pay for it.

I meant mandatory quality of outcome, as in: "You will be forcibly retained in school until you satisfy the requirements".

It was an oblique way of making the point made later by someone else that once a society decides to start mandating individual's actions based on their real or perceived costs to the society as a whole then it is well on the way down the slippery slope of casting away its individual liberties....which some very wise person once pointed out are seldom lost all at once.

If I have to wear a helmet, then you can't have a cheeseburger.

 

[MZ5]

I believe in freedom of choice as well, but not when someone's choice costs me money. I don't mind idiots risking injury and death, but if someone ends up brain dead on life support or on permanent disability because of a traumatic brain injury, and it is paid for with my tax dollars or makes my insurance premiums go up, then I get a say in their decision. I also don't mind seatbelt laws. The other guy's individual freedom ends at my wallet.

The only way for people's choices to _not_ invade your wallet is to eliminate the system of government where one person or group can extract tax money from you. Good luck with that.

 

[Fuzzy]

I am for freedom of choice but don't want to pay for someone else's choice. I would like to see insurance premium based on the choices such as different price based on whether I commit to wear a helmet. Then I pay for my choices not someone else's choices. Same as getting lower cost health insurance for choosing not to smoke.

 

[Mike Cash]

Every one of us does something that results in an unwanted expense on some others. If Faction A succeeds in using that a basis to impinge on the liberties of Faction B today then they'd better watch their rear ends the day the balance shifts and Faction B decides to curtail the liberties of Faction A on the same grounds.

The modern Nanny State defend-us-from-ourselves mentality may seem fine so long as you're in the majority and the ox getting gored isn't your own. But a Nanny State is never contented and must constantly cast about for some cause to exercise its busybody activities on. It is only a matter of time before it turns on the very ones who thought it was a good idea in the first place.

 

[Naked_Duc]

NY motorcyclist dies on ride protesting helmet law

Covering my daughter in bubble wrap and running next to her with a foam mattress when she rides a bike is "nanny state". Forcing her to wear a bike helmet while she roam the street is being responsible. I ATGATT, without people nagging me.

 

[Mike Cash]

NY motorcyclist dies on ride protesting helmet law

Covering my daughter in bubble wrap and running next to her with a foam mattress when she rides a bike is "nanny state". Forcing her to wear a bike helmet while she roam the street is being responsible. I ATGATT, without people nagging me.

What safety measures you as a private individual choose to implement for your daughter has nothing whatsoever to do with "nanny state". When the busybodies use the iron hand of government to force you to break out the bubble wrap, that is "nanny state".

 

[tew47]

Sorry folks I have seen the results of not wearing a helmet, brains all over the street. Would you let your child play tiny mite football and tell him to be a man and don't wear a helmet? Its all about "being told" to wear a helmet. Use "common sense", not male ego if you love your family.

 

[OldJeff]

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.

Martin Niemöller

 

[danrev]

As citizens of a democratic society our freedoms are meant to serve the common good. Freedom does not mean a person can do whatever he/she wants simply because he/she chooses to do it. Liberty is not license. Liberty always has limits. Helmet and seat-belt laws are not being a nanny state but serving the common good. Furthermore, to compare helmet laws to the situation in Germany during WW II and the extermination of the Jews is way out of proportion. Where do reason and common sense find a place on this Forum?

 

[davidc83]

Freedoms equals rights. There is NO right to transportation; even our Bill of Rights, do not include anything about transportation (they had transportation in the 1700s). If there is no loss of a right, there is NO loss of a Freedom.

 

[Mike Cash]

It wasn't a "comparison" between helmet laws and the plight of Jews in Nazi Germany. It was a perfect illustration of the dangers of the slippery slope and complacency.

If you're okay with government forcing you to wear a helmet for "the common good" then you have no room to kick when they decide to ban/restrict motorcycles for "the common good".

 

[Mike Cash]

Freedoms equals rights. There is NO right to transportation; even our Bill of Rights, do not include anything about transportation (they had transportation in the 1700s). If there is no loss of a right, there is NO loss of a Freedom.

The Bill of Rights is not, and was never intended to be, a comprehensive and exhaustive enumerated list of rights. Contrary to what most Americans seem to think, the Bill of Rights does not grant rights to Americans; it merely acknowledges them.

Don't conflate "rights" and "liberties". A government can constrain a liberty without infringing upon any right. Helmet laws are a perfect example. So are local ordinances concerning the size of soft drinks and the content of Happy Meals.

 

[MZ5]

As citizens of a democratic society...

This is a republican society, not a democratic one. And no, that's not a political joke. America is a republic, not a democracy. It has NEVER been a democracy, and was expressly designed to NOT be one (that's why there's also a Senate, rather than only a house of reps).

 

[MZ5]

The Bill of Rights is not, and was never intended to be, a comprehensive and exhaustive enumerated list of rights. Contrary to what most Americans seem to think, the Bill of Rights does not grant rights to Americans; it merely acknowledges them.

Well done, Mike! It's been a very long time, indeed, since I encountered someone who was (apparently) aware that those first 10 amendments were passed/instituted expressly because of the folks who mistakenly believed that the country was founded upon the principle that the gov't owned all 'rights' and granted them to its citizens IF it so chose. Serious over-reaching and usurpation of God-given rights by the federal gov't, not a 'granting' of anything at all, was the catalyst for those first 10 amendments.

 

[OldJeff]

Thanks Mike, you nailed it and said what I meant much better than I could. One other thing bugs about this Federal task force, how much did this cost? With everything that is wrong with the US today, why is this issue even on anyone's radar? Why is the Feds wasting time and money on this issue, when the economy is in the tank, real unemployment is at record setting levels as is food stamp usage. I'm not even going to get started on the ACA crash at the starting line....

But oh my yes, let's worry about a few folks that don't wear a helmet on a bike.....

 

[Mike Cash]

Things like helmet laws are best left to the individual states to decide for themselves. Sadly, Americans have forgotten that the states are not administrative subdivisions of the federal government.

 

[Lou Wambsganss]

No snark or disrespect here, but how are helmet laws best left to individual states? Is there a geographical component to the statistical likelihood of injury or death on a motorcycle that would justify some states requiring helmets due to increased risk? Maybe states like the Carolinas or CA with more curvy roads are more risky? I know that the only motorcycle accident I have been in, I was hit on the interstate by a speeding drunk driver on a straight stretch of I-70. It could have happened in IN, or anywhere in the world.

Or is the State's Rights argument based more on the local population of each state, rather than the geographical location? Are we saying that certain populations of motorcycle riders are more or less risk prone and therefore some may require helmets while others do not? If there is a human element to the argument, it this based on rider proficiency, or education of car drivers in reference to being aware of motorcycles, or what?

Here' is a quick theoretical situation: Let's say (just for the sake of argument, no factual basis) that CA has excellent rider and driver education, while TX has basically none. Let's then say that there is a federal mandate that each state's governing bodies have to decide whether to require helmets or not. Would the more educated rider population in CA vote for helmets, based on their higher level of education and therefore higher awareness of the danger of severe injury/death without helmets? Or would CA riders vote to not require helmets, since their more skilled riders are statistically less prone to be involved in accidents and therefore helmets would be less beneficial?

Again, I'm not being sarcastic here, these are just hypotheticals that are coming up in my head. Please respond with any thoughts, anyone. Thanks.

 

[Mike Cash]

Are you clear on the differences between a federal government and a national government?

 

[Lou Wambsganss]

I am aware of the difference, but if all legislative action is left up to the individual states, I don't think that a lot of the social/civil progress that has been made in the last 240 years would have occurred, or at least at the pace that it has. The southern states would not have chosen to end slavery. Mississippi would not have voted to integrate their schools. The federal government had to step in and make it happen. I think at this point, most of us can look back and agree that racial segregation and slavery are universally morally indefensible, regardless of the preference of the individuals in one state or another.
I am also aware that helmet laws are not nearly as significant an issue as racial equality (or the holocaust as mentioned in a previous post). It's a minor inconvenience to part of the population who participates in a voluntary activity.
To be clear, I do NOT support a federally mandated helmet requirement. What I would like to see happen though, is to be given a lower insurance premium based on my choice to always wear a helmet. In the same way that health premiums are higher for smokers, car premiums are higher for drivers with multiple accidents, and home premiums are higher for those that live in areas prone to natural disaster.