Helmet Use should be a personal choice

[Easy Rider]

Originally Posted by kmkindred

The government (local, state, and federal) has to calculate the cost of "risk" to the society.

There you go. That pretty much sums up the "nanny state".
Alas, I think it is crap. That is NOT a function of government in a so-called free socitey.

The government should have only TWO functions:

1) Doing things that are not practical for individuals to do like building roads and providing for a national defense.
2) Preventing individuals from being victimized by other people or groups.

That's it.......per the Constitution, in the US at least. There is nothing in the Constitution that says the government shall protect us from ourselves; quite to the contrary, in fact.

Is wearing seatbelts a good idea? Is wearing a helmet a good idea? Is not eating too many Big Macs a good idea? Is walking at least 30 minutes a day a good idea? ON and on and on.........
YES, no question about it but it is NOT a proper function of our Constitutional government to FORCE any of those things on anybody.

I used to think that the "cost to society" was a somewhat reasonable arguement for mandating helmet use........until I saw a study done by, I think, the National Insurance Inst. which concluded that the "tremendous additional insurance cost" of treating the additional injuries if NOBODY wore a helmet would be something like 5 CENTS per year for each policy holder. So much for that arguement.

Unlike helmet use, coronary disease in this country costs multi-billions of dollars and is the leading cause of death (or right near the top, not sure of the most recent counts). The "cost to society" is tremendous. Do you think the government should mandate a maximum weight for everyone in the country......and make it illegal to sell red meat........and limit the amount of sugar that foods can contain ????

Maybe YOU don't but some people DO believe that. It is a VERY slippery slope.

The government needs to take better care of IT'S business......which has been woefully neglected for at least 20 years or so, allowing big business and big finance to rape the economy.......and leave you and me the F*** alone.

[alantf]

Originally Posted by Easy Rider

That pretty much sums up the "nanny state".
Do you think the government should mandate a maximum weight for everyone in the country......and make it illegal to sell red meat........and limit the amount of sugar that foods can contain ????

Never thought I'd do it, but I agree 150% with easy - except for one thing!

England is a much bigger nanny state than America. Apart from the total ban on handguns (i.e. nobody but criminals can own one) we're being bombarded on every side by government propaganda about eating habits. Every chance they get ,they chant their mantras. "you MUST eat 5 portions of green vegetables a day" "you MUST NOT add salt to your food" "you MUST change to a lower fat diet" The list goes on & on. The capitals I've used stress the way these self rightious buffoons speak to us - as though we're all half wits.

I seriously think that a lot of the legislation is just so that the government officials can justify their own jobs, or to get their names up in lights as the saviours of the masses. I mean, everyone in the world remembers McCarthy, & look what an idiot he made of himself. Another thing I've noticed, is that when they're up for election they promise us everything we ask for, but as soon as they're in office, those promises are out the window.

[Easy Rider]

Originally Posted by alantf

Never thought I'd do it, but I agree 150% with easy

:jawdrop: :crackup

Re: England. It is contagious. I think the infection is accelerating as we have more influence, via immigration, from cultures where being told when and where you can take a leak is the norm.

I have no problem with the government PROMOTING things that are safer and healthier; I don't even mind them using a tiny bit of my money to do it. It is when they try to force it upon me with the rule of law that I have a BIG problem.

P.S. And consider for a moment that many of the laws that are passed get the support that they do not because of some moral imperative but because some powerful special interest group with money pushes it ........to their own advantage. I wonder how much lobbying $$$ is spent by helmet manufacturers.

[alanmcorcoran]

I also don't really understand this obsession with maximizing one's life span. Yes, most days I don't want to die, but I'm pretty sure it's going to happen sooner or later regardless of what I eat. I exercise moderately and, to a certain extent, I watch what I eat, but mainly to feel good while I *am* alive, not to stave off the inevitable. Not that I'm planning on this afternoon, but I got to figure a motorcycle accident or a heart attack are some of your best exit options (compared to say, cancer or MS.) The downside is the possibility of paralysis. Not so good.

You'd think, living in such a religious society, with all this talk about the value of "faith" and such, that people would be in a hurry to die and go to their so-called "reward." But it seems like it is the opposite, praying not to die.

I don't think we have ever really come to grips with the knowlege that we are temporary.

[music man]

Originally Posted by mrlmd1

1.Why do many people go ATGATT? There no laws mandating armored jackets or wearing gloves or boots. It's because it makes sense, that's why, and the benefit has been demonstrated. There was a problem and it was fairly easy to solve.


2.You wrote that the crash rate in Florida decreased after the helmet law was repealed - do you honestly think there is a direct correlation between those two events? Like it had nothing to do with having to pass an MSF course prior to getting a license or better training for bikers? What did it have to do with no helmets? Better visibility, cooler heads, less weight on your neck? It is one of those true/true/unrelated scenarios, but someone links the 2 events together in order to prove their point.

On the first part of this, you actually made a point for NOT having mandatory helmet laws, your average person (including me) who lives in a state where there is no helmet law, will wear a helmet anyways (I do) whether the government tells them to or not, why, because it makes sense to wear one. The people that don't wear one because there is no law will go without one every chance they get in a state that does have that law.


On your second point, I think it is "Safer" RIDING without a helmet as far as visibility, less weight and fatigue on your neck, blah, blah, blah..... but it is not safer CRASHING without a helmet, so I wear one.


In closing, you are just not going to save people who do not want to be saved, you can't force safety on someone because they will circumvent that safety any chance they get, Just like if people want to do heroin they will, legal or illegal just doesn't make a damn. But if they made heroin legal and available at every local grocery store and gas station tomorrow, I would be no closer to doing heroin then than I am now, Plain and Simple.

[burkbuilds]

Easy brought up a good point when he talked about money. I've always found that if you follow the "money trail" you'll probably find out a lot about any issue. While doing this research I did find one pretty big money trail. It seems that Insurance companies are some of the biggest contributors to campaigns for mandatory motorcycle helmet laws. Why, well, basically they'd like to see fewer motorcyclists on the road because they insure car owners who get sued and usually loose enormous amounts of money when they cause an accident with a motorcycle like failure to yield right of way. When the court day comes, the plaintiff is often pretty badly injured, he's had months of rehab, often lost his job and may have permanent disabilities, whereas the driver of the car usually has no injuries and some body damage to his car. Juries feel sorry for the biker and he gets a big settlement and the insurance company has to pay up, they don't like that, and they figure the less bikers on the road equals millions of dollars they won't have to pay out. They also know that ridership goes way down every time mandatory helmet laws are passed, so they support mandatory helmet laws as a way to get more bikers off the roads and lower their exposure to lawsuits.

[Easy Rider]

Originally Posted by burkbuilds

They also know that ridership goes way down every time mandatory helmet laws are passed, so they support mandatory helmet laws as a way to get more bikers off the roads and lower their exposure to lawsuits.

AH HA !! I knew it. I almost mentioned insurance companies before but wasn't able to make a solid connection.

[patrick_777]

Originally Posted by music man

On your second point, I think it is "Safer" RIDING without a helmet as far as visibility, less weight and fatigue on your neck, blah, blah, blah..... but it is not safer CRASHING without a helmet, so I wear one.

This is one of the best points I've heard made on this discussion, and in this thread.

:plus1:

[mrlmd1]

Again - helmets saving lives is not the only endpoint in the debate. Everyone agrees they reduce the severity of facial and cranial injury. You don't have to be among the undead to benefit from a helmet. There is a cost other than death to not wearing one.

I really don't care about what anyone else does or even thinks about this issue. If we can get away with it, we'll all do what we want. Don't wear a helmet, don't go ATGATT, don't take an MSF course. I don't care. But when you don't try and minimize your injuries and limit your risk somewhat, don't ask me or my neighbor, John Q. Public, to pay for or subsidize your ER and hospital bill. Is that fair enough?
I should have taken a picture with my cell phone a few days ago while waiting for friends to show up outside a movie theater in town. The guy could be the poster boy for the Darwin Awards. He's maybe 40 ?, real cool standing there on the ticket line line after getting off a sport bike, wearing a 3/4 jacket and carrying a helmet, with shorts and flip-flops on. Bright, real bright. Sure you can do what you want, it's your freedom, it's also your skin, and don't come running to me for aid when you scrape it off.

[burkbuilds]

Politically speaking: I'm basically a Libertarian, I do NOT think the government should be responsible to take care of everybody and that includes paying for everybody's health care and food and housing and everything else. I'm with Easy Rider on this one, the governments role in our lives should be minimized to things individuals can NOT do for themselves. Where does it stop? One day they say, "Gotta wear a helmet", that's not far from saying, "gee, motorcyclists are more likely to die than automobile drivers per million miles traveled, so we better outlaw motorcycle riding." Then it goes to anything else you might want to do, skiing, hang gliding, sky diving, mountain climbing . . . then one day somebody notices that automobile drivers are more likely to die than pick up truck drivers per million miles traveled, so they outlaw cars, and then they notice that 18 wheeler drivers are less likely to die than pickup truck drivers, so. . . . where does it end? It's not the governments job to meddle in my personal choices, even if they can say they are doing it for my good or the good of society because of financial situations! By the way, I think it's stupid that the government "outlaws" those little cars from Europe that get great gas mileage because they aren't as safe as the bigger cars. Aren't any of those cars safer to be in in an accident than we are on our bikes? Probably, so why can't I choose to drive one and get great gas mileage? At most, the government needs to test those cars and give them a "safety rating" and let us make the choice about what we want to drive!
Well, I guess I'm getting pretty off topic now, but to bring it back to my point, the government shouldn't be "forcing" anybody to wear a helmet! If they want to promote wearing a helmet, or give "rating" to helmets so we as individuals can make a more informed choice, I'm okay with that, but it should be my choice. And I'll personally chose to wear one whether it's a law or not, but that is and should be my choice not the governments mandate!