First, I'd like to state that the argument is not whether it is a good idea to wear a helmet (or seat belt). The argument is whether it is the government's right or responsibility to dictate to you whether you need to take some action to protect yourself or reduce the risk of some activity, with such actions based solely on the judgment of the government.
I see the principles of having a helmet law as exactly the same as a seat belt law, is there a difference? Take away one, they should take away both? Everyone agrees that by wearing them, it reduces injury and death!
Agreed, there is no difference. I for one do not believe in mandatory seat belt laws either. Again, it is stupid to not wear one. I wore one long before the insurance industry convinced the Federal government to bribe (well, reverse bribe in that they withheld money) states to enact seat belt laws. (I do believe in seat belt/restraint laws for children in vehicles. I accept that the society needs to step in to protect children from ignorant parents.)
Those who ride should be responsible enough, especially if they have a wife and kid, to have life insurance.
Actually, as I’m sure you will agree, anyone with a spouse and kid(s) should have life insurance whether they ride or not. It’s the responsible thing to do.
The use of helmets can be viewed the same way. Chances are, there are many riders out there riding without any or very little medical coverage and whenever they get hurt, somebody is stuck footing the bill.
If the use of helmets help save us money, I'm all for it. If there is any way to have the one's who choose not to ride without one who have no medical insurance can be just left on the side of the road left to die, I'm all for it.
This gets to the crux of the argument, I think. As a society, we seem to have decided that we won’t let people die if they do not have medical insurance and need medical treatment. Helmet and seatbelt laws seem to say, “I choose to not let you die if you need treatment and have no insurance. So you may cost me money if you wreck without a helmet. Therefore, I get to dictate your behavior.” That’s all well and good, but as I have stated before, based on that logic motorcycles should be banned altogether. They serve no necessary purpose. They are an impractical primary means of transportation. Many cars get better gas mileage than many bikes, so that argument is gone. The death rate is many times higher than for automobiles. They should be banned so that those who wreck them (helmet or not) and die do not stick me with the bill for caring for their dependents, or with medical or disability costs if they don’t happen to die. Also, there a lots of other unnecessary and dangerous activities that need to be banned, including:
Smoking (of course)
Drinking
Running/Jogging (lots of joggers get hit by cars)
Biking (like motorcycles but more dangerous since they cannot get out of their own way)
Eating anything except fruits and vegetables
Hiking
Skiing
Baseball/football/any sport with high speed projectiles that can and do kill people.
Driving a car over 20 mph
Etc.
The above is mostly tongue in cheek, just making a point.
To those who disagree, please do not take the above comments as personal affronts. I respect your opinions and certainly see your point of view. I just ask that you think through the complete consequences and ramifications of your position.
With the above said, I might be amenable to the idea of requiring some minimum life and health insurance if you ride without a helmet. I’ll have to think that through. I think the biggest problem I would have is that it would just put the government’s fingers into yet another area of everyone’s life.
This is your head peeople , thats right your head the thing that makes you function with out it you die simple...
