How do you feel about Motorcycle helmet laws?

[Vette73]

I and my father, who also teaches a motorcycle class, were both in motorcycle accidents, neither our fault, and I would have had more injuries and my dad would be dead if we were not wearing out helmets.

Also I, like most people, do not have health insurance, so if I or anybody else gets in a accidnet then ALL of use tax payers have to pay for someone elses choice.

Now if you have at LEAST 250K of health insurance that would cover such a accident then ok you can ride without one, but for the rest, put it on or get a ticket or worse die.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: KoolAidKid
If you have no family or friends and live in a shack in the mountains, I would have no problem at all if you decided to ride around on a motorcycle at 200 mph without a helmet while smoking crack.

Most of us do not live in a vacuum, however. Your actions will almost always affect others, and most of the time you must decide between your personal freedom and the potential/actual negative consequences to others around you. I don't understand why forcing the possibility of a negative consequence on others is any different than forcing the certainty of one. In the end your decision has endangered others. Exercising your freedom restricts the freedom of others. There is no way around this unless you are completely isolated.

This is my main objection to libertarianism: if you really followed this philosophy you would have no freedom at all. In reality we must determine the point at which the negative consequences of our actions that are forced on others outweigh the personal benefits. If society as a whole can come to a consensus on what this point is and codify it into a law, that is fine by me.

Libertarianism requires, and fosters personal responsibility. Nanny-statism does not require, and, in fact, diminishes the importance of personal responsibility. It breeds dependence and personal responsibility simply does not exist in a state of dependence. Why would one be responsible for oneself when the government is there to do it for them?

This is why the nanny-staters can never understand libertarianism, even though this country was founded on, and thrived with a libertarian style government and ideology for over 100 years.

You, and the elitists who think like you are not my mother. I do not need you to tell me how to live my life so long as I am not causing DIRECT harm to others.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
I and my father, who also teaches a motorcycle class, were both in motorcycle accidents, neither our fault, and I would have had more injuries and my dad would be dead if we were not wearing out helmets.

Also I, like most people, do not have health insurance, so if I or anybody else gets in a accidnet then ALL of use tax payers have to pay for someone elses choice.

Now if you have at LEAST 250K of health insurance that would cover such a accident then ok you can ride without one, but for the rest, put it on or get a ticket or worse die.

Um, think about this for a second. You feel taking the risk to ride without medical coverage is OK, but not without a helmet? Come on. :roll: The difference in risk of financial loss is minimal. The REAL savings would be in not riding at all.

This is a VERY weak justification for helmet laws. But, in the nanny-state spirit, it is a great justification for denying you the right to ride at all.

No body cares about the loss of freedom until it's their bull getting gored. You choose to wear a helmet, therefore helmet laws don't affect you. But what comes from the next logical step in the nanny-state ladder and denying you the right to ride at all because it is potentially too costly for society?

 

[KoolAidKid]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: KoolAidKid
If you have no family or friends and live in a shack in the mountains, I would have no problem at all if you decided to ride around on a motorcycle at 200 mph without a helmet while smoking crack.

Most of us do not live in a vacuum, however. Your actions will almost always affect others, and most of the time you must decide between your personal freedom and the potential/actual negative consequences to others around you. I don't understand why forcing the possibility of a negative consequence on others is any different than forcing the certainty of one. In the end your decision has endangered others. Exercising your freedom restricts the freedom of others. There is no way around this unless you are completely isolated.

This is my main objection to libertarianism: if you really followed this philosophy you would have no freedom at all. In reality we must determine the point at which the negative consequences of our actions that are forced on others outweigh the personal benefits. If society as a whole can come to a consensus on what this point is and codify it into a law, that is fine by me.

Libertarianism requires, and fosters personal responsibility. Nanny-statism does not require, and, in fact, diminishes the importance of personal responsibility. It breeds dependence and personal responsibility simply does not exist in a state of dependence. Why would one be responsible for oneself when the government is there to do it for them?

This is why the nanny-staters can never understand libertarianism, even though this country was founded on, and thrived with a libertarian style government and ideology for over 100 years.

You, and the elitists who think like you are not my mother. I do not need you to tell me how to live my life so long as I am not causing DIRECT harm to others.

All name-calling aside, you still haven't spoken to my main point. When considering whether to exercise your personal freedom in some way, why is the certainty of harm the important criterion? Why is indirect harm not a problem for you?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: KoolAidKid

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: KoolAidKid
If you have no family or friends and live in a shack in the mountains, I would have no problem at all if you decided to ride around on a motorcycle at 200 mph without a helmet while smoking crack.

Most of us do not live in a vacuum, however. Your actions will almost always affect others, and most of the time you must decide between your personal freedom and the potential/actual negative consequences to others around you. I don't understand why forcing the possibility of a negative consequence on others is any different than forcing the certainty of one. In the end your decision has endangered others. Exercising your freedom restricts the freedom of others. There is no way around this unless you are completely isolated.

This is my main objection to libertarianism: if you really followed this philosophy you would have no freedom at all. In reality we must determine the point at which the negative consequences of our actions that are forced on others outweigh the personal benefits. If society as a whole can come to a consensus on what this point is and codify it into a law, that is fine by me.

Libertarianism requires, and fosters personal responsibility. Nanny-statism does not require, and, in fact, diminishes the importance of personal responsibility. It breeds dependence and personal responsibility simply does not exist in a state of dependence. Why would one be responsible for oneself when the government is there to do it for them?

This is why the nanny-staters can never understand libertarianism, even though this country was founded on, and thrived with a libertarian style government and ideology for over 100 years.

You, and the elitists who think like you are not my mother. I do not need you to tell me how to live my life so long as I am not causing DIRECT harm to others.

All name-calling aside, you still haven't spoken to my main point. When considering whether to exercise your personal freedom in some way, why is the certainty of harm the important criterion? Why is indirect harm not a problem for you?

There is potential harm in everything we do. Where is the line drawn?

Indirect harm can mean anything. If I said your post offends me and causes me emotional distress, that could be called "indirect harm."

But, in the end, I DID address your main point. And that is answered with two words: Personal responsibility. Rather than have the government tell me how to take care of myself, I would rather retain my freedom and do that on my own.

 

[KoolAidKid]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: KoolAidKid

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: KoolAidKid
If you have no family or friends and live in a shack in the mountains, I would have no problem at all if you decided to ride around on a motorcycle at 200 mph without a helmet while smoking crack.

Most of us do not live in a vacuum, however. Your actions will almost always affect others, and most of the time you must decide between your personal freedom and the potential/actual negative consequences to others around you. I don't understand why forcing the possibility of a negative consequence on others is any different than forcing the certainty of one. In the end your decision has endangered others. Exercising your freedom restricts the freedom of others. There is no way around this unless you are completely isolated.

This is my main objection to libertarianism: if you really followed this philosophy you would have no freedom at all. In reality we must determine the point at which the negative consequences of our actions that are forced on others outweigh the personal benefits. If society as a whole can come to a consensus on what this point is and codify it into a law, that is fine by me.

Libertarianism requires, and fosters personal responsibility. Nanny-statism does not require, and, in fact, diminishes the importance of personal responsibility. It breeds dependence and personal responsibility simply does not exist in a state of dependence. Why would one be responsible for oneself when the government is there to do it for them?

This is why the nanny-staters can never understand libertarianism, even though this country was founded on, and thrived with a libertarian style government and ideology for over 100 years.

You, and the elitists who think like you are not my mother. I do not need you to tell me how to live my life so long as I am not causing DIRECT harm to others.

All name-calling aside, you still haven't spoken to my main point. When considering whether to exercise your personal freedom in some way, why is the certainty of harm the important criterion? Why is indirect harm not a problem for you?

There is potential harm in everything we do. Where is the line drawn?

Indirect harm can mean anything. If I said your post offends me and causes me emotional distress, that could be called "indirect harm."

But, in the end, I DID address your main point. And that is answered with two words: Personal responsibility. Rather than have the government tell me how to take care of myself, I would rather retain my freedom and do that on my own.

I certainly have no problem with personal responsibility. In fact, I agree with you that a "nanny-state", as you call it, does encourage dependence.

My point is that parts of libertarianism are inherently impossible to live by. It is very difficult to exercise your personal freedom without causing harm (potential or actual) to others. By a strict interpretation of the libertarian ideology, therefore, you should rarely if ever be able to exercise your freedom. As you said, where do you draw the line? Whether you are libertarian or not you must decide whether the benefits obtained from exercising your personal freedom are worth the potential harm you are causing to others. There is rarely if ever a situation in which your choice could have no negative consequences for anyone else. Choosing to only limit your actions when you cause direct harm to others seems almost completely arbitrary.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: KoolAidKid

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: KoolAidKid

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: KoolAidKid
If you have no family or friends and live in a shack in the mountains, I would have no problem at all if you decided to ride around on a motorcycle at 200 mph without a helmet while smoking crack.

Most of us do not live in a vacuum, however. Your actions will almost always affect others, and most of the time you must decide between your personal freedom and the potential/actual negative consequences to others around you. I don't understand why forcing the possibility of a negative consequence on others is any different than forcing the certainty of one. In the end your decision has endangered others. Exercising your freedom restricts the freedom of others. There is no way around this unless you are completely isolated.

This is my main objection to libertarianism: if you really followed this philosophy you would have no freedom at all. In reality we must determine the point at which the negative consequences of our actions that are forced on others outweigh the personal benefits. If society as a whole can come to a consensus on what this point is and codify it into a law, that is fine by me.

Libertarianism requires, and fosters personal responsibility. Nanny-statism does not require, and, in fact, diminishes the importance of personal responsibility. It breeds dependence and personal responsibility simply does not exist in a state of dependence. Why would one be responsible for oneself when the government is there to do it for them?

This is why the nanny-staters can never understand libertarianism, even though this country was founded on, and thrived with a libertarian style government and ideology for over 100 years.

You, and the elitists who think like you are not my mother. I do not need you to tell me how to live my life so long as I am not causing DIRECT harm to others.

All name-calling aside, you still haven't spoken to my main point. When considering whether to exercise your personal freedom in some way, why is the certainty of harm the important criterion? Why is indirect harm not a problem for you?

There is potential harm in everything we do. Where is the line drawn?

Indirect harm can mean anything. If I said your post offends me and causes me emotional distress, that could be called "indirect harm."

But, in the end, I DID address your main point. And that is answered with two words: Personal responsibility. Rather than have the government tell me how to take care of myself, I would rather retain my freedom and do that on my own.

I certainly have no problem with personal responsibility. In fact, I agree with you that a "nanny-state", as you call it, does encourage dependence.

My point is that parts of libertarianism are inherently impossible to live by. It is very difficult to exercise your personal freedom without causing harm (potential or actual) to others. By a strict interpretation of the libertarian ideology, therefore, you should rarely if ever be able to exercise your freedom. As you said, where do you draw the line? Whether you are libertarian or not you must decide whether the benefits obtained from exercising your personal freedom are worth the potential harm you are causing to others. There is rarely if ever a situation in which your choice could have no negative consequences for anyone else. Choosing to only limit your actions when you cause direct harm to others seems almost completely arbitrary.

No. Choosing when to limit your actions is a matter of personal responsibility. Laws do not keep me from harming others. My morality does. Laws merely threaten to punish me after the fact.

Libertarianism is not anarchy. The government still exists to protect the rights of individuals.

 

[HardcoreRobot]

Originally posted by: KoolAidKid

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: KoolAidKid

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: KoolAidKid
If you have no family or friends and live in a shack in the mountains, I would have no problem at all if you decided to ride around on a motorcycle at 200 mph without a helmet while smoking crack.

Most of us do not live in a vacuum, however. Your actions will almost always affect others, and most of the time you must decide between your personal freedom and the potential/actual negative consequences to others around you. I don't understand why forcing the possibility of a negative consequence on others is any different than forcing the certainty of one. In the end your decision has endangered others. Exercising your freedom restricts the freedom of others. There is no way around this unless you are completely isolated.

This is my main objection to libertarianism: if you really followed this philosophy you would have no freedom at all. In reality we must determine the point at which the negative consequences of our actions that are forced on others outweigh the personal benefits. If society as a whole can come to a consensus on what this point is and codify it into a law, that is fine by me.

Libertarianism requires, and fosters personal responsibility. Nanny-statism does not require, and, in fact, diminishes the importance of personal responsibility. It breeds dependence and personal responsibility simply does not exist in a state of dependence. Why would one be responsible for oneself when the government is there to do it for them?

This is why the nanny-staters can never understand libertarianism, even though this country was founded on, and thrived with a libertarian style government and ideology for over 100 years.

You, and the elitists who think like you are not my mother. I do not need you to tell me how to live my life so long as I am not causing DIRECT harm to others.

All name-calling aside, you still haven't spoken to my main point. When considering whether to exercise your personal freedom in some way, why is the certainty of harm the important criterion? Why is indirect harm not a problem for you?

There is potential harm in everything we do. Where is the line drawn?

Indirect harm can mean anything. If I said your post offends me and causes me emotional distress, that could be called "indirect harm."

But, in the end, I DID address your main point. And that is answered with two words: Personal responsibility. Rather than have the government tell me how to take care of myself, I would rather retain my freedom and do that on my own.

I certainly have no problem with personal responsibility. In fact, I agree with you that a "nanny-state", as you call it, does encourage dependence.

My point is that parts of libertarianism are inherently impossible to live by. It is very difficult to exercise your personal freedom without causing harm (potential or actual) to others. By a strict interpretation of the libertarian ideology, therefore, you should rarely if ever be able to exercise your freedom. As you said, where do you draw the line? Whether you are libertarian or not you must decide whether the benefits obtained from exercising your personal freedom are worth the potential harm you are causing to others. There is rarely if ever a situation in which your choice could have no negative consequences for anyone else. Choosing to only limit your actions when you cause direct harm to others seems almost completely arbitrary.

What is your solution? Outlaw anything that could cause danger or harm? This is not practical, not efficient, and historically has proven itself not to work. Maybe people don't want to make those decisions, or don't want to face the consequences. Maybe people feel more secure when the government says what is safe, what is dangerous. The full consequences of any action can never be seen ahead of time. Illegal behavior (ex drugs) happens all the time without dire consequences, while legal activities turn sour all the time (ex. driving -> accident).

Why is driving legal anyways? One brief lapse of attention or judgement and I could kill tons of people, including myself? Why has the government decided that this is a risk and a responsibility they are willing to let people have, while saying that smoking a joint is much too dangerous? Its inconsistent, and people need to have the right to make their own choices. Its that simple.

 

[Armitage]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: brian_riendeau

If a person is unwilling to wear a helmet, let their insurance charge them more. Oh wait, they do. Insurance companies charge high risk drivers more than low risk drivers. So the BS nanny-state line of "It costs us all money" is full of sh!t.

Let's face it folks, these laws are created to protect us from ourselves. This is the liberal equivalent to the religious right passing morality laws to protect our souls from ourselves. Both of them need to get the fsck out of other people's business.

If you get in a bike accident with no helmet, it would be nice if the insurance company gave you the the finger, then the government refused to pay for any of your medical bills or disability. Too bad the country and insurance does not work like that, even if someone causes their own injury, they still get taken care of.

Like I said above, yet another reason why socialism is anathema to freedom.

The lion share of your insurance costs are not going towards people who refuse to protect themselves. They are going towards ambulance chasing lawyers, and frivolous lawsuits. Drivers with a history of being unsafe are already charged more.

So is a motorcycle rider who doesn't wear a helmet classified as a "high risk" driver? Does an application for insurance on a motorcycle ask if you wear a helmet? If they do (and I don't think they do), is there any penalty if you say yes, but then make a claim for an accident where a helmet wasn't worn?

The fact is, that person likely won't be identified as a high risk driver until after the accident that scrambles his eggs. And this is only for vehicle insurance - I've never seen a health insurance company ask those kind of questions.

I kind of agree that the law maybe should stay out of it where the safety of others isn't an issue - let the market handle it, particularly the insurance market. I think the basic coverage should be contingent on the covered person taking the appropriate safety precautions. Accidents where these precautions were not taken might not be covered to the same level. But, as I said in the seatbelt thread, they can buy an additional "I'm an idiot" rider to cover their freedom to not wear a helmet. I'm sure the actuaries would have a field day setting the rates for that.

Of course this isn't going to help if the government picks up the slack via public hospitals, and other public benefits.

 

[KoolAidKid]

Originally posted by: Amused

No. Choosing when to limit your actions is a matter of personal responsibility. Laws do not keep me from harming others. My morality does. Laws merely threaten to punish me after the fact.

Libertarianism is not anarchy. The government still exists to protect the rights of individuals.

An idealist (not me) might call law the implementation of the morality of the majority.

In any case, the bottom line is this: someone who rides a motorcycle without a helmet has decided that the benefits they receive from doing this are more important than the possible negative consequences they are forcing upon others. This decision is in direct conflict with the tenets of libertarianism:

"libertarians believe you should be free to do as you choose with your own life and property, as long as you don't harm the person and property of others." (from www.libertarianism.com)

The additional psychological trauma that I would feel after killing a motorcyclist that wasn't wearing a helmet would certainly be harmful to me.

Whether or not the government should force you to wear a helmet is another issue entirely.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: KoolAidKid

Originally posted by: Amused

No. Choosing when to limit your actions is a matter of personal responsibility. Laws do not keep me from harming others. My morality does. Laws merely threaten to punish me after the fact.

Libertarianism is not anarchy. The government still exists to protect the rights of individuals.

An idealist (not me) might call law the implementation of the morality of the majority.

In any case, the bottom line is this: someone who rides a motorcycle without a helmet has decided that the benefits they receive from doing this are more important than the possible negative consequences they are forcing upon others. This decision is in direct conflict with the tenets of libertarianism:

"libertarians believe you should be free to do as you choose with your own life and property, as long as you don't harm the person and property of others." (from www.libertarianism.com)

The additional psychological trauma that I would feel after killing a motorcyclist that wasn't wearing a helmet would certainly be harmful to me.

Whether or not the government should force you to wear a helmet is another issue entirely.

Your argument falls apart when one fails to see ANY signifigant "negative consequences forced upon others" and becomes laughable when you talk of "psychological trauma" when killing another motorist.

The action of simply riding a motorcycle fills these requirements. Hell, the action of waking up and leaving our homes does.

As for law, law (in this country) is the protection individual rights... not from himself.

 

[KoolAidKid]

Originally posted by: Amused

Your argument falls apart when one fails to see ANY signifigant "negative consequences forced upon others" and becomes laughable when you talk of "psychological trauma" when killing another motorist.

The action of simply riding a motorcycle fills these requirements. Hell, the action of waking up and leaving our homes does.

As for law, law (in this country) is the protection individual rights... not from himself.

It is not up to you to judge what is harmful to me, thanks. As a Libertarian I should think that you would understand this.

 

[IGBT]

...bad news for the organ doner biz. Saves too many lives.............😉

 

Originally posted by: KoolAidKid

Originally posted by: Amused

Your argument falls apart when one fails to see ANY signifigant "negative consequences forced upon others" and becomes laughable when you talk of "psychological trauma" when killing another motorist.

The action of simply riding a motorcycle fills these requirements. Hell, the action of waking up and leaving our homes does.

As for law, law (in this country) is the protection individual rights... not from himself.

It is not up to you to judge what is harmful to me, thanks. As a Libertarian I should think that you would understand this.

But you are perfectly fine with anyone else judging what is harmful to you, and then imposing their will in the form of laws.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
The penalty for doing stupid things is BUILT IN. You smoke, you get cancer. You do drugs, you can get addicted, costs a lot of money, negative health effects etc. You dont wear a seatbelt or helmet, you can die in an accident you might otherwise survive. You have unprotected sex, you could get a disease, or worse a child. You eat fast food everyday, you could get fat and have heart disease. There is no reason to add legislation on top of this. As we can see from failed prohibition, the ridiculous drug war, and all other sorts of propaganda and laws - they don't solve any of these problems.

If you jump out of a plane without a parachute, you may very well die. Thats the penalty for being a dumbass. No reason to make it illegal, the consequence of the action without any government intervention should be ENOUGH to discourage the behavior. In some cases, its not. Its not the governments fault, nor is it their responsibility to try, and fail, to prevent this sort of stuff. Its sad, but thats life. People should have the freedom to be idiots.

:thumbsup:

Originally posted by: IHateMyJob2004
Why not include the impact on your loved ones from a psycolgical standpoint. I'm sure your employer might be pissed iuf you off yourself. Since finances are part of your discussion, realize that you imapct the company you work for and you just reduced income for your family. It's more than jsut "your money"

I find it very funny whow your entire argument is based on the premise of ONE PERSON. As though your actions don't impact anyone else but yourslef.

One of lifes greatest trajedy's is outliving your children. So, you are saying that you want to get lung cancer at 30 and die, causing your mother great heartache?

Pardon me, but my loved ones are none of your fscking business. You don't know them, probably wouldn't give them a quarter if my death reduced them to begging on the street, so kinda STFU and quit trying to lie to me (and everyone else) by pretending that you actually care.

 

[marstaton]

If two people are riding a motorcycle and neither of them are wearing helmets and both suffer life threatening injuries what happens? Two ambulances will be getting sent out. OK, what if all of the ambulances are in service? Well your mother or father thats having a heart attack doesn't make it to the ER in time, or your child who fell into the neighbors swimming pool is blue in the face. It would be truly unfortunate for that person to die because am ambulance is tied up by someone wanting to be "free." I dunnoh just my two cents. I work as a television news photographer, and i also ride. I also work in Myrtle Beach where there are ~4 or 5 weeks out of the year that are bike weeks. 2003 had 23 biker deaths in 15 days, at least i think thats the number. Not wearing a helmet is a selfish and stupid act, don't think so? Neither did the guy who's brains i accidentally stepped on at a fatal accident...

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: marstaton
If two people are riding a motorcycle and neither of them are wearing helmets and both suffer life threatening injuries what happens? Two ambulances will be getting sent out. OK, what if all of the ambulances are in service? Well your mother or father thats having a heart attack doesn't make it to the ER in time, or your child who fell into the neighbors swimming pool is blue in the face. It would be truly unfortunate for that person to die because am ambulance is tied up by someone wanting to be "free." I dunnoh just my two cents. I work as a television news photographer, and i also ride. I also work in Myrtle Beach where there are ~4 or 5 weeks out of the year that are bike weeks. 2003 had 23 biker deaths in 15 days, at least i think thats the number. Not wearing a helmet is a selfish and stupid act, don't think so? Neither did the guy who's brains i accidentally stepped on at a fatal accident...

What is selfish and stupid is trying to legislate against stupidity to protect people "for their own good" and then pretending that you're being magnanimous as though no one can see through that transparent bullsh!t.

I always wear helmets and seatbelts (as applicable), and scorn people who don't, but that's because I'm smart. And being smart, I'm not so stupid as to believe that just because you make something a law, that everyone will obey that law, or that following that law will be a guarantee against injuries and deaths. A quick google told me that helmet laws have been in place in SC since at least 1980. Yet 23 riders died in 15 days back in 2003? How many wore their helmets? If all, that proves that your argument about someone's mother or father or child not getting emergency services is a blantant lie because bikers get injured and die even with their helmet, and so the strain on emergency services is unchanged with or without the law. If none, then that proves that no amount of legislation can make stupid people smart.
Either way, your pathetic argument loses.

 

[KoolAidKid]

Originally posted by: SampSon

Originally posted by: KoolAidKid

Originally posted by: Amused

Your argument falls apart when one fails to see ANY signifigant "negative consequences forced upon others" and becomes laughable when you talk of "psychological trauma" when killing another motorist.

The action of simply riding a motorcycle fills these requirements. Hell, the action of waking up and leaving our homes does.

As for law, law (in this country) is the protection individual rights... not from himself.

It is not up to you to judge what is harmful to me, thanks. As a Libertarian I should think that you would understand this.

But you are perfectly fine with anyone else judging what is harmful to you, and then imposing their will in the form of laws.

I think that Libertarianism is great as an idea, just as Communism is. However, we live in a society in which most of the population enjoys having their decisions made for them. That is why we have lawmakers rather than direct votes on the issues. Libertarianism will never flourish in such an environment.

I'm not sure where you read that I am "perfectly fine" with others imposing their will upon me in the form of laws. Laws are by definition rules imposed by society on its members. If we lived in a Libertarian society there would be laws made by others to impose their will upon me, just as there are now. Considering that I choose to live in a democratic society I must abide by the laws supported by the majority of the population. If you manage to convince the majority of the population to adopt a Libertarian viewpoint I would be the first to celebrate the change.

I am NOT fine with an individual deciding on my behalf what is harmful to me and what isn't. Only the majority or those appointed to represent them have that authority. As an alternative, you could ask me how I felt about it, and I would tell you this: if you ride without a helmet stay away from my car, because if we get in an accident you are likely to be killed, and the last thing I want is a death on my conscience.

 

[lobadobadingdong]

I've met too many people who've had to go searching for pieces of peoples heads, not to say that you should wear a helmet just to spare the police and amulance guys from having to search for your missing head.

It's still should be your choice, but you should have to have retardedly high insurance (with a lot going to the police and medics) if you choose not to wear one.

eye protection, it's your choice, if you have a good windshield, it really doesn't have to be needed, if you don't have a windshield, it'd sure suck to go blind. common sense should play into that one.

leathers I'm unbiased, leathers can save you a lot of grief when you fall, but it's waaaaay too hot in the south to wear them year round.

 

[xgsound]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
I and my father, who also teaches a motorcycle class, were both in motorcycle accidents, neither our fault, and I would have had more injuries and my dad would be dead if we were not wearing out helmets.

Also I, like most people, do not have health insurance, so if I or anybody else gets in a accidnet then ALL of use tax payers have to pay for someone elses choice.

Now if you have at LEAST 250K of health insurance that would cover such a accident then ok you can ride without one, but for the rest, put it on or get a ticket or worse die.

Thank your dad for me. Those classes have done more for safety than all the helmet laws. Novice riders
are indeed the biggest safety hazard. Of course the next worst hazard is the rider that thinks he finally knows it all and doesn't "dress for the crash".

Jim