Boo Boo Kitty Fuck
08-18-2007, 12:15 AM
Freedom, Exhilaration, or Stupidity?
www.thebulletin.us/sit...6361&rfi=6
Message: By: Chris Freind, The Bulletin
08/07/2007
My wife's stepbrother was killed recently while riding his motorcycle. He was an avid and highly experienced rider. He also wasn't wearing a helmet.
Standing in line at the viewing, I overheard many people commenting that Pennsylvania should have a law mandating the use of motorcycle helmets. The theory is that such a law might prevent deaths and mitigate the injuries that plague motorcyclists.
The theory, of course, has merit. Common sense tells us that wearing a helmet while riding on top of an engine with no protection will provide at least some measure of safety for the brain in case of an accident.
However, just because a concept makes sense doesn't mean that it should become a law. Mandating motorcycle helmets is a classic case of government intruding on personal freedoms of the individual. The reason is simple: It has yet to be shown that a helmet-less rider is a threat to the physical well-being of any person other than himself.
In other words, the choice to not wear a helmet will impact only the rider. That being the case, the government has no right to tell an individual what to do when it is only that person who is affected. (An interesting note: Even with no mandatory helmet law, many motorcyclists still choose to wear a helmet, with some estimates ranging as high as 75 percent of riders.)
The same argument can be made against laws mandating car seat belts. Now when it comes to children under the age of 18, seat belt usage should be required because their life is in the driver's hands, and they do not fully understand the ramifications of not using that safety device. But how is an adult driver's failure to wear a seat belt in any way affecting other people? It doesn't, so it shouldn't be illegal. Such laws open the door to more burdensome regulations and provide further testament to the government's mindset that it, not the people, know what is best.
Interestingly, there are many people who state their philosophical opposition to the mandatory helmet law yet nonetheless support efforts to require their usage. Why? Because "riders not wearing helmets cause our auto and health insurance costs to go up."
This is a fallacy, and it is a dangerous line of thinking.
The number of motorcycle accidents is minuscule compared to the number of car accidents, for the obvious reason that there are exponentially more cars on the road. Therefore, the jump in insurance rates is a wholly unfounded myth due to the statistical insignificance of motorcycle injuries. Beyond that - and this will seem quite callous - there is a strong case to be made that helmet-less riders actually save the health care system money because, in catastrophic accidents, such riders are more likely to die from their head injuries. Health care costs for the deceased are nil, compared to extremely expensive long-term major medical care and rehabilitation for the injured. Interestingly, many experienced riders state that helmets are virtually worthless anyway in accidents over 35 miles per hour due to the tremendous forces exerted upon the motorcyclists.
What should be mandated, however, is appropriate auto insurance coverage for motorcyclists, including adequate personal liability and major medical amounts. That is simply the cost of doing business when riding a motorcycle, since the odds of getting seriously injured in a crash are obviously greater for motorcyclists than for car drivers.
The greatest danger America faces is not from outside invasion or terrorist attack. Rather, it is the loss of our freedoms and liberty, the bedrock values that make our society the most envied on the face of the earth. It is one thing to have such freedoms taken away; it is quite another when we the people willingly relinquish such freedoms. Yet that's what we do, time and again, kissing our freedoms away voluntarily.
When citizens sacrifice their principled beliefs in favor of more government regulation, the domino effect begins. Every new law opens the door that much wider to additional government regulation and sets legal precedent to restrict and regulate more aspects of our lives. A power-hungry government, enabled by people's greed and ignorance, is a difficult beast to stop.
This is not to say that all government regulation is unwarranted. We have limits for both speed and blood-alcohol levels on our roadways, but they are established and accepted because exceeding either poses a significant threat to the well being of others, and that is the key difference with helmet laws affecting only the rider.
Call helmet-less riding what you will - freedom, exhilaration, or stupidity - but it should always remain the choice of the individual, not the government, to decide what is best.
Chris Freind can be reached at cf @ thebulletin.us.
www.thebulletin.us/sit...6361&rfi=6
Message: By: Chris Freind, The Bulletin
08/07/2007
My wife's stepbrother was killed recently while riding his motorcycle. He was an avid and highly experienced rider. He also wasn't wearing a helmet.
Standing in line at the viewing, I overheard many people commenting that Pennsylvania should have a law mandating the use of motorcycle helmets. The theory is that such a law might prevent deaths and mitigate the injuries that plague motorcyclists.
The theory, of course, has merit. Common sense tells us that wearing a helmet while riding on top of an engine with no protection will provide at least some measure of safety for the brain in case of an accident.
However, just because a concept makes sense doesn't mean that it should become a law. Mandating motorcycle helmets is a classic case of government intruding on personal freedoms of the individual. The reason is simple: It has yet to be shown that a helmet-less rider is a threat to the physical well-being of any person other than himself.
In other words, the choice to not wear a helmet will impact only the rider. That being the case, the government has no right to tell an individual what to do when it is only that person who is affected. (An interesting note: Even with no mandatory helmet law, many motorcyclists still choose to wear a helmet, with some estimates ranging as high as 75 percent of riders.)
The same argument can be made against laws mandating car seat belts. Now when it comes to children under the age of 18, seat belt usage should be required because their life is in the driver's hands, and they do not fully understand the ramifications of not using that safety device. But how is an adult driver's failure to wear a seat belt in any way affecting other people? It doesn't, so it shouldn't be illegal. Such laws open the door to more burdensome regulations and provide further testament to the government's mindset that it, not the people, know what is best.
Interestingly, there are many people who state their philosophical opposition to the mandatory helmet law yet nonetheless support efforts to require their usage. Why? Because "riders not wearing helmets cause our auto and health insurance costs to go up."
This is a fallacy, and it is a dangerous line of thinking.
The number of motorcycle accidents is minuscule compared to the number of car accidents, for the obvious reason that there are exponentially more cars on the road. Therefore, the jump in insurance rates is a wholly unfounded myth due to the statistical insignificance of motorcycle injuries. Beyond that - and this will seem quite callous - there is a strong case to be made that helmet-less riders actually save the health care system money because, in catastrophic accidents, such riders are more likely to die from their head injuries. Health care costs for the deceased are nil, compared to extremely expensive long-term major medical care and rehabilitation for the injured. Interestingly, many experienced riders state that helmets are virtually worthless anyway in accidents over 35 miles per hour due to the tremendous forces exerted upon the motorcyclists.
What should be mandated, however, is appropriate auto insurance coverage for motorcyclists, including adequate personal liability and major medical amounts. That is simply the cost of doing business when riding a motorcycle, since the odds of getting seriously injured in a crash are obviously greater for motorcyclists than for car drivers.
The greatest danger America faces is not from outside invasion or terrorist attack. Rather, it is the loss of our freedoms and liberty, the bedrock values that make our society the most envied on the face of the earth. It is one thing to have such freedoms taken away; it is quite another when we the people willingly relinquish such freedoms. Yet that's what we do, time and again, kissing our freedoms away voluntarily.
When citizens sacrifice their principled beliefs in favor of more government regulation, the domino effect begins. Every new law opens the door that much wider to additional government regulation and sets legal precedent to restrict and regulate more aspects of our lives. A power-hungry government, enabled by people's greed and ignorance, is a difficult beast to stop.
This is not to say that all government regulation is unwarranted. We have limits for both speed and blood-alcohol levels on our roadways, but they are established and accepted because exceeding either poses a significant threat to the well being of others, and that is the key difference with helmet laws affecting only the rider.
Call helmet-less riding what you will - freedom, exhilaration, or stupidity - but it should always remain the choice of the individual, not the government, to decide what is best.
Chris Freind can be reached at cf @ thebulletin.us.