Helmet laws - for or against

[BRUMBEAR]

I am for keeping Goverment out of my life. I always wear gear but if you don't want to don't I don't care.

[Hanson]

No helmet laws...

... or any similar law when the government is evaluating, by legislation, the level of acceptable risk that a person can choose to accept.

I also reject the social burden argument as a justification for the criminalization of risky behaviors. The most expedient means of reducing the social burden of risky behaviors is simply to reduce socialism. This is preferable to discriminating against the risky behaviors of unpopular minorities, such as motorcyclists, while accepting other risky behaviors. I think it likely that obese people are a far greater burden on the community than are people riding motorcycles. I am my brothers keeper, but I am not his master. Just because I have a Christian's moral duty to provide for the poor does not grant to me the power to diminish the extent of their freedoms.

Driving as only a privilege? Not so much unless "privilege" is understood as a synonym of "right", at least not in these United States. There is an unalienable right to freedom of movement, the right to travel, found in the privileges and immunities clause of the federal Constitution, United States v. Wheeler and no one can be stopped from using the public roads, or traveling from one state to another. You don't have to have a license to ride in a car on a public road, and the licensing of operators is on a shall issue basis, that is if you pass the requirements then the state must issue you an operators license. Driving is a civil right, and the states can not arbitrarily deny you an operators license nor arbitrarily take that license away. Just because an activity is licensed does not make that activity only a privilege subject to the whim of some person with power. When you go to the department of motor-vehicles and renew your license, the person behind the counter can not just decide to reject the renewal of your license even if your face is as ugly as is mine. I have a marriage license issued by the State of Texas, and while being married to my precious Suzi is most certainly a privilege, the social institution of marriage is not just a privilege, it is a civil right. Let a state decide to revoke all operator licenses, if driving is only a privilege, and who thinks that would stand up in federal court without being adjudicated an undue burden on our freedom of movement? Just as "attorney-client privilege" is a civil right, so also is the "privilege to drive" a civil right.

The idea that driving is not a right, that driving is only a privilege, is propaganda used by the state in an effort to get the public to accept restrictions on their driving behaviors that we would otherwise reject.

No helmet laws, hell no!

[blues2cruise]

If you're a crappy driver, then the state or province does not have to issue you a permit. Therefore it is a privilege.

If you break numerous driving laws or drive drunk and kill someone, then the state or province can revoke your license. Therefore it is a privilege.

Yes, you can have freedom of movement, but that doesn't necessarily mean you get to drive. You can walk, take a bus, ride a bicycle, get a ride from someone who "earned" their license. Having a driver's license is not a right....you have to "earn" it.

Therefore it is a privilege.

[faded sun]

nicely put, ma'am.

[blues2cruise]

nicely put, ma'am.

Thank you, sir.

[JackoftheGreen]

The most expedient means of reducing the social burden of risky behaviors is simply to reduce socialism.

Hanson, I am quite often impressed with your intelligence, insight, verbosity and introspection, but this comment I feel I must take exception to.

Socialism, in its most basic and uncluttered expression, is first and foremost an economic model. I can agree that reducing socialism would reduce the social burdens of risky behaviors, but only the economic burdens those risky behaviors create or impose on our fellow citizens. If there were no socialist principals at all in any form at work in the medical or criminal systems, then I would certainly incur no economic burden from, say, legalizing pot. But when somebody gets stoned and then tries to drive to WalMart in rush hour traffic for Twinkies and accidentally kills a family of four, there are a WHOLE LOT MORE social burdens imposed by that than JUST the economic cost. We regulate risky behaviors in an effort to reduce ALL those burdens, not just the financial cost of the social safety net. The fact that it wouldn't cost us any MONEY for that pothead to kill that family doesn't make it okay for them to do so.

At some point, any responsible government will have to regulate risky behaviors to some degree. To do otherwise is quite simply a ridiculous proposition, and I for one would NOT want to live in a place where any and all risky behaviors were condoned by the state. And if you think common sense is enough of a regulation for most risky behaviors, I encourage to watch half of an hour of any of the Jacka$$ movies.

We condone seat belt laws. We all like that there are laws in place that prevent people from driving cars with bad brakes, bald tires, faulty suspension components, no headlights, inoperable turn signals and the like. Of course, most of those regulations are to keep US safe from THEM, not to keep THEM safe from US. Except seatbelts of course, and I doubt if many of us would argue against those.

So, helmet laws? I believe I posted to this thread a while back, and I'm sure it's buried in there somewhere. I absolutely believe all riders should wear a helmet, and I absolutely believe laws requiring them to do so are dangerous. I ride with a helmet, every ride, every time, period. But, I also ride bare-armed. So although it's no skin off my teeth if the gov't decides to regulate my helmet wearing (they don't here in Utah for those over 18), I certainly don't want some lawmaker deciding they have to right the regulate the rest of my safety gear. And since I know I can't have it both ways, I disagree with helmet laws.

[Hanson]

If you're a crappy driver, then the state or province does not have to issue you a permit. Therefore it is a privilege.

If you break numerous driving laws or drive drunk and kill someone, then the state or province can revoke your license. Therefore it is a privilege.

Yes, you can have freedom of movement, but that doesn't necessarily mean you get to drive. You can walk, take a bus, ride a bicycle, get a ride from someone who "earned" their license. Having a driver's license is not a right....you have to "earn" it.

Therefore it is a privilege.

B2C,

If you are arrested for a crime, prosecuted, convicted, and sent to prison, many of your rights are denied, including the freedom of movement, but this does not make these rights only mere privileges. We can note that in every example that you have provided an operator license was denied or revoked for cause, and not as an arbitrary action.

The world privilege has nuances, different meanings, and I have no problem with calling the right to drive a privilege so long as this does not imply that it is not a right. I think all of us would be outraged if a group of people where arbitrarily denied the "privilege" to drive on the basis of race, or gender, or religious faith, or for any other arbitrary factor. All rights have rational limits where the irresponsible exercise of those rights has negative impacts on others.

As always, best regards Lady Blue.

[Hanson]

The most expedient means of reducing the social burden of risky behaviors is simply to reduce socialism.

Hanson, I am quite often impressed with your intelligence, insight, verbosity and introspection, but this comment I feel I must take exception to.

Socialism, in its most basic and uncluttered expression, is first and foremost an economic model. I can agree that reducing socialism would reduce the social burdens of risky behaviors, but only the economic burdens those risky behaviors create or impose on our fellow citizens. If there were no socialist principals at all in any form at work in the medical or criminal systems, then I would certainly incur no economic burden from, say, legalizing pot. But when somebody gets stoned and then tries to drive to WalMart in rush hour traffic for Twinkies and accidentally kills a family of four, there are a WHOLE LOT MORE social burdens imposed by that than JUST the economic cost. We regulate risky behaviors in an effort to reduce ALL those burdens, not just the financial cost of the social safety net. The fact that it wouldn't cost us any MONEY for that pothead to kill that family doesn't make it okay for them to do so.

At some point, any responsible government will have to regulate risky behaviors to some degree. To do otherwise is quite simply a ridiculous proposition, and I for one would NOT want to live in a place where any and all risky behaviors were condoned by the state. And if you think common sense is enough of a regulation for most risky behaviors, I encourage to watch half of an hour of any of the Jacka$$ movies.

We condone seat belt laws. We all like that there are laws in place that prevent people from driving cars with bad brakes, bald tires, faulty suspension components, no headlights, inoperable turn signals and the like. Of course, most of those regulations are to keep US safe from THEM, not to keep THEM safe from US. Except seatbelts of course, and I doubt if many of us would argue against those.

So, helmet laws? I believe I posted to this thread a while back, and I'm sure it's buried in there somewhere. I absolutely believe all riders should wear a helmet, and I absolutely believe laws requiring them to do so are dangerous. I ride with a helmet, every ride, every time, period. But, I also ride bare-armed. So although it's no skin off my teeth if the gov't decides to regulate my helmet wearing (they don't here in Utah for those over 18), I certainly don't want some lawmaker deciding they have to right the regulate the rest of my safety gear. And since I know I can't have it both ways, I disagree with helmet laws.

Jack,

I agree with much of what you have said and your response was well considered and rational. "Social burden" was perhaps an overly broad choice and perhaps I should have chosen a more limited phrase such as public burden to mean the burden on government welfare programs. Government is only one institution within our society and does not encompass society as a whole, and what I was arguing against is the concept that government welfare programs justify government intrusions into private choices such as what type of recreational activities we engage in, what kind of foods we eat, and mandatory safety equipment.

I am my brothers keeper, but I am not my brothers master.

There is widespread support for government welfare programs, socialism. There are also large numbers of people who are compelled to pay for those programs by taxation. Although there is an intersection between these two sets of people, it is the second group that has an interest in having the government regulate behaviors that add to the costs of welfare programs. How much freedom are we willing to sacrifice to socialism?

There is no on or off switch between liberty and tyranny, that is at this point a man is free and at this other point a man is a slave. Instead there is a continuum with absolute despotism at one end and anarchy at the other. Where exactly on this continuum exists an optimal government is always going to be a topic of discussion and honest men can have an honest disagreement on this subject. For myself, I am quite certain that we currently suffer from a massive overabundance of government.

I say no to helmet laws, just as do you.

[HYPERR]

I have no problem with calling the right to drive a privilege so long as this does not imply that it is not a right.

Doesn't the latter half of your sentence contradict with your statement in the first half?

I think all of us would be outraged if a group of people where arbitrarily denied the "privilege" to drive on the basis of race, or gender, or religious faith, or for any other arbitrary factor.

What does this have to do with whether it is a right or a privilege? Either way, it can be denied and has been denied in the past in the US on the basis of those "arbitrary" factor. Not sure what point you are trying to make here. Unless I'm missing something, it does not add anything to your argument.

Driving is not a right, it is a privilege for all the reasons Blues stated and then some. It is a privilege granted to the licensee by the licensor and it can be revoked at any time due to noncompliance. Futhermore unlike a right, it can not be granted in the first place if you have limitations (like having corrected visual acuity of less than 20/40 for example)

[faded sun]

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights does not include the right to drive. Though as Hanson (I think ) mentioned, there is the right to movement. Just doesn't say you get to drive to do it, not unlike my experience being the youngest driver in my family.

This is a question of definitions, "right" versus "privilege". They make interesting reading.

Most laws are enacted for the restraint of those who will ignore them anyway and so "law-abiding" (ie sane, sensible, responsible) people are restricted because of these efforts to curb the "lawless". This is the price of living with our abberrated brethren. I do understand and agree with Hanson and others' desire for less government in our lives, but think it will be a while before this happens. Things are getting better I think, but slowly. And it's a steady struggle to keep the gains we have made.

I would like to be able to say it doesn't matter to me if others choose to go lidless, but I do live in Canada and I do pay the taxes to pay for the health care of others. And I do think helmets reduce the risk of serious injuries. Having had serious injuries and requiring said health care personally it is also real to me that there are lots of unregulated things you can get into trouble doing. So I do see the other side of it.

Would just never want to do it myself.

Happy New Year everyone!