Total Motorcycle Community Forums

canuckerjay wrote:.....Looking at the amount of cash it takes for an average head injury, it's unfair for my neighbor to run around with no helmet and expect the rest of the nation to foot the bill should he get creamed.

But, if he doesn't wear a helmet, and gets in a crash, I would guess it is morelikely the rider will die, saving the cost of medical care for his/her other injuries...

CNF2002 wrote:Why is it a violation of freedom to require to wear a helmet on a motorcycle, but its okay to require you to wear seatbelts in a car?

Because you have lost the freedom to choose. Those who oppose mandatory helmet laws are usually in opposition to mandatory seatbelt laws. It's the principle involved. Should the government regulate every aspect of your life to make you safer? If not, why just motorcycle helmets and seatbelts?

A common argument for these things are that public money is used to care for those injured, therefore the government has a vested interest in regulating the activity. Of course, that argument falls apart when you look at drains on public healthcare funds. HIV/AIDS treatment is extremely expensive and there are more of those patients than there are head-injured motorcyclists. Should the government be regulating safe sex practices (i.e. bedroom cops?)? Heart disease is still a huge killer of people in our society and carries a substantial price tag. Using the "public funds" argument, shouldn't we outlaw McDonalds, candy, soda, potato chips and cigarettes?

Why is regulation of motorcyclists held more important than the above, more significant, drains on public healthcare?

BTW - I wear a helmet 99% of the time and have done so for over 25 years.

Woah! I'm not saying I disagree with you here, but I was pointing out that we DO have safety laws that restrict our freedoms, and its not just motorcycle laws.

Just the same as to say that this safety law could lead to ANY safety law that takes away freedom, if you campaign against motorcycle helmet laws you would be hypocritical not to campaign against ALL satefy laws (at least those not affecting the safety of others).

PS: Yes I do think cigarettes and McDonalds should be outlawed If anything else for false advertising, they show me a juicy burger on the commercial and all I really get is a squashed mush that tastes like cardboard.

DustyJacket wrote:

canuckerjay wrote:.....Looking at the amount of cash it takes for an average head injury, it's unfair for my neighbor to run around with no helmet and expect the rest of the nation to foot the bill should he get creamed.

But, if he doesn't wear a helmet, and gets in a crash, I would guess it is morelikely the rider will die, saving the cost of medical care for his/her other injuries...

It's funny you mention this, because there have been some who say, yes, let them have a choice, but it would include waiving medical assistance in an accident if you choose not to wear one. But the fact remains the medical community will try to save you and keep your otherwise dead body alive, even at the peril of your families expenses and the expenses of the tax payers after your money runs out. Even a guy who dies from an accident is likely to have thousands of dollars of expenses, unless he is dead on the scene. Most first responders do a great job keeping a carcass breathing.

CNF2002 wrote: Just the same as to say that this safety law could lead to ANY safety law that takes away freedom, if you campaign against motorcycle helmet laws you would be hypocritical not to campaign against ALL satefy laws (at least those not affecting the safety of others).

Exactly! That last bit is pretty much the crux of the issue. If it doesn't affect the safety of others, the safety law is restricting your personal freedom to choose the level of risk (and associated rewards) that you are willing to accept. That is the principle I was talking about in my previous post. There are vast numbers of personal risks one can take that do not affect others. It would be a shame if the government got involved in regulating all of them. In principle, if someone doesn't mind personal safety regulations like helmets and seatbelts, they should have no qualms about having the sex police or the food police looking after their best interests.