+- Madison Motorsports (https://forum.mmsports.org)
+-- Forum: Madison Motorsports (https://forum.mmsports.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Lounge (https://forum.mmsports.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Thread: Roethlisberger, helmets, and the law (/showthread.php?tid=4366)
Roethlisberger, helmets, and the law - mpg9999 - 06-15-2006
I knew when I heard about his accident there would be a bunch of BS about helmet laws. Sure enough the other day there was an article about them in USA today. While I think its idiotic to not wear a helmet, laws the force us to wear helmets scare me even more then not wearing a helmet does. Here is an article by Eric Peters from a few years ago that I think pretty much sums up my view on the subject.
Whether it's prudent to wear a seatbelt, or put on a helmet, if you ride motorcycles, is entirely beside the point -- at least as regards laws that make the use of these things compulsory.
Of course wearing a seatbelt or a helmet is "safer." But so is maintaining ideal body weight -- or exercising regularly. Yet there are no laws (as yet) requiring you to eat your broccoli -- or do sit-ups every other day. The police do not carry pincers to measure your body fat ratio -- and have no authority (yet) to give you tickets for exceeding the "healthful" poundage.
Why is that? After all, if the justification for seatbelt laws and so on is that they're for your own good, the same argument can be made about such things as dietary habits and exercise. Ditto other personal choices, such as the type of recreational sports or other activities you may be involved in -- many of which, like rock-climbing, motocrossing, or skiing, for example, are arguably "risky," or at least more "dangerous" than sitting at home reading a book. How come there are no government busybodies issuing tickets to people for doing such things as jogging when it's "too cold" -- or without the "proper" (according to whom?) equipment? Where do we draw the line -- and on what basis?
These examples will hopefully illustrate an important point -- maybe even several. The first is that things like seatbelt laws and helmet laws are, in the first place, entirely arbitrary interferences with personal choices (as distinct from behaviors, actions or conduct that might affect others, which is another matter. For example: It is entirely legitimate for an airline to require seat belt use on a commercial flight; you are, after all, riding on their airplane -- and if you get bounced out of your seat, you might cause injury to others, or endanger the aircraft. But such considerations do not apply to the private individual operating his privately owned automobile -- or on his motorcycle. If he gets hurt, only he gets hurt. Others are not affected. Ergo, the state has no justification to intervene).
If we're going to accept as the basis for public policy the idea that it is the duty of government to involve itself in our private choices on the basis of compelling us all to do what's "good" for us (however that's defined), then it's pretty hard to see how to draw any line at all beyond which the self-appointed busybodies and do-gooders who use the force of government as their cudgel may not transgress.
That prospect ought to frighten thinking people who value freedom -- but so far, most Americans are indifferent; they think seatbelt laws and the like "make sense." Well, so does a low-fat diet. The broader principle -- and potential threat -- escapes them. They don't see that laws without clear justifications based on legitimate public interests -- and with clearly defined boundaries -- are the hallmark not of free societies with limited governments, but of societies in which the government can be both arbitrary and omnipotent. The eventual tendency is a slow slide toward totalitarianism. But to point this out is derided as "alarmist."
I oppose seatbelt laws and helmet laws not because I won't admit it's safer to wear a seat belt or a helmet when riding a bike -- that would be idiotic. Rather, I oppose such laws because a very important principle is at stake: That entirely personal choice is none of the government's business -- just as my diet, exercise habits, and other personal choices that may somewhat increase (or decrease) my exposure to risk/danger are likewise none of the government's business, either.
Or yours, for that matter.
Remember that what we call "the government" is just us, collectively. We elect representatives. They pass laws. But ultimately, "the government" is no wiser or more righteous than each of us individually. It's just a reflecting pool of sorts -- with all the distortions and flaws that implies. If we start using the weight of the state to force our neighbors to conform to our own ideas of "smart" personal conduct (again, as distinct from conduct that clearly affects others), then we will have become little more than a collection of back-biting harpies and nattering busybodies, using the power of the state to oppress one another in unimaginably petty (and perhaps not so petty) ways. This is why the founders of the American state set forth strict limits on government -- precisely enumerating what it could and could not do, and why.
What made the United States so unique in world history was that it enshrined in its governing principles the idea that individuals should be left free to live their own lives as they saw fit, free of interference from those who thought they "knew better." Taking risks (or not) was part of that philosophy. We were a live and let live people -- for awhile. Only when an individual's conduct or actions clearly threatened the safety or well-being of others -- and thus became a public matter -- did the state have cause to interfere. That distinction is what we're losing -- and it may cost us dearly.
To those who counter that it's a matter of public concern -- and therefore the legitimate busness of government -- whether a person buckles up or wears a helmet, because if he is injured "society" will have to pay in the form of his medical bills and so on, the reply is simple: By any quantifiable measure, obesity and sedentary living (to cite just one example) "cost society" far more, in terms of health care and other related costs, than the relative handful of deaths and serious injuries caused or made worse by the failure of some people to buckle up or wear a helmet.
Fundamentally, though, the premise that "society" is responsible for the costs of each individual's personal choices is socialistic. If we go that way, there will be no limit to the Nanny State. Do we want government officials inspecting our cupboards and refrigerators for "dangerous" foods? Or checking our cholesterol and waistlines? No? Then seat belt laws, mandatory helmet regulations and the like must be rescinded -- no matter how much we may instinctively wish to promote our neighbor's well-being. That's his business -- not yours. Not the governments. Leave him alone. And hopefully, he'll return the favor.
Wouldn't that be nice?
- Evan - 06-15-2006
comparing a helmet law to doing sit ups?
yeah, thats about when this guy looses any kind of credibility and not coincidentally, when I stopped reading.
- G.Irish - 06-16-2006
Well statistically speaking heart disease is one of the leading killers of Americans and being overweight/unfit puts you at a much higher risk of it. Requiring that people stay in shape would do a lot more to save lives than requiring helmets.
But whatever I wouldn't even make that argument. One should be allowed to do whatever the hell they want to do as long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others. So if I want to go bungee jumping with dental floss I should have the right to do so.
The government can't and shouldn't try to outlaw every possible stupid thing people could do to harm or kill themselves anyway.
- white_2kgt - 06-16-2006
I'm all for banning the helmet law, just so as long as if somebody is hurt while riding w/o a helmet they are required to pay ALL medical bills, no using insurance, as high medical bills w/ insurance paying out just causes everyone elses rates to rise.
- CaptainHenreh - 06-16-2006
white_2kgt Wrote:I'm all for banning the helmet law, just so as long as if somebody is hurt while riding w/o a helmet they are required to pay ALL medical bills, no using insurance, as high medical bills w/ insurance paying out just causes everyone elses rates to rise.
Bingo. And that's key. Whenever I read like, an accident report in the newspaper and see "...so-and-so was ejected from the automobile" I never, ever, ever hear "...and they were wearing their seatbelt." Wearing a seatbelt *isn't* like doing sit-ups because driving a car *isn't* like eating.
Article is dumb, sorry. I have no feelings either way about 'no-helmet' laws, because if you're *not* wearing a helmet, you're probably gonna die...let natural selection weed the squids out.
- G.Irish - 06-16-2006
white_2kgt Wrote:I'm all for banning the helmet law, just so as long as if somebody is hurt while riding w/o a helmet they are required to pay ALL medical bills, no using insurance, as high medical bills w/ insurance paying out just causes everyone elses rates to rise.
Yeah it would only be fair that people who don't at least wear a helmet should have to pay their own medical bills. But by that logic it should be extended to include people who don't make the effort to stay in shape too. I can guarantee you medical insurance pays out at least 10 times more money for avoidable heart disease problems.
Sure, it'd be harder to enforce and people would cry foul but hey, its totally within your power to eat healthier and be active. Why should I have to pay more medical insurance because a bunch of lazy ass people need triple bypass surgery?
Realistically refusing unhealthy people medical coverage would never fly, but they could certainly give a discount to thos ewho keep themselves healthy.
- Ginger - 06-16-2006
G.Irish Wrote:Realistically refusing unhealthy people medical coverage would never fly, but they could certainly give a discount to thos ewho keep themselves healthy.
Some companies do, don't they? I'm only familiar with Kaiser, whose rates are effected by age, but I believe I've heard of other agents who make cost decisions based on health results at annual checkups. It wouldn't surprise me at all to.
Insurance companies are, after all, in the business of making money. It would only make sense fot them to charge unhealthy/high risk people extra.
- Sijray21 - 06-16-2006
I agree that the sit-ups and dietary constraints are a bit of an exaggeration, but that's the point. YouÔÇÖll push your argument to an extreme to see what kind of an effect it will have, and in this case I do believe that both have an affect on the life-span of individuals - bare in mind that poor diet and lack of exercise when compared to riding without a helmet or driving without a seatbelt are on two different time scales. Both have the end result of hospital bills, tax-payer money, and higher insurance rates because of the individuals who take little care of their personal health and safety. I don't think wearing a helmet should be forced onto the public, but IÔÇÖll have to deal with it because it is the law. If I want to ride my bike without a helmet I should have the right to do so.
Unlike wearing a helmet, fixing the problem of poor health is a lot more difficult and longer lasting, which is why people tend not to do it. Wearing a helmet or wearing your seatbelt is very easy to do and people who ride without a helmet or drive without a seatbelt are foolish, but who is the Government to tell them to do it. They should have the freedom to make mistakes and make poor decisions. Although it may affect me indirectly I say let Darwin get them. Not all injuries and fatalities in cars or on motorcycles will be avoided by just wearing a helmet anyway, it just reduces the chances of dying by a margin and it's relatively small or large given the situation. Should we make ankle-high boots or leather jackets with back-protectors mandatory as well, b/c I bet that would help a lot of road-rash victims and what they have claimed on their health insurance....although I doubt that would fly well in the motorcycle community. Helmet laws are there for monetary reasons and to protect the unaware and uneducated, they're not there to protect the careless.
- white_2kgt - 06-16-2006
G.Irish Wrote:white_2kgt Wrote:I'm all for banning the helmet law, just so as long as if somebody is hurt while riding w/o a helmet they are required to pay ALL medical bills, no using insurance, as high medical bills w/ insurance paying out just causes everyone elses rates to rise.
Yeah it would only be fair that people who don't at least wear a helmet should have to pay their own medical bills. But by that logic it should be extended to include people who don't make the effort to stay in shape too. I can guarantee you medical insurance pays out at least 10 times more money for avoidable heart disease problems.
Sure, it'd be harder to enforce and people would cry foul but hey, its totally within your power to eat healthier and be active. Why should I have to pay more medical insurance because a bunch of lazy ass people need triple bypass surgery?
Realistically refusing unhealthy people medical coverage would never fly, but they could certainly give a discount to thos ewho keep themselves healthy.
Medical ins already does this, unless you are on a company plan and are entitled to a fixed rate. If you are on your own for med insurance if you get unhealthy they raise your rates and choose not to renew you, just like car insurance. They would have to pay out as long as the policy was written for but most are only for a limited period of time.
Re: Roethlisberger, helmets, and the law - BLINGMW - 06-16-2006
I don't know why you guys are so hard on him for making the comparison, it's hyperbole, but yes, that's a common way to make a point. Driving is to eating as helmet laws are to dieting. Nothing wrong with that statement. And we all agree he's right, the government should keep their hands off of us. The article was long winded, and was obviously aimed at people who would say "wow, I never done thought of that before!", that's all that was wrong with it.
mpg9999 Wrote:For example: It is entirely legitimate for an airline to require seat belt use on a commercial flight; you are, after all, riding on their airplane -- and if you get bounced out of your seat, you might cause injury to others, or endanger the aircraft. But such considerations do not apply to the private individual operating his privately owned automobile -- or on his motorcycle. If he gets hurt, only he gets hurt. Others are not affected. Ergo, the state has no justification to intervene.
This part brings up a question in my mind though. I think the government DOES have a lot of precedent in making laws governing the use of public highways. We have no right to drive, and just like the airline requiring a seatbelt when you're on their airline, I'm not sure our government is so out of place requiring one when on a highway they have control over.
I could see the argument that seatbelt and helmet laws are no diffferent than required automobile inspections, or the requirement that you pull over when a cop asks you to, or that you stop at a roadblock. Unlike our homes, the highway is theirs to police. In a wreck, if you aren't wearing a seatbelt, and get ejected into oncoming traffic, doesn't THAT put others in danger? Doesn't keeping the driver in his seat give him a better chance of regaining control of the car? The helmet law isn't quite a easy.... but, without a helmet, doesn't the added process of scooping up brains require further downtime on that section of highway? A little extreme, but if you look at the laws that way, then they are quite justifyable.
So I don't expect helmet and seatbelt laws to ever go away. You guys are bitching now, but wait until 50 years from now when our government passes a law saying human-piloted cars are banned on public roads.
hock:
- Maengelito - 06-16-2006
everyone posts really long responses, so i havent read all of them, but i dont really have a problem with mandatory helmet laws. its the same as me not having a problem with mandatory seat belt laws. i wear my seat belt all the time. its second nature to put it on when i get in the car and i dont really understand people that dont. i dont ride a motorcycle, but if i did, i wouldnt ride without a helmet, just seems like common sense to me. i'm not so concerned what other people do but i would comply with those laws not just to comply but for my own safety.
- Sijray21 - 06-16-2006
Maengelito Wrote:everyone posts really long responses, so i havent read all of them, but i dont really have a problem with mandatory helmet laws. its the same as me not having a problem with mandatory seat belt laws. i wear my seat belt all the time. its second nature to put it on when i get in the car and i dont really understand people that dont. i dont ride a motorcycle, but if i did, i wouldnt ride without a helmet, just seems like common sense to me. i'm not so concerned what other people do but i would comply with those laws not just to comply but for my own safety.
i agree with you except for the part of making more laws to wear helmets. it's not that i wouldn't wear my helmet, because i would, it's just that the option is no longer there - limiting my freedom to choose what i would like to do. it's not that i wouldn't comply it's just taking away the options i have. before i rode a motorcycle i didn't understand why helmet laws weren't in more states (i wanted to protect the riders from themselves in retrospect, but who am i to help make decisions for other people regarding their own safety and voting on a law like that) and now that i am a motorcycle rider i want VA would make wearing helmets optional. i also think that since this is such a high-profile case that more states will lean towards making helmets mandatory and people will support this who don't even ride a motorcycle (assumption).
- BLINGMW - 06-16-2006
well yeah Maeng, but that's kind of like being ok with surveilence and wiretapping because you're not doing anything wrong.
- Maengelito - 06-16-2006
BLINGMW Wrote:well yeah Maeng, but that's kind of like being ok with surveilence and wiretapping because you're not doing anything wrong.
i see what you're getting at, but i dont think those two can be directly correlated. that whole wiretapping thing is a whole different argument that people are getting all paranoid over which is retarded to me.
i would personally never ride a motorcycle without a helmet, so i dont see why it shouldnt be imposed on everyone much like seat belt laws. i would do it even if it werent a law, so its not really a problem to me
- .RJ - 06-16-2006
Maengelito Wrote:i would personally never ride a motorcycle without a helmet, so i dont see why it shouldnt be imposed on everyone much like seat belt laws
That argument is completely retarded.
You dont smoke, so should we impose a no smoking law, too?
- Sijray21 - 06-16-2006
.RJ Wrote:You dont smoke, so should we impose a no smoking law, too?
that's also a different story - effect others through passive smoking. i just completely agree with no-smoking in public enclosed restaurants/bars, but could care less if it's outside where i don't have to breathe it in.
- BLINGMW - 06-16-2006
are you pulling our leg Maeng? Don't tell me we have to enforce only man on donkey sex too just because you like it. :lol:
- G.Irish - 06-16-2006
Sijray21 Wrote:.RJ Wrote:You dont smoke, so should we impose a no smoking law, too?
that's also a different story - effect others through passive smoking. i just completely agree with no-smoking in public enclosed restaurants/bars, but could care less if it's outside where i don't have to breathe it in.
A better example would be chewing tobacco. I wouldn't chew anyway but that doesn't mean that chew should be banned. If other people wanna do it, fine with me.
This country is about freedom of choice. Taking people's freedom away because the government "knows what good for you" is the road to ruin.
- BLINGMW - 06-16-2006
ok ok but we're getting sidetracked here. Did anyone actually read my argument? :? I thought it was pretty smrt.
- Sijray21 - 06-16-2006
BLINGMW Wrote:ok ok but we're getting sidetracked here. Did anyone actually read my argument? :? I thought it was pretty smrt.
i read it, but i was trying to see what kind of comment i can add that hasn't been said already and would be valid, i'm thinking....stay tuned :wink: