Roethlisberger, helmets, and the law

[Sijray21]

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.