Roethlisberger, helmets, and the law

[Sijray21]

ok -

i understand Channing's argument and i somewhat agree with you, but it still is a matter of freedom. Opened my eye's a little and i understand why the government would put a helmet law, but i'm still not for it.

I can understand why a law would be put in place to wear helmets and seat belts: a) because the majority of the public would do it anyway for their own safety b) because it's easy to do c) it slightly boosts economy by making a product (helmets) madatory (little effect if intentional at all) d) to avoid major catastrophies on public roads...mostly that one is the one i'm going to expand on. case in-point is if a rider falls hard during rush hour (let's say on I-395 Northbound) without a helmet, cracks his skull and dies in the middle of the highway. Medical, Fire, and Police shut down I-395, having people late to work and failing to arrive to work on time and not earning their money (extreme case, yes i know) for a medivac or to establish a crime scene if it were not just a vehicle loss of control issue. This scenario is still very rare and i doubt that the mess of a death would be difficult to clean up (gross).

I do however understand that motorcycle accidents are more involved with the individual operating the vehicle (motorcycle rider) when compared to a car, leaving them at more risk for injury. I just think that setting up a law is a "quick-fix" for a problem that needs more attention. Instead influence and educate people to wear helmets (for those that are unaware, not for those who knowledgeable and choose to ride helmet-less) rather that simply making people wear them because it's the safe thing to do.