Roethlisberger, helmets, and the law

[Evan]

So you'd rather take an isolated incident, where his head didnt even touch the pavement, and present it as fact that not wearing a helmet wont kill you? Good one. Thats why I said "opinion". Not "fact". I "think" that if you wreck your shit while not wearing a lid, you'll die. Is that true for everyone? Obviously not in this case. But a head injury is the highest risk in most of the things that we do (bikes, mtn bikes, racing) so we wear helmets... for me, the thought of not wearing one is rediculous. But thats my choice. If someone else doesnt want to make that choice, then so be it.

You need to work on the whole reading skillz thing. I didnt say, nor imply that not wearing a helmet wont kill you, but nice try at manipulating that one around. Maybe you should grab a thesaurus, because "opinion" probably isnt the word you want to use in this situation, doing so makes yourself look pretty clueless in the face of reality. Maybe "assumption" or "presumption" or "prediction" would better suit the context.

anyway, back on topic,
one thing you need to think about in your "heart disease" etc comparisons is that health problems are extremely different situations and how you get to them, especially in a legal sense.
Death/injury by a vehicle accident is direct and immediate where helmet/seatbelt has a direct and immediate positive effect on the outcome

smoking/eathing unhealthy is indirect and takes a very long time. Important distinction when it comes to lawmaking, although recent lawsuits may start to extend the reach of the law into this realm too.