Posted on 06/21/2006 3:47:40 PM PDT by neverdem
The day after Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger crashed his motorcycle, while he was still recovering from surgery to repair his fractured face, The Cincinnati Post scolded the Ohio native for not wearing a helmet. "Riders should wear helmets," the paper proclaimed, "and if they're not going to, perhaps the government should step in and make them."
The Post pined for the days when "all states required helmets," bemoaning the fact that 30 states now let adult motorcyclists decide for themselves what, if anything, to wear on their heads. The laws were changed, the editorial explained, because of "pressure from those who advocate 'freedom.'"
Notice the scare quotes. According to The Cincinnati Post, the freedom to take a risk is not really freedom at all; you are truly free only when you make the right choices--those that minimize the chance of injury. It's a depressingly common attitude nowadays, when health promotion is routinely accepted as a justification for meddling in what used to be considered our private lives.
By the standards of "public health," which seeks above all else to minimize morbidity and mortality, Roethlisberger should not have been riding a motorcycle at all. Given the nature of his injuries, it's doubtful a helmet would have prevented them, unless it was a full-face model. But it's certain Roethlisberger would not have been in a motorcycle crash if he had never ridden a motorcycle.
If injury prevention were Roethlisberger's overriding goal, of course, he probably would not have chosen a career in professional football. "I wish all our players liked board games or low-risk hobbies," Cleveland Browns General Manager Phil Savage said after Roethlisberger's accident. "Unfortunately, one of the things that makes these professional athletes is they have an edge that makes them want to seek more."
The same could be said of motorcyclists generally, especially the ones who have fiercely resisted laws forcing helmets on their heads. "If you've never ridden a motorcycle," says Jeff Hennie of the Motorcycle Riders Foundation, "there's no way to describe the feeling of freedom. It's got to be the next best thing to being able to fly. When you start putting restrictions on that freedom, people take it personally."
There's that word again. The editors of The Cincinnati Post are not the only ones who are puzzled by the concept. At a recent conference sponsored by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg—who brags about tracking New Yorkers' blood sugar levels and driving down cigarette consumption with high taxes and a ban on smoking in bars and restaurants--called for "an aggressive, comprehensive public health strategy" aimed at "deadly menaces [that] result from our choices," including "tobacco addiction, unhealthy nutrition, and excessively sedentary lifestyles."
Regarding government efforts to influence what we eat and how much exercise we get, Bloomberg acknowledged that "some people may call that too intrusive." He immediately dismissed this concern by relabeling it: "I call it dynamic and effective public health." You say tomato...
The problem is that Bloomberg's idea of public health, like the CDC's, does not distinguish between deadly diseases people catch and risky things they choose to do. In his speech he equated smoking, overeating, and failing to wear a seat belt with polio, cholera, and tuberculosis, wishing away freedom by pretending it doesn't exist.
"We rely on the forceful application of law—democratically debated and approved—as the principal instrument of public health policy," Bloomberg said. So as long as your risky hobby or habit meets with the majority's approval, there's no need to worry, unless you think politicians sometimes are driven by their own ideological agendas.
Bloomberg wants us to know he's not one of those fanatics. "Clearly," he said, "there are many matters of personal behavior and personal taste that we have no business regulating." Oddly, he did not name a single one.
© Copyright 2006 by Creators Syndicate Inc.
Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason. Sullum's weekly column is distributed by Creators Syndicate. If you'd like to see it in your local newspaper, please e-mail or call the editorial page editor today.
I agree with you - as far as a state requirement for being insured. I think that is the case in many states that don't require helmets, although I'm not sure.
Look Gabz, only five posts before Nanny showed up!
Let know when the nanny state finds a cure for old age. Freedom haters are everywhere, even here on FR.
I wore a helmet in Viet Nam fighting for freedom. One of the freedoms I like to enjoy is not having a bunch of strangers telling me what I can do with my own head.
Head injuries occur in automobile accidents, so I ask you, do all the people in your car wear helmets when you drive?
If not why not?
You don't know that drivers in a car are now evveloped is airbags and as well wear seatbelts, have headrests and rise in a steel cage in a vehicle that weighs nearly two tons? A helmut is just a modest concession to the laws of physics, like wearing a condom when having sex with a total stranger.
You didn't answer my question, just like a liberal change the subject instead of answering a direct question.
Bright enough to lead his team to the AFC Championship game as a rookie and to win the Super Bowl in his second season and compile the best win/loss record of any starting QB in the NFL.
He's only 23 years old (i.e. risk taker as most up us were that age) and a professional athlete (i.e. even bigger risk taker) who wouldn't even be able walk on the field full of 300 pound guys who want to tear him apart if he were a "safety first" kind of guy.
100% agree with you that Ben is able to play brilliant football for 60 mins on a football field. As I was inferring from my post, being brilliant in sports doesn't translate to being brilliant off the field. Ben didn't show much intelligence by being on a rice rocket sans helmet and with an expired license. If that's a sign of brilliance to you, then god bless you.
To me, it's a sign of youth, and nothing more.
No, because a driver in a car has lots of protection . A biker, on the other hand, has very little. As I said, it is hardly asking too much to ask a biker to wear protective gear.
You have it. He still thinks he is immortal. At least he knows what a concussion feels like and may be less inclined to play through one. A first rate quarterback with a concussion is not as efficient as a back up whose brain is not scrambled.
You have it. He still thinks he is immortal. At least he knows what a concussion feels like and may be less inclined to play through one. A first rate quarterback with a concussion is not as efficient as a back up whose brain is not scrambled.
What about a seat belt?
I am not sure about that. A bit like strapping someone to a horse. BTW, I wonder if jockeys ride bikes?
As a Steeler fan and a Roethlisberger fan, I have to say how he's an ginormous idiot for splurging his future on the pointlessness of helmetless riding at this moment in his portentious young life.
Nonetheless, it's quite absurd to think that the state can force the stupid to behave wisely.
too few of them? have you looked at the prices on them lately? $3,000 is about as cheap as you can buy a new one, and that's a 250cc, barely big enough to drive on a highway model. and of course, we're also talking about second vehicles for most people, so alot of people just plain can't afford them. most bikes anymore cost as much as a new car.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.