Posted on 05/30/2002 8:59:36 PM PDT by Cultural Jihad
Edited on 04/12/2004 5:37:07 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
SACRAMENTO (AP) - A bill to exempt motorcyclists over age 21 from having to wear helmets failed in the Assembly on Thursday.
Already defeated once, bill author and motorcycle rider Assemblyman Dennis Mountjoy, R-Monrovia, resurrected AB2700 to argue once again that the state is taking away individual freedom by requiring drivers to wear helmets. His effort failed on a 34-33 vote.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
I have always heard and repeated that there are two types of motorcyclists. Those who have been down and those who will go down in the future. One person I met many years ago, before I started to ride tried to argue the point that "if your head hits the pavement with a helmet on, the helmet will bounce and snap your neck." OK, fine. But what part of "head hits the pavement" do they not understand. I am sorry but I am not buying it.
However, No one should be forced to wear one. Just as no one should be forced to foot the bill, once you do crack your noggin.
To which you replied:
``That line has already been drawn, at the state border. People in Nevada and Oregon are free to ride their cycles without helmets, if they want to.''
I am in complete agreement with your statement, but I don't believe this is in dispute. Since the bill was introduced in the state house buy a state representative, I do not belive this is a federalism issue. Of course, you're right that folks in Oregon or Texas may lobby their state houses, not the California state legislature.
If I may be so bold as to speak for Joe, I believe he was asking where do you draw the line of safety versus liberty. People in motorcycle accidents are significanly less likely to cause injury or slay other motorists than those who have accidents in automobiles. This is the rationale for liability insurance, since most automobile fatalities and injuries involve others.
Where does one rightly draw the line?
Are you or have you ever been a motorcyclist?
Do you believe in the outlaw of possession and sale of motorcycles just because they're dangerous?
What makes you compel the state legislature in your state mandate safety equipment for motorcyclists?
If you're were genuinely concerned about motorcycles, would not the best solution be to remove them from the road altogether, than a helmet law?
When the state forces the issue, it's socialism. When folks volunteer their efforts and treasures to some compassionate cause, it's charity. You seem to think that it's good for Christians to force other folks to join in their righteous causes. It's not. It's called theft and amounts to a violation of the 8th commandment. Thou shall not steal. Any "charity" that comes with conditions attached is theft and is not Christian, nor is it in any way decent.
It is often said that democracy and liberty are the same, but they are not.
Democracy simply means that the majority makes the laws.
Liberty means that even in a democracy, there are some things that government simply cannot do, even at the direction of the majority.
Saving people, by force, from the consequences of their own actions are some of those things.
According to the National Institutes of Health, approximately 50% of all head injuries are due to motor vehicle accidents. Of those around 1% involve motorcycles. (looking for the cite, going from memory) However, the number of motorcycles on the road is about the same percentage, indicating that you're about as likely to get a head injury in an automobile than on a motorcycle. On the other hand you're somewhat more likely to suffer injury in any accident on a motorcycle due to your exposure.
Why don't we need helmets for automobile drivers? No. But more than half of all vehicle accidents involve alcohol. I think it would be wise to strengthen laws punishing driving under the influence, and requiring helmets for motorcyclists.
Typo correction:
... than requiring helmets for motorcyclists.
Being a rescue worker is voluntary. No one makes anyone become one. They are paid to do a job, and unless they live in fantasyland, they know what comes with the territory. If they can't handle it, they're in the wrong line of work.
or forcing the insurance premiums of drivers to go up.
The market handles risk. Insurance premiums are based on risk. People who don't ride motorcycles will not incur the risk of injury due to riding helmetless, therefore they will not be in the same insurance pool as other riskier drivers. This is the reason very young drivers pay higher premiums than older more experienced drivers.
Motorcycle drivers who want to drive helmetless can volunteer to pay higher premiums to their insurance companies, therefore taking responsibility for their own actions. Motorcycle drivers who lie to their insurance companies and say they will wear helmets and then do not, should not be covered in the event of a head injury as they have violated their policy. No one's insurance will go up because of them.
Nowhere in this equation is government required.
Please demonstrate to me specifically where the brain-injury related death of one helmetless motorcycle rider has caused your insurance rate to go up. Strawman arguments based on conjecture do not hold water here . . .
Motorcyclists are at a much greater risk of injury in a crash due to our being "out there" with no cage around us. So I prefer to not be involved in an accident, rather than to try and lessen the potential harm. I lessen my chances of being in an accident by NOT wearing a helmet. I have much better vision without one and I have much better hearing without one.
I avoided what could have been a major crash on I-75 one year because I saw the idiot out of the corner of my eye. I have no doubt that had I been wearing a full face helmet I would have been seriously injured.
As far as forcing the rescue personnel to see my brains scattered about, what about the doctors who are forced to see lungs rotted by smoking?
After all the money Grey Davis pissed away, this is down in the noise. Can't legislation be passed against assuming the financial burden of the unintended consequences of electing socialists? The choice to wear a helmet is up to the individual. I do all the time. That's me. I will not abridge the freedom of others because it might impact my wallet, that reasoning leads to places we don't want to go, but are unfortunately heading to.
NM greetings, Slim
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.