helmet laws was : 4th of July Hypocricy (was: OT Celebration)

From: joe <rigdonj_at_intellistar.net>
Date: Tue Jul 10 08:48:23 2001

At 08:47 PM 7/9/01 -0700, Eric wrote:
> > > IMHO it's crazy to be on a motorcycle without a helmet, so why not just
> > > abandon the helmet requirement and let Darwin have the last word . . .
> >
> > Because our society and government are built around protecting the
> > stupid.
>
>More to the point, my tax dollars go to pay the unpaid medical bills
>of the stupid, and when too many stupid people get head injuries my car
>and health insurance rates go up.

     Hell, that applies to anything you can name; car crash victums, skate
boarding accidents, people tripping on the side walks, etc etc etc. The
list is endless. Should you let the "hospital costs" rational be used to
govern everything we do? I don't think so. What if the next law is that
no one will be allowed to work on their own computers since they could be
injured and the public would have to pay the cost of their
hospitalization? Rediculous? Not really. That's the exact rational that
was used to pass the helmets laws to begin with and from what Tony says the
UK isn't far from enacting such non-sensical regulations.


>If there's an outcry against helmet laws, here's a simple solution.
>Require riders who don't wear helmets to either get additional "no helmet
>inurance,"

      That appears to be exactly what the state of Florida has done. So
far it seems to be working. The motorcycle riders are now happy since they
don't have to wear hwelmets, the insurance companies are very happy $$$$$$
and the state isn't caught in the middle any more. FWIW it's rare to see a
rider wearing a helmet around here now and I haven't heard of any cases of
peole being busted for not having insurance.


>or post a $50k bond to cover their additional health costs in
>the case of an accident. Fines for riders not carrying proof of either
>should be set at a sufficient level to cover the cost of care for the
>riders who don't have either.
>
>The other option, and a fine one IMHO, is to deny health care to
>riders who are injured while not wearing a helmet.

      It all sounds fine except for the last part. There's no way that
they're going to deny emergency health care to anyone. Besides I wouldn't
want them to. Can you imagine the precedence that it would set? The next
thing you know they'd be dening emergency care for any rediculous reason.

     Joe

>Eric
Received on Tue Jul 10 2001 - 08:48:23 BST