The Great Helmet Debate is Everlasting
- Thread starter SuperSalad
- Start date
- Status
The look and the humor makes me think the writers of Norsemen had a hand in this. Or maybe Scandinavians are just naturally hilarious.
That's hilarious. However, the leader fails to mention the most important point: what other people can I harm by not wearing a helmet? If the answer is nobody, then the crowd (or the state) has no right to force him. Of course, they can try to persuade him but the decision is his.
Otherwise, there is no limit to authority of the crowd (or the state); they can force anyone to do anything.
Put differently, I think not wearing a helmet when motorcycling is stupid. But people have a right to do things that I think are stupid, so long as they don't harm others.
Otherwise, there is no limit to authority of the crowd (or the state); they can force anyone to do anything.
Put differently, I think not wearing a helmet when motorcycling is stupid. But people have a right to do things that I think are stupid, so long as they don't harm others.
While I agree, I think there is a problem due to insurance. in a sense, if i have the same insurance, then we pool risk, and my actions could have monetary consequences for anyone else on the same plan. No I don’t want to go down the road the slippery slope that this is.
4WD
$50 site donor 2025
… Expected a seat belt law comparison by now …
Wrong sub-forum
Insurance companies should be free to charge differential rates depending on helmet wearing. Since that may be hard to enforce (people might promise to wear helmet to get lower rate then "forget" to wear it), the insurance companies could recoup the costs in more reliable ways, like having a significantly higher deductible or paying only a % of damages, in accidents where the insured was not wearing a helmet.
Yeah, sorry!
None of this explains stupid YouTube stunts though, and all of the same logic applies.
ABATE of Ohio: A brotherhood aimed towards education, is nest known for the abolishment of the helmet law in Ohio.
My wife's first thing out of college as PT was starting/running head injury support group as most were motorcycles. She state majority of them ended up under the state's care and taxpayers paying for their living expenses and even taxi ride to her meetings.
There is financial impact of not wearing helmets but not sure how much.
There is financial impact of not wearing helmets but not sure how much.
If we're talking about medical expenses, consider the top causes of disease, death and medical expenses: type II diabetes, heart disease, obesity, and other conditions that are all lifestyle related. If the argument is that the state has the right to force motorcyclists to wear helmets because others have to pay their medical expenses, then that argument also says the state has the right to force people to eat more vegetables, less meat, drink less sugary drinks and alcohol, and exercise daily. That would save us (society) FAR more than whatever injured motorcyclists are costing us.
I agree its probably small potatoes, but a helmet law also costs nearly nothing compared to the cost of the consequences.
So in state's without a mandatory helmet law, do insurance companies charge different rates for wearers and non-wearers? I kind of agree with the principal that someone can not wear a helmet if they like, but I wouldn't want to have my vehicle and health insurance pooled with those people either... Without a brain bucket, all sorts of minor accidents can become life altering, costing of millions for the insurance company.
Since we publically insured healthcare I'm glad we've got helmet laws, its just a smart financial decision if nothing else.
Great question. I suspect they do charge differential rates, or the policy says you're not covered if you weren't wearing a helmet. If they don't, it means either (A) motorcycle helmets have no statistically significant cost savings, or (B) laws (or other practical measures) prevent insurance companies from charging differential rates to reflect the costs.
I suspect that option (A) is not the case, but it isn't necessarily crazy, as wearing a helmet could actually increase medical costs, by enabling motorcyclists to survive collisions that otherwise would have killed them outright.
However, my point is that if cost saving alone (without any direct harm to others) justifies forcing people to do things they don't want to, then society can rationalize forcing anyone to do anything.
Do what you want where you want. A motorcycle in New Jersey? You have to be a bit crazy. Riding a motorcycle in New Jersey without a helmet? Your own personal disregard for yourself and your family speaks volume. It’s your head, not mine.
Don’t most states have seatbelt laws? I don’t see the difference.
Nobody is making anybody drive on the road. It is a privilege, not a right. You want to drive on the road, you follow the rules.
Neither do I -- AFAIC it's the same thing.
Well if your society is rational then you should be fine! You should make sure your local school board is funded half decently!
Realistically a society does place reasonable restrictions on individual freedoms.You should be thankful you live in a democracy, so your reasonable restrictions are pretty much inline with what the majority of voters accept. If you don't like it, you still have the freedom to try to change the laws or leave atleast! A helmet law has no significant loss of freedom IMO, anymore than a speed limit or vehicle registration.
- Status
Similar threads
