This is ironic.

[Mr. Kurtz]

Seat belts...do not.

A seat belt keeps you from becoming a projectile which can injure other people, as well as increases the odds you may maintain control of your vehicle in an accident(you can't continue to street or brake once you're tossed into the passenger seat when the car spins out of control).

[dompel]

You're forced to wear seatbelts

Stops you from bouncing around and hitting other passengers in the car

adhere to a speed limit

I don't really have a citation but I thought that speed limits were initially introduced to improve fuel efficiency. But I think there's enough evidence around to say that driving slower lowers the risk of serious injury.

stop at traffic controls

Allows order on the roads and keeps traffic from colliding.

How is being mandated to wear a helmet any different?

I would argue that the 3 examples prior to this all lower the risk of injury to other people (pedestrians, other vehicles), but the helmet law does not lower this risk. It only lowers the risk of injury to the operator, who would make the decision to wear the thing or not.

[Honclfibr]

Say the operator of a car or fellow bike collides with a motorcyclist not wearing a helmet. That motorcyclist falls, hits their head, and dies. That driver will likely, if not almost certainly, be charged with involuntary homicide. Should the rider have been wearing a helmet and survived, it's nothing more than an accident with an injury payout. Never mind that insurance rates increase for all riders as a result of increased injury payouts, decreased hospital and emergency responder availability, etc. You're forced to wear seatbelts, adhere to a speed limit, stop at traffic controls, and millions of other things when it comes to transportation. How is being mandated to wear a helmet any different?

Remove the "not wearing a helmet" aspect of your statement and the same exact argument can be made against motorcycling in general.

The problem with helmet laws is the slippery slope towards banning all forms of two-wheeled transportation from public roadways. I've said it before, the incremental risk from not wearing a helmet pales in comparison to the incremental risk from riding in general. You're something like twice as likely to die by choosing not to wear a helmet, but you're already close to 10x as likely to die by choosing the motorcycle over the car.

Some people choose not to ride at all, some (me) choose to ride with a full faced helmet and gear, some choose to ride in shorts and a t-shirt. We all make our personal risk assessments, and we may not agree with the choices others make, but you should support their right to make them or risk losing your own.

[csmutty]

I thought that one reason why seat belts are mandated is also that it keeps you from rolling around and hitting other passengers in the car. So in that way, it could effect others, even though not other vehicles.

Back to helmets then...I don't care about seat belts.

[G21forme]

I don't support anyone's right to cost me money because they are a fucking idiot but me thinks this is a thread that is going into the agree to disagree bin.

[DucDave]

Here's how it breaks down for me.

We have laws requiring children to wear seat belts and in some cases to wear helmets. Most of us accept this because we are protecting those too young to be counted on to make good choices by passing laws forcing their guardians to insure they take reasonable precautions.

If you disagree that this makes sense then you may skip the rest of my observation and go on to the next post. (That is, you believe that making children wear seatbelts or helmets is wrong...)

If you agree, then the arguement that people who would choose to ride without a helmet, in spite of all the evidence, are incapable of making good choices. Thus, the same arguement we use for children would apply to them.

Another way to position the discussion is; If everyone who rode a motorcycle could be counted on to make a good and rational choice about wearing a helmet, there would be no need to protect them from their own poor decisions by passing laws requiring motorcyclists to wear helmets.

Finally, the specious arguement that a motorcyclist that is killed when wearing a helmet may have save him is only hurting himself is pure bunk. Their children are left without a father, my insurance rates reflect their poor choices, and as someone pointed out earlier, anyone who witnesses such a tragedy will carry that vision the rest of their lives.

RIP to the rebel who died making his point...
...so young and so sad.

And so unneccesary.

[Honclfibr]

If you agree, then the arguement that people who would choose to ride, in spite of all the evidence, are incapable of making good choices. Thus, the same arguement we use for children would apply to them.

Once again, my point.

[dompel]

Their children are left without a father, my insurance rates reflect their poor choices, and as someone pointed out earlier, anyone who witnesses such a tragedy will carry that vision the rest of their lives.

Can't really say much about the insurance, that's a good point. But as far as leaving children without a father and scarring people with mental images, couldn't the same be said about any risky activity? Like motorcycling in general?

I guess I'd want to see a clear example of how someone not wearing a helmet endangers/hurts the public in a way that other risky/lawful behavior wouldn't. Peer pressure and insurance rates seem like good enough arguments to me. But as I said before, why stop at helmets?

[DucDave]

Can't really say much about the insurance, that's a good point. But as far as leaving children without a father and scarring people with mental images, couldn't the same be said about any risky activity? Like motorcycling in general?

I guess I'd want to see a clear example of how someone not wearing a helmet endangers/hurts the public in a way that other risky/lawful behavior wouldn't. Peer pressure and insurance rates seem like good enough arguments to me. But as I said before, why stop at helmets?

I realize that it's simple to start pointing at other activities are risky as well. But the simple 'bang for the buck' or 'risk/benefit' of wearing a helmet really makes the slipperly slope arguement somewhat disengenious. Pick one at a time and lets talk about it.

Do we have laws against jumping out of an airplane without a parachute? Not as far as I know. You know why? Because that would be stupid. But, suicide IS illegal. (Another topic worthy of consideration for another time!)

[csmutty]

Do we have laws against jumping out of an airplane without a parachute? Not as far as I know. You know why? Because that would be stupid. But, suicide IS illegal. (Another topic worthy of consideration for another time!)

Travis Pastrana did it...

[gadget]

This argument is dumb.
The man would be alive today if he just wore a helmet.

Don't insist on being as dumb as the dead guy.

[Talus]

This argument is dumb.
The man would be alive today if he just wore a helmet.

Don't insist on being as dumb as the dead guy.

Going to have to go with you on this one. Given the people texting and driving, preoccupied with their iPod or talking on the cell phone, people cutting you off all the time and so on, motorcycling on public roadways is incredibly dangerous.

Having a license to operate a motor vehicle should be a privilege. We can all agree that a majority of the people driving cars on the road are idiots. I wear full gear to protect me from them.

It only gets more dangerous when we're on bikes, so yes, if your chances of making it home at the end of the night are increased by a helmet law then suck it up and make the smart choice, you should be wearing a helmet regardless of whether or not its a law.

Due to this guy's pride about being told what's better for him, he's dead, and the people that suffer are the people that are left here to mourn him.

[dompel]

This argument is dumb.
The man would be alive today if he just wore a helmet.

Don't insist on being as dumb as the dead guy.

I don't think it's dumb. I'm not trying to flame anyone here. I'm not saying it should or shouldn't be the law, I'm conflicted and have been for some time.

But I don't really like this kind of argument:

The man would be alive today if he just wore a helmet.

Therefor there should be a law requiring helmets?

The man would be alive today if he just wore a back protector.

Therefore there should be a law requiring back protectors?

The man would be alive today if he didn't ride a motorcycle.

Therefore we shouldn't ride motorcycles?

Yeah, we get it. He should have worn a helmet. The question is should the govt be responsible for enforcing this. And if so, why stop at helmets?

[Talus]

I don't think it's dumb. I'm not trying to flame anyone here. I'm not saying it should or shouldn't be the law, I'm conflicted and have been for some time.

But I don't really like this kind of argument:


Therefor there should be a law requiring helmets?



Therefore there should be a law requiring back protectors?



Therefore we shouldn't ride motorcycles?

Yeah, we get it. He should have worn a helmet. The question is should the govt be responsible for enforcing this. And if so, why stop at helmets?

Nope, just helmets. If the idiot is wearing a helmet but is just wearing a t-shirt and shorts, ends up wrecking and gets 50mph+ worth of road rash on his arms/legs, then but survives, then he'll be thankful his head is protected and I'll bet he'll be wearing jacket/pants in the future.

[dompel]

Nope, just helmets. If the idiot is wearing a helmet but is just wearing a t-shirt and shorts, ends up wrecking and gets 50mph+ worth of road rash on his arms/legs, then but survives, then he'll be thankful his head is protected and I'll bet he'll be wearing jacket/pants in the future.

I wonder if wearing a jacket/pants could save your life. I assume you could probably bleed out, don't know how often it happens though. But let's assume that in your hypothetical the squid with a helmet and no jacket dies from blood loss or a back injury, change anything in your mind?

[Talus]

I wonder if wearing a jacket/pants could save your life. I assume you could probably bleed out, don't know how often it happens though. But let's assume that in your hypothetical the squid with a helmet and no jacket dies from blood loss or a back injury, change anything in your mind?

If the crash was severe enough for the person to "bleed out" then there would also be enough internal injuries to negate the helmet discussion because there's a threshold where helmet or no helmet, the severity of the crash will be fatal.

[dompel]

If the crash was severe enough for the person to "bleed out" then there would also be enough internal injuries to negate the helmet discussion because there's a threshold where helmet or no helmet, the severity of the crash will be fatal.

I guess you're right. Was wondering if people without jackets could scrape and open up an artery or something.

But yeah, in a hypothetical accident, if you can die from not wearing a helmet, but always live even without other gear, then that does negate my slippery slope argument.

[Talus]

I guess you're right. Was wondering if people without jackets could scrape and open up an artery or something.

But yeah, in a hypothetical accident, if you can die from not wearing a helmet, but always live even without other gear, then that does negate my slippery slope argument.

This is a very tough argument, on both sides of the coin. I feel that being able to operate a 400+lb rocket on the road requires a lot of responsibility, and like driving a 3000lb car, it's a privilege...sometimes privileges have restrictions for our own good.

[Rossco]

I hear ya preteen, but when a father of 3 dies, it effects more than just the dead dude.

I guess the guy wasn't really a fan of using any kind of protection.

[Rambunctous]

Yeah its a matter of choice. Witness NH where they have the choice. The crash test dummies fail to make the correct choice so big brother needs to do it for them.....What if I choose not to support them in a head injury long term care facility. Do I get the choice? Can we check a box on our tax forms? Bear in mind that I am a Liberterian.

[joeswamp]

Remove the "not wearing a helmet" aspect of your statement and the same exact argument can be made against motorcycling in general.

The problem with helmet laws is the slippery slope towards banning all forms of two-wheeled transportation from public roadways. I've said it before, the incremental risk from not wearing a helmet pales in comparison to the incremental risk from riding in general. You're something like twice as likely to die by choosing not to wear a helmet, but you're already close to 10x as likely to die by choosing the motorcycle over the car.

But the problem with most slippery slope arguments is that they are nearly always logical fallacies. Requiring helmets does not necessarily lead to banning motorcycles.

I agree that the incremental risk of riding a motorcycle is greater than that of wearing a helmet, but the incremental risk of driving anything at all is almost certainly greater than both. Does this then mean that helmet laws will result in the banning of cars?

Helmet laws make practical sense to me for two reasons: 1) you save a lot of lives for a very small change in required behavior, and 2) in states without helmet laws, nobody wears helmets.

I sort of wish we didn't need laws to get people to wear helmets, but I can't think of any other way to do it.

[Chippertheripper]

I guess the guy wasn't really a fan of using any kind of protection.

I don't really know this particular dude had 3 kids, that was just an example to show how choices effect others.

Can we have PIE now?

[DucDave]

But the problem with most slippery slope arguments is that they are nearly always logical fallacies. Requiring helmets does not necessarily lead to banning motorcycles.

I agree that the incremental risk of riding a motorcycle is greater than that of wearing a helmet, but the incremental risk of driving anything at all is almost certainly greater than both. Does this then mean that helmet laws will result in the banning of cars?

Helmet laws make practical sense to me for two reasons: 1) you save a lot of lives for a very small change in required behavior, and 2) in states without helmet laws, nobody wears helmets.

I sort of wish we didn't need laws to get people to wear helmets, but I can't think of any other way to do it.

Yep...slippery slope arguement almost always drifts into corner cases that have little to do with the original discussion. reductio ad absurdum

Another way to position the discussion is; If everyone who rode a motorcycle could be counted on to make a good and rational choice about wearing a helmet, there would be no need to protect them from their own poor decisions by passing laws requiring motorcyclists to wear helmets.

[gadget]

I don't think it's dumb. I'm not trying to flame anyone here. I'm not saying it should or shouldn't be the law, I'm conflicted and have been for some time.

The question is, "Should a government protect the citizens from dumb people?"
The answer is, "Yes"

btw what I posted was not an argument for a law. It was a statement of fact.
I will say it again.

The man would be alive today if he just wore a helmet.
You can argue against it all you want. It will not change this fact.

Our legislative process is designed (however poorly) to strike a balance between personal freedom and protecting its citizens.

If the only thing to worry about was your falling and cracking your head open then people would not care as much.

In this case, I think that your freedom to be stupid is not as important as protecting someone else from your actions. (e.g. losing control of your motorcycle due to being hit between the eyes by a bug and crashing into oncoming traffic.)

But I don't really like this kind of argument:
...

I don't really like the "slippery slope" argument.
It assumes that people do not have enough common sense to realize that at some point there is a point of diminishing return.
That is to say not all people have any common sense but that is why we have laws to begin with.

[TheIglu]

See here is the real issue. You don't have to make one rule into a "broader case".

Helmets are required. That is all. Not everything is black and white and easily definable.