The folks at Fair Warning are very sad that an organized motorcyclist community considers them an intrusion on liberty and has been getting states to repeal them.
The folks at Fair Warning are very sad that an organized motorcyclist community considers them an intrusion on liberty and has been getting states to repeal them.
18 Comments
It says:
It would be totally reasonable to repeal helmet laws, if we also refused to sent emergency help to crash victims, then refuse to treat them in the emergency room of the hospital. To me, that would be an inhumane and immoral social policy, but I’m willing to be outvoted if a majority prefers to uncover their melons. But, if you do something which is pretty much bound to eventually cause you a head injury, then I’m not willing to pay for your treatment (in the form of emergency care, which we provide before we know whether you can pay for it).
The article reads like yet another devastating argument against socialized medicine, as it confirms (yet again) that the left’s supposedly humane desire to offer medical care to all comes at the very steep price of personal freedom. As the author writes:
“The social costs of the carnage are also huge: a 2008 agency estimate concluded that $1.3 billion in medical bills and lost productivity would have been saved if all bikers had worn helmets. . . . He added that the personal freedom that riders seek would have socially unacceptable consequences if carried to its logical extreme. ?Maybe we ought to save some of the costs when police or emergency responders go to the scene of a crash and the person is not wearing a helmet,? Dabbs said. ?Perhaps they ought to be left there like roadkill.?
And there you have it. Helmet advocates don’t care much about the accident victims; they are far more concerned with the expense of offering they aid they deigned to provide.
And why stop with helmets? Why provide medical care to anyone engaged in any activity deemed to be dangerous? Cycling leads to injuries, too, even if one wears a helmet. Roadkill. Mauled by a bear while hiking? You deserve to be eaten for lunch. Fall while mountain climbing or get stuck on top of Denali? Let it be a lesson to you; there will be no rescue. After all, why should we have to pay to rescue someone who has the temerity to want to scale rocks when he could just as easily have stayed home and been entirely safe?
It would have been one thing for this madness to end with seatbelts and helmets. But of course, leftist busybodies have already moved on to soda and fruit juice.
By the way, Nicholas, a helmet does not prevent all head injuries. Concussion and even subdural hemotoma — to name just a few possibilities — are entirely possible even if a rider is wearing a state-of-the-art helmet.
The emergency care is only the start of it. What about long-term care required by the cracked melon? What about support payments to the families whose income producer left a goodly chunk of his brain on the pavement? What about my insurance payments going up because somebody had to get sued and the insurance company had the deepest pockets around?
Nicholas, how would your reasoning apply in the case of former NFL players (who have to wear a helmet….and a fair number are claiming head injuries and concussions?)
The first commentor employs an argument that can be used to ban or over-regulate any hazardous private activity, from helmetless snow skiing to ordering an extra large Pepsi at a fast food restaurant, drinking alcohol, smoking tobacco, or smoking medicinal marijuana.
I don’t buy it. All of these activities may result in some kind of injury or damage to health, and thus may (emphasize “may”) cost society some money at some time. That is a fact, but it is not the point. The “cost to society” argument makes several assumptions to which I take exception:
-that it is the government’s business to infringe on the people’s liberty to protect people from their own private activities which do not harm others.
-that there is enough of a correlation established between the activity and unfunded use of the emergency room to evaluate whether the cost is significant in comparison to the infringement.
As we have seen from the “extra-large Pepsi” ban in NY city, politicians have an almost bottomless appetite to exert control over their fellow citizens. Sometimes it is because they simply enjoy the power, sometimes it is to create new opportunitys for extorting political contributions, and sometimes (I think Mayor Bloomberg is one of these last) they genuinely believe that they know better than we do what is good for us.
OK, so why not outlaw motorcycles altogether since they’re so dangerous regardless of helmet usage, and while you’re at it cigarettes should also be illegal-sorry too much corporate greed there. Oh, did I mention skiing, skydiving, deep sea diving or overeating!. Let’s let papa fed or state decide what risks people may take with their own lives. If the “mandate” survives you can require everyone to fill out a questionairre about their risky activities and set their insurance rates accordingly.
I write this as an avid motorcyclist that lives in a state without helmet laws, but chooses to wear one anyway.
Nicholas, your suggestions are, frankly, ridiculous.
First and foremost, why do we need the government to “save us from ourselves?” Why can’t we be treated as adults who can make their own informed choices? I know the risks and choose to wear a helmet. Others do not. There’s a million things we could logically apply this question to, from helmets and seatbelts to soda sizes.
Now why would you even remotely consider denying emergency services to someone who is injured for any reason? I have been involved in a motorcycle accident that required emergency treatment, and although I was wearing a helmet, it would have made no difference – my head never struck anything, it was my leg that was broken. According you your “idea,” had I not been wearing a helmet, I should have been refused treatment.
Perhaps you would make an argument that riding a motorcycle is inherently dangerous. But then again, aren’t many activities? Should we look down on people who participate in sports? What about someone mowing their lawn? What about someone who chooses construction as an occupation? The list is endless. I’m sure that there are activities that you participate in that are inherently dangerous – maybe we should similarly apply the “i don’t want to pay for your choices” argument to them.
Oh, but that’s different…
In a free society, we don’t need people making decisions for us to protect us from ourselves. To me, that notion is as offensive as is legislating morality and religion.
Let each free man (or woman) decide for him/herself.
Hoover said: “I’m sure that there are activities that you participate in that are inherently dangerous – maybe we should similarly apply the “i don’t want to pay for your choices” argument to them.”
Continuing that thought – Just remember that half of all activities performed by people are more dangerous than average. We had better ban all of them, then everyboby will safer than average.
My bright idea: airbag suits.
I don’t know about other states, but here in Florida the level of insurance one must carry when riding a motorcycle is based on whether the rider wears a helmet.
I think it is a given that riders that do not wear a helmet are more likely to have more medical expenses when involved in a crash. Therefore to me, having the rider being able to make the choice and bear the consequences of that choice (higher premiums and more coverage) is a win – win for all.
@gitarcarver:
Amen.
Why not repeal all the helmet laws with this one caveat: in order to receive a permit to ride helmetless, you’re required to be an organ donor?
Which brings up the success of the cottage organ donation industry that is largely based upon motorcycle riders not wearing helmets. Motorcycle riders are affectionately called “organ donors” by many ER physicians and staff.
I seem to recall that NHTSA once sponsored a study that wound up showing that riding without helmets saves taxpayers money (because a helmet is much more likely to reduce the harm resulting from a collision from instant death to quadriplegia — requiring expensive, lifelong care — than from serious injury to non-serious). Naturally, the agency made the study disappear afterward. (Would appreciate it if anyone knows more specifics.)
Besides, more deaths of this sort mean more people’s lives saved through organ donation.
But even if neither of these economies were true — the bottom line has to be that being an adult means you get to make your own risk/reward decisions individually. Anyone who would tell you differently is a tyrant.
(For what it’s worth, I’ve got better sense than ever to ride the darn things unless it’s in farm country.)
To JDG:
don’t know if this helps, but that study sounds like it dates from the Joan Claybrook era (JC was the famously motorcycle- hostile head of the Federal highway administration (or whatever it was called back then) under Pres. Jimmy “Rabbit Killer” Carter. She drew a lot of hostile press from Cycle World and other hobby publications. See, e.g., the backwards -steering motorcycle, a federal project paid for with our tax dollars.
For the record DEM, climbers and the like who require rescue are commonly on the hook for the cost of said rescue (which can run to several ten-thousand dollars if helicopter operations are involved). In any case, other than the general feeling that society should not be required to foot the long-term care bills resulting from the self-inflicted follies of other adults, I could care less whether motorcyclists go helmeted or not – I for one regard those who do abstain as an assured supply of hearts, lungs, spleens, and other parts, should I someday require a spare.
@John David Galt–
I heard of (but never saw the cite of) a study citing the social benefits of smoking: Smokers tended to die early, but mostly near or after retirement age, at a huge profit to Social Security