How's this for irony?
- Thread starter CarolinaCy
- Start date
Thanks to him this helmet law has 0% chance of being repealed. Talk about your all time backfires.
While not wearing a helmet is obviously detrimental to an individual's safety, it has absolutely no bearing on the safety of others and therefore should not be forced upon people by the government.
This is the same argument used against the seat belt laws. I think the counter argument for seat belt laws is that not wearing them costs society money and productivity lost to accidents and ties up more emergency room resources.
I get the irony, but karma assumes he deserved to die? I don't think anyone deserves to die for expressing their political opinions.
I am guessing the police passed on the riding without a helmet citation since he was dead at the scene?
Last edited:
Other people become liable for your dumb choices though. If I were to get into an accident with someone who would likely have suffered little/no injury with a seatbelt/helmet, but they die or are severly injured because they weren't using the appropriate safety equipment. Suddenly I potentially face criminal charges and liabilities that were really the other persons fault. I would be all in favor of allowing people to make their own dumb choices as long as we cut off all liability to others as a result of those choices.
Expressing your political opinion is holding a sign or a press conference. Not following a law designed for your own safety is where Karma comes in. He didn't deserve to die, but he made the illegal and conscious choice that directly and unnecessarily led to his death.
For what it is worth I used to ride motorcycles through my sophomore year at ISU and always wore a full helmet. One day, a pickup truck coming the oppoisite direction, decided to make a left turn into me at an intersection. I hit it head on and didn't even have time to apply any brakes. I was lucky that I flew over the hood and landed on my feet by the driver's door. It was in town and I think the speed limit was 35. I was doing survey work for the DOT at the time and had thick leather boots on. The front license plate on the truck caught my foot, and cut nearly all the way through my boot. If I had been wearing tennis shoes, as I often did, it would have done a great deal of damage. As it was, I just had a deep bruise. My bike was totalled and at that point I decided I could not controll the other idiots on the road.
Last edited:
While that may or may not be a solid argument...being licensed to operate a motor vehicle is not a "right." It's a privilege, and one that can be revoked.
I don't understand the reasoning of basically having to go in and apply/be tested to be a licensed operator of a motor vehicle, but then feeling that you do not have to follow the rules of operating said vehicle.
Seat belts and helmets in some areas are the rules. Tough.
And as others have pointed out, people get held liable for extra damage caused by people who don't wear helmets or seat belts. As long as you can be held liable for that damage, it SHOULD be forced upon people to do wear belts/helmets. Your argument would hold water better once that liability factor is removed.
Last edited:
As long as a rider's insurance policies (life, motorcycle, health) are voided if he/she gets in an accident while not wearing a helmet when the law requires it, I'm totally with you on this. Thinning of the herd, natural selection, cleansing of the gene pool, etc. etc.
So to be fair can I assume you believe that insurance policies should also be voided if you are not wearing your seatbelt, are speeding, etc...i guess they would be breaking the law as well?
Where does it end? Do we put laws against SUV's, HUMMER's, and the likes due to the fact that if you happen to drive a compact or mid size car and happen to get in an accident with one of these vehicles you are much more likely to have serious injuries. Or maybe individuals who drive smaller eco friendly vehicles are cleansing the gene pool as well?
Correct. Toss in texting there on your list as well.
If you want to drive a smaller, eco-friendly vehicle, you know that you're putting yourself at risk of sustaining major damage if you get into an accident with a larger vehicle. Don't worry, SUV and truck drivers share the same risk while driving next to 18-wheelers out on the highways. Soon enough, we'll have vehicles that drive themselves and much of this debate will be moot.
That's just it. We have built an edifice of laws around many things which are then used to justify the next. There should be no additional liability to anyone but the rider if injuries that are suffered could have possibly been avoided with helmet use. A return to individual responsibility allows a return to individual liberties.
Now if a minor is allowed to ride on the back with no helmet, that liability would go to the operator of the vehicle.