From: ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: Freedom, Social Responsibility, Individual Responsibility
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 18:54:15 GMT

In article <casseres-231292084333@missmolly.apple.com> casseres@apple.com (David Casseres) writes:
>Here's my own biases about helmet laws:  I ride a bike a lot, I *always*
>wear a helmet, I insist that my kid do the same, and I don't think bicycle
>helmet laws are a very good idea.  I rode a motorcycle for many years, I
>always wore a helmet, I think motorcyclists who ride without helmets are
>mostly pitiful but occasionally beautiful, and I abstain from having an
>opinion on motorcycle helmet laws.  Okay.

My own bias:  I ride a motorcycle, and I have over three-quarters of a 
million miles of pavement behind me.  I came from a free state and I live in 
a lid state.  I have worn a helmet since the very first of those 750,000 
miles.  Anyone who doesn't wear a helmet has mush-for-brains anyway, and I 
fail to see how smacking into the concrete will change them in any way.

>
>First, just one question for all the ultra-pure Libertarian types who are
>saying that no government anywhere has any right to tell anyone to wear
>anything for any reason:  Where were all you mighty warriors when they made
>laws that say we have to wear clothing when we walk around on the street? 

I was here, fighting against gun control.  I have only so much energy and 
can tilt at only so many windmills.  Sorry.  I would have voted against it 
had I seen it on a referendum, but I have other fish to fry that are more 
important to me.

>Why aren't you out there bare-ass naked like that guy in Berekeley,
>protesting stupid laws about apparel and "decency"? 

Because it's cold this time of year and I have a pudgy programmer's body 
that embarrasses easily.

> If you aren't going to
>deal with clothing laws, then your philosophical opposition to helmet laws
>is purely a hand-job.

Why?

[snip - I agreed with this point, no need to refute it]

>
>Third, for those who answer the medical-expenses argument by saying
>helmetless cyclists who bash their brains out should be left on the
>pavement to die:  Get real.  This is not going to happen.  

Why not?

>And while you're
>at it, get less disgusting, OK?

It's a legitimate solution.  Why skip it?

>
>Next, a little something for the "I make my personal choice to take the
>risk of riding without a helmet, and no one can tell me not to" crowd: 
>Maybe you think you know what you're risking, but what if you realize, in
>that last split-second as your skull heads for the curbstone, that you
>didn't really know what the hell you were talking about?  Mind you, I don't
>think anyone *should* force you to wear a helmet; it's just that I think
>some of you may not know what you're talking about.

Maybe, but there is no law against being stupid.  The onus is on the 
individual to determing for themselves what they need to believe, not on the 
state to make them do things for thier own good.

>
>Then there's the Nobody's Business But My Own argument.  It's bullshit. 
>Somebody somewhere gives a shit about you and will be hurt if you die, or
>become a drooling veggie.  If it happens because you wouldn't wear a
>helmet, they'll be real pissed at you too.  On the other hand, if there's
>*really* no one who cares, maybe you should give up cycling for a while and
>concentrate on getting a life.

This is irrelivant.  It's still no one's business but mine if I choose to 
wear a helmet or not.  My loved ones are free to persuade me all they want, 
but to have the government coerce me with threats is wrong.

>
>And finally, let's have some quick Q&A's on three facts that are apparently
>not well understood:
>
>Q: What is the actual risk of suffering a serious head injury while riding
>my bike without a helmet?
>
>A: If you are an adult cyclist with a little experience, the actual risk is
>very, very small.  But remember, the effect can be very, very serious.

I disagree.  Sooner or later you are going to dump it, and when you do, you 
will need a helmet.

>
>Q: So, if I do get into one of those rare accidents that threaten a head
>injury, how much difference does it make if I'm wearing a helmet?
>
>A: Nobody knows, and that's the truth.
>
I do.  There is no doubt in my mind that I am alive today because I was 
wearing a helmet.


>Q: If we have a helmet law and I don't wear a helmet, how likely is it that
>I'll be punished for it?
>
>A: Well, right now it's illegal for bicyclists (and cars) to run stop
>signs; and bicycles (and cars) almost always run stop signs if they feel
>they can do it safely; and they practically never get a ticket for it.  So
>figure it out for yourself, and ask yourself whether it's worth your while
>to get all lathered up about helmet laws destroying your fundamental
>liberties.

The principle is not whether or not the law is enforceable (and here in 
Tenn., believe me, it IS) but whether or not it is Constituional, morally 
right, or a good idea.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:7062 talk.politics.guns:25699