2007-02-17 01:06:05 · 15 answers · asked by ? 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
while a half shell helmet saved my life in 05, it should be up to the rider.
2007-02-17 01:16:05 · answer #1 · answered by paulisfree2004 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
In a country like Canada, where healthcare is nationalized, helmet laws and seat belt laws make perfect sense. The less head trauma cases...the less expense to the system.
I'm sure there is an argument for not wanting to wear a helmet, but I can't imagine getting on a bike, without any head protection, and facing the potential dangers...not when wearing a helmet could dramatically decrease the risk of those dangers.
If you have a family, I believe it is irresponsible to not wear one. You have the right to live as you wish...and end up dead, or living like a vegetable with head trauma...but do you have the right to make your family suffer like that...just cause you didn't want to wear a helmet?
It all comes down to common sense and responsibility in my eyes.
2007-02-17 09:14:31 · answer #2 · answered by Super Ruper 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
About the same as seatbelt laws. Personally I won't ride without a helmet but that is merely by choice. I think it should be your choice to wear one or not.
2007-02-17 09:09:36 · answer #3 · answered by pretender59321 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You could certainly make that argument. But in some cases, like the helmet laws, people need to be protected from their own stupidity and lack of common sense.
2007-02-17 09:12:37 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Absolutely, along with seat belts and a million other laws that violate our rights. We need an overhaul and upgrade of our legal system and of common sense in law and people. If you are too stupid to realize you don't put plastic bags over your head, maybe you should do just that. It should be your choice.
2007-02-17 09:19:40 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not unless you think that having to pay for the life long care of a paraplegic who rode without a helmet is fair to everyone.
I would love to see all the stupid laws that protect the idiots from themselves abolished, but with that we also need a law that exempts the rest of us from picking up the bill for their lack of brains. Until then, I prefer to see their brains protected - for my sake.
2007-02-17 09:20:45 · answer #6 · answered by Batty 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes, it is. I and my husband always wore helmets because that was our choice. But I do think it is wise to suggest to parents that kids under the age of 18 wear them.
2007-02-17 09:14:47 · answer #7 · answered by TexasRose 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
if it were possible to guarantee that the non helmet wearer would not cost anyone else anything for their 10 years in the nursing home, then yes they are. Otherwise there is a societal interest in mandating helmets.
2007-02-17 09:11:03 · answer #8 · answered by David B 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I think it you refuse to wear a helmet or use a seatbelt, and you get into an accident in which you are injured, you should be refused any medical insurance claim.
2007-02-17 09:29:47 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Laws like this are the problems with a welfare state. Once the government gets into our health care they start dictating our lives so that we "don't cost" extra.
Liberals think they are smarter then the rest of us...they are protecting us from our own stupidity. How about we tell them "you worry about you". Let me live my own life!
2007-02-17 09:12:49 · answer #10 · answered by sfavorite711 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋