Why don't they just ban motorcycles altogeather in the name of soceital responsibility?

Question

So they can save on medical costs associated with crashes, insurance, use of emergency personnel, backing up traffic, etc. Earlier I asked if people agree with the state making seatbelts mandatory and most people agreed with it even though there was no real direct hurting of another person by not wearing one (people felt it would cause more injury and death and indirect societal costs by making it optional) so the question is why would those same people not be in favor of banning motorcycles altogeather using the same logic (at what point does personal liberty become more important than societal responsibility and what criteria do we use to determine that?

Answer 1

Largely because there are enough lobbyists to prevent such legislation -- it's purely about the money and politics.

Yes, banning them would be about as useful as forcing everyone to wear seatbelts -- so why one and not the other? Because you don't have a strong commercial lobby for the anti-seat-belt marketing companies.

Answer 2

Sounds like more big government involvement. Why not let people over the legal age drive cars without seatbelts, or motorcycles without helmets at their own risk. If they split their head open because they chose not to wear a helmet, then the tax payers should not be held liable. If they do however wear a seatbelt or a helmet and become injured, how is this any different from somebody who flips over a convertible car and splits their head open? Are we going to ban everything government suspects to be too dangerous, and burden those who do have a brain large enough to know how to be responsible when operating any vehicle?

Answer 3

Personally, I always default to liberty.
If I wish to endanger my life by not wearing a seatbelt, what business is it of yours or the government's?
I don't believe there is any such thing as "societal responsibility" when it comes to questions of individual choice, unless that choice infringes upon the rights of another individual.

As far as the costs associated with crashes, insurance, etc., motorcycle owners pay for their insurance just as we all do with our automobiles.

Answer 4

Ok, take your question one step further, why not ban anything that can result in death? Ban pools, as many many children die each year by drowning in home pools. Ban electricity in the home, as people can be electrocuted to death by it. Ban driving, as 50,000 people or more die EACH YEAR in the US alone in car crashes. The list goes on and on. Why don't we ban it? Because personal freedom trumps "saving on medical costs associated with crashes, insurance, use of emergency personnel, backing up traffic, etc." That is why motorcycles, cars, swimming pools, electrocity, guns, and anything else potentially dangerous should still be legal to own, at least as long as you want to have any decisions to make about your life.

Answer 5

THANK YOU! I was just arguing with my brother about the stupid seatbelt laws today. Apparently the government knows what's best for us and will punish us if we don't do what they say...So if you're following that logic, then sorry no more motorcycles, or bikes...or cars....or planes...or rollerblades 'cause you might break your arm...or............yeah.
Personal liberty is definitely more important than societal responsibility as long as what you are doing does not harm anyone else.

Answer 6

I agree
if i choose not to wear a seatbelt that's my choice
how many cops do see wearing their seatbelt?
might as well ban sky diving, bungee jumping, steak knives and crossing the street.
while we're at it, old age should be out lawed too
you'll find more elderly people at t he hospital than any other age group.

If one wants to go sliding on the pavement at 60 mph with or without a helmet that's their choice


with all the troops fighting overseas
you would think that we still have the right to make our own choices here at home

Answer 7

While they're at it - they may as well nix sports (the number of sports related injuries is astounding). At least one of every five emergency room visits for an injury results from participation in sports or recreation. There are approximately 1.5 million emergency room visits a year for injuries sustained while playing basketball, baseball, softball, football, or soccer.

Sports medicine is it's own specialty. Think of what that does to your insurance premiums! It's a public health burden.
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/pub-res/research_agenda/05_sports.htm

Answer 8

motorcycles are better than cars because:
1. they use way less gas
2. riders aren't likely to be distracted, on the phone, adjusting the seat, lighting a cig, eating a big mac, digging for CD's, etc
3. riders are way less likely to be drunk or on drugs while riding
4. there's no kids jumping around in the backseat
5. and a whole bunch of other reasons

as for your second question, most motorcycle riders are way more responsible than car drivers.... and it's the cars that run over the bikers causing the injury..... so how about we get the damn cars off the road instead??

Answer 9

Your idea isn't so far fetched... If government health care ever gets passed you could be surprised how far Uncle could intrude into your life...... all for your own good, of coarse.

Answer 10

Suits me.

Two kinds of motorcycles - those that have been down, and those that are going down.