Liberals love laws that require bicyclists and motorcyclists to wear safety helmets. The usual reasons:
1. Taxpayers defray the cost of emergency services that go to the scene of accidents.
2. The failure to use helmets results in higher health-care costs and, thus, higher health-insurance premiums.
Proposition number 1 isn't universally true. But even if it were, so what? Accidents aren't caused by the use or non-use of helmets. Almost any accident involving a bicyclist or motorcyclist will require emergency services, whether or not the rider incurs a head injury.
Proposition number 2 overlooks the fact that non-helmeted riders are less likely to require prolonged, expensive care -- because they're likely to die more quickly than helmeted riders.
That brings us to the real proposition -- number 3: Bicyclists and motorcyclists should wear helmets for their own good. The insistence on helmet laws is simply another liberal pretext for telling others how to lead their lives.
Here's a deal for helmet-loving liberals. If you're a bicyclist (likely) or motorcyclist (unlikely), you can wear a helmet if you want to. In return, non-liberal bicyclists and motorcyclists will agree that you don't have to sport an American flag on your helmet.
Thursday, October 28, 2004
The Illogic of Helmet Laws
Posted by Loquitur Veritatem at 11:24 PM
Categories: Academic Freedom - Civil Liberties - Privacy, Constitution - Courts - Law - Justice, Liberty - Libertarianism - Rights