Thirty years ago I could argue the case against mandatory helmet laws with the best of them, citing everything from freedom of choice to restricted vision/hearing to neck injuries due to the whiplash effect. Of course, back then I could also argue against mandatory seat belt laws and any other form of government "intrusion" into my personal choices (I guess I just liked to argue). Then an amazing thing happened over the following 30 years. I grew up, gained maturity, experience, and responsibilities, and finally realized how many serious injuries and/or fatalities had been prevented by those same laws I had once considered to be a violation of my personal freedoms. It's amazing how your perspective changes over time, especially after one of those hated laws saves your own life or the life of a loved one.
I do have one suggestion for the legislators when they address the helmet issue. If freedom of choice is a major stumbling block, then just add a requirement that anyone who chooses to not wear a certified helmet has to post a bond of sufficient size to provide the medical care they may need after an incident. All to often the taxpayers and the people paying insurance premiums wind up footing the bills to support "victims", all because wearing helmets or seat belts wasn't "cool". I say if looking cool or thumbing your nose at the man is more important to you than your health, you should be forced to be responsible for the consequences. Of course, with the cost of round the clock care nowdays, a few hundred bucks for a good helmet will probably look a lot better than coming up with a $1M+ bond. But freedom of choice would be preserved.
BTW - if you really think being a drooling imbecile for the next 20 to 40 years doesn't affect anyone but yourself, you have already lost too much brain function to be allowed out on your own anyway.
JMHO - Jerry
Jerry, that's a side of this question that has been brought up here before. And has ususally gotten a tepid response.
Someone wrote once that governments didn't have the "right" to legislate whether we wore helmets or not. That was one of the dumber things that had been put in print. Short of major Constitutional violations government has whatever rights or privileges it decides it has. The same discussion said we had a "right" to ride without our lids. Almost equally as ill thought.
Riding at all, or driving, is a privilege not a right. We don't have to be let on the highways. Governments can control how we use them.
All that begs the question of should we be allowed to ride without helmets if we so choose, why, and at what cost. Whether we admit it or not there are a couple of things that go a long way toward dictating the answers. As a general rule we're not a large enough pain in the ass/cost to make legislating against us more necessary and there aren't enough of us to make the costs of carrying us on the system burdensome. Either of those change, at anywhere from the municipal to the Federal level, and watch out though.
The highways are made for cages. That's obvious. To be safer for us certain things would be built differently. That's ok though. The national economy is carried on the back of the highway system. The road system should be built for cars and truck and cartage. That we get the benefit of using it and having it for our enjoyment is icing on the cake. That we have to be diligent and take care of our own safety is a perfectly fair "cost" or trade off for being allowed on the great system.
As far as helmets go, their use to be allowed on the system is varied. We know that. Where some locality says "go ahead" that's fine. Ride without. Where another says helmet required, however, I personally wish we could just wear the damn things on. Ride and quit the incessant and often ill conceived bitching. We rarely look less than selfish in that debate; and a little childish. Worse is that it draws attention to us we do not need.
We are best served by governments when we're basically not noticed. Notice us more we'll be regulated more. Guaranteed. Also, all the talk about "freedom of choice" and wind in our hair(s) and everything else notwithstanding, the helmet debate for legislators is one of cost. Highway use legislation and guidelines are always cost/safety.
It does cost society more for every helmet free mile ridden than every helmet worn mile ridden. It really does. Because the costs of health care after head injury are significantly greater. Someone might choose to belabor that point. But they'd look stubborn and uninformed in doing so rather than as someone trying to intelligently make their case. So we're left alone, in the areas we are left alone, because we don't cost
enough more for it to make a societal difference.
As much as we all like to kvetch and piss and moan on this it really is a topic where we're best served by just riding well, riding safe, and shutting the hell up to be left alone riding under the radar. The more attention brought to us the worse off we'll be. If some legislature does decide to impose a helmet requirement so what? Someone would rather not ride?
Author
Topic: NC helmet law (Read 4157 times)