I've proposed this before, so here's an abridged version. If a person decides they don't want to use mandated safety equipment, let's just add a waiver to the law that says all you have to do is post a bond of sufficient size to cover around the clock care for the rest of your life, and provide for your family, if you manage to bang your head on a curb and become a drooling imbecile. That way the rest of society doesn't have to foot the bills for your "freedom".
Jerry
Sorry - but that proposal is wrong on so many levels it is not even worth debating. I have never seen any data that proves people who do not wear helmets impact others financially. I am curious if you have ever, for any reason whatsoever, turned in an insurance claim and been paid by an insurance company in your entire life. If you have, then you have "caused financial harm" to others by making insurance rates go up. You see, insurance companies do not raise rates just on just individuals that turn in claims, they raise the base rates for ALL who have insurance. Since I have had insurance for almost 40 years and have NEVER turned in a single claim for payment, I want anyone who has filed a claim and been paid to pay me because my rates increased through no fault of my own.
The assertion that people who do not wear helmets place a financial burden on society just simply is not supportable. Most statistics that are collected are only collected for people who do not have a helmet on. In other words, there is no data collected that shows whether or not there is a "financial burden" created for people who DO wear helmets. So let me make sure I understand. You wear a helmet, you have or do not have insurance (it makes no difference - people will bear the brunt financially), have an accident and require "round the clock care", but I should be all smiles now to happily pay increased rates (whether medical or auto/motorcycle)?
It just simply makes no difference whether or not a person is wearing a helmet for the financial burden placed on others through increased costs. Actually, odds are that folks who do NOT wear helmets cause the least burden as they will more than likely be deceased from any accident that "may have been survivable" had they been wearing a helmet. Those who survivie the same accident cause much more of a financial impact to others than those that do not.
I completely agree that "freedom isn't free", however, keep in mind that the saying is meant to show the cost of defending and protecting one's rights - NOT that freedom has a price tag to be bought by only the affluent. Opinions simply do not come into play where Rights are concerned, and the majority NEVER rules.
Time to step down now ...
Author
Topic: National helmet law proposed (Read 17381 times)