Helmet and Sea belt Law and my affinity for Libertarians

[Earl IV]

Yes, a few out of the tens of thousands of municipalities in the US. Of course, I'm in a state that has motorcycle helmet laws.

I'm in a state that just last year repealed its helmet laws for motorcyclists.

And as soon as they fix their roads, I will start riding in Michigan again

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

* Correction in the title, should read Seat Belt.*

I don't really have a point to make, just thinking out loud.

I wear a seat belt in my car and a helmet when I ride my bicycle. However, it really pissed me off that I can get a ticket for not wearing them. I hate the government playing nanny. If I want to take a risk it's should be my choice. If I want to buy a 200oz soda that should be my choice. If I want to snort coke or shoot up heroin it shoulld be my choice.

I'm so sick and tired of the "nanny-state" schtick. The Government going into your house to tell you that you need to put rubber bumpers on the corners of your tables to protect you if you fall would be a nanny state. The Government telling you when to go to bed is a nanny state. The Government inspecting your dinner before eating to make certain it is healthy enough is a nanny state. Enacting laws that save a lot of lives and prevent countless serious injuries is not a fucking nanny state!

 

[Sabine Grant]

My husband and I are recumbent trike riders. Being trikes, it means that the risk of fall is greatly reduced. However, my husband is a strong adept of wearing a protective head gear. Being a nurse who has had ample experience working in ERs and ICUs, he knows better than dismissing protective head gears as unnecessary or non effective.

So, we both wear protective head gears while riding our recumbent "tadpoles". We are both fully aware that if hit by a vehicle, wearing protective head gears will reduce the potential for head traumas and BTI's (since the fall risk alone is eliminated when riding trikes).

Then of course, those of us who are parents have to consider how it sounds like to a child when mom or dad mandates they wear a protective head gear on their bicycle, but mom or dad refuses to wear one on their bicycle. I think the parents among us know what happens when we "do not walk our talk".


No matter the temperatures which can reach the high 90's in the summer months in Central Florida adding 100% humidity. No matter that being outdoors and while in sun exposed areas, we are talking of temperatures reaching the low 100's.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

* Correction in the title, should read Seat Belt.*

I don't really have a point to make, just thinking out loud.

I wear a seat belt in my car and a helmet when I ride my bicycle. However, it really pissed me off that I can get a ticket for not wearing them. I hate the government playing nanny. If I want to take a risk it's should be my choice. If I want to buy a 200oz soda that should be my choice. If I want to snort coke or shoot up heroin it shoulld be my choice.

Now I understand that if I go flying through the windshield or crack my head on the side walk there is a chance that I'll end up costing society a bunch of money i.e. disability payments because I'm in a wheel chair sucking food through a straw. If I get fat, smoke, or do drugs I'm more likely to be a burden on the medical system. I know sin taxes work, but I don't like them.

I favor single payer insurance conceptually. However, I'm afraid it will lead to a bigger nanny state.

Yet, I was born in Europe, have traveled in Europe, and spent time an extended time in Southern France. I have no stats to back this up but my general impression is that Europeans smoke more, drink more, and fuck more. In France there wasn't the cultural expectation that you need to wear a helmet -- things may have changed; its been a while since I have been there.

Thoughts?

Certainly you can see the ridiculousness of the scenario where an injured driver and passenger from the same automobile accident are wheeled into an emergency room, and the ER treats only the driver because the passenger wasn't wearing a seat belt. Society generally doesn't tolerate that sort of thing.

So, we have to sort out who is paying for all this stuff in some manner (insurance is great if you can get it). "Nanny State" laws, as you call them, are less about telling you what to do than they are about raising revenue to defray the cost to society. If you don't like the laws there is a very simple solution to the problem - raise taxes.

As you pointed out, France and other European countries don't need the unnecessary laws to help raise revenue because their tax rates are already high enough to cover the costs to society identified by not wearing helmets. It's an example where higher taxes leads to more freedom (not less). Libertarians are constantly shooting themselves in the foot in this regard.

aa

 

[NobleSavage]

* Correction in the title, should read Seat Belt.*

I don't really have a point to make, just thinking out loud.

I wear a seat belt in my car and a helmet when I ride my bicycle. However, it really pissed me off that I can get a ticket for not wearing them. I hate the government playing nanny. If I want to take a risk it's should be my choice. If I want to buy a 200oz soda that should be my choice. If I want to snort coke or shoot up heroin it shoulld be my choice.

I'm so sick and tired of the "nanny-state" schtick. The Government going into your house to tell you that you need to put rubber bumpers on the corners of your tables to protect you if you fall would be a nanny state. The Government telling you when to go to bed is a nanny state. The Government inspecting your dinner before eating to make certain it is healthy enough is a nanny state. Enacting laws that save a lot of lives and prevent countless serious injuries is not a fucking nanny state!

Perhaps you prefer paternalism? Social Security is one big fucking nanny-state institution.It's forced saving for retirement. Most employees don't even realize they are only paying half and that their employer has to match that. I'm a partner in an LLC and I have to pay the entire amount. It's a big fucking chunk of money. If I invested that money myself in a very safe investment I'd be much better off. I want the freedom to opt out. I feel much safer making the decisions myself than trusting Congress.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'm so sick and tired of the "nanny-state" schtick. The Government going into your house to tell you that you need to put rubber bumpers on the corners of your tables to protect you if you fall would be a nanny state. The Government telling you when to go to bed is a nanny state. The Government inspecting your dinner before eating to make certain it is healthy enough is a nanny state. Enacting laws that save a lot of lives and prevent countless serious injuries is not a fucking nanny state!

Perhaps you prefer paternalism? Social Security is one big fucking nanny-state institution.It's forced saving for retirement. Most employees don't even realize they are only paying half and that their employer has to match that. I'm a partner in an LLC and I have to pay the entire amount. It's a big fucking chunk of money. If I invested that money myself in a very safe investment I'd be much better off. I want the freedom to opt out. I feel much safer making the decisions myself than trusting Congress.

You didn't respond at all to my statement and decided to shift goalposts a bit.

 

[dismal]

* Correction in the title, should read Seat Belt.*

I don't really have a point to make, just thinking out loud.

I wear a seat belt in my car and a helmet when I ride my bicycle. However, it really pissed me off that I can get a ticket for not wearing them. I hate the government playing nanny. If I want to take a risk it's should be my choice. If I want to buy a 200oz soda that should be my choice. If I want to snort coke or shoot up heroin it shoulld be my choice.

Now I understand that if I go flying through the windshield or crack my head on the side walk there is a chance that I'll end up costing society a bunch of money i.e. disability payments because I'm in a wheel chair sucking food through a straw. If I get fat, smoke, or do drugs I'm more likely to be a burden on the medical system. I know sin taxes work, but I don't like them.

I favor single payer insurance conceptually. However, I'm afraid it will lead to a bigger nanny state.

Yet, I was born in Europe, have traveled in Europe, and spent time an extended time in Southern France. I have no stats to back this up but my general impression is that Europeans smoke more, drink more, and fuck more. In France there wasn't the cultural expectation that you need to wear a helmet -- things may have changed; its been a while since I have been there.

Thoughts?

Certainly you can see the ridiculousness of the scenario where an injured driver and passenger from the same automobile accident are wheeled into an emergency room, and the ER treats only the driver because the passenger wasn't wearing a seat belt. Society generally doesn't tolerate that sort of thing.

So, we have to sort out who is paying for all this stuff in some manner (insurance is great if you can get it). "Nanny State" laws, as you call them, are less about telling you what to do than they are about raising revenue to defray the cost to society. If you don't like the laws there is a very simple solution to the problem - raise taxes.

As you pointed out, France and other European countries don't need the unnecessary laws to help raise revenue because their tax rates are already high enough to cover the costs to society identified by not wearing helmets. It's an example where higher taxes leads to more freedom (not less). Libertarians are constantly shooting themselves in the foot in this regard.

aa

Suppose we make an honest assessment of the "cost to society" of not requiring people to wear helmets (don't forget to credit back the saved social security and chronic diseases, etc.) and charged people a fee to do it. Would that make you happy?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Certainly you can see the ridiculousness of the scenario where an injured driver and passenger from the same automobile accident are wheeled into an emergency room, and the ER treats only the driver because the passenger wasn't wearing a seat belt. Society generally doesn't tolerate that sort of thing.

So, we have to sort out who is paying for all this stuff in some manner (insurance is great if you can get it). "Nanny State" laws, as you call them, are less about telling you what to do than they are about raising revenue to defray the cost to society. If you don't like the laws there is a very simple solution to the problem - raise taxes.

As you pointed out, France and other European countries don't need the unnecessary laws to help raise revenue because their tax rates are already high enough to cover the costs to society identified by not wearing helmets. It's an example where higher taxes leads to more freedom (not less). Libertarians are constantly shooting themselves in the foot in this regard.

aa

Suppose we make an honest assessment of the "cost to society" of not requiring people to wear helmets (don't forget to credit back the saved social security and chronic diseases, etc.) and charged people a fee to do it. Would that make you happy?

Based on what I've read about smoking and cancer, it breaks even between shorter life span and increased medical expenses.

 

[dismal]

Suppose we make an honest assessment of the "cost to society" of not requiring people to wear helmets (don't forget to credit back the saved social security and chronic diseases, etc.) and charged people a fee to do it. Would that make you happy?

Based on what I've read about smoking and cancer, it breaks even between shorter life span and increased medical expenses.

I wouldn't be surprised if people not wearing helmets actually are a cost benefit to society because a quick death at 22 saves society a lot of money. But either way, we do the math and we live with it. Maybe we end up paying people not to wear helmets. Maybe we charge them for it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Based on what I've read about smoking and cancer, it breaks even between shorter life span and increased medical expenses.

I wouldn't be surprised if people not wearing helmets actually are a cost benefit to society because a quick death at 22 saves society a lot of money.

How so? The likely beneficial dying age is near the end of career, with all of the FICA dollars being paid in to the system, but not as much being removed.

But either way, we do the math and we live with it. Maybe we end up paying people not to wear helmets. Maybe we charge them for it.

I know you live in a world where the cost/benefit analysis is your holy mantra, but there are a few people, those with empathy that look a little beyond that.

 

[dismal]

I know you live in a world where the cost/benefit analysis is your holy mantra, but there are a few people, those with empathy that look a little beyond that.

Actually it was the premise of others in this thread that the "cost to society" justifies these laws. Feel free to go back and correct each of them because you must have missed it when they first posted.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

Certainly you can see the ridiculousness of the scenario where an injured driver and passenger from the same automobile accident are wheeled into an emergency room, and the ER treats only the driver because the passenger wasn't wearing a seat belt. Society generally doesn't tolerate that sort of thing.

So, we have to sort out who is paying for all this stuff in some manner (insurance is great if you can get it). "Nanny State" laws, as you call them, are less about telling you what to do than they are about raising revenue to defray the cost to society. If you don't like the laws there is a very simple solution to the problem - raise taxes.

As you pointed out, France and other European countries don't need the unnecessary laws to help raise revenue because their tax rates are already high enough to cover the costs to society identified by not wearing helmets. It's an example where higher taxes leads to more freedom (not less). Libertarians are constantly shooting themselves in the foot in this regard.

aa

Suppose we make an honest assessment of the "cost to society" of not requiring people to wear helmets (don't forget to credit back the saved social security and chronic diseases, etc.) and charged people a fee to do it. Would that make you happy?

That's what we are doing. Except instead of calling it a "fee" which is a voluntary thing that no one will pay, we call it a "fine" which allows you the additional freedom to ride around with no helmet to your heart's content until you are caught doing it by law enforcement.

aa

 

[dismal]

Suppose we make an honest assessment of the "cost to society" of not requiring people to wear helmets (don't forget to credit back the saved social security and chronic diseases, etc.) and charged people a fee to do it. Would that make you happy?

That's what we are doing. Except instead of calling it a "fee" which is a voluntary thing that no one will pay, we call it a "fine" which allows you the additional freedom to ride around with no helmet to your heart's content until you are caught doing it by law enforcement.

aa

This is what we're doing? Can you point me to the part where we did the math?

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

That's what we are doing. Except instead of calling it a "fee" which is a voluntary thing that no one will pay, we call it a "fine" which allows you the additional freedom to ride around with no helmet to your heart's content until you are caught doing it by law enforcement.

aa

This is what we're doing? Can you point me to the part where we did the math?

I think the math boils down to revenues less expenditures. Where we find instances of spending out-pacing taxation, we also find interesting ways of generating additional revenue.

aa

 

[Cobalt]

Based on what I've read about smoking and cancer, it breaks even between shorter life span and increased medical expenses.

I wouldn't be surprised if people not wearing helmets actually are a cost benefit to society because a quick death at 22 saves society a lot of money. But either way, we do the math and we live with it. Maybe we end up paying people not to wear helmets. Maybe we charge them for it.

And let's not neglect to put an accurate value to the organ donations of kidneys, livers, and hearts that become more available when there are no helmet laws...

 

[NobleSavage]

* Correction in the title, should read Seat Belt.*

I don't really have a point to make, just thinking out loud.

I wear a seat belt in my car and a helmet when I ride my bicycle. However, it really pissed me off that I can get a ticket for not wearing them. I hate the government playing nanny. If I want to take a risk it's should be my choice. If I want to buy a 200oz soda that should be my choice. If I want to snort coke or shoot up heroin it shoulld be my choice.

I'm so sick and tired of the "nanny-state" schtick. The Government going into your house to tell you that you need to put rubber bumpers on the corners of your tables to protect you if you fall would be a nanny state. The Government telling you when to go to bed is a nanny state. The Government inspecting your dinner before eating to make certain it is healthy enough is a nanny state. Enacting laws that save a lot of lives and prevent countless serious injuries is not a fucking nanny state!

Ok, since you said I moved the goal posts. I'll try and respond more directly. I simply feel it should be my choice to wear a helmet or set belt. It should be my choice to go BASE jumping where the chances of death are 1 in 60. And I'm sure there are a lot of serious injuries that are not captured by the 1 in 60 stat. This is legal now, but I'm sure it will be outlawed at some point.

I'd like to experiment with psychedelics, but it's illegal.

All the tools are in place for 100% constant monitoring. Actuaries will get to sift through big data and I'm sure they will come up with all kinds of interesting ways for the state to protect its self. It wold be trivial to monitor the speed of cars with GPS. It's just a matter of time before you get tickets in the mail. Quite a few municipalities are throwing RFID chips into peoples trash. When it gets to to the garbage plant they check to see if you sorted your trash correctly. If not, you get a big fine. In NYC it's illegal to use an e-cig in public. In Boulder, Colorado you can't ride your bicycle drunk, if you get caught it's the same penalty as a DWI.

 

[Sabine Grant]

Based on what I've read about smoking and cancer, it breaks even between shorter life span and increased medical expenses.

I wouldn't be surprised if people not wearing helmets actually are a cost benefit to society because a quick death at 22 saves society a lot of money.

reality check : a BTI or Brain Trauma injury does not equate "a quick death". BTI patients will need to undergo months if not years of physical therapy, occupational therapy if not respiratory therapy.Let alone a prognosis of permanent disability removing them from the ability to work, earn an income and be financially independent.

 

[ZiprHead]

I'm in a state that just last year repealed its helmet laws for motorcyclists.

And as soon as they fix their roads, I will start riding in Michigan again

You're tellin' me... The roads here suck big time.

BTW, is that your bobber in your avatar photo?

 

[dismal]

I wouldn't be surprised if people not wearing helmets actually are a cost benefit to society because a quick death at 22 saves society a lot of money.

reality check : a BTI or Brain Trauma injury does not equate "a quick death". BTI patients will need to undergo months if not years of physical therapy, occupational therapy if not respiratory therapy.Let alone a prognosis of permanent disability removing them from the ability to work, earn an income and be financially independent.

I'm reasonably sure some percentage of helmetless people die quickly. Anyway, if you've got the math for what this costs society please share it so we all can see.

 

[Earl IV]

And as soon as they fix their roads, I will start riding in Michigan again

You're tellin' me... The roads here suck big time.

BTW, is that your bobber in your avatar photo?

Yup, but it's a Fatboy

And no, I don't wear a stupid lid.