Missouri votes to continue the nanny-state
Once again, bikers' attempts at repealing Missouri's helmet law have failed. After a familiar debate, the legislature shot it down. As usual, there was heavy reliance on annecdotal evidence and little critical thought. The blogs are full of the predictible responses, "not on my insurance", and "Why should I have to pay for your life support with my tax dollars".
Well you shouldn't. In fact, you shouldn't have to pay for ANYONE's life support with your tax dollars. This is a problem of socialism, not liberty. Of course my principle objection to this is one of individual liberty. A person should be free to do what he wants, as long as he accepts responsibility for his actions and they don't hurt another person. The government should exist to enforce our rights, not dictate how we live our lives.
I'll attack the insurance argument first. Insurance companies compete for business. They employ teams of actuaries to study probabilities, expenses, risks, etc. They then develop products to take to the market based on these findings. I have yet to have an insurance company of any kind offer my an individual policy and ask the question, "Do you wear a helmet when you ride your motorcycle"? Why not? Because they evidentally don't consider it a significant actuarial factor. If they did, they would either refuse to cover me, or charge me more. They would offer a discount rate to attract more business to those who did wear them. But they don't. End of argument.
Next we'll deal with the safety aspect. The D.O.T. requires that helmet be tested for impacts of up to 15mph. The average crash occurs at about 35mph, in an intersection with an oncoming vehicle in a left turn. Keep in mind, 15mph is you going 7.5mph and me going 7.5mph. That doesn't really make me feel any safer somehow. There is some evidence that the added weight of the helmet puts a person at an increased risk of cervicle spine damage as well. Picture your head as a bowling ball on a broomstick. Now add more weight to it. Accelerate it to 60mph and come to a sudden stop. What breaks? The weakest point of course. I could go on, but you get the point. Efficacy is highly questionalbe. Furthermore, head injuries are very common in car accidents. And horse accidents, bicycle accidents, etc. Why not force them to wear helmets as well?
Lastly, here's a newsflash: motorcycles are dangerous. That must really come as a shock to some people, but it's true. They are recreational vehicles. There's no reason anyone HAS to ride one, yet some make that choice. Just think how much money we could all save if we outlawed them? Is that next?
In fact, we could outlaw all sorts of things. Sky diving, scuba diving, horse racing, fatty foods... think how much safer we'd all be.
Personally I'd rather die a free man than live as a subject of the nanny state.
Well you shouldn't. In fact, you shouldn't have to pay for ANYONE's life support with your tax dollars. This is a problem of socialism, not liberty. Of course my principle objection to this is one of individual liberty. A person should be free to do what he wants, as long as he accepts responsibility for his actions and they don't hurt another person. The government should exist to enforce our rights, not dictate how we live our lives.
I'll attack the insurance argument first. Insurance companies compete for business. They employ teams of actuaries to study probabilities, expenses, risks, etc. They then develop products to take to the market based on these findings. I have yet to have an insurance company of any kind offer my an individual policy and ask the question, "Do you wear a helmet when you ride your motorcycle"? Why not? Because they evidentally don't consider it a significant actuarial factor. If they did, they would either refuse to cover me, or charge me more. They would offer a discount rate to attract more business to those who did wear them. But they don't. End of argument.
Next we'll deal with the safety aspect. The D.O.T. requires that helmet be tested for impacts of up to 15mph. The average crash occurs at about 35mph, in an intersection with an oncoming vehicle in a left turn. Keep in mind, 15mph is you going 7.5mph and me going 7.5mph. That doesn't really make me feel any safer somehow. There is some evidence that the added weight of the helmet puts a person at an increased risk of cervicle spine damage as well. Picture your head as a bowling ball on a broomstick. Now add more weight to it. Accelerate it to 60mph and come to a sudden stop. What breaks? The weakest point of course. I could go on, but you get the point. Efficacy is highly questionalbe. Furthermore, head injuries are very common in car accidents. And horse accidents, bicycle accidents, etc. Why not force them to wear helmets as well?
Lastly, here's a newsflash: motorcycles are dangerous. That must really come as a shock to some people, but it's true. They are recreational vehicles. There's no reason anyone HAS to ride one, yet some make that choice. Just think how much money we could all save if we outlawed them? Is that next?
In fact, we could outlaw all sorts of things. Sky diving, scuba diving, horse racing, fatty foods... think how much safer we'd all be.
Personally I'd rather die a free man than live as a subject of the nanny state.
posted by Jason E. Peck at 8:39 AM
0 comments
