4 ms·
The thing is there are people who think that riding a motorcycle without a helmet should be against the law. Not because it reduces injuries in ERs and save liv
by norea-armozel 11y ago
The thing is there are people who think that riding a motorcycle without a helmet should be against the law. Not because it reduces injuries in ERs and save lives, but because supposedly the relatives of those people have interests greater than that of the individual being reckless. That to me is troubling since then by such inference that obese people should be fined until they get closer to their ideal BMI. Or smokers too. Hell, anyone that enjoys coffee a bit too much. The point is where you draw the line? I think we should err towards the individual liberty side of that line as the unintended consequences will shake out easier in that regard than if we decide towards paternalism.
- yoplait_ 11y agothe difference is that roads are public. You want to take them, you have to obey public safety rules. Same way alcohol is legal but you shoudn't be drunk in the streets.
- norea-armozel 11y agoBut there's a difference between reducing risks via restrictions on alcohol consumption as the deaths from drunk driving often include non-drunk drivers getting hit. Where as when you drive without a helmet on your motorcycle the risk of fatality that increases is only your own. A helmet confers no potential safety to other drivers of the road in the same fashion as prohibiting drunk or unbelted driving. Thus, your assertion is without much merit in my opinion.