3 ms·
I don't know. It could be traumatizing to kill someone in a rather unspectacular car crash just because they weren't using their seatbelt. Same for helmets.
by dEnigma 6y ago
I don't know. It could be traumatizing to kill someone in a rather unspectacular car crash just because they weren't using their seatbelt. Same for helmets.
- atom-morgan 6y agoThe possibility of someone else's trauma shouldn't infringe on my freedom to ride a bike without a helmet.
- dwater 6y agoYou may do so on your own private property. If you wish to use public roadways, you must abide by the laws set by your state, which must balance the costs to society of your choices against your ability to make them.
- craftinator 6y agoThis is a disgusting comment.
- platistocrates 6y agoSelf referential comment.
- nickff 6y agoThis logic applies against all 'victimless' crimes, including drug possession & use.
- on_and_off 6y agonot at all. Drug use has one victim : the user. Time and time again it has been shown that legalization and cure are far more efficient and cost less to society but still many countries cling to the idea that beating up somebody who is down will magically solve the problem.
- nickff 6y agoWhat about the family of the user? What about friends and relatives affected by a user's addiction? If you think the impact on a counterparty in a car accident should be taken into account, I would think family should be top-of-mind.
- teawrecks 6y agoThis comment is depressingly American.
- atom-morgan 6y agoI mean why not make alcohol illegal because of the chance that it could negatively affect the people around you? That has a much higher likelihood than my not-wearing-a-helmet affecting someone else but very few people would support alcohol prohibition.
- acid__ 6y agoThere's also the externality of increased load on emergency services and hospitals.