Actually the data show that wearing helmets actually increases costs in
health care.. The reason is easy to
see. Helmets save lives.The number of serious head injuries actually
increase.People who would have died of head injuries live when helmets are
introduced.. Anti-helmet groups often bring this data forth in support of
their position- to show it doesnt impose costs on others....of course it
may impose costs on
widows, etc. but perhaps they are better off without people like that
anyway. Of course there are arguments about vision etc. and some people
have medical conditions that make it
difficult to wear helmets. I don't know why leftists think this is a big
issue anyway.
Its neither here nor there when people are starving to death all over the
world.It has bugger all to do with the worldwide ravages of capitalism..It
seems
perfectly reasonable that people should be concerned about paternalism and
forcing them
to do things..By the way, Im in favor of helmet laws with medical
exemptions but I cant see why I should be sad or think it odd that
leftists are on the other side of the issue. What is your position on gun
control :)
I fail to appreciate the force of your argument re drunk drivers.
Drunk drivers kill innocent
people and maim them. Helmetless drivers hurt only themselves
directly..They may indeed pass on some
insurance costs to others who do not wear helmets but surely this is not a
sufficient reason to disallow helmetless riders.
Maybe we should outlaw drivers under 21 or let them drive only with
another driver etc. this would no doubt make our insurance costs lower
since as a group these drivers increase our insurance costs. And we must
require people to eat properly because eating improperly imposes costs on
all those healthy eaters
out there.in a universal health care system... Maybe you could introduce
more sin taxes too.
Lets tax the hell out of the working classes' cigs and booze...All of
these measures would compensate us healthy nonsmoking nondrinking types
for the costs working class and other slobs impose upon us..I mean all
these sinners imposing costs on the virtuous, its just not
fair :). It probably is not a Pareto improvement to allow these things .
The ultimate sin...
Cheers, Ken Hanly
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Bill Lear writes:
>
> > I don't have too much of a problem arguing against helmet laws. My
> > take is that if a person does not hurt another person, then they are
> > free to hurt themselves and the state should not regulate that
> > behavior --- if it can be shown that not wearing helmets poses a
> > threat to others, no red-blooded American should protest efforts to
> > curb the harm. My guess is that helmet laws and seat-belt laws were
> > done at the behest of insurance companies, not a cadre of
> > pajama-wearing socialists.
> >
> Well I do have a problem. We have banned helmetless riders
> because of the selfish cost they impose upon others. Cyclists
> without helmets cause an enourmous extra cost to the insurance
> system that is passed on to other sensible drivers/riders. It is the
> equivalent of arguing for the elimination of laws against drunk
> driving because the cost such idiots cause end up being passed on
> to others and, in our case, to the health system which must be
> paid by everyone. I am all in favour of individual freedom -- up to
> the point that it begins to destroy other, innocent people's freedom.
> Helmet and seatbelt laws are the beginning of freedom for others
> on the road.
>
> It is sentiments like that of BigWayne that makes me question the
> rationality of American discourse. That Bill Lear supports it makes
> me sad and despondent!
>
> Paul
> Paul Phillips,
> Economics,
> University of Manitoba
