[PEN-L:3288] Re: Re: Biker buddy... sorta...

[ts99u-1.cc.umanitoba.ca [130.179.154.224]]

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