Boxerworks.com

http://www.economist.com/news/united-st ... _type_map=[%22og.likes%22]&action_ref_map=[%22scn\%2Ffb_ec\%2Fno_brainer%22]

Same old song. Everyone (with 1/2 a brain) knows that it's safer to wear a helmet. The foolish arguments claiming otherwise are completely specious.

However, these people never acknowledge the core issue: should the government have the right to legislate away the right of individuals to endanger themselves if they are endangering no one else?

They immediately leap to the cost issue, conveniently ignoring the fact that they have not answered the key issue of freedom. The question is: if the taxpayers decide they want to care for those who hurt themselves, does that mean this automatically confiscates the right of people to engage in behavior that might get them hurt? I say: absolutely not. To do so confiscates rights without even acknowledging the discussion of whether or not it is appropriate. That doesn't mean there isn't a case to be made, but to not even bother to make the case is inexcusable and shows no understanding of how our system is supposed to work.

If you look closely you'll see my helmet hit the pavement twice, and I didn't feel either smack when I broke my collar bone.
If I had an open face, or no helmet, I'd be even uglier than I am now.

If the freedom not to wear helmet automatically ticks the freedom to dump your brain damaged body down the back somewhere and forget about it I guess , yes, no one can compel you to wear a helmet. For me there is some kind of social contract wherein you attempt to reduce injury to yourself and your pillion and society helps if you stuff up. Unless of course you have full insurance in case of injury ( that's compulsory here).

Perhaps the amount of help offered in some way effects the degree to which society can reasonably compel ?

Major Softie wrote:However, these people never acknowledge the core issue: should the government have the right to legislate away the right of individuals to endanger themselves if they are endangering no one else?

Well they are endangering the pocketbooks of others if we are to believe the cost argument. The cost of healthcare is utterly outrageous, so we should curtail any freedoms that might cause injuries whose expenses the taxpayers might have to bear. Riding motorcycles without a helmet is but one of these freedoms that have gotten potentially too expensive to allow further. Rock climbing, mountaineering, skiing, hiking, hunting, unprotected sex, all of these and more activities don't contribute anything meaningful to society, and all could cause catastrophic costs should something happen. So they should all be outlawed (in addition to motorcycling, with or without a helmet, it's just too dangerous).

Can't be too safe ya know. What are we thinking, participating in such dangerous activities? Our healthy bodies and minds are required to contribute to the economic output of our country. Fun plays no part in this. How can we afford to smite the evildoers if we are spending all our money on healthcare? Do the patriotic thing and be safe at all times.

Outlaw obesity.

A mate of mine used to be a wardsman in a hospital just about the time helmets became a legal requirement here. The head injury ward was full with young blokes lying paralysed or comatose.Rows of them.

Every day a couple of them would ask him to push them out the 4 th story window.

Helmets protect young fools until they (maybe) grow up a little, we care for our young. We try to stop them burning their fingers on the stove too.

I repost this everytime I get the the chance. It is my neighbors. He broke his arm doing this, but his face was not scratched and his brain - well it works as well as it did before.

My helmets have saved me 3 times but then I consider my head valuable . I guess some people don't value theirs .

I want this technology ASAP

http://www.cycleworld.com/2014/01/29/cw ... le-helmet/