Plenty of instantaneous deaths on skateboards, waterskiing, bicycling. Lame *** statist response.

 

Less cases when they wear helmets

 

Absolutely! And I fully support their right to wear one. My point is it isn't the states business. The logic behind has lead to a nanny state that the framers of our constitution would be horrified by. My head is my business.

 

I always wear a helmet btw. Lol but I firmly believe in Darwinian liberty.

 

You're completely missing the point. Instantaneous death isn't it. The point is that if the government can mandate whatever behavior (in this case helmets) because it's better for me then they can mandate whatever they like. And you say "their roads, their rules within reason". First off, it's not their roads, they're the taxpayers roads. And just what is "within reason"? Should one smoke "within reason"? There is no restrictions on smoking, which kills many more people that lack of a helmet.

 

Im surprised how bent out of shape people get over such a simple and beneficial thing. Reminds me of my 8 year old that doesn't want to eat her dinner or go to bed (both beneficial to her as well) and Im the bad guy for making the rules. Not one person I ride with whines about having to wear a helmet, in fact a friend who rides with me is in Cleveland right now and the first thing she text me was "people don't wear helmets here, their crazy!" lol

 

I think we are flogging a dead horse.
"He that would give up essential liberty for a little bit of temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety"
Benjamin Franklin

 

I don't really understand what you meant with "You're completely missing the point. Instantaneous death isn't it".

You make some sense, except you really should not consider 'death', or 'kills', as being important. Nor are they 'sure' or 'instantaneous' in the event of a head injury. In fact, considering the odds, a person is far more likely to receive a head injury that impairs them for the rest of their, sometimes long, life then causes them "Instantaneous death".

Smoking, and injuries possibly caused by motorcycle accidents, are very dissimilar in that bad effects, except burning to death because of falling asleep with a lit cigarette, takes decades to occur. My mom developed, or at least was diagnosed as having, lung cancer after 50 years of smoking. Any accident I have had while riding a motorcycle occurred minutes/hours after beginning that ride.

Your best point was "The point is that if the government can mandate whatever behavior (in this case helmets) because it's better for me then they can mandate whatever they like". That is my fear, that because of a few high profile, easily preventable events/injuries, the government will mandate people shouldn't ride motorcycles and impose restrictions in the pursuit of that.

 

Actually whether instantaneous, 50 years later or becoming impaired for the rest of your life rig883 is really not the point and I don't understand how you don't understand that. The point is that the govt does not have the right to dictate to an adult how he must take care of himself. The same logic you and others are applying here was used to enact prohibition and a host of other unsuccessful and abusive laws to include and culminate in such ridiculousness as obamacare, in which the govt claims a financial societal interest in forcing an individual to purchase, under threat of prosecution, a product from a private company and further, to dictate what that product will include. Or lets not forget Bloomberg's famous "sweet drink" limitation on how much soda you may buy at one time. Claiming a financial burden NYC, dc and other controlling nanny state cities intentionally violated 2nd amendment provisions for 50 yrs based on the same "societal interest" argument. An adult cannot be forced to protect themselves from risk based on financial societal interest. Well it can. That doesn't make it right. There are consequences for behavior in a free society. If you choose to drink 15 cans of coke a day and grow to 350lbs there may be health consequences to that. If you smoke for 50 yrs there may be consequences to that. If, like drunk driving, an activity poses a substantial and immediate risk too others society has an interest. If that risk is most likely too them alone then no, its not the states right to mandate.

 

Full face mostly, but sometimes I wear a Shark Raw






Once in a while I ride with no helmet...sue me, LoL!