I’ve tried several times to make clear my point of view regarding helmets, on both practical as well as philosophical grounds. Do they “work”? Well, let’s define what “works” means before we try to answer that question!
They don’t “work” at all – if the rider doesn’t go down. This is not a trivial objection. Note that it is fundamentally the same objection of the not-sick to being told they must wear a Face Diaper . . . on the basis of the assertion that they might be sick.
Some will say that “just in case” is a good enough reason to wear one. Well, maybe. But also maybe not.
A helmet by itself – as is all the law generally requires – only “works” to protect the head – in a limited way.
The rest of the rider’s body – assuming all he’s wearing besides the helmet (and his ordinary street clothes) remains unprotected. Certainly, the head is the seat of cognitive function, without which the rest of the body doesn’t function. But helmet-wearing doesn’t prevent spinal cord injuries, compound fractures or other blunt-force trauma to the body, which can be crippled for life even if the helmet did protect the rider’s brain.
And that is uncertain, as wearing a helmet does not immunize the rider’s brain from devastating injury, depending upon the severity of the impact. They merely serve to keep the skull intact, making the body more presentable for viewing in the Slumber Room.
Some helmets – perfectly legal, in terms of meeting the letter of the law – are useless even for that. I refer here to the “beanie” type that provide head protection comparable to the protection afforded by a third of a life-vest. 
Or a Face Diaper worn under one’s chin.
Helmets can also fail to “work” – at all.
In fact, they have. As seatbelts in cars sometimes fail to “work.” Whether they fail to “work” infrequently in no way impugns the point – the fact – that sometimes, the helmet cracks or comes off or for some other reason doesn’t work. Just as seatbelts in cars sometimes do not prevent injury/death and in some cases even have been the contributing/exacerbating factor.
This is factually inarguable.
It is also inarguable that wearing a helmet restricts the rider’s field-of-view and general situational awareness, which arguably – ironically – renders the rider more likely to need the protection afforded by wearing the helmet. And if all he is wearing is the helmet, he is arguably more likely to end up hurt – possibly badly – precisely on account of his vision and situational awareness having been diminished by the helmet.
It is interesting to speculate on the arbitrariness of must-wear-a-helmet but ok (legal) to not wear anything else laws. If the issue at hand is really – fundamentally – about “safety,” as those in favor of such laws insist then why is the law so flippant with regard to that very thing, with the exception of the rider’s head?
Well, something is better than nothing. That’s the usual argument. But it’s an obviously arbitrary one as well as an obtuse one that’s akin to a law requiring that every restaurant worker wash their left hand after using the bathroom.
That, too, “works” – maybe.
And there is an important difference in that the restaurant worker is handling your food while the the rider’s head (and body) are his. Legalities aside, it is wrong (morally) for the restaurant worker who handles other people’s food to not wash his hands. “Maybe” doesn’t enter it, even though it is true that maybe the food he handles with is unwashed hands won’t have his fecal matter for seasoning.
Because other people are going to eat it.
The restaurant worker has an obligation to take steps to assure they don’t eat it.
No such obligation – morally – can be said to exist with regard to whether a given rider decides to wear a helmet because it is his head (as well as the rest of him). He may or may not be injured and the injury may (or may not) be worse on account of his deciding to wear the helmet – but it is certain that whatever decision he takes, it will not (because it cannot) have any effect on the heads of others.
Others may be saddened by whatever injury might occur – and rue that it may have been worse, due to the rider’s not having worn the helmet when the injury happened – but if that is to be the legal standard justifying the mandatory wearing of helmets, then what of the feelings of sadness that attend obesity-induced heart disease, diabetes and so on in other people we care about? There are innumerable such generators of sadness as regards the vicissitudes of life. But should other people’s feelings about these vicissitudes justify legal prohibitions?
If yes, then to what degree? Why should riding motorcycles be allowed at all – given that you might be more hurt – even killed – while riding, even if wearing everything (i.e., a helmet and full gear, including boots, gloves and a riding suit with protective armor).
Who shall decide?
The better question is: Who has the right to decide?
If it is the state, then it has been implicitly accepted – as a matter of principle (and precedent) that the state has the moral right to decide not just that but many other things besides. Including such things as whether everyone must wear a Face Diaper – and be “vaccinated.”
And keep in mind that it is not the “state” that will decide but rather other people – the people who hold offices and write laws. What gives these other people the right to make such decisions for other people, contrary to the will of those other people? Absent the fact of any harms caused to other people? 
The answer depends on whom one believes has rights, in the first place. If it is each of us, then it is only us – as regards questions such as these. Legal prohibitions on personal decisions that do not, as such, materially cause harm to others are an unnatural assertion of parenting rights over other adults, who are regarded as children by those attempting to parent them.
This is both a degradation as well as a danger in that – as regards the latter – it fosters a dangerous delusion that it is right to attempt to parent other adults. However well-meant, in the end, it causes the people doing the parenting to believe they are the parents of other adults, whom they increasingly regard as theirs to parent.
There is no emancipation from such parents, either.
And that’s a danger far greater than that attending a rider’s decision to not wear a helmet.
. . .
Got a question about cars, bikes or anything else? Click on the “ask Eric” link and send ’em in! Or email me directly at [email protected] if the @!** “ask Eric” button doesn’t work!
If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos.
We depend on you to keep the wheels turning!
Our donate button is here.
If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:
EPautos
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079
PS: Get an EPautos magnet or sticker or coaster in return for a $20 or more one-time donation or a $10 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a magnet or sticker or coaster – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)
My eBook about car buying (new and used) is also available for your favorite price – free! Click here. If that fails, email me at [email protected] and I will send you a copy directly!
New York municipality destroys hundreds of Dirt Bikes
Banning ice cars now starting on ice bikes….
https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2021/09/opinion-the-nyc-dirt-bike-ban-is-ridiculous/
I have been riding and racing motorcycles and 3 wheelers since I was 10 yrs old, tended to favor the 3 wheelers, and given the nature of such government banned fantastic machines, I have crashed them. More times then I could count. Into trees, ravines, up and down hills, endoed down asphalt from blowing a chain mid 5th gear wheelie etc. I have also managed to wipe out a few street bikes as well, all while doing unabashedly stupid things. The one constant through all the years and wrecks was I Always. Always. Wore a helmet. The last bad crash, I blacked out when I hit, came to pinned under the back of a car looking at a muffler through the shattered visor. Walked away from it with a few scuffs, trashed leathers, a shattered shoei helmet, and a totalled fzr. When I found out I was to be the father of twin boys, I immediately sold both my bikes and bought diapers, lots of diapers. Regardless of all your twice listed pros and cons, and regardless of the oppressive dictates, a helmet is always a good idea. I would have punched my ticket 100 times over decades ago without one.
Hi Rusty,
In re: “regardless of the oppressive dictates, a helmet is always a good idea.”
In your opinion!
I’m just observing it’s a value judgment, based on your cost-benefit analysis. In my opinion, which is equally valid, there are sound reasons to not wear the thing, if that’s my preference. And that’s the point I was trying to make.
There is no absolute truth here. Like you, I have been riding bikes a long time. But I have never gone down and so a helmet has been of no use to me. Granted, it might be, one day. But even if there were, it is not a matter for outside intercession anymore than whether I (or you) eat our veggies every day. Or wear a seatbelt.
Or a Face Diaper.
There is an arbitrary aspect to all of this, too. Obesity results in far more death – and costs more dollars – than motorcyclists not wearing helmets. But obese people aren’t accosted by ticket-book-wielding armed government workers. Why not? Is it any less a matter of “public health” and “concern”?
If not, why?
As a personal aside: When I ride a sport bike, fast, I would generally wear the thing – along with gear. But there are also times when I like the feel of not wearing it and would prefer not to. Why this ought to be of “concern” to anyone else – let alone a legal matter – is beyond me. It presages laws limiting when and how I (and others) may (or may not) engage in a limitless range of personal actions that “concern” others.
It is why the whole country, practically, became a Face Diaper zone. The things are intimately related. It is what I’ve been trying to explain for years.
“Once the principle is admitted that it is the duty of government to protect the individual against his own foolishness, no serious objections can be advanced against further encroachments.” Ludwig von Mises
Another rules for thee not for me in action (Eric calls it the “blue discount”).
Local news about my counties indicted sheriff (third one in a row, yes really!). The headline reads “Indicted Lake County (Indiana) sheriff barred from carrying handgun in public”. Sounds good right? He won’t be carrying a gun right?
Indiana recently began to allow all private citizens to carry handguns in public without a state permit (a good development for restoring a few rights). Unless your under indictment (and a few other reasons), and there is no exception for indicted police officers anymore (wow, an actual good move by lawmakers, also new). They are not allowed to carry a handgun either, they are disarmed by law as much as a private citizen. At least thats what you think it is.
https://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/indicted-lake-county-sheriff-barred-from-carrying-handgun-in-public/article_e
So does that mean the sheriff will be unarmed as he waits for trial (note he is still on “duty”, not suspended with pay or jailed)? Don’t be silly, of course not! He will be armed, just not with a handgun. He is skirting the law by carrying something else (likely an AR15, since they don’t say what he will carry).
Wonder how they would deal with a private citizen prohibited from carrying a handgun who was carrying something else like a AR15? Hummmm……..I don’t see that person being treated the same. Granted under the law the private citizen could probably carry that as well, but be honest, would that be what happens in practice? Doubtful.
Oh, he is under indictment for failing to stop for other “heroes” when they clocked him going 50mph over the speed limit in get this a county owned HELLCAT Jeep Trackhawk. Yes, my broke county owns NINE HELLCAT Jeep Trackhawks, and naturally one is supplied (I am guessing he is still driving it) to the indicted sheriff.
link that actually works.
https://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/indicted-lake-county-sheriff-barred-from-carrying-handgun-in-public/article_eab2c2e0-7509-5c0b-9911-9af066dcae03.html
Hi Rich,
In re the none Trackhawk (Hellcat-powered) Jeeps: Those things cost south of $70k each, so easily twice as much as a V6 Charger (typical cop car) and they are ferocious “gas hogs,” averaging about 12 MPG, using premium. Thus, they probably burn through at least twice as much fuel (cost) as a V6 Charger.
And . . . why is this “necessary”? They “need” 700 horsepower Jeeps to issue traffic tickets?
I know, it’s the icing on the cake of this sorted nonsense. Taxpayers have paid $630,000
(at 70k a pop) for these nine Jeeps! Just to buy them! Probably more to put cop gear in them too. The insurance must cost a fortune too. And its not a scandal at all round here (except for me). I don’t think many people even know the county owns them. It’s not noted in the article at all. Found out about the trackhawks from an alternate news source.
And this sheriff is aiming to buy a new SWAT vehicle (300k +) a new helicopter and two boats (since we front Lake Michigan). Never mind that the state police already own those items so the county really doesn’t need their own.
The county always cries poor. No wonder when you have people buying expensive shit we shouldn’t be buying!
When I rode, I followed the “all the gear, all the time” thing. How anyone else rides is their business / their risk / their ass.
I’m totally against helmets laws. I’m almost totally against any road law. But I wear a full face helmet regardless of the weather. In summer it keeps me much cooler since I use a helmet with an automatic face shield that comes down and protects you from the huge insects in the summer(they can easily blind you) and use it in the winter to protect me from excessive cold, as I do in the summer from excessive heat. I could care less how anyone else uses or doesn’t use a helmet. It’s simply their assessment of what they want or need and exactly none of the state’s business.
I absolutely LOVED the freedomista feeling of riding without a helmet. It’s pure JOY!
…Unless, there’s a ton of bugs.
I got to see some of the fancy newer snowmobile heated helmets, I could see how those would be nice in the Winter. That said, I simply cannot process how in The World you can say, “In summer it keeps me much cooler since”?
Never, Never(!) in my life has Any helmet of Any kind Ever kept me cooler in the Summer.
We get just about Brownsville Tx heat and humidity here in Iowa in the Summer, so I simply cannot understand that thought.
Wow, this is deja vue all over again…..and again.
Should I add to this echo fest by repeating why I support each rider’s right to chose for themselves? No, because I think you remember my reasoning. And there’s no need to crank this article’s redundancy factor even higher. 😉
The irony, Mike, is that you did in fact repeat your support for each rider to choose for themselves, thereby cranking your own redundancy factor even higher. 😉
Eric you mention the heart of this issue:
“Who shall decide?
The better question is: Who has the right to decide?
If it is the state, then it has been implicitly accepted – as a matter of principle (and precedent) that the state has the moral right to decide …
And keep in mind that it is not the “state” that will decide but rather other people – the people who hold offices and write laws. What gives these other people the right to make such decisions for other people, contrary to the will of those other people?”
———————-
This is a classic Libertarian argument that no one else except your own self has the right to decide what is best for you. And what exactly is “you” but your free soul, which can not be defined thus leaving us free birds at the mercy of the state and those control freaks who run it.
Believe it or not, freedom is a soul issue – a spiritual issue. Each person is said to have an individuated soul created by God at the time of Creation. God made you free, then men following God of the Bible made you a slave, they said you had to follow rules laid down by the authority.
(Note that I am a Bible atheist – I do not believe the Bible version of God or the moral messages inside but I am making this argument only for intellectual sake)
The problem with authority is that no one has it for anyone but themselves. That is a hard cold fact of the individuated soul in the Matrix. I can not tell Eric that he must wear a helmet, to do so violates his right to be free and choose for himself.
(Now is you have some neurons working, if that argument is correct and you apply it to abortions, then how do you justify helmets – which do not include another human?)
I can only decide to wear a helmet for only one person, myself, or my children who are under my care until they reach the legal age. So this argument the state can force you to wear a helmet is very weak, which is why I mentioned in my first comment that the state has a financial interest in not taking care you as a vegetable if you have a severe accident rendering you incapable of taking care of yourself.
But if you have a many million dollar insurance policy for you riding your motor bike, then I think in a court of law the judge will allow you to ride helmet free. Now be sure to understand the state only puts this helmet restriction on you if you are on public roads. If you are riding in your own acreage, on the back 40, the state can not compel you to ride with a helmet.
So then the argument goes to who owns the roads, the public who pay the tax, or the governments who manage this right of ways. So the Libertarian says, well we the people own the roads since we pay for them, but the socialist bureaucrats say no they are owned by the “state”. But what is the “state”?
But roads can be owned by private parties, city, county, state, and national governments, which BTW are all corporations except you the private owner. But are you really the owner if you have a title that can be transferred to the state if you fail to pay the annual property tax?
So then this argument goes down the next rabbit hole, who granted the “state” all this authority to tell the individual what to do? Well Virginia, it was the con job of the priest who sold you the idea that God was the ultimate authority, and the state is granted authority from God!
———————
Romans 13:
Submission to Authorities
(1 Peter 2:13–20)
1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which is from God. The authorities that exist have been appointed by God.
———————-
So if you even have half a brain you ought to be able to figure out that the state wrote the holy text, that the state is conniving you out of your own soul given right to freedom based on a cock and bull story in some desert demon holy book.
The ultimate evil is not government, it is religion, which sold you the idea that there was a higher authority than you yourself. That is the crux of this issue.
So if you are still with me on this argument, take the next big step in your consciousness, that religion beget the state which is the mortal enemy of you the individual and your right to decide for yourself.
That means folks that every holy book carrying theist is against you and your freedom, and if you think otherwise, I am sorry you are wrong and have not thought this issue all the way through. And if you think I am blowing smoke up your ass just go to Iran, Israel, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and try to assert yourself in wearing clothes that you want to wear, or no clothes at all.
The most repressed place to live is the most religious, thus know that religion is the start of the problem, the state then took over the church position of running courts and cops and writing laws. But at no time was a single law ever moral based on your own self autonomy.
Just think about it, if God made you naked, then who the hell are these religious freaks telling you that you must wear clothes? (I am not a nudist, just making an argument here).
Disclaimer: I didn’t wash my hands before composing this.
Arthritis has kept me out of the saddle for a decade now, but in about 25 years I put half a million street miles on seven bikes riding 365. My pickups averaged 700 miles a year.
I AM against helmet laws for adults.
At first, I did ride quite a blot without one and later every now and then stuffed the skid lid in a tail bag to enjoy leisurely ride in pretty countryside.
Anyhow, for modern FULL FACE helmets…
Unless you’re riding behind a barn door of a windshield, you can’t hear squat with a 40+ MPH wind roaring past your ears. A helmet smooths out and isolates the wind flow and it’s been my direct experience that the sonic energy from external sources has a better chance of being perceived. A helmet is not a big one piece ear muff. With a wide open throttle and 100+ MPH speeds, a MotoGP or Superbike racer can hear an opponent approaching from behind.
Most important: with a helmet, I can hear my engine, all the glorious cacophony when whacking the throttle open to 12,000 RPM, bouncing off the rev limiter at 85 MPH and shifting into second. And that purring in sixth at 70 on the open highway.
With another trickle down from racing, there isn’t a helmet I’ve worn that didn’t pass the “follow the fingers” visual field test out to 90-100°. When shopping for a helmet, do that and if it fails, try another helmet.
Approach Alvaro Bautista or Fabio Quartararo and say, “Dude. You gets bettuh situational awareness widdouta hemmet.”
The greatest enhancement to situational awareness I’ve enabled is a 2″ stick-on concave mirror on big tall aftermarket mirrors. Although the latter wasn’t viable on three of my bikes, the former were.
I don’t care to try an recall how many times some road debris pranged my brain bucket. And a bird strike, which was no fun at all, but skull intact.
A helmet keeps the sun from cooking your brain and stabilizes its core temperature much like the wrappings the Bedouins figured out 4000 years ago. And with a “windjammer” installed, keeps it on the warm side in cold climes.
“The rest of the rider’s body…remains unprotected.” Well, duh. While Eric does point out, correctly, that helmets “merely serve(s) to keep the skull intact,” he Karen-babbles about the risks we, as motorcycle riders, accept whether wearing just swim trunks or decked out in the most expensive helmet, air-bagged leathers and racers boots.
Making the decision to wear a helmet or not and bouncing it off (See what I did there?) all the other [fill in the blank] choices we need to make or are compelled to obey is just libertarian hogwash.
Just Ride! Any way you can, while you can. Because that’ll probably be taken from us.
Eric,
As I said in the other helmet post, a few years ago in my area, there were sickos putting oil down in the turns of a popular motorcycle road; yes, it was deliberately applied, so as to make motorcyclists crash. Do you want to be sans a helmet in that situation? I don’t!
In fact, I’m an ATGATT guy; I wear all the gear all the time. I wear helmet, gloves, jacket, armored long johns under my pants, and boots. I and my bike can be at my best, but we can’t deal with a dastardly act such as the one above. It doesn’t take a deliberate act though; nature can take you down. At the bottom of the hill near my house, there are often little stones across the curve; it appears that the rains washed them on to the road surface, but they’re there. Taking that at more than jogging speed will result in a wipeout. A slight rain just beginning can make a road surface greasy until all that’s washed away. There are many reasons why someone can crash on a bike, and many of them are no fault of the rider or his mount. Ergo, it’s best to dress for the crash-because you just might! It’s something to think about…
If the state may demand you take an action for your own safety, they are saying that the state owns you and is seeking to protect its property. That is slavery.
Mandatory helmets at ski resorts are similar. Everyone assumes helmet = safer in all conditions. If the conditions are steep, rocky and solid/icy a helmet makes sense. Skiing really fast (40mph+) in crowded resorts with lots of slow skiers, it is debatable. But skiing natural terrain in soft snow… MORE DANGEROUS BY FAR. Helmets have mass. Your neck’s muscles normally support a helmetless head. Crashes often involve quick violent motions, like tumbling. Whiplash becomes serious neck injury or death due to helmet mass. Skiing powder in trees is MORE DANGEROUS. Plug in head first in bottomless snow and try extricating yourself. Helmet is now a shovel holding your head in snow.
The gummint has no business telling me what safety equipment I must wear while traveling. Period.
That having been said, an incident long ago informed me that while riding a motorcycle, it would be prudent for me, personally, to wear a leather jacket, blue jeans, leather gloves and a brain bucket. I rode a Yamaha 2-stroke twin to work for many years. I left it parked on the center stand normally (it was very light, so putting it up was no deal, and it tended to get tumped over if left on the side stand by various evil forces unknown…). One cold winter afternoon, I came out, took it down, and rode off. It felt kinda mushy, but I didn’t know what it was till I tried to turn at about 15 mph. I went right, the bike went left. The rear tire had “aired out” while I was at work. Because it was cold, I had my nice insulated gloves on, etc., and no road rash. The helmet had rather nice skid marks on it from contact with the pavement. So, to avoid future recovery from road rash events in case of future slides on the pavement, I decided the aforementioned acoutrements would be prudent for me. But, in case of a high-energy (above 30 mph say) impact, I’m not sure any of the above would really help.
Is the government actually concerned about our safety, or are they using safety as an excuse to take away our liberties?
Here are some examples on why I argue that the “state” couldn’t care less if we live or die. In fact it seems they want us dead, which is why helmet laws are ridiculous.
1. The USGov engineered the 911 false flag, they blew up multiple trade towers with high explosives with many people inside, they did this to start the War of Terror on the rest of the world. (That is a historical fact – no Muslims were involved except as patsies).
So not only did the government murder nearly 4,000 Amerikans on 911 directly, all the firefighters got poisoned from the dust, etc. Then the government marched off to Iraq and Afghanistan and Syria and bombed the shit out of those brown peoples, and Muslims mostly, and killed millions and millions of those people, and they also cause millions and millions of Amerikan soldiers all kinds of severe injuries and they also spent multiple trillions and ran the debts up – increasing debt also kills people as taxes go up and that leaves less food on the table for the slaves.
So the fact is, just using 9-11-2001 as an example, the government is not concerned about our safety at all, and is willing to use us as expendable pawns in wars for world supremacy. In fact they are willing to kill some of us for their secret goals and wars.
2. The Covid PLANDEMIC. The US Goverment has many biolabs, (Russia said they found 42 USA funded biolabs in Ukraine). These biolabs engineer deadly viruses and other pathogens for warfare – that once released end up in the host nation. The the US Government, being completely corrupt, then uses law to force us to comply with vaxx mandates because big corporate pharma (like Pfizer, Moderna, J&J) want to sell billions of deadly vials of injectable poison.
These “death jab” vaxxes did not stop anyone from getting Covid, but they did get many sicker and killed many so far. So in fact just using Covid vaxx as an example, it is obvious the government is not concerned about our “safety” or health and in fact is in bed with private corporations which make big bucks while they poison us. (That is a fact Jack, and if you think otherwise you are clueless and wrong about political reality in the police death camp called Amerika!).
3. Forced immigration of violent 3rd worlders into first world nations full of tame civilized peoples. The USGov and other insane Ziowhore states are importing violent aggressive criminals from bombed out shitholes into first world nations.
The result are a huge spike in violent crimes like rape and murder. And the State is doing this on purpose to terrorize us. The rapist gets a slap on the wrist, but if you defend your wife or sister they throw the book at you.
(Then the sheeple march into the voting booth and put the same bunch of criminals back into power – which proves beyond doubt most of your neighbors are dangerous imbeciles who watch and believe the crap on television)
So in conclusion, I agree with Eric, helmet laws are ridiculous because the government is not concerned about our safety and in fact the death jab vaxx proves they want us dead.
I agree with all your points except the sheep in the voting booth putting people in power.
Elections are an important cog of this greater lie machine. The sheep have zero choices. What circles are filled in or chads punched are merely democratic masturbation. Feels good, but deep down you know it’s pointless too.
Consider the incredible contempt for thought on the part of the most people by using (9/11) as the date of the big one. 911 being the call number for help. The contempt is plain. Did not care, had the media and the govcritters onboard. The “People” followed as always as they seem to trust the “rulers” where they would not trust their neighbors, people they know. It is the idiocy that will cause the war to end wars. The grifter’s trying to control the world always seem to latch onto themes invented by Science Fiction writers. The CO2 effect “Greenhouse” effect invented by Murray Leinster an SF writer and a good one. He used it to save a planet not destroy one. The point is that they are not creative. We are and will not suffer them to control us. They are screwed. Be nimble and quick.
I am not in favor of helmets, in Corvallis Oregon city limits they have bicycle helmet laws for underaged. The cops will pull over your bicycle and ticket you if you are in violation of the city ordnance. Bicycle helmet laws are ridiculous because you are at low speeds on a light weight vehicle.
But I have had the motorcycle helmet law logic explained to me by a government worker – helmet laws arose because the state wanted to save money from motorcycle accidents.
In our civil society no one wants someone wiped out on the highway just to lay there without first responders hauling them to the hospital, the catch was that the state had to pick up the tab, so after the accountants looked at the numbers, the state mandated helmets because it would lower their costs because brain injuries are expensive.
Thus we could ride free without helmets if we were properly insured privately, then the state would not have a financial interest in how we ride motorcycles. But the way government works is by brute force, not voluntary cooperation, thus they pass laws mandating all riders wear helmets regardless of their insurance status.
These laws only apply to public roads, if you are dirt biking back in the woods you do not have to wear a helmet – but to cross the highway you must put one on, or walk the bike across – or look and clear for cops, lol
Good article.
The bit about handwashing reminded me of the health advocates who say ~ people need to eat more dirt… it helps to build a strong immune system.
While true & such, imagine the goobermint requiring people to eat dirt. “‘Cause, it’s for your own good!”
[Dirt quantity & quality varies by department – TM]
Maybe the SCOTUS will hear a helmet law case. And while we’re dreaming, a War On Drugs™ case too, since it seems to violate the 21st amendment.
A state Supreme Court near me (Illinois) has held that seat belt laws in cars are constitutional, while helmet laws on motorcycles are not constitutional. Explain that one to me.
Courts can be great sometimes but they too are part of The System. They should not be trusted to save us. They might well vote the other way—and then what?
RK,
No one has been able to answer the question – if an amendment was necessary to prohibit alcohol, why was one not required for drugs?
Dan,
“… if an amendment was necessary to prohibit alcohol, why was one not required for drugs?”
We’ve switched from a Constitutional Republic to
being run by Executive Orders (a dictatorship).
‘It is wrong (morally) for the restaurant worker who handles other people’s food to not wash his hands.’ — eric
Likewise, doctors and nurses are obliged to wash their hands after interacting with a patient, for the sole purpose of not transferring pathogens to another patient.
But during the pandemic, hand washing and hand sanitizing were absurdly urged upon the public for self-protection against an aerosolized pathogen.
That’s not only misleading, but patently insane.
One might as well engage in frantic hand-washing after ingesting a dose of poison: useless, irrelevant, fetishistic.
Let us enjoy a rich belly laugh over the sheer ridiculousness of our putative health czars at the CDC, who daily reveal their utter incompetence to practice medicine.
How’s that second course of Paxlovid workin’ out for ya, ‘Dr’ Fauci? AH HA HA HA
Any moral or logical consistency regarding “thafeteeey” laws can scarcely be found. Busy bodies simply can’t help but apply their internalized fears of ____ and inability to do ___ to everyone else, then proceed to so say “well yah know there oughtta be a law!” There a at least a few states where you will be cited for not wearing helmet on a bicycle…
If somebody doesn’t care about their own head who is some busy body to tell them they MUST care, and if you dont we’ll go full on revenue whore then write you a ticket if you don’t! I doesn’t matter if (helmets work,) or (studies show) its my head.
Previous points that have been raised about helmets causing reduced visibility and fatigue contributing to mishaps on the road are never even fleeting though for thafeteey cult members. Helmets work= Masks work. It’s rhetoric for retards, revenue for parasites, and a warm fuzzy feeling for the karens to know “they did something.”
All based on a delusion. We are composed of a number of complex critical systems, any of which may fail at any time, encased in a bag of jello with some bones inside. We fall down wrong, we die. None of us are safe. Ever. It’s OK to encourage that delusion in children, because they have yet to learn how to deal with the anxiety, or have the ability to compartmentalize it, or make risk reward evaluations regarding it, to avoid it consuming them. Adults are supposed to know better. Apparently we live in a world of elderly children.
What “might happen”? Driving us ever closer to pre-crime? What is a “sobriety checkpoint” if not pre-crime? Where everyone is guilty until proven innocent.