Mandatory Helmet Laws
A bill passed by the state House would allow motorcyclists the freedom to choose if they want to wear a helmet or not…for a certain price.
I believe this would be a step in the right direction, but in a truly free society there shouldn’t be any laws dealing with this matter at all. There exists no right for anyone to restrict actions taken by another person that in no way, violate the right of another person. To do so is in itself a violation of our inalienable right.
According to the article, “The legislation would allow riders to pay a $100 annual state permit fee to allow them to opt out of wearing a helmet. Bikers also could pay $200 for three years.”
It seems clear to me that the legislators could care less about our safety, or our individual rights, as long as they are generating revenue.
As with a similar bill that was passed last year, Granholm is expected to veto it; unfortunately for the wrong reasons. Like other nanny state bureaucrats, Granholm is in favor of mandatory helmet laws. Until helmet usage becomes a matter solely decided by the individual, it will remain an unjust action enforced by the state.
October 13th, 2007 at 8:36 pm
So I suppose no one should be required to wear a seatbelt either? Simple fact is this: Helmets save lives. Motorcyclists should be required by law to comply. I don’t give a rip if it violates a person’s liberty. It saves their lives. I guess people should just be allowed to drive as fast as they want as well. Maybe everyone should just be allowed to shoot guns in the air? Possibly we could petition the government to allow people to yell fire in a movie theatre. People can not handle being entirely free. Helmets save lives. Laws are enacted to protect society. In this case the law protects the individual who rides the bike. Give the people too much freedom then you’ll have a lawless society. Good Luck with that Mr. Michigan Militia…. Next thing your going to talk about is being a straw man…Ridiculous…
October 14th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
your logic is seriously flawed. there is a huge difference between actions that endanger another person and actions that affect only the safety/health of the individual performing the action. I absolutely believe that seatbelt laws are wrong. and don’t think for a minute that the state enforces laws like that for our safety.
I personally believe that seat belts and helmets are important, and i would not drive without my seatbelt on, or ride a motorcycle without a helmet. but to force another person to do so is immoral. it implies that someone else has a claim on your life.
if you think that helmet laws should be enforced, why stop there? why not protect people even more by disallowing people to drive in the dark; lower the speed limit to 30mph everywhere; ban all fast food restaurants and mandate a healthy diet for everyone?
if you would like these restrictions and many more placed on you, that’s fine, but to force these upon other people is immoral.
October 16th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
I can’t believe the comment by Tonka Truck “I don’t give a rip if it violates a person’s liberty.” WOW!!! Just step back and think about that quote for a minute. What a distorted, uninformed individual. Very sad that our education system turns out such socialists robots.
Laws are in place to protect people from other people. You can’t drive fast because you might hurt someone. You can’t yell fire in a theater because it may hurt someone. You can’t shoot guns in the air because it may hurt someone. We’re talking about someone being responsible for their own actions and a state telling a person what they can and can’t do to protect themselves, not others. It’s called individual rights. But it’s people like Tonka Truck that will parade lock step to the polls and vote in Hillary Clinton or Grandholm and not even realize the socialist agenda because “it sounds good.” Boy, there’s so much education needed in this country.
October 16th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
exactly. the distinction is unmistakable. to allow another person or group of people to violate your liberty, is to give that person or group of people a higher claim on your life than you have. if you believe you own yourself, then the threat of individual liberty violations — no matter how insignificant they may appear — should be appalling.
October 19th, 2007 at 7:51 am
I just now posted the following over on MonroeTalks …
Something very recently changed my mind on this issue. Over on the Laissez-Faire blog here on BlogsMonroe, JL wrote, “(I)n a truly free society there shouldn’t be any laws dealing with this matter at all. There exists no right for anyone to restrict actions taken by another person that in no way, violate the right of another person. To do so is in itself a violation of our inalienable right.” When I read that, it suddenly became obvious to me that that’s exactly what I’d been saying for some time about bans on foods, such as trans fats, foie gras, pop and snacks in school vending machines, etc. I’d feel almost disgusted when I’d head into Toledo and see a biker on the freeway with no helmet. But when you get right down to it, what’s the difference? I’ve been hypocritical in this, demanding some people act one way in putting a helmet on, while acting another in wanting bans on foods lifted. Really, it’s the same thing when you consider the real rights of an individual and their own freewill.
October 19th, 2007 at 8:20 am
thanks for the getting a discussion going on monroetalks. i’ll have to chack it out.
i think everyone is guilty of that kind of hypocrisy to some extent. it takes a certain amount of integrity to admit that we have these inconsistencies.
i feel the same way about trans-fats and other unhealthy foods. i have been avoiding trans-fats for years now because i personally feel that the potential benefit outweighs the inconvenience.
it disturbs me to see people with eating habits that are detrimental to their health. but it’s their life, not mine, and i have no right dictating what they do with their body as long as it doesn’t have an adverse impact on me.
i think it is good however, to share with people, your views on matters like these. but individuals must ultimately make the final choices about their lives.
October 24th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
Hi, I just read this.
I cannot imagine ever riding a motorcycle, let alone riding one while not wearing a helmet. But you don’t think that one person not wearing a helmet will cause harm to anyone else? Why on earth would someone want to endanger themselves MORE by not wearing a helmet? I guess it’s just common sense..right?
October 24th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
i agree with you, that is seems silly to not wear a helmet. but you also said that you cannot imagine ever riding a motorcycle. they are more dangerous than cars. should motorcycles be banned altogether? the point is, the amount of risk a person is willing to take is up to them. once we allow the government to decide what is safe for us and what isn’t, we forfeit our liberty to make those choices on our own. and pardon the cliche, but it should be clear that it is a slippery slope.
thanks for your comment bethany.