Jinn

I'm a pretty law-abiding citizen, generally believe most of the laws we have are necessary to protect order and citizenry. I pay my taxes, rarely participate in civil disobedience and chastise others about their law-breaking.

That said, I was just informed by a police officer (who pulled me over, mind you) that helmets were mandatory in the state of WA. Coming from CO (where they ride free), I was understandably confuse - but now I'm more mad than anything. What purpose do helmet laws serve? They certainly don't prevent accidents. And barring some sort of *ACTUAL* government takeover of healthcare, they don't decrease health care costs for non-riders.

There's no arguing that riding without a helmet is stupid, but in a Republic where we value individual freedom and (ideally) only legislate where there is a pressing public demand. This isn't like smoking bans, either, because smoking harms others via second-hand smoke. A rider choosing not to wear a helmet (or even wear a half helmet) affects only them (and perhaps their loved ones, in the event of a collision) and as such shouldn't be a "natural right" taken away.

How did these laws get on the books? From what I can tell, it's intensive lobbying by the insurance industries, because it cuts into their profits if they have to pay out larger sums for dumb dead motorcyclists sans helmets instead of severely handicapped motorcyclists with helmets. I don't think that's a valid reason to infringe on liberty.

You?

Thoughts?

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel