Re: B.A.H. No H*lmet July 4th - Cycling Mob: Road Cycling, Mountain Biking and More

07-09-2003, 06:21 AM

heater -

I've heard the same arguments for motorcycle helmet laws, but I have a
problem with this argument. Let's ASSUME FOR THE MOMENT
(PLEASE!!!) that motorcycle and bicycle helmets offer SOME (PLEASE!!)
level of protection against head injury during a crash. Let's further
ASSUME FOR THE MOMENT that some percentage of these
(motor-)cyclists do not have health insurance, which is a fair assumption
for the USA. My counter question is Is it truly less expensive to force
these folks to wear helmets and prevent some number of welfare and
health rehabilitation cases versus letting them not wear helmets and simply
funding a burial for that same person?

Of course, on a moral level this question is repugnant. The only reason
I bring it up is that the point you made is generally the central or
secondary
argument behind helmet laws, and I am not convinced that it is financially
sound.

"heater" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].au...
> I haven't decided what I think of helmet laws. On the one hand, the
> government shouldn't be meddling with people's freedom to make choices
> about that kind of thing. But on the other hand, who pays for the guy
> who wasn't wearing a helmet and suffered a brain injury and now he can't
> work? If he was hit by a car then typically the car insurance co pays
> but then all the rates go up. If he wasn't hit by a car then the gov't
> pays and the taxes go up.