10 Jul
2001
10 Jul
'01
8:48 a.m.
At 08:47 PM 7/9/01 -0700, Eric wrote:
More to the point, my tax dollars go to pay the unpaid medical bills
of the stupid, and when too many stupid people get head injuries my car
and health insurance rates go up.
Hell, that applies to anything you can name; car crash victums, skate
boarding accidents, people tripping on the side walks, etc etc etc. The
list is endless. Should you let the "hospital costs" rational be used to
govern everything we do? I don't think so. What if the next law is that
no one will be allowed to work on their own computers since they could be
injured and the public would have to pay the cost of their
hospitalization? Rediculous? Not really. That's the exact rational that
was used to pass the helmets laws to begin with and from what Tony says the
UK isn't far from enacting such non-sensical regulations.
IMHO it's crazy to be on a motorcycle without a
helmet, so why not just
abandon the helmet requirement and let Darwin have the last word . . .
Because our society and government are built around protecting the
stupid. If there's an outcry against helmet laws,
here's a simple solution.
Require riders who don't wear helmets to either get additional "no helmet
inurance,"
That appears to be exactly what the state of Florida has done. So
far it seems to be working. The motorcycle riders are now happy since they
don't have to wear hwelmets, the insurance companies are very happy $$$$$$
and the state isn't caught in the middle any more. FWIW it's rare to see a
rider wearing a helmet around here now and I haven't heard of any cases of
peole being busted for not having insurance.
or post a $50k bond to cover their additional health
costs in
the case of an accident. Fines for riders not carrying proof of either
should be set at a sufficient level to cover the cost of care for the
riders who don't have either.
The other option, and a fine one IMHO, is to deny health care to
riders who are injured while not wearing a helmet.
It all sounds fine except for the last part. There's no way that
they're going to deny emergency health care to anyone. Besides I wouldn't
want them to. Can you imagine the precedence that it would set? The next
thing you know they'd be dening emergency care for any rediculous reason.
Joe
Eric