Quote:
Originally posted by Todrick:
i guess people misunderstood my post, i wear a helmet... but it would be nice to have a choice... hell i even agree that it might be a good solution to give insurance companies the option to deny coverage if it is proved you were not wearing a helmet or a seatbelt... but i dont thinkthe government has any right to force people to be safe... maybe the government should ban personal transportation all together... im sure it would cut down in insurance/taxes
Wow , that sounded very Republican , Todrick. I think your really have to look at the function of the government in our lives and how much influence business interests have over governmental policies. Todrick doesn't have the resources to lobby the government to do anything.

As we have seen with the electoral college , your vote doesn't even hold the weight that most people think it does. But campaign contributions , $200 Washington lunches and promises of favors seem to be what makes this country go 'round.

In this case , the insurance lobby has been able to successfully present enough creditable evidence and statistics that have shown that lives and money will be saved if people are required to wear seatbelts.

That coupled with the awareness that the government has of the statistics like the ones presented here it makes perfect sense for the government to legislate something that ideally would save us all money and save some lives in the process.

In the case of your thinking that you should have the option , sometimes the government needs to step in and save people that are unable to save themselves. There are regulations at appartments of how high railings should be so that people don't fall over them. Sprinklers are required in certain buildings to pretect people from fire.

I'm sure there are thousands of building codes, permit regulations and other laws that are specifically regarding safety. Should someone footing the bill for a building complain at the high cost of doing business because of all the safety restrictions the government imposes that raise those costs? No, but they do.

Would they have volunteered to add those safety restrictions and all of their associated costs had they not been mandatory ? Probably not.

You say it should be your choice not to weara helmet. Your statistics about the accidents involving motorcycles left out one key aspect: Whereas it is true that most motorcycle injuries are a result of blunt force trama , most motorcycle injuries causing DEATH are as a result of injuries to the head.

As it has been mentioned here, death is not only sad , it's expensive. As a man with a wife and children , you are a perfect example of the government doing a nice job of potentially saving someone who doesn't feel he needs to be saved .
_________________________
If we do not succeed, then we run the risk of failure. - Vice President James Danforth "Dan" Quayle