News-Record.com

I hate to say this but I agree with Tony. As one that spent is fair share of time on a motorcycle( still have pains and aches from it) you need a lot of money to stay up with the helmet laws. I paid $25 for a new helmet years ago to comply with a new law before I got it on my head good, its was no longer good enough. I also think having to wear a seat belt is crazy. I also think if you get in a car not wearing one you are crazy. When the seat belt law passed in NC they said no one would ever be pulled for not wearing a seat belt. If the government was interest in our safety, they would seal the boarders, quit handing out driving permits and require ILLEGALS to have car insurance. Now hold your breath to this happens. You will be reading about the corruption in Raleigh in the NR before this happens. Neither will ever happen!

I agree with the spirit of Mr. Moschetti's email, at least the part before he goes off on a tangent about evil government bureaucrats. I agree that it's not the government's place to prevent its citizens from doing things that hurt only themselves. In a perfect world, there would be no restrictions on risky activities like smoking cigarettes, hang-gliding, or riding one's motorcycle without a helmet.

But the world isn't perfect, is it? There is at least the potential for these actions to affect others. For example, restrictions on cigarette smoking make sense because of second-hand smoke, NOT because we should protect smokers from themselves. Therefore, the only relevant issue with motorcycle helmets is whether not wearing them imposes costs on the rest of society. If the full cost of going without a helmet is borne by the idiot who goes without it, then as a matter of public policy, why should we care?

Unfortunately, the issue of effects on others is given only a passing mention in the N&R editorial. As it turns out, there are tangible social costs when motorcyclists don't wear helmets. A 1996 federal study found that taxpayers cover 23% of all inpatient hospital charges resulting from motorcycle crashes. Because this figure covers all motorcycle crashes, regardless of whether a helmet was worn, it may well understate the true cost to taxpayers when a helmet is not worn.

(The study also calculated the percentage of medical costs covered by private insurance, but I see that as being between insurance companies and their policy holders, not a matter for public policy.)

So let's give motorcyclists the following option. If you want to invoke your right to ride without a helmet, you must sign a binding contract saying you'll surrender your right to public assistance if you get into an accident, scramble your brains, and have insufficient health insurance to pay the extensive medical bills. I don't know if the public has the will to follow through on something that seems so harsh, but I'll bet that even Mr. Moschetti would say it's fair. It'd honor our God-given right to take risks, but it would focus the burden of risky behavior on the person taking the risk.

Very nice and cheap mp3 download

Very nice and cheap mp3 download

Got a better idea, why do we not fine people who get skin cancer, for not wearing long clothes and using sunblock. You could play this game for ever. I bet sun cancer cause more money than motorcycles. I know many people that have sun cancer, (including me, just had my second surgery) I know of no one that had a motorcycle wreck. Its seems the NR does not give a damn about how much money Raleigh steals, are how much the ILLEGALS will cost us for us to give them a education. If it buys votes for the corrupt liberals they endorse, they lose track of the cost. Allen why do you not do a story on the Parton Theatre, cost over 21 million of taxpayers dollars.Seems the NR forgot to do a story on this, to many liberals in this that they endorsed.That is the exact reason why I buy a VA. paper each day, they print what the left wing liberal papers in NC will not.

If Doug is done hyperventilating, perhaps we can get back to the topic. Insurance companies try to induce what they see as responsible behavior all the time. If you have fire or burglary alarms, you can qualify for a lower premium on your home insurance. If you tend not to wear seat belts when you drive, it can increase your car-insurance premiums. By Doug's reasoning, this is horrible! How DARE the insurance company restrict my freedoms! But of course the reality is that you have every right, as far as your insurance company is concerned, to have no alarms in your house or to drive without seat belts. It'll cost you, but you can do what you want.

Well, when it comes to medical expenses, the government is in essence the insurer of last resort. Is it so very different for the state to say that if you don't wear a motorcycle helmet, the state won't chip in to cover your medical expenses resulting from a motorcycle accident? As with my insurance examples, it could cost you if you don't wear a helmet, but at the end of the day, you can do what you want. I prefer this to an absolute rule saying that every motorcyclist MUST wear a helmet, and I'd think that a conservative like Doug would agree. Or do conservatives now WANT taxpayers to bear the financial burden of other people's risky activities?

Let's go one step further..

Why don't we prohibit lawsuits and/or legal settlements of liability for recovery of personal damages beyond any actual property loss or direct medical expenses for those who choose not to wear helmets?

When I was an instructor for students getting started as participants in competitive motorsports, one of the frequent questions asked was "How much do I have to pay for a helmet?"

I would in invariably respond with another question: "How much is your head worth?"

All helmets manufactured for use on motorcycles should not only meet DOT standards, they should also meet Snell Foundation standards.

Andrew Brod has hit it precisely.

Of course we'd never deny medical coverage to anyone--even with a signed paper. It's like the freeloaders who want the government to bail them out of subprime loans. It wasn't their fault. They didn't know what they were doing.

Until we're actually willing to hold people responsible for actions like not wearing helmets or signing contracts--that is to say, never--all such libertarian posturing is just that. But sign me up for the libertarian posturing squad.