|
Emperor1956 -> RE: Big Ben (6/19/2006 6:49:27 PM)
|
The single compelling reason for mandatory helmet laws is not to save the rider, but to save society from the consequences of a decision by a rider not to wear a helmet. In a civil society, we all agree to give up certain freedoms -- we license our drivers, vaccinate our children, mandate seatbelts and the use of baby seats in cars, vaccinate our dogs, etc. We do all that because the greater good requires it. There is probably no reason to -- for example -- vaccinate domestic pets against rabies. The disease is virtually nonexistent in the United States, now (although you can argue if you are clever that it is nonexistent because of mandatory vaccinations). Yet we do it because we, as a society, have decided that it is better to spend the money and take the risks than have the disease indigineous to our pet populations. You can make similar arguments about mandatory vaccinations of infants and children.
So the issue to me is barely one of legality -- it is one of morality. Do you choose to do what feels good to you, or do you do what society (in its best but often imperfect judgement) asks you to do?
Much the same with helmet laws. I look at helmetless riders (even legal ones) much as I look at people who don't vaccinate -- individually selfish and in need of societal mandates.
E.
PS -- The NFL contract has a clause that allows the commissioner to demand a player cease any conduct the commish deems "detrimental to the game". I know. I've read the standard contract. That clause replaces the old "morals" clause (which is in there in an abbreviated form) and the decision of the commissioner is enforceable by fine and/or suspension. They don't need a "helmet" clause.
|
|
|
|
