Sponsored Links



Harley Logo Store








Add to Technorati Favorites

ss_blog_claim=510f8201cd6d1de4bf0319006ef38f00



Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety

by Steve
Thursday, December 23, 2004

If you're not familiar with the Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (AHAS), they're a lobbying group who has taken it upon themselves to get more driver safety laws on the books.

Last week they published their 2nd annual report entitled, "Report - 2005 Roadmap to State Highway Safety Laws", where they chronicle their successes and failures in getting more safety laws on the books. Among their goals for 2005 is to get more states to adopt mandatory helmet laws:

30 states still need all-rider motorcycle helmet laws. Louisiana reinstated its all-rider helmet law in 2004 after experiencing a 100 percent increase in motorcycle rider deaths since it repealed its law in 1999. Numerous states considered repealing existing all-rider helmet laws in 2004. According to the Harris Poll, 82 percent of Americans support all-rider helmet laws.
82 percent of Americans support all-rider helmet laws, but how many motorcyclists support them? What exactly does a cager or pedestrian care if a biker is strapping on a brain-bucket or not?

I remember the rallying cry of liberals in California during the 1980's when crotch rockets became the latest craze of teenaged boys. They claimed that a helmet law would reduce costs to the State's medicaid program. But yet, state Medicaid programs have steadily increased year after year, despite the implementation of helmet laws.

Heck, if liberals wanted to save Medicaid expenditures, then they ought to force cagers to wear helmets and chest protectors. They'd save more money that way.

But despite how much money that might actually save, it's not about money. It's about controlling people. Liberals often complain that the Patriot Act is taking away our freedom and liberty. Just what do they think safety laws are doing?

I want everyone to drive safely, and I want everyone to get to destination unharmed. But I don't want government legislating personal protection. It's no one's business if I wear a helmet or not.

Labels: ,

2 Comments:

  • I could support a be-responsible-for-yourself law: use your own discretion about wearing a helmet, or jacket, or glasses, or boots, or seatbelt, or whatever other protective gear you want to name.

    But the law I'd support would read something like:
    "If you (being a legal adult) choose not to wear protective gear, you are by that choice waiving your right to any publicly-funded assistance of any kind if you sustain any injuries which could reasonably have been prevented by wearing protective gear.
    "Private insurance companies have the option of denying coverage or charging a higher co-pay for injuries which could have been prevented by appropriate safety gear.
    "Children (those under the legal age of majority) must wear protective gear appropriate for the activity in which they are engaged."

    This would apply to everyone - cars [seatbelts], motorcycles [helmet, eye protection, jacket, long pants, boots, gloves], bicycles [helmet], people using chainsaws or lawnmowers...

    Wear flip-flops to mow the yard, and cut off your toe? It's out of your bank account. Do it while wearing shoes or boots and insurance is likely to cover the cost.

    Get thrown from the car and paralyzed because you were not belted during an accident? It's out of your bank account. Same accident, with a seatbelt, and insurance is likely to cover the cost. [Actually, if you wear a belt you're highly unlikely to be thrown from or within the car at all.]

    As with other things in life, if you have enough money you can do just about anything you want.

    By Anonymous KS in Milwaukee, at 10/15/2006 03:26:00 PM  

  • I got a better idea, let's just get rid of all public assistance, period. People will take greater precautions knowing they have no other safety net, other than themselves.

    By Blogger Steve, at 10/15/2006 04:19:00 PM  

Post a Comment
Back to Homepage