Michigan Helmet Laws - A Detailed Look Into a Newly Helmetless State

I grew up in Vermont, drinking age was 21, but we could drive 15 miles to New York and buy booze when we were 18

I went to college in NY where the drinking age was 18, then out of college and back in Vermont, I turned 21, they lowered the drinking age to 18. soon after, I moved to NH

notice NH raised the drinking age to 20 only 6 years after they lowered it, there were too many 18 & 19 year old alcohol related fatalites in those years and NH raised it on their own before the federal mandate, hardly caving

I'm torn between liking NH or VT better, I like NH politics, but in Vermont, its legal to pass on double yellows and no permit required for concealed carry

Yeah, you're right about the "caving" .

I'll retract that.

Was mostly just baiting you a bit.

Like bear-baiting at the dump, it can backfire!!!

I didn't want to hijack the thread away from helmet laws.

My intent was more to point out that there are laws that are "well-intentioned" and commonly accepted by

Americans, that are nonetheless depriving citizens of their rights in the name of protecting them

from themselves.

Motorcyclists get all bent outta shape about the helmet laws, and overlook plenty of others.

I'm too busy riding to give a flying f*ck about helmet laws.

Rode a couple of hours through NM helmet free just for the hell of it.

If I arrive somewhere and discover I forgot to do up my helmet, I feel sick about it.
.
.
.

I like having my choice, while 90% of the time I wear a helmet, I do it for comfort, not protection

You're welcome.

PhilB

Nice for a spot of sense to appear. Thanks.

PhilB

+1! This!

PhilB

New Hampshire does not require seatbelts for adults. And yes, seatbelt laws are equally coercive and therefore unethical, and some of us haven't lost sight of that.

PhilB

I do. I think it's a great option, but I think mandating ANYTHING is a bad thing, unless (and ONLY unless) that thing can be proven to violate the rights of some person other than the person doing or having it.

PhilB

Driving drunk (or on the phone, for that matter) endangers OTHER people. THAT is the moral difference that determines whether an act may ethically be outlawed or not. Drugs, gambling, and prostitution are good examples of other things that shouldn't be illegal, and which outlawing them has done us no good -- while fighting them with coercion has done us much harm.

PhilB

+1. It amazes me that people cannot make that simple logical connection. If you claim the right to decide what level of safety another person must take, don't be a bit surprised if someone else claims the same right over you.

PhilB

I agree, except ....
As a culture, we just don't let people die, regardless of the fact that they were "making their own choices." So, they do not suffer the ultimate consequence - dying. Someone must bear the cost of their medical treatments (the insurance company, assuming the victim has any/enough - through other ratepayers). And whether alive or dead, the family suffers and that can be a direct (i.e. welfare) or indirect drain on other citizens.
So should I be forced to foot my portion of the money that gets spent on the person who is seriously injured? Isn't that a violation of my rights?

I think it is a more difficult problem.
-ceej

Except your rates are largely based on your own health and decisions not those of someone else.

For example motorcycle riders in general get charged higher premiums as do smokers and overweight individuals.

Either way even if this was the case most would rather pay a little more in the long run than be coddled and told what they can and can't do.

In some States though he'd have gone through the windscreen......

Sooooooooo if ATGATT with FF helmet, armored jacket, pants, gloves, and boots, became mandatory law, do you think the insurance companies would be so kind as to lower you premiums?

There is the problem right there. You feel that your "culture" should be imposed on others.


Keep your idea of culture and its laws that you make to impose said culture the hell away from my body. (FUCK OFF )

And stop with the cost argument already. It is so absolutely minuscule that it does not even deserve a mention in these threads. It is just parroted political crap!

People should have the right to asses the risk and take whatever measures to mitigate that risk in the manner THEY see fit.

NO. Because it will have almost NO EFFECT on their bottom line.

No, you shouldn't. Yes, that is a more difficult problem. But that IS the problem, and it is NOT solved by applying coercion to others and violating their rights.

PhilB

This!!!

And this! And even if it does, that is ZERO justification for violating your rights.

I'll say again: It amazes me that people cannot make that simple logical connection. If you claim the right to decide what level of safety another person must take, don't be a bit surprised if someone else claims the same right over you.

PhilB

Privately-owned motorized vehicles are too dangerous. Let's outlaw them. They cost society too much...fuel, pollution, insurance, raw materials, medical trauma, and even death. I don't have a problem with it.

Population growth costs society too much...pollution, consumption of resources, increased crime, etc. Let's outlaw having more than 2 kids per couple. Illegitimacy and divorce should be outlawed too. I don't have a problem with it.

Activities like snowboarding, skiing, surfing, skydiving, rockclimbing, rollerblading, recreational scuba-diving, ALL contact sports, and boating should be outlawed. They are too dangerous, too costly to society, and serve no real purpose anyway. I don't have a problem with it. All you freedom-lovin' crazies can suck it!

Leaving the house without full kevlar and CE body-armor is too dangerous. We should outlaw that craziness.too.




You control freaks need to get over yourselves.

This statement alone should shut down these threads. That's the exact statement that opened my eyes many years ago.

Unfortunately some folks are too dense/self righteous to get it.