New Hampshire's Virtual Town Hall
Live Free and Safely
The New Hampshire state motto of "live free or die" does not come close to justifying the state's choice to dismiss a bill that requires motorcycle riders to wear helmets. Wearing a helmet is essential to a motorcyclist's safety, as any research study and statistical data will prove. My friend recently got into a severe motorcycle accident and was fortunate enough to make it out alive. His doctors said that he survived because he was wearing a helmet. Today, he parks his bike outside on campus with a sign that reads, "wear a helmet". Although it is not state law, he would argue that it should be because wearing a helmet saved him and his family from having one of the worst days of their lives.
People may think that this law infringes on their liberty and right to ride freely; however, it is not taking away their right to ride a motorcycle, it is simply making it safer. I believe anyone who goes through what my friend went through would argue that it is better to have a helmet on, although it may not be your preference, than to have the greater likelihood of suffering severe head damage that could have been prevented from helmet use.
Deeming the law "too inexpedient to legislate" seems a bit nonsensical because NH does have a law requiring people who are under 18 years old to wear a helmet. It is more inexpedient and inconvenient to regulate a certain age group than it would be to regulate everyone on a motorcycle. Furthermore, NH advocates and strongly urges people of all ages to wear a helmet, yet fails to pass a law requiring their use. How is anyone supposed to take wearing a helmet seriously if the state doesn't take it seriously enough to pass a law?
I agree that we should all have choices and live freely; however, going through this experience with my friend has provided me with more insight and support for this law. I only hope that people do not need to go through the experience first to understand how a helmet could have saved their life.
People may think that this law infringes on their liberty and right to ride freely; however, it is not taking away their right to ride a motorcycle, it is simply making it safer. I believe anyone who goes through what my friend went through would argue that it is better to have a helmet on, although it may not be your preference, than to have the greater likelihood of suffering severe head damage that could have been prevented from helmet use.
Deeming the law "too inexpedient to legislate" seems a bit nonsensical because NH does have a law requiring people who are under 18 years old to wear a helmet. It is more inexpedient and inconvenient to regulate a certain age group than it would be to regulate everyone on a motorcycle. Furthermore, NH advocates and strongly urges people of all ages to wear a helmet, yet fails to pass a law requiring their use. How is anyone supposed to take wearing a helmet seriously if the state doesn't take it seriously enough to pass a law?
I agree that we should all have choices and live freely; however, going through this experience with my friend has provided me with more insight and support for this law. I only hope that people do not need to go through the experience first to understand how a helmet could have saved their life.
Views: 48
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Charles Ehrenpreis on -
I understand your emotional response due to your friend's close call. Clearly your friend benefitted from wearing a helmet, and I agree, I would advise all riders to wear one. BUT this doesn't imply that the government at any level should require it, does it? I believe you believe that it would be good for the government to do so because you think of the government as a beneficent supervisor of its citizens. I don't think you can marshall any evidence to support such a view! Think instead that the government is a (perhaps) necessary evil which free people reluctantly agree to have to protect fundamental and inherent rights we have, and, the government is allowed to be the legitimate user of violence to accomplish these aims. So, we want to severely and clearly restrict the contexts in which government is allowed to use such violence. Government isn't Father Christmas but is rather potentially quite dangerous. So we allow it only a very restricted range! What do you think?
-
-
Permalink Reply by LFDA Asst. Editor on -
"A significant rise in motorcycle fatalities in 2010 is raising concern amongst public safety officials.
By August 2009, only five motorcyclists had died on New Hampshire roads and highways; but in 2010, that number has jumped to 17.
One possible cause for such a jump is the weather: Large amounts of rain in 2009 kept people inside. In 2010, however, it's the exact opposite, with everyone getting out on the roads -- especially bikers.
In total, 21 riders and passengers died in 2009 -- a number that looks like it could be easily surpassed.
'There's a concern over the increase. Last year was a smaller amount of 21, [a number in which] we hadn't seen since 2005, so definitely concerned the numbers are increasing,' New Hampshire State Police Capt. Stephen Barrett said."
-WMUR -
-
Permalink Reply by Duffy Daugherty on
-
Down with the Nanny-State thinking. Riders are not too stupid to know what the serious risk is to biking with out a helmet. Let the insurance companies deal with this issue. And they will. Enough injuries and fatalities and they will come down hard on riders who are taking this unnecessary riding risk. Just like they do with teen drivers. When the insureance companies start penalizing their risky customers with high rates or cancellation of benefits for those who ignore the obvious risk of riding without a helmet, the problem will solve itself quickly enough.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Bill Lippitt on
-
While I understand your desire to keep the citizens of this fine state safe from harm, it is not the role of government to protect us from ourselves once we become adults. Safety is best encouraged and taught as responsible behavior, not legislated into the domain of police officers and the court system.
From another perspective, I'm a strong believer in Darwinism. Every time I'm riding down the rode on my motorcycle, my helmet on, I can only shake my head and thank NH for keeping the gene pool just a bit stronger.
I won't ride without a helmet. I won't take passengers that won't wear a helmet. I will gladly stand up for those adults who decide that a helmet is not for them. -
-
Permalink Reply by Cal Icon on
-
Mandatory diapers in case of accident.
First for the children, then for everyone else, then for everything else imaginable.To my sorrow I lost a good friend / a sister involved in a motorcycle accident years ago, she was wearing a helmet and it is what killed her.While we are on it lets add mandatory helmets for skiing, ice skating, bicycle riding, skate boarding, water skiing etc along with all private sporting activities especially golf, those flying balls could kill.Tack on the seatbelt law and also require not just seat belts mandatory but also in public transportation, trains, school busses, and lets not forget baby strollers.Fine, prosecute and punish offenders as well as prosecute and imprision parents, teachers and buss drivers for child endangerment that have been found out of compliance.This should create loads of government jobs as well as keeping lawyers and the courts busy with lots of new activity.It's good for the economy and the collective safety of all slaves along with a massive revenue source for the state. -
Follow us:
Presidential Election Navigator
Videos
Photos
Badge
© 2012 Created by LFDA Editor.
