Enforce Helmet Laws – Agree

From 3arf

Throughout my life, I've changed my views on a variety of political matters. In modern societies, I feel people take freedom for granted, and we should try to ensure our freedoms are protected. Obviously, society also needs to work towards the safety of the people, and that includes things like laws against theft and unprovoked violence. However, neither security or liberty should take outweigh one another completely. There is a balance to be struck, and I believe it favors liberty to the utmost degree. That said, there are simple matters that call for infringements on personal freedom.

Historically, people have interpreted liberty in reference to "the ability to act as you wish without interference from others." In fact, the philosopher John Stuart Mill made an important clarification. In order to maximize freedom, people must be prevented from harming others or limiting their freedom. I can't assault someone, and I can't prevent them from walking in the woods because I think it is too dangerous. A person's life is their own to risk, according to Mill.

The values Mill supports were popularized by his writings, but they had been commonplace already. The founding fathers of America, in fact, held freedom in high regard. In the views of many, restricting freedom is in opposition to the values of the country. The argument is that if we enforce rules of safety in one regard, why not for unhealthy eating or other issues?

Even Mill was guilty of using the slippery slope fallacy. People are inclined to say things like "if we let women vote, will animals be next." I believe such comparisons were prevalent during the woman's suffrage movement, for instance. However, it's perfectly feasible to restrict freedom in certain cases. In fact, the law seeks impartiality and consistency, but it does not pose a problem for other freedoms. For instance, if we enforce helmet laws for safety, we do not have to ban cigarettes, pollution, etc.

All that is required "on the books" is something arbitrary that differentiates a case. For instance, the law might declare that "all blacks are allowed to vote," but the same country does not want to allow French black citizens to vote. Although it's clearly inconsistent and morally inappropriate, the law can easily say something like "French black people are different" and that's it. There really isn't much stopping society from having all kinds of wacky laws - if they so choose.

The reason helmets are enforced is because they protect the rider more often than not. If someone enters an accident with a motorcycle, they may feel terrible if someone dies. It might not be their fault, and you might be not wearing a helmet, but they may require therapy to deal with the trauma. Furthermore, it's not difficult to wear a helmet, and there are laws protecting people not of sound mind.

A person trying to drink acid they think is chocolate milk is not of sound mind. It's not as extreme, but the widespread consensus is that not wearing a helmet is a ridiculous stupid risk. Some people might say if the person knows it's acid and thinks they'll be alright, it's acceptable, but that's a difficult position to swallow. Ultimately, what is determined as an "acceptable risk" is determined by tyranny fo the majority. However, all people have an interesting in life, liberty, and happiness. Presumably, the standards of acceptability are fairly similar, and it's rarely the case that society makes restrictions. Mountain climbing, for instance, is allowed despite the risk. There just isn't a purpose to helmet free riding that justifies it.

Furthermore, preventable accidents waste human resources. The ambulance has to pick someone up who otherwise might have been fine or needing less serious treatment. The preventable accident may drag a surgeon out of bed to operate while a child comes in with a serious head injury ten minutes later. Already involved in treating the "free spirit," the hospitals best surgeon is unable to save the child who dies by less experienced hands.

Similarly, people might be using the ambulance to treat a motorcycle victim - at the expense of others. Some people have suggested that people should be allowed to go without a helmet. We just let them die if they have an accident. I think most people aren't capable of doing that, and I don't think it's advisable. People can't be expected to watch people suffer miserably and "do nothing" merely to protect the freedom of others. Freedom is of little importance when someone is miserable or dead.

In addition, motorcyclists are in the public domain. People may not like it, but it's important to show a certain amount of appropriateness when in view of children, especially. Parents can't honestly be expected to keep children away from public, and seeing unhealthy behavior makes people view it as psychologically more "normal." Parents will lecture against it, but the presence of irresponsible behaviors is still something society is forced to actively prevent from influencing children.

In all honesty, forcing people to wear helmets isn't ideal. In a perfect world, people just do the responsible thing. Unfortunately, some people would disobey the law merely to make a point - which isn't clever, either. If society starts encouraging common sense again, laws can always be removed if it makes people feel more free. Furthermore, freedoms are restricted on a regular basis.

Personally, I don't drive a car at the moment. I'm young, and it's not a good financial investment for me. And frankly, I driving makes me anxious. Although I could lie about how I'm an environmental crusader, that's just an unintended benefit of traveling by bus. However, buses are driven by professionals who are less prone to accidents. Scientifically speaking, traffic congestion is the result of too many cars on the road. If people took the bus, people would get places faster, the environment would be cleaner, and there would be less vehicle related deaths - especially by drunk drivers.

Regardless of what I want, I can't go outside, get in a vehicle, and get to my destination as fast as I'd like. I can still get there, but I have a right to not to have my freedoms trampled upon. I want everyone off the road so I can get places faster. However, the majority wants to secure their right to a vehicle, and I'm outnumbered. Furthermore, we have speed limits imposed to ensure our safety on the road, and these limit people's ability to drive fast - a freedom taken away. Technically, drunk driving limits freedom (for good reason).

When people decide to establish a society, they pool their resources through taxation and provide public services. We can each afford to buy a bit of road, but we can't make a highway unless we work together. The rules for driving are established to apply according to agreed upon views. Our safety and freedom is interconnected, and this means limiting the liberty of some can secure the liberty of people as a whole. It's not practical to encourage biking without a helmet as it's too detrimental to societies overall interests.

Related Articles

Retrieved from "https://3arf.org/en/index.php?title=Enforce_Helmet_Laws_–_Agree&oldid=7529"