Michigan State helmet law repealed

[Zedder]

It's true, when you don't have a constitution the Govt gets to decide what it's duties are.

In reality very few people get to make suggestions about how I live my life. None at all get to dictate terms, not even large groups that tell themselves they have a duty to do so.

New Zealand does have a constitution though. However, it's not contained in a "supreme document" like some other countries.

[Milts]

Why are you not also advocating the mandatory wearing of a full leather suit? Or maybe banning bikes all together? Most will agree that both of these would save heaps in medical costs.

Because the tradeoff (inconvenience) is fairly small vs the benefit (protecting your fragile + vital skull). A full leather suit is a larger inconvenience for a smaller benefit.

As for the 'my life my choice' argument, there is some truth in that. However you dying as a result of not wearing a helmet doesn't just effect you. Your friends and family are affected; your workplace is affected; the economy is affected; the poor bastard who has to scrape up bits of your skull off the road is affected (there is a very good post somewhere on here by a KBer who had to look after someone who came off near Napier with no gear until the ambulance arrived, they weren't happy about it).

The other large aspect is that rather than just reduce mortality, helmets reduce the number of serious head injuries. These have a huge impact of people other than you; the cost of medical care, the cost of society feeding + caring for you, and so on. The only way to avoid that would be to sign something asking to be left on the side of the road to die rather than have an ambulance and any medical care.

I think there is a strong case for freedom of choice when it comes to wearing helmets. I don't think it's quite strong enough. I could potentially support it given certain conditions (insurance, family, etc) but given the choice of mandatory helmets or no restrictions at all, I would pick mandatory every time.

[swbarnett]

It's incredibly selfish to exercise a choice to kill one's self, because of all the other people you hurt.

I agree. It is selfish. The opinions and feelings of others can and should be taken into account but the ultimate decision about one's own fate at one's own hand (whether it be suicide or simply risks taken) lies solely with the individual.

[swbarnett]

It's Goverments duty to protect the public, often from themselves.

IMO the second part is completely wrong. The govenment has no business protecting us from ourselves. Only someone that owns me has the right to decide for me what is too risky and noone owns me but me.

My body, my risks, my decision. Noone else's.

[swbarnett]

Because the tradeoff (inconvenience) is fairly small vs the benefit (protecting your fragile + vital skull). A full leather suit is a larger inconvenience for a smaller benefit.

What gives you (or anyone else) the right to make this decision for me?

As for the 'my life my choice' argument, there is some truth in that. However you dying as a result of not wearing a helmet doesn't just effect you. Your friends and family are affected; your workplace is affected; the economy is affected;

Ah, but I am the only person that is directly affected.

the poor bastard who has to scrape up bits of your skull off the road is affected (there is a very good post somewhere on here by a KBer who had to look after someone who came off near Napier with no gear until the ambulance arrived, they weren't happy about it).

Yes, but that was their chioce. Don't blame the person being scraped up for the psycological trauma of those doing the scraping.

The other large aspect is that rather than just reduce mortality, helmets reduce the number of serious head injuries. These have a huge impact of people other than you; the cost of medical care, the cost of society feeding + caring for you, and so on. The only way to avoid that would be to sign something asking to be left on the side of the road to die rather than have an ambulance and any medical care.

Again, the only person directly affected is the rider.

I think there is a strong case for freedom of choice when it comes to wearing helmets. I don't think it's quite strong enough. I could potentially support it given certain conditions (insurance, family, etc) but given the choice of mandatory helmets or no restrictions at all, I would pick mandatory every time.

Again, why do you even have a say in what I do (or not do) to protect myself?

[Milts]

What gives you (or anyone else) the right to make this decision for me?
What gives you the right to decide that the laws will let more people lose their partners, parents or employees to avoidable accidents?


Ah, but I am the only person that is directly affected.
If Australia invades and massacres half the polulation of the city, I am not directly affected. That doesn't mean the only serious impact is to the people who were killed.


Yes, but that was their chioce. Don't blame the person being scraped up for the psycological trauma of those doing the scraping.
What gives you the right to traumatise people on their way to the shop by splattering your skull accross their windscreen? Also, who the fuck else could be at fault?

Again, the only person directly affected is the rider.
The distinction between 'affected' and 'directly affected' seems extremely arbitrary to me.

Again, why do you even have a say in what I do (or not do) to protect myself? I pay the taxes which will pay for your health care?

Further points: If you legalise crack cocaine, the only people directly affected are those who take it (by choice) - lets leave aside any injuries they cause to others. I can still guarantee that crime rates will skyrocket as people try to fund their habit. Do you think it's much consolation to the victims of the roberies that they are only indirectly affected? Do you think it's much consolation to the family of someone who died as a result of not wearing a helmet that they were only indirectly affected? What about those who now have to spend the rest of their life caring for a brain damaged parent or partner? Does it help them to know they are only indirectly affected?

Another argument is that we live in a democratic society. If the population as a whole decides that they would rather protect against the indirect impacts (loss of loved ones, healthcare or societal costs, lives lost caring for the injured), then it is undemocratic to not regulate helmet use. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just undemocratic - as a fan of democracy I'm against that. You may not be, but for me that is a strong argument.

[Zedder]

IMO the second part is completely wrong. The govenment has no business protecting us from ourselves. Only someone that owns me has the right to decide for me what is too risky and noone owns me but me.

My body, my risks, my decision. Noone else's.

This reply ties into what Milts is stating to some extent.

All organisations have "a duty of care" to their members. It is a universal legal concept that is part and parcel of Government, Churches, companies, clubs etc.

In a democracy, it is even more expanded in its influence when people can effect others by their choices/actions made (or not made). We cannot easily be isolated from it.

The New Zealand situation is further compounded by the no fault principle of ACC.

[Ocean1]

New Zealand does have a constitution though. However, it's not contained in a "supreme document" like some other countries.

NZ's "constitution" ammounts to the collected historic parlimentary legal rulings. It is nowhere near what reasonable people should expect by way of a statement of personal rights. It's written by fucking politicians for fucks sake.

[Ocean1]

If you legalise crack cocaine, the only people directly affected are those who take it (by choice) - lets leave aside any injuries they cause to others.

In the case of heavilly addictive substances I'd say your right to choose was effectively damaged by the initial decision. So cocaine should be controlled. I'd say tabacco should fall into the same category.

Another argument is that we live in a democratic society. If the population as a whole decides that they would rather protect against the indirect impacts (loss of loved ones, healthcare or societal costs, lives lost caring for the injured), then it is undemocratic to not regulate helmet use.

Again, just because a lot of people agree that I should or shouldn't do something doesn't make it ethically correct. That's not the function of a democracy.

[Zedder]

NZ's "constitution" ammounts to the collected historic parlimentary legal rulings. It is nowhere near what reasonable people should expect by way of a statement of personal rights. It's written by fucking politicians for fucks sake.

I was just replying to your statement about NZ not having a constitution by saying we do. The parliamentary rulings are only 1 out of the 6 ways it was constructed and it wasn't all by politicians.

At least we now have a Bill of Rights as part of it which is something we didn't have for a long time.

[Ocean1]

I was just replying to your statement about NZ not having a constitution by saying we do. The parliamentary rulings are only 1 out of the 6 ways it was constructed and it wasn't all by politicians.

At least we now have a Bill of Rights as part of it which is something we didn't have for a long time.

Both are supposed to protect the civil and political rights of the public from encroachment by Parliament, and by association any government agency. Neither are ennacted as supreme law, they can both be altered and interpreted by parliament to suit any end thay want. They both have been.

NZ's "bill of rights" is a Claytons document, it might make you feel special but don't count on it to protect you. As I said, I've got my own version, I'll stick with that thanks.

[Zedder]

Both are supposed to protect the civil and political rights of the public from encroachment by Parliament, and by association any government agency. Neither are ennacted as supreme law, they can both be altered and interpreted by parliament to suit any end thay want. They both have been.

NZ's "bill of rights" is a Claytons document, it might make you feel special but don't count on it to protect you. As I said, I've got my own version, I'll stick with that thanks.

Would that involve a shotgun by any chance?

[swbarnett]

What gives you the right to decide that the laws will let more people lose their partners, parents or employees to avoidable accidents?

Personal responsibility. NOONE is responsible for me but me!

If Australia invades and massacres half the polulation of the city, I am not directly affected. That doesn't mean the only serious impact is to the people who were killed.

This analogy bears no resemblence whatsoever to what I'm talking about. This is through the actions of a third party. Besides, I never said there was no serious impact. What I said was that only those directly affected by their own actions have the right to determine what those actions will be.

What gives you the right to traumatise people on their way to the shop by splattering your skull accross their windscreen? Also, who the fuck else could be at fault?

Because I don't got out to deliberatly traumatise anyone. Who are they to say what are reasonable precaustions for me?

Life is not safe - get used to it!

The distinction between 'affected' and 'directly affected' seems extremely arbitrary to me.

It is impossible to please everyone. Believe me, I've spent the better part of my life trying. If you allow anyone that is even remotely affected to have a say in how you run your life you end up with so many contradictions that you can't do anything.

I pay the taxes which will pay for your health care?

Are you not willing to pay a little to create a society that's worth living in? I certainly am. We could abolish ACC, bring in personal insurance with risk-based premiums. The first thing that will happen is that premiums for motorcycle riders will be vastly higher that anyone else, if we can get insurance at all.

As I've stated previously, I believe in the benifits of helmets. However, I will gladly pay for another's right to their own choice.

Further points: If you legalise crack cocaine, the only people directly affected are those who take it (by choice) - lets leave aside any injuries they cause to others. I can still guarantee that crime rates will skyrocket as people try to fund their habit.

This has been proven to be false. Legalise drugs and the cost of funding a habit goes through the floor. Therefore less crime. Also, with less financial incentive the number of drug pushers diminishes greatly.

Do you think it's much consolation to the victims of the roberies that they are only indirectly affected?

They may be indirectly affected my one's decision to take drugs but they are directly affect by their decision to commit a robbery.

Do you think it's much consolation to the family of someone who died as a result of not wearing a helmet that they were only indirectly affected?

There was a saying that seems to have fallen in to disuse - "At least they died doing something they loved." I would rather have my wife die from a poor choice than have her life ruined by overbearing, arbitrary restictions on her personal choices. I'll take one day of freedom over a lifetime of slavery.

What about those who now have to spend the rest of their life caring for a brain damaged parent or partner? Does it help them to know they are only indirectly affected?

This is an argument for repealing the helmet wear. Fewer helmets mean fewer people that survive but have massive brain injuries.

Another argument is that we live in a democratic society. If the population as a whole decides that they would rather protect against the indirect impacts (loss of loved ones, healthcare or societal costs, lives lost caring for the injured), then it is undemocratic to not regulate helmet use. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just undemocratic - as a fan of democracy I'm against that. You may not be, but for me that is a strong argument.

You are completely correct in this. While democracy may be better than some other political systems it does have this fatal flaw. As people in the western world become more individuals and less part of a community people on the fringe are increasingly having to tow the line of the majority. Unless we respect the rights of the individual to self-determination we are doomed to the eventual brakdown of the political system. More government in our lives means more pissed off citezins.

[swbarnett]

This reply ties into what Milts is stating to some extent.

All organisations have "a duty of care" to their members.

Yes, I understand this. What this means (or should mean as I belive the definition of "duty of care" is getting seriously twisted) is that an organisation should not, by their actions or policies, put any of it's members at risk. It says nothing about the organisation being responsible for self harm caused by the decisions of one of its members.

Lets say I decided to blindfold myself and fell down the stairs as a result. It would be utterly ludicrous to say that if I did this at work my employer would have failed their duty of care.

[Zedder]

Yes, I understand this. What this means (or should mean as I belive the definition of "duty of care" is getting seriously twisted) is that an organisation should not, by their actions or policies, put any of it's members at risk. It says nothing about the organisation being responsible for self harm caused by the decisions of one of its members.

Lets say I decided to blindfold myself and fell down the stairs as a result. It would be utterly ludicrous to say that if I did this at work my employer would have failed their duty of care.

What I was getting at with the duty of care concept was the Governments role in making laws to protect the public. Remember, I did also write words to the effect that they sometimes go too far over the freedom of choice aspect.

The laws relating to harm though are meant to cover a huge range of mentalities and possible actions. However in NZ, unlike any other country, we also have the ACC situation to contend with as I wrote later on.