Despite their helpfulness, helmet laws are controversial. Some bikers like Stan Daniels believe they’re being discriminated against. In his essay called “Helmet Laws Discriminate against Bikers”, he tries to prove that helmet laws are unnecessary, annoying, and should be repealed because we should be able to live freely. In this essay I’ll argue that his argument is unconvincing.
His argument is summarized like so:
1. People should live as they please.
2. Helmet laws take away freedom from bikers (thus discriminating them) so they should be repealed. (from 1)
3. There’s no noticeable difference in motorcycle injuries among states where helmet use is voluntary.
4. Motorcycles represent 2% of vehicles and less than 1% of accidents.
5. Trucks and buses make up more accidents, but their drivers don’t wear helmets. (from 4)
6. Not wearing a helmet affects no one …show more content…
They sound good—at first. Regardless of how good they sound, they cannot be accepted. If we accept them, we can’t have laws since people can do anything. After all, it’s useless having laws you can’t enforce. Therefore, we must accept that freedom has an extent. The easiest way to determine if whatever we want to do should be allowed is to determine if it’s significantly harmful. The question is: is driving helmetless harmless? No, it isn’t, despite his claim in (3) that there’s no notable difference in motorcycle injuries in states where helmet use is voluntary. Helmets reduce the risk of death by 37% and the risk of head injury by 69% (Frieden). This alone proves (1-3) and (6-7) wrong. Mandatory helmet laws are clearly not unnecessary if they help prevent injuries and deaths, unlike his claim in (7). (6) is wrong because if motorcyclists are killed, their loved ones will be affected by such a tragic event as well as anyone involved in the accident. Therefore, helmet laws do more than protect motorcyclists and others on the road; they protect loved ones as
His argument is summarized like so:
1. People should live as they please.
2. Helmet laws take away freedom from bikers (thus discriminating them) so they should be repealed. (from 1)
3. There’s no noticeable difference in motorcycle injuries among states where helmet use is voluntary.
4. Motorcycles represent 2% of vehicles and less than 1% of accidents.
5. Trucks and buses make up more accidents, but their drivers don’t wear helmets. (from 4)
6. Not wearing a helmet affects no one …show more content…
They sound good—at first. Regardless of how good they sound, they cannot be accepted. If we accept them, we can’t have laws since people can do anything. After all, it’s useless having laws you can’t enforce. Therefore, we must accept that freedom has an extent. The easiest way to determine if whatever we want to do should be allowed is to determine if it’s significantly harmful. The question is: is driving helmetless harmless? No, it isn’t, despite his claim in (3) that there’s no notable difference in motorcycle injuries in states where helmet use is voluntary. Helmets reduce the risk of death by 37% and the risk of head injury by 69% (Frieden). This alone proves (1-3) and (6-7) wrong. Mandatory helmet laws are clearly not unnecessary if they help prevent injuries and deaths, unlike his claim in (7). (6) is wrong because if motorcyclists are killed, their loved ones will be affected by such a tragic event as well as anyone involved in the accident. Therefore, helmet laws do more than protect motorcyclists and others on the road; they protect loved ones as