Just stop doggin me around
When Oregon State Senator Floyd Prozanski (D-Eugene) floated a proposed new law requiring all adults to wear a bicycle helmet, the reaction was a swift and harsh "no". So much so that Prozanski quickly backed off.
When I first heard of the proposal, I felt myself annoyed and genuinely offended at the idea. I even thought to myself, "I could have told him that this would happen" when hearing of the onslaught of negative phone calls and emails Prozanski's office received. It just seemed very obvious to me.
My reaction and why it hit such a nerve for so many other Oregonians is a testament, I think, to the libertarian sensibility that runs wide through our state. Notice I don't mean "Libertarian", as in the Party. I use that label to infer the idea of the "leave me alone" ethos that tends to be an intregal part of what we're about in the west. As a rule, the western U.S. seems to be a region whose citizens have a strong preference for government to remain out of their personal decisions.
That's not to say that we don't want the government around--or even that we dislike it, in general. On the contrary, many of us believe that effective and responsible government is crucial to our society. However, we tend to cast a jaundiced eye at any law which would give the government power over the way we choose to live our lives.
Some have confused this ethos with the ideas of the Libertarian Party, specifically in economic terms. I think to do so demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of our mindset here. We're not opposed to government taxation and spending per se. In fact, we'll be the first to embrace it in many cases. What we (in general terms, of course) are opposed to is being told that we can't live the way we like--as long as we're not harming anyone else.
And that means if we choose to harm ourselves..well, that's our choice. We don't want (or pay) our elected officials to babysit us like that, even with the best of intentions. And to me, that's exactly how it feels.
I'm not sure from where this ethos began. Perhaps it was from all of those independent-minded pioneers who ventured from parts east on the continent (my great-grandmother being one of them--from Iowa). Maybe its the mountain men and cowboys who were among the first adventurers (with the exception of the Native Americans) to come here. My fourth grade Oregon history reader was chock full of tales of daring-do from those maverick explorers who carried their lives on their back and lived on their own terms (right or wrong).
Its clear to me that no matter where it started, the feeling of "let me be" runs strong here and isn't going away.
Oregon politicians would do well to remember that.
Oh..and here's a little 80s ditty for use as a mnemonic device.
|
August 4, 2008 |
Carla Axtman | Comments (102 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: carla axtman | Aug 4, 2008 2:39:01 PM
Hmm...I'm not sure about that, Pat.
I was too young in the 70s and 80s to pay attention to the motorcycle helmet law..but I've been a consistent detractor. The same with seat belt laws for adults.
And given the Death With Dignity law--it seems like there's a definite libertarian thread running through this region.
Now you could be entirely right that this is a newer phenomenon...but it doesn't seem like it.
Posted by: DanK | Aug 4, 2008 2:42:48 PM
Carla, maybe you're interesting post is commenting more on the zeitgeist of the Oregon politic, but I'll take the opportunity to say that I think the helmet proposal was good policy. I see no substantive difference between it and speed limits or seat belt laws. In fact, I would go even further and require bright clothing and taillights.
Government has a legitimate interest in requiring a minimal level of safety on the streets and highways we all share. In fact, it seems to me that's kind of one of the main things government should be involved in.
Why should society foot the bill for the increased medical costs associated with a dangerous behavior when a simple preventative alternative is available? It's not like we're asking them to quit smoking--just to wear a little hat so their brains won't end up on the pavement.
Posted by: Kevin | Aug 4, 2008 2:59:40 PM
but I'll take the opportunity to say that I think the helmet proposal was good policy. I see no substantive difference between it and speed limits or seat belt laws. In fact, I would go even further and require bright clothing and taillights.
Speed limits, tail lights and, arguably, even bright clothing are all about protecting the safety of others as much as that of the driver/rider. Remember the basic premise of our American notions on freedom: Your rights end where mine begin. Which is why I don't reasonably have a right to go driving around in the middle of the night with no tail lights - someone else could be hurt and I don't have a right to sacrifice their safety at the alter of mine enjoyment of my rights.
Helmet and seatbelt laws are thus fundamentally different.
I agree with Carla and Pat on those.
Posted by: Kevin | Aug 4, 2008 3:07:03 PM
PS.
Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness - Thomas Jefferson.
Those are MY rights, not the state's rights. My inalienable rights.
Helmet laws directly contravene those rights.
Posted by: GLV | Aug 4, 2008 3:40:32 PM
Com on Kev, you think helmet laws are wrong because they make you unhappy? Fortunately for those of us whose brains have not been splattered on the pavement, the Declaration of Independence does not constitute the law of the land.
Posted by: Mike Schryver | Aug 4, 2008 3:48:49 PM
GLV, you may be technically correct that the Declaration doesn't constitute the law of the land, but you aren't going to win many people over to your way of thinking with statements like that.
Posted by: DanK | Aug 4, 2008 3:55:16 PM
Your rights end where mine begin.
It's rarely that simple Kevin. For starters, mere interests and inclinations are not civil rights. Even our most cherished individual rights have ragged, overlapping edges.
I have an interest in living in a society that isn't spending inordinate sums of money to reconstruct the shattered heads of free-wheeling bikers. That is at least as worthy of consideration as the desire of some bicyclists to ride bare headed into the nearest concrete barrier.
Indulge me for a moment...
I have to pay the cop to reroute traffic around the scene, I have to pay the coroner to transport the corpse, etc. If we're lucky, I'll have to pay slightly higher health care costs to cover the trauma team, and will have to pay higher taxes when the recovering biker is on permanent disability because he can no longer speak his own name.
Driving without a seat belt or biking without a helmet is not quite the victimless indulgence you're suggesting. It costs us all, perhaps more dearly than we might guess.
I get what you are saying Kevin, there is a difference in magnitude. I'll admit to that. To me, however, it isn't enough of a difference.
Posted by: Kevin | Aug 4, 2008 4:10:03 PM
It's rarely that simple Kevin.
Of course not. Which is why I referred to it as the basic premise of our notions on freedoms rather than the final word on them.
have an interest in living in a society that isn't spending inordinate sums of money to reconstruct the shattered heads of free-wheeling bikers. That is at least as worthy of consideration as the desire of some bicyclists to ride bare headed into the nearest concrete barrier.
In my view that concern is taken care of with our liability insurance laws, which I would argue are consistent with the basic premise articulated above because it's at least a hedge against the larger society having to foot the bill.
I don't have a problem with you having a hedge against having to pay for my folly. But beyond that it's really none of your business unless you can show me some other of your inalienable rights might be contravened. And then the fix would be to mitigate the risk to your rights and no more than that.
Let me go further and express my unqualified support for laws requiring that safety equipment be available should I or any other citizen wish to make use of them. But the compulsory use of them crosses the line.
I get what you are saying Kevin, there is a difference in magnitude. I'll admit to that. To me, however, it isn't enough of a difference.
I disagree with your reasoning. But I do respect your dogged pursuit of discussing the actual merits rather than just taking shots at the messenger.
Posted by: Pat Ryan | Aug 4, 2008 4:11:28 PM
All the pro-nanny posts seem to include the fact free trope regarding head trauma and the resulting burden to society.
I've done the research a few times back in the day so here's the challenge. Instead of going with your gut, show me the specific statistics that conclusively demonstrate that there are significantly higher costs per person involved in auto versus MC or bicycle crashes.
If you don't have the time I can tell you that they're non-existent except where dishonest safetycrats have fiddled the numbers.
So once more:
Until you are able to madate airbags and helmets for Old People Taking a Shower or Old People Standing at the top of the Stairs in Their Own Homes........ Or maybe state mandated grafting of Water Wings to Tender Children standing by Mommy and Daddy's Swimming Pool.......Or state monitored electrical shocks to people talking on cellphones during rush our.......or a nine o'clock curfew on all automobile traffic every Saturday night when the drunks start running.......Or the myriad other actual areas of danger.....spare us your parental input.
Posted by: Miles | Aug 4, 2008 4:13:14 PM
I think you're right about the libertarian streak that runs through Oregon and the west. When I traveled east for college, my liberal friends didn't share that same libertarian streak. This was the time when campus speech codes were sweeping through small northeast colleges, and they didn't understand how a good liberal could oppose such codes. I didn't understand how a good liberal could support them.
On helmets specfically, I see both sides. But it is a rare death/severe injury that only affects the deceased/injured. Often we end up paying for some or all of the medical costs, but even when that doesn't happen there are the social costs to the dead/injured guy's family, friends, and the other drivers involved.
We have lots of laws on the books designed to mitigate social costs like these: you're not allowed to sell sex, even if both parties consent; you're not allowed to take whatever drugs you want even if you never steal to support your habit; it's illegal to kill yourself unless the state certifies that you're suffering from an end-of-life disease (although they have a hard time enforcing this); adultery is still illegal.
I'm not convinced that dying without a helmet is a victimless act. If there are economic or social costs the people, though their government, have a right to demand that you behave according to community standards.
Posted by: Bobby Wade | Aug 4, 2008 4:13:35 PM
Dealing with the "hassle" of wearing a seat-belt was annoying back in the 80s. Just the same as it would be to learn to deal with the hassle of always wearing a helmet.
To me, perhaps the oddest part of this discussion is that the VAST majority of bicyclists I know wouldn't be caught dead (pardon the pun) riding their bike without wearing a helmet. Who is voicing the biggest opposition to this, non-bicyclists?
Posted by: truffula | Aug 4, 2008 4:19:09 PM
I'm not sure from where this ethos began.
I find it hard to take this question seriously. I don't know anybody, western, eastern, or in between, who hankers for more government oversight over their life (in this case, bodily sovereignty).
I do know plenty of people who think the government ought to limit other people's bodily autonomy. Perhaps in the west we are less interested in controling the bodies of other people than are folks elsewhere (though recent conversations about abortion here at Blue Oregon suggest that we pioneering westerners are fairly willing if it's only women's bodies).
those maverick explorers who carried their lives on their back and lived on their own terms
Uh, Roanoake? Jamestown? Ville Marie?
Everybody thinks she/he is special. And as I learned in preschool, we all are. But perhaps not for the reasons we imagine.
Posted by: I am the law | Aug 4, 2008 4:20:40 PM
Clearly, none of you are legal scholars.
First, the Declaration of Independence has no force of law. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are pretty words in a more or less (legally) meaningless document.
Second, law by its very nature is paternalistic. EVERY law impinges upon someone's ability to do something they might like to do. Thus, asking whether the law "would give the government power over the way we choose to live our lives" gives you no useful information. The RIGHT question to ask is whether the benefits of the proposed law law outweigh the restrictions on liberties that it entails.
In the extreme cases (like, say, laws against murder), that calculus is pretty easy. When it comes to things like bike helmets, its a tougher call, and I just don't know enough to make it. How many helmeted drivers who die would have died with or without a helmet? Are drivers more agressive with helmeted cyclists because they think less risk is involved? How are death and injury rates affected when jurisdiction enact and enforce helmet laws?
This juvenile "I don't wanna" attitude makes for terrible social policy. So stop patting yourselves on the back for being so "maverick" and start thinking about what makes the most sense as a social rule. Personally, I don't have enough information to make that judgment. A post compiling that sort of information would be much more constructive than this nonsense.
Posted by: Pat Ryan | Aug 4, 2008 4:23:39 PM
VAST majority of bicyclists I know wouldn't be caught dead (pardon the pun) riding their bike without wearing a helmet
And herein lies the rub. You seem unable to see the difference between useful behavior and state mandated behavior.
If the MC helmet laws were repealed tomorrow, I would wear a helmet anytime I travel the metro freeways, but I might strap it on the backrest when taking a little run up Wildcat Mountain Drive out here by my house.
I would do the risk assessment and would decide when it was appropriate for ME to decide when I need additional protection, since I am the one at risk.
Posted by: Kevin | Aug 4, 2008 4:28:11 PM
First, the Declaration of Independence has no force of law. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are pretty words in a more or less (legally) meaningless document.
The snarky response would be to ask what the word or phrase is for an argument debunking an unstated assertion. Presumably someone familiar with the law will know...
Posted by: Karol | Aug 4, 2008 4:50:59 PM
Maverick, libertarian, whatever, just be a responsible rider. Because bikes and cars have to follow the same rules, its important that I can see you and that if either of us makes a mistake, your brains won't be splattered on the sidewalk. When I see people without helmets, I'm disgusted that those folks consider their lives to be worth so little. Some may say its a choice and that's fine, but I don't want the life of someone on anyone's hands because that person chose not to wear a helmet.
We are a society, therefore we bear one another's burdens. Wouldn't it be better if we took care of each other in that way? Wear your freaking helmet.
Posted by: Steve Bucknum | Aug 4, 2008 4:55:27 PM
The ethos that Carla reflects is accurate for those of us with our roots here in Oregon. My family only had one part come in the covered wagon, the rest took the train, but we were all here 100 years ago except those not born yet. And the "leave me alone unless you can prove a necessary case" ethos is strong and vibrant in my family.
And that is where the good State Senator from Eugene went wrong. He didn't make a case for the necessity of getting into my life. Now, I don't ride a bicycle often, maybe twice a decade at this stage of my life. But I really don't want to wear a helmet. I'd wear one if I was regularly in traffic, but on the back roads and streets near where I live, where you can see a car coming for half a mile, and they don't come that often - I don't need a helmet.
But I could be convinced it could be a good State law. You'd have to prove to me that it costs me a lot of money to pay for the medical expenses of the bicycle riders that were injured for the lack of a helmet. If it costs me and everyone one of my neighbors lots of money to pay for those medical expenses, and it had better be provable, then and only then would I entertain consideration of a helmet law. I would entertain consideration as one possible option out of many options. Perhaps helmets must be worn in areas of population density of over 500 people per square mile. Perhaps bicycle riders could post a bond or provide proof of insurance in lieu of wearing a helmet.
In my sense of sensibilities, you don't jump to the solution before you have defined and explored both the problem and the possible solutions. Who knows - helmets that slide into your field of vision might increase accidents??
So, the Senator blew it.
Posted by: carla axtman | Aug 4, 2008 5:19:33 PM
Second, law by its very nature is paternalistic. EVERY law impinges upon someone's ability to do something they might like to do.
You missed the rest, it seems. Its about doing what I want to do until and unless my actions affect someone else. So there is in fact, an important qualifier that you omitted.
When it comes to things like bike helmets, its a tougher call, and I just don't know enough to make it. How many helmeted drivers who die would have died with or without a helmet? Are drivers more agressive with helmeted cyclists because they think less risk is involved? How are death and injury rates affected when jurisdiction enact and enforce helmet laws?
I see. So its really for you about the math: death, injury, insurance rates, medical stuff, etc.
Would you hold the same standard for condoms as you do for bike helmets? How would you enforce it? And if you don't hold that same standard..where do you draw the line, and why?
Posted by: carla axtman | Aug 4, 2008 5:21:19 PM
Crud. My comment is all goofed up in a sea of italics.
Let's try it again:
Second, law by its very nature is paternalistic. EVERY law impinges upon someone's ability to do something they might like to do.
You missed the rest, it seems. Its about doing what I want to do until and unless my actions affect someone else. So there is in fact, an important qualifier that you omitted.
When it comes to things like bike helmets, its a tougher call, and I just don't know enough to make it. How many helmeted drivers who die would have died with or without a helmet? Are drivers more agressive with helmeted cyclists because they think less risk is involved? How are death and injury rates affected when jurisdiction enact and enforce helmet laws?
I see. So its really for you about the math: death, injury, insurance rates, medical stuff, etc.
Would you hold the same standard for condoms as you do for bike helmets? How would you enforce it? And if you don't hold that same standard..where do you draw the line, and why?
Posted by: carla axtman | Aug 4, 2008 5:21:54 PM
Still messed up.
Someone better at this than me will have to fix it.
Posted by: Marshall Collins | Aug 4, 2008 5:30:59 PM
I can see where I could be persueded that requiring helmets should be law but not right now. This proposal is not the quick band-aid to bike/car relationships. Until we add laws and policies that make our roads more suitable for the dual use as well as enhancing traffic patrol to enforce those laws a helmet law is going to be pretty meaningless. Not quite the election year talking point he was looking for. Sorry Floyd.
Posted by: Tom Civiletti | Aug 4, 2008 5:48:18 PM
Pat Ryan wrote:
Until you are able to madate[sic] airbags and helmets for Old People Taking a Shower or Old People Standing at the top of the Stairs in Their Own Homes........
While I am not too keen on government protecting adults from themselves, there is a difference between these proposed regulations and seatbelt and helmet laws - the latter apply to public, not private property. It's reasonable to argue that highway safety laws are bad policy, but I do not see the grounds for arguing that the state does not have legitimate power to regulate behavior on public highways.
Posted by: Mike | Aug 4, 2008 6:04:04 PM
I don't understand what the big deal is. I think they're just trying to save people's lives with a helmet law.
I dont' recall where I read this, but I saw something the other day that said something like of the 800 or so deaths among bicycle riders last year, 770 of them were not wearing helmets. These aren't precise #'s, but they're close (as is the ratio).
Given the fact that in at least some of the non-lethal cases, the health care costs of injured riders ultimately come out of our pockets, I don't think it's particularly unfair. Nor do I think helmets are even that much of a burden.
Just my $.02
Posted by: Kurt Chapman | Aug 4, 2008 6:14:51 PM
Carla, another great post; and not just because you speak to my strong libertarian streak!
Mike, your argument is exactly that which makes us fear government the most. If, closed head injuries are the real issue here, AND I could show you the statistics for closed head injuries sustained from AUTOMOBILE accidents, would you support mandatory helmet laws for adults in their autos? I did the data search about 12 years ago and the numbers are staggering in favor of auto related closed head injuries rather than bicycle related closed head injuries.
Again, the nanycrats (great name whomever came up w/it) have nothing better o do than establishyet another mandatory infringement on normal adult activities.
I ride a Harley and would wear a helmet regardless the law. It chaps me that there is such a law, but I don't fight it. This is over-reaching. next thing you know the nanycrats will be mandating safety harnesses w/D-Rings and bungie cords when we go up on the roof to clean gutters or hang Chrsitmas lights.
Posted by: Kristin | Aug 4, 2008 6:19:01 PM
I was biking home from work one night about eight years ago when a monster truck driver broke the law and turned suddenly without signaling or looking.
My helmet saved my life. But it wasn't just about me. The guy who broke the law had to fork over some money and probably has quite a sting in his insurance.
But he didn't face vehicular manslaughter. Oddly enough, my decision to wear a helmet dramatically affected the rest of his life.
Helmets are about more than just the person on the bicycle.
Posted by: Kristin | Aug 4, 2008 6:21:25 PM
Oh, and I should say that the truck ran over me. Six broken bones and a ruined bike, but alive.
Posted by: tr | Aug 4, 2008 6:44:59 PM
"the western U.S. seems to be a region whose citizens have a strong preference for government to remain out of their personal decisions."
HAHAHAHAHAHAH
Your pants are on fire, Carla.
You and your liberal pals here on the blogs are the biggest proponents of government in our lives.. Wow. You can't be serious.
Posted by: t.a. barnhart | Aug 4, 2008 7:34:17 PM
i haven't heard an argument against mandatory helmets that isn't pure bullshit. and of all people to argue against civic responsibility, it's anyone who dares call themself progressive.
no one is walking this planet alone. no one is responsible to him- or herself alone. we all have obligations to others, and our refusal to honor those obligations demeans us as humans and reduces the humanity of our communities.
no one has the right to endanger themself in public. you think it's ok if your choice means you end up with a brain injury or dead? what if it's my car that hits you: a minor accident, one that would have only resulted in injury except for your selfish choice to not wear a helmet? whose gets to live with the guilt the rest of their life? you, who made your choice, or me? i didn't do enough to kill you, but i have to bear that as long as i live.
what about your children, friends, family, employer? these people matter less than your so-called right? the emergency workers who get to scoop your brains off the ground? the list of people affected by your choice is long, and few on that list deserve to go thru the pain, or even inconvenience, your stupidity puts them thru.
and not wearing a helmet is stupid. it's not a choice; it's stupid. smoking is a right? meth is a right? russian roulette? when the hell did "rights" become self-destruction and a flipping-off of the society that has to pick up the mess your "choice" leaves behind?
how about a compromise, for those who cling to their rights regardless of the implications upon other people? anyone suffering a head injury because of a bike accident, and not wearing a helmet, gets nothing. no insurance, no right to sue a drunk driver; nothing. the car driver is released from all responsibility for any head injuries. yup, carte blanche for those causing your head injuries. you want that right? you take the whole magilla. sue 'em for wrecking your bike or skinning your knee, but that massive head injury: tough shit, freedom warrior.
bit first, explain to your kids, or your parents, or the people at work who happen to like you — to all the people who depend on you — that the wind in your hair means more to you than do they. give them the chance to tell you what you need to hear when making this choice:
fuck you.
Posted by: Sam Geggy | Aug 4, 2008 7:39:40 PM
Some bike helmet and injury stats:
*a really honest link saying the Morton Salt Girl is the queen of that page, given the crappy data on this subject:
http://www.industrializedcyclist.com/lies.html
*national, awfully dated, but the concept remains intact:
http://www.helmets.org/stats.htm
*a number of graphs based on Oregon data -- the guy asks good questions:
http://cyclerslife.blogspot.com/2008/07/portland-bike-crash-data.html
I second the tenor of Kristin's story. As a motorcyclist who has had some really interesting wrecks of the slo-mo as well as the high speed freeway kind, I cannot say enough about the use of the right gear to fit the risks and vulnerabilities of a particular mode of transport. It's about ME, not about "the man" or anything else.
Also an avid cyclist, I've had my share of close calls where bike handling skills were the only reason my bike, my noggin and my ass were intact. I've always been grateful to know that I had a nice second cranium wrapped around me to safeguard me till I've hit alzheimer's where I can wreak some real havoc. Legacy has an excellent driver's education program for those who do not use seat belts -- the trauma nurse is a bit too screamy and dogmatically self-righteous for my taste, assuming every last asshole in that auditorium thinks like TR and company; however, the statistics and the visuals to help make it real are worth every grinding minute of self-righteous rant. These are auto-related head injuries they are discussing, but when is the last time you saw a cyclist get off with nothing but a shake while the driver somehow sustained the massive injury? Never yet for me.
There are folks on life sustaining systems and in vegetative care on the dollars of their families and you and me because protecting their brains responsibly was not part of their politics.
Posted by: Brian | Aug 4, 2008 7:40:40 PM
I agree that consenting adults should be allowed to make their own decisions so long as those choices do not infringe upon the rights of others. However, all bets are off if were going to expect government to take care of everyone from cradle to grave (see "Nanny State"). You can't have it both ways.
Posted by: Rose Wilde | Aug 4, 2008 8:41:09 PM
I think t.a. is onto something, although I wouldn't say it that way.
On a philosophical/societal level I think we are seeing an expression of a highly individualistic culture, which teaches us to value our separateness/individuality/personal choices far over and above those who might be affected by those.
But really, I think that's something of a myth, we are taught that Americans are individualistic, selfish even, and taught to value that "supposed" specialness of being American: "American Exceptionalism" we called it in my last college History class (History of American Thought an Society, with Thomas Haskell at Rice U -- a brilliant fellow).
The myth that we are so different and that difference makes us special, somehow unique, is what makes those foolish enough to pride themselves on being able to argue successfully for your right to throw your naked head into on-coming traffic feel as though somehow this is a fabulous part of our culture.
Come on, that's just plain silly.
People, even adults, are remarkably willing to be led by authority. Will that change all of a sudden if we don't pass one measly law? I think not. Evolution works, but very VERY slowly. Read a little about social behavior in humans, and your faith in individual decision making will be seriously shaken!
Meanwhile you've got a society of people who'd really much rather be told what to do (in various minor, every day decisions, mind you, not to kill each other) free to make many fool-hardy decisions, often because our frontal lobes might not yet be fully developed, our hormones often outfox our impulse control, or our tastebuds and pleasure receptors just are so much more influential in the moment then, say, my college history class. So what's wrong with a little direction to save the lives who many who haven't done the consdierate thing and bought life and health insurance to protect those left behind to clean up their mess?
I DO think humans as individual CAN make intelligent decisions (especially when presented with evidence in a sober, fair context, with social pressures to make responsible, sensible, pro-social decisions) -- but I think as a society we should stack the deck in favor of what would save lives (and cash) at NO cost to us. Unless you want to stake your argument on pure ideology, that is.
Posted by: Hank Williams III | Aug 4, 2008 9:41:00 PM
"but I saw something the other day that said something like of the 800 or so deaths among bicycle riders last year, 770 of them were not wearing helmets."
That's a meaningless statistic because it doesn't tell you how many of those would have been saved by a helmet. For example, neither of the two cyclists who died in the recent high-profile Portland fatalities would have been saved by a helmet.
As noted previously, the pro-nanny crowd quite tellingly never seems to be able to supply any statistics to back up their claims about this alleged plague in need of correction. And without any factual basis, it seems more like a solution in search of a problem.
"We are a society, therefore we bear one another's burdens. Wouldn't it be better if we took care of each other in that way? Wear your freaking helmet."
I already have a mom, but thanks. Maybe you should save it for your own children.
"Why should society foot the bill for the increased medical costs associated with a dangerous behavior"
Well, then I imagine you'd be for government mandates to deal with the No. 1 killer in America: heart disease. Get back to me when you've got everyone on a government-mandated healthy diet. Maybe after the long list of real killers in America is taken care of we can start with relatively minor factors like injuries caused by not wearing a bicycling helmet. Until then it's just bullshit.
Maybe with the new $4,400 desks in place, the legislators will be inspired to use their time more wisely and tackle issues of actual importance.
Mindin' other people's business seems to be high tone, well I've got all that I can do just a mindin' my own.
Maybe that's what Floyd figured out.
Posted by: Hank Williams III | Aug 4, 2008 9:46:45 PM
"I think t.a. is onto something"
I think you meant that T.A. is on something.
I'd say he's on a high horse and it's sailing on a boatload of self-righteousness.
Posted by: t.a. barnhart | Aug 4, 2008 9:56:03 PM
i may be on a high horse, "Hank", but at least i've got enough guts & honesty to identify myself when i post. hiding behind someone else's name is just lame.
Posted by: Steven Maurer | Aug 4, 2008 10:03:38 PM
What's going on here? Is this backwards day? Is blueoregon.com now nwrepublican.com?
Let me re-explain the Republican ethos to all of you: the "government" should never keep me from doing incredibly irresponsible things, but if I do it anyway and get hurt somehow, everyone else has to pay whatever it takes to make it all better(*). Socialize the risk, privatize the profit.
I personally don't mind that much if idiots want to be Darwin award winners, so if you really don't owe society anything, and want kill yourself riding a donor-cycle, well, then, let your organs be harvested as God clearly intended. But before you all go trying to imitate Jackass-the-movie, you need to pay up first.
(*) if I'm rich.
As a taxpayer, I've invested plenty in your education, on the idea that over your lifetime of employment, you'll pay it back. So if you're a typical strapping young fool of 19, you need to come up with 200K before you pull your wheelie. If you have kids, no doubt you expect a kinder and gentler society will take some minimal care of them if they're suddenly impoverished by your early demise, so you need to buy a nice 500K to 2 million no-helmet rider to your insurance, if you can buy one, so we're not all stuck with the bill.
And that's just me. I'm not counting the psychological trauma your children, spouse, and parents will have to suffer. While I admit courtroom money in "pain and suffering" can be overinflated, but before you show us all how you can do a handstand on the back of your Harley, maybe you ought to consult them for your replacement value in case you suddenly disappear.
It is Libertarian myth that there are no externalities, no effects beyond one's own personal choices. But Democrats see through that, and recall the wisdom of Thomas Donne, who in the sixteenth century, made the following observation about people asking whether, at the first clamor of the church's funeral bell, it was important:
"No man is an island. entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main; if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were; any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."
Posted by: Sam Geggy | Aug 4, 2008 10:08:09 PM
Yay for Steven! Sam loves Steven! Yeesh. I'd never'a' got it said.
Posted by: Greg D. | Aug 4, 2008 10:11:38 PM
I am a left leaning libertarian, but I am troubled by other peoples "partial approach" to personal responsibility. If there was a way to guaranty that a given person gave up ANY AND ALL rights to public or private benefits - for themselves, their partners, wives, children, next of kin, etc., when they are injured or killed due to a decision to not use available safety equipment, then I really don't care what they do to themselves, regardless of whether it is safe, sane or etc.
However, the reality is that if you are injured, your insurance company pays for your care (thus increasing rates for all policy holders) or if you are uninsured the state pays for your care under Medcaid (thus increasing general taxes) or the hospital treats you as a charity case (and spreads the cost over all patients thus increasing general medical bills) or if you are killed your spouse or children get survivor's benefits from Social Security (thus decreasing the pool of money available to pay retirement benefits) or at the very least Multnomah County gives you a free pauper's funeral.
If this was the 1850s where you could do what you want, suffer the consequences personally and not affect anybody else, then I say go to it. But I think those days are over by about 158 years.
Posted by: Kevin | Aug 4, 2008 10:13:40 PM
Tom: ...but I do not see the grounds for arguing that the state does not have legitimate power to regulate behavior on public highways.
Behavior which doesn't harm others? Where do we draw the line then? Maybe our children will decide that listening to Evangelical or Wiccan theological tracts should be outlawed on the public highways, for people's own good of course.
Posted by: Kevin | Aug 4, 2008 10:23:27 PM
Steven,
Having bareback anal sex with same-gender casual acquaintances is incredibly, insanely risky last I heard. Why should that private behavior be legal and not wearing helmets should be illegal?
Check how much money you and I are paying via our tax dollars for HIV/AIDS, both domestically and internationally. That issue fits your argument and yet nobody is suggesting that a true progressive would be in favor of making HIV/AIDS risk-associated acts illegal. Why do you suppose that is?
Posted by: Garrett | Aug 4, 2008 10:33:20 PM
Helmets are designed to withstand a 12mph crash. They are also only designed to help with an impact directly on the top of your head. They are also worthless after between 3-5 years of use. Look inside your helmet. It has a "born on" date. If it's older than 5 years you might as well not be wearing anything.
Unlike most people commenting here I know two reasons for 2 ghost bikes personally. Nick and Noah. You can find them in SE Portland. I'll send you the addresses if you want to check them out. One was wearing a helmet and one wasn't. Neither would have lived if they were wearing a helmet.
I wear a helmet but keep your fingers off telling me to wear a helmet.
Oh and T.A. you're such a self righteous idiot sometimes. You actually made a good argument and then I totally dismissed your view at the very end because you couldn't lay off 7 letters.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Aug 4, 2008 10:33:50 PM
But I could be convinced it could be a good State law. You'd have to prove to me that it costs me a lot of money to pay for the medical expenses of the bicycle riders that were injured for the lack of a helmet. If it costs me and everyone one of my neighbors lots of money to pay for those medical expenses, and it had better be provable, then and only then would I entertain consideration of a helmet law.
In other words, to paraphrase a cliche, your right to splatter your brains on the sidewalk ends at my wallet.
I think this is a pretty fascinating conversation, especially as someone who hasn't decided yet where I come down on this.
It certainly seems to me that the cost issue is the crux of it. But there's a problem in coming up with the data. Worse yet, there's a problem in defining what data we want...
(For example, do we count the reduced opportunities available to the children thrust into poverty as a result of a parent splattering their brains? I don't know. And even if I did, I have no idea how we could quantify that.)
Other than the wallet issue, there's a community vs. individual thing going on here.
Clearly, this question lies somewhere on the spectrum between "No, you can't go 150 mph through a school zone at 3 p.m." and "We're going to ban chocolate because it rots your teeth and makes you fat."
I just don't know where on that spectrum it lies - and where the question tips from a reasonable restriction to an unreasonable one.
Posted by: Sam Geggy | Aug 4, 2008 10:44:11 PM
I think the magic words are "public" vs "private". Not "cost to the public", but location of the activities. And, dear, check your epidemiology on HIV/AIDS -- the spike on the graph is no longer in the stereoptypified population only, though it does exist there indeed.
As to the efficacy of the egg-holder: are you advocating that because it is not designed to take 70 mph such as a motorcycle helmet might, it is of little use to advocate it? Are you saying that just because not all will be helped, then forget it entirely? Lemme tell you: the motorcycle crash that smithereened my bike unto unfixable was NOT the 73 mph slide on the wet rain ridges of the Richmond Bridge in rush hour -- it was the Laugh-In Trike Guy flop I pulled at a blushing slow and tottering speed. That bike was toast, and so was my helmet. For the sake of fact checking, I'll write back tomorrwo after I talk to a bike shop or two -- I think you are quoting a five dollar GI Joe's Action Figure hat for a five year old tyke. I'll mea culpa if I'm wrong.
This all-in/all-out thinking doesn't make sense to me. Thank god my life is made up of the grey areas. How many kids are really out there riding on the freeways and Beaverton Hillsdale at five pm? Ummm.... they get crushed on their own little neighborhood streets.
I just don't get it. Why are you all het up against a requirement that we put on the protective gear? You can get top of the line helmets of all shapes and sizes through Legacy Trauma Nurses every day of the working week, and they sell the lights and other things for nearly nothing too. I wish you would bitch about domestic violence, or lack of work for the youth who really want to work. Or something.
Posted by: Chuck Butcher | Aug 4, 2008 10:59:00 PM
When I drag race my car is fast enough that NHRA mandates a helmet, I don't mind. Unless something goes horribly wrong, I'm going to go in a straight line for a few seconds and then I can ditch the brain bucket. I also choose to go that fast.
I don't ride a bicycle, I get plenty of exercise, so I have little basis to say much. The helmets are dinky and weigh little. I am not overly impressed by the argument for mandating them.
Motor cycle helmets are a bit different deal. I loath the weight and obstruction of my hearing and vision. I find all three to be real issues. The weight almost guarantees a neck injury, your neck is made for the weight of your head and a bit of abuse. The vision and hearing problems do contribute to accidents, how much is debatable as are all motorcycle helmet statistics. I rode a lot of miles in a non-helmet state, I chose to wear one in some conditions, mostly not. I wore leathers and gloves in most conditions to keep my hide on me, something you will lose in almost any kind of crash.
There are a lot of competing agendas going on regarding helmets, manufactureres have a very real stake in mandates. Many people who advocate madates have no experience in the issue and frankly their opinions being based on not much are worth about as much. You may notice how little I had to say about bicycles helmets.
Posted by: Steven Maurer | Aug 4, 2008 11:13:45 PM
Kevin: Having bareback anal sex with same-gender casual acquaintances is incredibly, insanely risky last I heard. Why should that private behavior be legal and not wearing helmets should be illegal?
You're talking to the wrong guy about this one, because for at least two decades, I've advocated mandatory AIDS testing. I am by no means the only Democrat to do so. The truth of the matter is that if we had done this 2 decades ago, there would be millions more people, both hetrosexual and homosexual, alive today.
But to answer your question honestly, the reason why this kind of testing is not done is because it's: A) expensive, B) difficult to police, C) often confused with policing sex (about as futile a government policy as ever imagined), and D) the political power of idiots who think they're immortal.
To borrow Barack Obama's words about war a bit, I'm not against all invasive government policies, I'm against foolish invasive government policies. Because of a relative handful of deaths on 9/11, we're doing all sorts of crazy things that don't make us one bit safer. (I'm just waiting for the "body cavity bomber" who will make us all proctology exam to get on an airplane.) But to save literally millions of people from dying, we do absolutely nothing.
All I can conclude is that AIDS exists in the wild because millions of Americans, both liberal and conservative, are adamantly opposed to our nation taking the actions that we know would eradicate it.
Posted by: joel dan walls | Aug 4, 2008 11:57:53 PM
I am guessing from the first comment in this thread, by Mr Ryan, that he wants to ride his motorcycle unencumbered by a helmet. Fine. I just want him first to sign a legally binding document absolving the taxpayers of Oregon of all responsibility for his medical bills if he winds up with a head injury after a wreck. Let the hospital repo his house and everything else he owns, let his family be kicked out, and let his progeny be cursed to the 6th generation :-) Just as long as I'm not footing the bill. Now there's small-L libertarianism for you.
The state requires insurance, right? A helmet is a sort of insurance.
Driving is a privilege, not a right. US courts decided that a long time ago.
Finally, as a parent, you're damn right that my kids wear bike helmets...as do I. Too bad it took me having a helmet-less crash, and getting a trip to the hospital with a concusion and lacerations, to learn this lesson.
Posted by: jeff | Aug 5, 2008 2:10:07 AM
Carla: My reaction and why it hit such a nerve for so many other Oregonians is a testament, I think, to the libertarian sensibility that runs wide through our state. Notice I don't mean "Libertarian", as in the Party. I use that label to infer the idea of the "leave me alone" ethos that tends to be an intregal part of what we're about in the west. As a rule, the western U.S. seems to be a region whose citizens have a strong preference for government to remain out of their personal decisions.
jk: Of course the "leave me alone" ethos is at the very heart of the Libertarian party ALONG WITH equal rights for all which leads to “in return, I’ll leave you alone.”
I do hope that you will consider joining the real freedom loving party - the Libertarians. They are pro-choice on just about everything.
Carla: What we (in general terms, of course) are opposed to is being told that we can't live the way we like--as long as we're not harming anyone else.
JK: Where are you on seat belts?
Thanks
JK
Posted by: carla axtman | Aug 5, 2008 8:06:45 AM
JK: Where are you on seat belts?
Thanks
JK
I wear one. But I do not like the government mandating it.
And I won't be joining the Libertarian Party because I don't believe in the economic principles they espouse.
Posted by: Rose Wilde | Aug 5, 2008 8:13:54 AM
Wow, this conversation has gotten very interesting!
Hats off to Steve Maurer, who I think deserves a prize for most articulately explaining the political/philosophical position I was trying to get at.
It isn't so simple as "your rights end at my wallet" Kari, though that is perhaps the obvious simplification. I don't really care about whether we have a helmet law or not -- my point is that progressive Oregonians really need to examine our libertarian streak to understand exactly where it plays into the hands of conservative Republicans.
My hubby and I debated this last night (silly me, he can barely tolerate seat belts after all) but when it came down to it, his position wasn't really about whether he has the right not to wear a helmet, but rather with law enforcement being so broken, racially/economically oppressive, politicized, and corrupt (in his point of view) he really doesn't think giving cops one more reason to detain citizens is worth the risk of infringing civil liberties. That perspective is one we should really consider, since he surely isn't the only progressive who feels that way.
Every so often he gets me. (Don't tell -- he doesn't read BO!)
Posted by: Hank Williams III | Aug 5, 2008 8:14:57 AM
As lame as being a self-righteous has who wants to tell others how to live?
It's a toss up.
As a taxpayer, I've invested plenty in your education, on the idea that over your lifetime of employment, you'll pay it back.
When did I become your indentured servant, Steven? You make a comment like that and then accuse others of being stupid? Amazing.
You don't own me. None of you. Stop trying and mind your own business. Is that so fucking hard to understand you nosy nellies.
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: Pat Ryan | Aug 4, 2008 2:32:10 PM
I'm not sure from where this ethos began. Perhaps it was from all of those independent-minded pioneers who ventured from parts east on the continent
I'm guessing the ethos began right at about the time a bunch of bicycle riding Portland liberals came to understand that their ox would now be gored by Prozanzki and the rest of his legislative nannycrat buddies.
Just guessing, but there wasn't much of an outcry from the latest victims of Mother Oregon when motorcyclists were repeatedly thrown under the bus starting back in the '70s and '80s and continuing on to the present.