Another law to sap liberty
Published: July 15, 2008
In a classic short story by Nathaniel Hawthorne, a man of science seeks to enhance his wife’s beauty by removing from her cheek a singular imperfection, an offending birthmark. He succeeds, but the remedy is a poison. Liberalism is Hawthorne’s Alymer and the people his Georgiana. The former intends nobly to rescue the latter from imperfection. The cure saves but kills, liberty first, the mind second and then the spirit.
Taxes and laws are toxins, not in their existence, for surely both are needed, but in their excess. A proposal to require moped riders in Waynesboro to wear helmets is an example. As such initiatives almost invariably are, this one in its current incarnation was provoked by tragedy. A crash on the Fourth of July weekend killed a moped rider. So government must intervene.
The council on July 28 will consider an ordinance that would require all moped riders and bicycle riders younger than 14 to wear helmets. State law already requires this of motorcycle riders. Opponents of motorcycle restrictions here and elsewhere are many and well organized in comparison, say, to those among America’s 200 million licensed drivers who chafe at being required to wear seatbelts.
This explains why some states allow motorcyclists the freedom of feeling the wind in their hair while straddling two wheels on open highway and none allow automobile drivers freedom from safety restraint. The breakthrough for such groups as the American Brotherhood Against Totalitarian Enactments (ABATE) and the Motorcycle Riders Federation came in 1976, when the federal government ceased linking highway money to helmet laws.
These groups sometimes attempt the impossible: reasonable arguments against wearing helmets. Federal statistics, credible studies and logic will not allow this. The number of motorcycle deaths more than doubled between 1996 and 2006 to 4,810. During that period, many states relaxed helmet laws and helmet use declined.
But the sensibility of wearing helmets is not the point. At issue is whether individuals ought to be given liberty to decide matters of personal safety for themselves. Liberty naturally entails giving one leave to think and behave badly, so long as in the act of so doing one does not infringe upon the liberties of others. If we lack freedom to decide poorly then we shall lack freedom to decide well or at all.
Liberalism recognizes the world as an imperfect place and seeks to perfect it by enacting laws to shield people from themselves. Conservatism recognizes the world as an imperfect place and knows it shall remain so, but sees capacity in the individual and seeks to give him liberty to determine how he should live.
That the council desires to act in response to a loss of life on Waynesboro’s streets is understandable and commendable. We hope moped riders consider for themselves the wise option of wearing helmets when they ride. But the decision ought not to be coerced.
Attempts at perfection in the form of additional laws have eaten liberty to a honeycomb. A city helmet law would nibble away more in a typical fashion, tainting liberty’s beauty while seeking to remove a flaw in those who use their freedom to think wrongly.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
Obviously my point to be over the top was missed because your points “it’s me” is exactly why it needs to be the law that helmets be worn. If not, then we (tax payers) end up footing the bill for the idiots who choose not to and suffer head injuries be it through insurance rates increasing for all of us, or through tax dollars that support places like UVA. People could argue forever whether they actually save lives, but if nothing else they do a better job of absorbing the impact than the skull does.
A waiver won’t work. When someone is brought to the ER following a horrific wreck, will it be SOP to check with the city records department to see if he’s signed a waiver? And as far as forfeiting all assets, including the home, are any of us willing to evict the wife and children of the dolt who chose not to wear a helmet? Are we willing to toss them out on the street?
Agreed Chris Graham. As a motorcyclist for over 35 years I am a BIG helmet advocate. In fact, the one serious crash I had the helmet truly saved my life. However, here is my solution: if someone chooses not to wear one they need to sign a release form that absolves us (the public) from any financial obligation to their medical care, etc. should they suffer a head trauma while riding. “It should also include language that says they will forfeit any and all assets to pay for any costs incured from said injury including their home, car, etc. I do not believe imposing a helmet law is the right thing, but make those who choose not to wear one responsible for their own actions rather than expecting us to pay for their care.
And while we’re at it, those compulsory school-attendance laws are an anachronism, too.
We don’t need no education. Teacher, leave those kids alone.
Advertisement