NationStates Jolt Archive

Starting Wednesday in New Jersey, all bikers, skaters, and boarders under 17 must wear a helmet. What do you think? I think it is good because it really isn't hard or detrimental to wear a helmet and it can be life or death. Also, they aren't really that ugly. Please stand by for poll.

I never used to wear a helmet when I was kid, but then only people who jumped out of airplanes wore helmets and fat lot of good it would do them when they went splat.

As a cyclist, I grumbled about having to wear a helmet when laws were introduced in British Columbia but in traffic I’d wear one all the time in the city. Especially since it’s where I mount my mirror (those handlebar mirrors are vibrating too much and everything is usually too blurred to see anything). I’ve never needed the helmet though. My big crashes have always resulted in not a single scratch on the helmet or head.

I figure the one time I don't wear it, I'll hit my head on a tree...damn tree!

Don't own one, so I don't wear one... I guess I could wear my lacrosse helmet...

I never wore one as a kid and looking back, I guess I was lucky.

I have my kids wear them-I live in NJ and it hasnt been a law yet-just a good idea.

Not wearing a relatively cheap form of protection is a stupid reason for any kid to have a preventable injury impair him. The helmets they make these days look cool anyway.

don't wear helmets... only wore a helmet when I played league sports. Will probably evenetually have to wear a helmet when I get my motorcycle running....

I go mountain biking and I will never go out with out it - I landed on my helmet a few times and it definitely helped

Shrapnel kills!

Always remember to wear your helmet!

I love laws like this. One only need track the bill to find the insurance lobby and their flunkie politicians who profit from them. Makes them very easy to identify.

I love laws like this. One only need track the bill to find the insurance lobby and their flunkie politicians who profit from them. Makes them very easy to identify.

That could very well be true. That does not change the fact that wearing a good helmet reduces the risk of injury while riding a bicycle, skateboard, or other hpv.

That could very well be true. That does not change the fact that wearing a good helmet reduces the risk of injury while riding a bicycle, skateboard, or other hpv.

Without a doubt helmets have their place in the world, but legislation regulating personal choices for the purpose of profit, or making others conform to the will of a select group do not. Jumping on bandwagons such as this are the surest way to the loss of all freedom. It simply is not the governments job or right to impose such nonsense on a population.

Without a doubt helmets have their place in the world, but legislation regulating personal choices for the purpose of profit, or making others conform to the will of a select group do not. Jumping on bandwagons such as this are the surest way to the loss of all freedom. It simply is not the governments job or right to impose such nonsense on a population.

It's just for those under 17 right? Simply trying to keep our children from injuring themselves. When you become an adult you can be as foolish as you want on this.

Starting Wednesday in New Jersey, all bikers, skaters, and boarders under 17 must wear a helmet. What do you think? I think it is good because it really isn't hard or detrimental to wear a helmet and it can be life or death. Also, they aren't really that ugly. Please stand by for poll.

there is something seriously flawed when a big argument about a subject is that it is ugly. especially something that can save your life.

edit - i am also kind of annoyed that we seem to need our government to tell us how to protect our self, i guess if they have to pass laws like this there would be no one to blame but our selves after a hurricane tears our below sea level city apart, and i dont get my house fixed for free

It's just for those under 17 right? Simply trying to keep our children from injuring themselves. When you become an adult you can be as foolish as you want on this.

Foolish is to allow government the right to decide how your children are raised. Life is full of accidents and unfortunate incidents that serve to teach the young what their limits and vurnabilities are. Bumps, bruises and sometimes very sad injuries are the end result. What would be more sad is turning your children over to the will of government, thus ensuring a truely weak and feable minded future generation.
Useful idiots that buy into the "for the sake of the children" are tools for those that would make sheep of each and every one of us. People seriously need to wake up and realize that the people behind this sort of legislation have a much more sinsister objective in mind, and protecting children has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Foolish is to allow government the right to decide how your children are raised. Life is full of accidents and unfortunate incidents that serve to teach the young what their limits and vurnabilities are. Bumps, bruises and sometimes very sad injuries are the end result. What would be more sad is turning your children over to the will of government, thus ensuring a truely weak and feable minded future generation.
Useful idiots that buy into the "for the sake of the children" are tools for those that would make sheep of each and every one of us. People seriously need to wake up and realize that the people behind this sort of legislation have a much more sinsister objective in mind, and protecting children has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Parents should be forcing their children to wear helmets anyway, just as they should be wearing seatbelts in cars. We need some basic laws to try and keep children safe even if there are ulterior motives. Besides I don't see anything overboard yet with the government telling you how to raise your kids. Just common sense stuff.

Parents should be forcing their children to wear helmets anyway, just as they should be wearing seatbelts in cars. We need some basic laws to try and keep children safe even if there are ulterior motives. Besides I don't see anything overboard yet with the government telling you how to raise your kids. Just common sense stuff.

Maybe they should, maybe they shouldn't. Either way, it is not your right or the right of government to dictate what limits, restrictions, risks or precautions parents take with their own children. They do not belong to you or the government and neither you or the government are responsible for the person they become.
If you want seatbelts, fine, legislate that they be avaliable when manufactured. You want helmunts, legislate they be included in the cost of a new motorcycle, bike, skateboard or Nike Air Tennis shoes. You however cross the line in your rights when you take it upon yourself to demand under penalty of the Nanny state and Carrie Nation wannbe's that the individual must use them because you say it is the smart thing to do.
What makes it worse is that you recognize the fact that there are ulterior motives involved behind this sort of legislation, yet you endorse it anyway because the outcome meets your vision for someone else's well being. Might I ask just who or where you obtained this right to dictate how others live their life?
Personally, I find your viewpoint somewhat akin to that of religious zealots, with a governmental stamp of approval.

Well seeing as children are "our future" I wouldn't mind a future run by people without serious head injuries.

Personally I've always worn one when riding bikes. When snowboarding I'll only where it if it's enforced.

Libertarian Garbage and Hot Air
I hate libertarians...

Don't libertarians think the government should only be there to protect us?

It is not the government's place to tell you what to do and what not to do. Why should the government have control over you like that? By not wearing a helmet, you are only endangering yourself. If the government can tell you do that, why can't it tell you to not drink or smoke? Or to walk with kneepads on at all times, because who knows when you're going to slip or fall? If they choose to not wear helmets and they fall, the problem will sort itself out through natural selection. :)

I have no problem with the idea of a law mandating that children must wear helmets. There is already too much of a strain on the health system, and the significant lessening of head injuries would help to ease this strain.

It is not the government's place to tell you what to do and what not to do. Why should the government have control over you like that? By not wearing a helmet, you are only endangering yourself. If the government can tell you do that, why can't it tell you to not drink or smoke? Or to walk with kneepads on at all times, because who knows when you're going to slip or fall? If they choose to not wear helmets and they fall, the problem will sort itself out through natural selection. :)
You don't usually die if you slip and fall, but you are likely to die if you smoke, drink, or ride a bike with no helmet. People are irresponsible and kill themselves. Someone or something needs to help us.

Mmh. Good question. I don't know how I'd react if they made wearing helmets for bicyclists the law here.

I do know that the human skull is only 5mm thick - so that's not much to contain your precious brain matter. Then again, when I started riding my bike decades ago, the only kids who wore helmets were those, well... Let's just say they fell down even without a bike and the early bike helmets looked like shit.

But I'm glad to see today's children wear protective gear as a completely normal thing. Hell, once I got kids they will be wearing those darn helmets, nomatter how stupid they look like :D

So, yeah, safety first. (Are there bike-beer-helmets?)

You don't usually die if you slip and fall, but you are likely to die if you smoke, drink, or ride a bike with no helmet. People are irresponsible and kill themselves. Someone or something needs to help us.

So are you saying we should ban drinking and smoking as well as not wearing a helmet? What about skydiving and bungee jumping?

So are you saying we should ban drinking and smoking as well as not wearing a helmet? What about skydiving and bungee jumping?
Yes. Yes. No. No.

Either way, it is not your right or the right of government to dictate what limits, restrictions, risks or precautions parents take with their own children.


This statement seems to consider children as nothing more than a simple form of property. Children are human beings, and human beings are not property. Human beings also possess certain rights and it is the protection and enforcement of these rights that serves as the legitimate purpose of government. This role is especially vital for those who are of insufficient age to assert such protection on their own in any meaningful or effective way.

So, there is no limit as to what kind of danger parents can expose their children to? I consider myself a libertarian and I also tend to be highly suspicious of calls for increased government regulation. However, this claim that appears to conclude that parents can take whatever "risk" they want regarding their own children does not ring true to me.

I think my choice of political party (well known for its extremely strong opposition to government regulation) actually takes a remarkably sane position regarding this issue:

"Families and households are private institutions, which should be free from government intrusion and interference. Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs, without interference by government -- unless they are abusing the children. Because parents have these rights, a child may not be able to fully exercise his or her rights in the context of family life. However, children always have the right to establish their maturity by assuming administration and protection of their own rights, ending dependency upon their parents or other guardians, and assuming all responsibilities of adulthood. A child is a human being and, as such, deserves to be treated justly.

"Parents have no right to abandon or recklessly endanger their children. Whenever they are unable or unwilling to raise their children, they have the obligation to find other person(s) willing to assume guardianship.

"...We recognize that the determination of child abuse can be very difficult. Only local courts should be empowered to remove a child from his or her home, with the consent of the community. This is not meant to preclude appropriate action when a child is in immediate physical danger."
-- Families and Children. National Platform of the Libertarian Party, Adopted in Convention, May 2004, Atlanta Georgia. http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml#famichil

Even the most zealously anti-government political party I know of recognizes the right of the community (including, at some level, government) to "dictate what limits, restrictions, risks or precautions parents take with their own children."


What makes it worse is that you recognize the fact that there are ulterior motives involved behind this sort of legislation, yet you endorse it anyway because the outcome meets your vision for someone else's well being.


The existance of ulterior motives behind someone's support does not necessarily demonstrate that the end result is unjust.


Might I ask just who or where you obtained this right to dictate how others live their life?


The phenomenon is typically called "civilization." I would personally prefer that the "dictating" be kept to a minimum, however, I also recognize the need for rules where the interests of individuals tend to collide (in this case, the parents right to raise their children vs. keeping a child who doesn't know any better out of the neurosurgery ward).

I hate libertarians...

Don't libertarians think the government should only be there to protect us?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10521781&postcount=25