III: Anti-Jackass laws

[chris]

Third question:

Should a society have the right to protect someone from their own behavior (assuming that the behavior does not affect anyone else)?

[kyle]

I think this is a good question. It is something I struggle with. Morally, I think that suicide, euthanasia, and abortion are all wrong. Legally, I think I think that they should all be permitted...most of the time.

I'm trying to think in abstracts, but one law that fits right into this topic is motorcycle helmets and seat belts. If somebody wants to roll the dice..let them. I think that law enforcement could find something better to do than pull people over for not wearing their seat-belt. Is that ticket still $30? That's what it was in 2000.

I think if I had to set up an amendment it would be this:

The government shall not create any law preventing citizens from doing anything that will not directly affect or cause burden upon this nation or it's citizens...Or something like that.

[Tyler]

Yes. People are not the same throughout our lives. When we tell a person they have to wear a helmet, we are protecting their future-self from their present-self. That's how we justify Euthanasia also. It's ok only insofar as there is no future-self to protect. Also, you can't ask medical personnel not to treat someone because that person was stupid. You'd have to have a trial before each and every admission to the ER to establish stupidity.

[Jeff]

This is not my official post on this topic (WTF am I talking about!?! I'm such a pompous windbag), but I can say a few things right off the bat. Many of the anti-jackass laws cover areas in which the government has a clear interest. For example, seatbelt and helmet laws can be justified by noting the degree to which the government picks up the tab for these accidents and their long term effects. Maybe Tyler or Tammy can help me out with some specific data, but I'm sure it's significant.

I get antsy about paternalism when the route to a legitimate governmental interest is difficult or impossible to determine. For example, I don't know of any substantive reason to ban the chronic. The simple fact that some people who engage in a practice hurt themselves by doing so is not a legitimate governmental interest. If users were hurting other people instead of staring at TV static, that would be a different story. In fact, it would be the story of alcohol.

[chris]

I've been thinking about this little ethical dilemma for a week or so, and I really haven't reached any satisfying conclusion. It really comes down to responsibility. You can do whatever you want to yourself, but if your choices leave you up shit's creek, you can't expect others to foot the bill. I'm reminded of a story a couple of years ago about a couple of hikers out west who ignored warnings and hiked into a dangerous area. When they had to be rescued, they were forced to pay for the cost of the rescue. Seemed justified, but how do you make that decision about what individual consequences are worth society fixing and which aren't?

And it kind of goes right back to the whole health care thing -- the negative aspect of socializing it is that you have to treat everybody for everything. Or do you? Yeah, marijuana doesn't have any major long-term effects, but what about smoking? How can we sit and watch people knowingly poison themselves and then be expected to pay for the lung cancer they wind up with? And then we're back to the question: how can we differentiate what's worth treating and what's not? Who makes the decision?

Tyler's "future-self" take on it is compelling, but awfully utilitarian. Why does that stick in my craw so?

[Tyler]

Here's a worse example, and a real one.
Guy rides a bicycle too fast around his neighborhood and plows into the back of a car. He goes over the handlebars, breaks his neck, and only through absolute luck is he not paralyzed for the rest of his life.
One year later, within a week of the anniversary of the previous accident, he is riding his bike too fast through the same neighborhood, hits the same car, goes over the same handlebars, breaks the same neck, and is paralyzed for life. He can't move his arms or legs.

Don't look at it from the perspective of the person. Look at it from the perspective of the person that greets him at the door of the emergency room. Do you treat him or let him die?
You treat him.

As a society it is harmful to ourselves and our way of life to allow others to suffer, even if they deserve it. If a child burns his hand after you tell him not to, you don't punish the child, you help him and console him through his pain. These people distinguish themselves by proving in very startling ways that they are incapable of functioning under their own control. The reason this issue is so disturbing to everyone and that it is hard to bring to a logical conclusion is that the only logical conclusion is that our tradition of giving everyone free reign over their own lives at 18 is idiocy. The idea that every man and woman at 18 suddenly becomes capable of running their own lives is a pipe dream that is a prime cause of so many of our societal ills. The idea of personal freedom being available for all is not a viable stance. People should have to earn their personal freedoms, or there at least needs to be a mechanism by which we take those freedoms away as a response to demonstrable negligence. This also needs to be something far shy of jail. We need a graduated system by which people can be socialized and trained either voluntarily or involuntarily that provides supervision and assistance to counteract whatever idiocy made them this way in the first place.
Public schools should be this place, providing the socialization prior to the age of reckoning, but years of governmental neglect has left them ineffectual, and left our nation desperately needing a post-secondary education that covers "not killing yourself" as a major.

[chris]

Kind of like Appalachian Emergency Room on Saturday Night Live. "You won't believe what I got up there this time!"

[Billy Idol]

Helmet laws are controversial for several reasons. The biggest one I can think of offhand involves road blindness. Bikers are not fools. We know that the bike can be dangerous, even deadly. Why do you think we wear leathers? It's to minimize injury in case some joker crashes into us or, heaven forbid, we have to lay the bike down on some God-forsaken patch of gravel. And most of us who don't wear helmets aren't just doing it to have the wind blow through our luxiously silky locks. No, it's the fact that a great many commercially available helmets restrict vision. Unimpeded vision is crucial on a bike. Yes, I know it's crucial in a car, too. But it's different when you ride, because your very being has to be more in tune with the road--not just the curves and bumps, but also the sound and feel of the engine, the smell of oilslicks, and simple awareness of what dangers lay out there. Some dangers may be wear and tear on the road, some may be inatentive drivers, whatever. Keen awareness of other travellers and the conditions of travel are just so important. Helmets dim that finely honed edge only slightly. But there's absolutely no margin for error here, not when automobiles and trucks are everywhere, and most drivers seem to take no notice of bikes. If it comes down to crucial seconds, I don't want to be in a position where I can't immediately turn my head to see what's over my shoulder. Even if that means that the next accident I do have turns out to be my last. I trust my skills, and have confidence in my reaction speed. Besides, the protection offered by a helmet in a really rotten crash can be slim to none. And just ask any lifelong rider: They all know someone whose neck was snapped in an otherwise minor crash by a poorly designed helmet. So, am I a jackass? That's up for grabs. But I'll make my rebel yell from the behind the bars of a Tri-ton from now to the day I die!

[Jeff]

Hey Billy,

I don’t doubt your skillz, but most of the people riding today don’t share them. For most riders wearing a helmet will benefit them and benefit society as well. Here are some statistics that I found around the net (see especially www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/pedbimot/motorcycle ):

1. In 1997, Texas dropped its helmet requirement for riders 21 and older who are insured or have training. Helmet use dropped from 97 per cent to 66 per cent in the next year, and deaths went up by one-third. Between 1996 and 2000, that state saw its motorcycle fatality rate rise from 74 to 120 per 100,000 vehicle registrations. (In states with helmet laws the rate increased from 46 to 56 per 100,000 in the same period.)

2. In the late 1990s, Kentucky and Louisiana repealed their universal motorcycle helmet laws. Statewide observational surveys showed that helmet use decreased from nearly full compliance to the 50 per cent range without the laws. The rate of motorcyclist fatalities per 10,000 registered motorcycles increased by 37 per cent in Kentucky and 75 per cent in Louisiana. Injuries also increased. The experience in Kentucky and Louisiana reflects the experience in Arkansas, Florida and Texas, the other states that have repealed universal laws in recent years, leaving little doubt that such repeals result in more deaths.

The conclusion of DOT HS 809 530 (“Evaluation of the Repeal of Motorcycle Helmet Laws in Kentucky and Louisiana”) in October of 2003 was that “the weight of the evidence is that helmets reduce injury severity, that repeal of helmet laws decreases helmet use, and that states that repeal universal helmet laws experience increased fatalities and injuries. There is also evidence that serious head injuries increase and that treatment costs rise. Conversely, states that have adopted or reenacted universal laws have experienced declines in motorcyclist fatalities and injuries.”

If motorcycle accidents only affected the individual bikers involved then the state would not have a legitimate interest here...or at least it would be much harder to justify. But they don’t, so this is not a case of simple governmental paternalism. Frequently the state picks up the medical bills and has to pay unemployment and disability benefits to either the injured or his or her family. If a person is insured, then his costs are still distributed over a large group of people who must pay higher premiums for their insurance. The report “Costs of Injuries Resulting from Motorcycle Crashes: A Literature Review” ( www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/pedbimot/motorcycle/Motorcycle_HTML/index.html ) shows exactly how costly motorcycle injuries are and why the state has a vested interest in enacting helmet laws.

Keep on cruisin’ on, easy rider! But even though you have the skillz to ride without a helmet, most road warriors don’t. You can bet some states will always require them, however controversial this may be.

Jeff

[chris]

So... do we make people who didn't wear a helmet pay for their own head injuries? Would that solve the problem?

[Tyler]

We don't allow them to ride motorcycles.
Proof you can't responsibly function at an activity = loss of the capacity to do that activity.

[Jeff]

chris said:

So... do we make people who didn't wear a helmet pay for their own head injuries? Would that solve the problem?

Not a viable option since almost no one can drop the $200,000+ the average motorcycle crash (with injury) costs. And keep in mind this estimate is probably low since there still needs to be more work done on long-term costs, e.g., disability, unemployment, lost wages, and long-term family related costs.

The best solution is prevention or outright restriction as Tyler suggests. I would err on the side of freedom here and go with prevention as the state response. (I haven't made this sufficiently clear, but I see the widespread distribution of freedom as the best way for society to aid in the happiness of its citizens. But sometimes freedom works against happiness, as is frequent in the cases we are now discussing.)

PS What if the accident was not the fault of the unhelmeted cyclist? Driving home from Thanksgiving with the Whetsells we saw a truck force 5 bikers off the road. The truck just came up from behind them and didn't slow at all. He just went straight through the pack. If those bikers had not been on their game there would have been an injury and it wouldn't have been their fault. None were wearing helmets.

[chris]

news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060210/ap_on_he_me/polygamy_birth_defects

People insist on fucking their cousins, and the state gets saddled with the costs. Fair?

[Jeff]

I have very little sympathy for these vile people trying to preserve the "royal blood." My heart does go out to the poor creatures they brought into the world. I think this is a great case for an anti-jackass law that restricted whom one can marry. (Don't most states have these on the books already?) And clearly there is a direct line of argument in such cases to a legitimate government interest.

[chris]

Halfway into the story....

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4854306.stm

"Also, if you injure yourself, then the government is going to pay for you to not only get back on your feet, but they're going to rehabilitate you and get you back into the workplace as well.

[wrikkus]

Yet another benefit of socialized medicine. You can be as stupid as you wish. The article didn't make it sound as if this was very dangerous at all. I also looked at the Zorb™ site and the construction of the ball looks really sound. After 100,000 customers no one has even thrown up in the thing. Which I would have thought would be more likely to happen than say a broken bone. And incase any of you are itching to Zorb soon, there's one coming to a continent near you. In spring 2006 (hey that's now) Smoky Mountain Zorbing will be open for business. But bring your Visa card because this shit ain't cheep.

[chris]

Any thoughts on the new Massachusetts model of health insurance? It was signed into law yesterday, although our dear governor Romney yanked out the tiny teeth the bill had for enforcement (fining businesses for not insuring their employees).

www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/04/13/massachusetts_governor_signs_health_bill_with_vetoes/

[Tyler]

We have to decide weither we are responsible for the welfare of our fellow man. If we are, than this sort of thing is inevitable. If we aren't, then it's horribly unfair.