December 26th, 2011
Senate Bill S1046 has been referred to the South Carolina Senate’s Transportation Committee. This bill would effectively change the age limit for mandatory helmet use from those under the age of 21 to all riders by striking the age limit from the current law. (South Carolina Section 56-5-3660 of the 1976 Code)
The bill should be coming up for a vote in 2012. American Bikers Against Totalitarian Enactments of South Carolina (ABATE of SC) is currently lobbying to defeat the bill in the congress. They are planning a rally at the South Carolina Statehouse on January 10, 2012 starting at 9:00 am.
Senator Ralph Anderson, (D – Greenville) is the sponsor of the legislation. In a statement, Anderson says, “They say it’s unconstitutional, but if this is, then so is the seat belt law.”
Doesn't this illustrate the slippery slope theory fairly well? We know a lot of people also die of head injuries in car crashes. Does it logically follow that besides seat belts, helmets should also be mandated for all vehicle passengers, including automobiles, at all times? Lives would be saved, but at what cost to freedom?
[ABATESC | Clutch and Chrome]
8 comments on "New helmet law is proposed for South Carolina"
The question of mandatory helmets has been around for some time. My take is that when it comes to taking chances, it should be up to the individual to make that decision.
But then that brings up two other points. First is who is going to pay for the extra care needed for someone suffering head trauma after an accident? Is this going to rest on the resources of the people who have insurance and have to pay extra premiums and/or the largesse of the government (which ultimately means the taxpayers)? And then, who will pay for the upkeep of the family survivors if the victim is the sole breadwinner?
In the case of serious injury there are usually multiple losers. My response here is not an answer as I don't know that there is a perfect answer. The closest I can think is a policy of that no personal insurance--no care after immediate emergency.
RonK, I have the exact same feelings on the issue. I'm all for a person's individual rights and freedom to choose whether or not they wear a helmet...but just like you stated if they have a traumatic head injury that leaves them incapable of caring for themselves or their family the burden of that responsibility falls on the rest of us through higher insurance premiums or increased taxes.
The only state I ever lived in that took a somewhat unique approach to this was Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania allows motorcyclists to ride without a helmet. However, in PA, whenever you get a traffic citation you pay into a CAT fund (catastrophic injury fund). This is basically a tax on motorists who break traffic laws, and they use the funds to pay for uninsured or under-insured individuals who require more care.
I think the only way we can ever get out of the hole the whole country is in right now is to get most of the old guard politicians out and those who don't believe that gov't will solve all problems and should run everything so that Nanny-State will take care of everybody.
Reminds me of the people who's homes have burned down because they never paid the $75. into the fire protection fund. Then they cried because the firemen just stood by. Of course then they wanted to pay. I think: You don't pay your money, you take your chances.
I'm against mandatory helmet laws. I think that keeping morons from killing themselves increases the number of idiots who vote, and that's bad for the country.
To me helmet laws are like seat belt laws. They are only there to save the stupid. Do I think the benefits of wearing a seat-belt or helmet outweigh the cons? YOU BETCHA! And I wear both most of the time. But, who the fark am I to force my thoughts/beliefs onto others?
This country was started on the freedom to choose. But with each new NANNY law we create our freedom to choose is lessened. Our govt was not established to save us from ourselves. That is what religion and death are for.
I think that certain freedoms aren't allowed to be granted until a certain age. And most of them it is 18. Just like when you vote, join the military, own land.
Personally, I think the drinking age should be lowered to 18. We are making it soooo taboo that its cool to drink when you can. This is why we have such a problem with binge drinking in this country.
Prohibition of anything doesn't work!
(Within reason folks. I am not saying murder should be legalized. Although justifiable homicide should on the books.)
** steps off soap box **
the difference is that a seatbelt can help the driver stay in control of a vehicle, keeping a small accident from becoming a larger accident. So I don't think it's exactly the same, the seat belt law protects everyone on the road, not just the victim of the initial crash.
If the gubment can say "You must wear a helmet because it's safer..." now what will they say 20 years from now???? "Motorcycles are dangerous, therefore they are now banned from use on public roadways!!!"
This Nanny state **** really pisses me off....
I AM THE GUBBERMENT! THOU SHALL LISTEN TO ME!
Do not look at the imbeciles behind the curtains.