Previously the argument for not restricting tobacco use and advertising was that smokers died earlier and therefore we save the taxpayer/consumer money by allowing them to smoke. As it turns out, that's not the case. It actually costs more to keep smokers alive after they get sick. Burden upon society.
While I'm not a doctor nor a lawyer (although I've played both parts on occasion) I would wager that the doctors you mention see cases where during helmet use they see anecdotally cases where it would appear that lack of a helmet would have ended the life of the victim and therefore have been less of a burden on society. The true picture is probably that over all, head injuries from non-use of helmets places a far greater burden on society than these three doctors could even imagine. And, I can produce several health care providers (doctors and nurses) who would back this up. Yes, there are many inherently dangerous activities that should be and are (including UF football) regulated vigorously. No, I don't think there should be a more compelling reason than that. Do you use seatbelts? The burden on society that non-use of seatbelts caused has been reduced greatly. If I had time, I could think of many more examples. But I think you get the picture. Oliver Barry CRS,GRI Real Estate Broker Bob Parks Realty 1517 Hunt Club Blvd Gallatin TN 37066 Phone: 615-826-4040 Fax: 615-822-2027 Mobile: 615-972-4239 _____ From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of John Vega Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 2:13 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [gatortalk] Re: FW: [gatornews] [SUN]: UF Campus News: UF's helmet policy focuses on employees I don't see why this should be so. We will allow inherently dangerous activities such as skydiving and powerboating. Heck, we even have a football team at UF that experiences (and causes) its fair share of injuries. Shouldn't there need to be a more compelling reason for legislating behavior than risk of injury? I guess I think back to my jurisprudence class at UF Law. Rather than adopting laws ad hoc (the "bonne judge" approach), we set up a framework that hangs on something my professor used to call a "Grundnorm." I've always viewed it as a social compact issue. In a state of nature, I would give up my right to steal from others in order to protect myself from others stealing from me. I can't think of a reason why I would give up my right to ride a motorcycle without a helmet - I receive nothing in exchange. The only argument that tends to be advanced is the financial burden I would indirectly bear as a member of society to care for injured motorcyclists. As it turns out, the financial burden would be higher with helmet laws, not lower. So, I'm left with no plausible reason why I give up this right or ask others to do so; regardless of whether it may sometimes be in their interest (the low speed crashes, as you indicate). -Zeb On Jun 26, 2009, at 12:04 PM, Oliver Barry wrote: Using that logic, the injury caused by a low speed crash on a motorized cycle would also leave the rider unharmed if wearing a helmet. Doing something is better than doing nothing. Oliver Barry CRS,GRI _____ From: <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of John Vega Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 10:55 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [gatortalk] Re: FW: [gatornews] [SUN]: UF Campus News: UF's helmet policy focuses on employees On Jun 26, 2009, at 11:34 AM, Oliver Barry wrote: This is probably a thfgt issue, but I think that anyone who rides a bike, motorized or not, without a helmet should have his/her head examined. (pun intended) We ride every weekend and won't let anyone ride with the group without a helmet. Tennessee has a helmet law that has come close to being struck down with each session of the legislature. So far it hasn't. I've lent my voice to those who have a vote many times. We have 4 neurosurgeons in our town; at one point I represented 3 of them. To each, I asked the question whether society had a financial interest in mandating motorcycle helmet laws. The answers, although uniform, surprised me. Each indicated that the type of injury that a helmet would save the life of a motorcyclist would leave a spinal compression fracture (the cranium being protected by the helmet). The biker would be alive, but likely quadriplegic. The cost to society, even if the biker had insurance, of a quadriplegic is astounding. However, they also indicated that helmets should be mandatory for bicycle riders. A low speed crash with a head blow that could kill a bicyclist would leave the cyclist unharmed if wearing a helmet. I like that UF's policy applies equally to bicycles at it does motorized vehicles. Food for thought. -Zeb --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ GATORS: ONE VOICE ON SATURDAY - NO VOICE ON SUNDAY! 1996 National Football Champions | 2006 National Basketball Champions 2006 National Football Champions | 2007 National Basketball Champions 2008 National Football Champions | Three Heisman Trophy winners: Steve Spurrier (1966), Danny Wuerffel (1996), Tim Tebow (2007) - Visit our website at www.gatornet.us -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
