CG Rules - New Trends?

rk911 wrote:

Crowe wrote:
but to require them is just silly and nanny-ish.

I assume you wear a seat belt when you drive. It's a rule. You follow that rule. Seat belts save lives. Bike helmets save lives. What's the difference?

it's not a 'rule'...it's a law. and I've been wearing seat belts since before it was a law. but i can be fined and, at least temporarily, lose my freedom for not wearing my seat belt. not the same as a rule. and even though i wear my seat belts religiously i oppose the law mandating it just as i oppose the law requiring biker helmets.

Actually, this is the first thing you've said that I'm in complete agreement with! I think it's a real shame that there need to be any laws to protect people from themselves. Do bike helmets make perfect sense? Absolutely! I just returned from a ski trip to Vermont. There are NO helmet laws for skiing, and no rules set by the slope. But, I'd say that at least 90% of the skiers and boarders wear helmets. Not, obviously, because there's a law or rule, but because they are actually taking responsibility for their own selves.

I'd like to add, though, that if someone chooses to not wear a helmet, or seatbelts, I shouldn't be responsible whatsoever for their actions if they get hurt. No higher fees because they've been sued and need to raise rates to make up for it, no higher insurance because the insurance company had to pay out for stupidity and needs to make their money back, no government aid for hospitalization, nothing. You're right, everyone should have freedom to do what they want (so long as it doesn't effect anyone else) but don't take away my financial freedom by making me contribute financially in any way due to someone else's decisions or freedoms.

By the way, I did a quick search, it seems California has a bike helmet law for all under 18. Perhaps the cg felt it was easier to make everyone wear a helmet rather than try to figure out the age of everyone riding a bike.