Survey: Do You Have a Libertarian Streak?

Disagreeing with helmet laws certainly does not make me a libertarian. I just don't want to see an unnecessary reduction in the number of cyclists on the streets.
I ride upright and app. 10-15 miles per hour. I am cautious and very aware of my surroundings. I ride to commute because it's fun, convenient and good for the environment--in that order. I have long hair and bangs and I don't want to have to carry a brush, comb, blow dryer and curling iron with me every time I step out to ride to the store. Call me vain, but I just don't enjoy walking around with sweaty hair in my eyes or a helmet strapped to my purse. That would make it considerably less fun and considerably less convenient. It would not make me less likely to be injured, it would just make me more likely to drive my car--where I am just as likely to incur a fatal injury. And my car gets 18 miles to the gallon, not exactly helpful to the environment.

Oh, and for all those complaining about their insurance payments funding my head injury, I feel the same way about all the money spent on an infrastructure that supports your Prius (not to mention Hummers and Escalades), but not my bicycle.

helmet, seat belt and other such safety laws are all related to the protection of commerce. this is something that congress is required to protect and build in the constitution.

whether or not you like wearing a seat belt/helmet, the congress is going to be able to regulate it. even a very bad government lawyer is going to be able to argue that.

I have spent 22 years as a Fireman, and 10 as an EMT. Helmets in general reduce brain injuries, if the brain can be protected enough. If it can't because after certain speeds no helmet will protect the brain, then there's not much you can do for it.

Let's face it, if you have the money to spend on a $30,000.00 USD Harley, you should have the money around to buy a good helmet and protective clothing. If you have a $30.00 USD head, buy a $30.00 USD helmet.

--Hawk

I'd pick option 1, with a small change.

"Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and REQUIRED to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. "

This is not the case now. Suppose a motorist hits a biker who isn't wearing a helmet. A head injury that a helmet would have prevented results. The medical care costs will be paid for by the motorists' insurance, and the driver's insurance premiums will go up, even though the injury shouldn't have happened.

Unless people are required to accept the consequences of stupid actions, we cannot allow them to take such actions freely. If we do, WE pay the costs, and so we have standing to make demands on these people

I would love it if people would take responsibility for their actions, but they don't. Our society doesn't function that way.

Helmet laws are a fix to a side effects of a poor bicycle infrastructure. Places with good infrastrcture injury is quite low. 1 in 500,000 chance of getting hurt in an accident when you step on a bike in Amsterdam, and 1 in 20 million chance of being killed. Just think how safe bicycling would be if we outlawed cars all together.

People need to have the knowledge on how to protect themselves and if everyone knows the same rules, then we are all on the same page. Sometimes people are to lazy to care about what is good for them and by having rules being enforced makes them do what they didn't want to.

I'm going with option 2 and I lean towards being a Libertarian but really only because I agree with many of the party sentiments but not all of them. I don't like blanket laws but understand the need for some. It sure is nice and easy to say "Well that guy was an idiot! He didn't wear his helmet, go Darwin!" but 1 person only is never involved in an accident. A fatality or serious brain injury does more to drain our coffer's through legal battles, civil services time cleaning up the scene and filing reports. The helmet or seatbelt protects the rider. The law protects the other people, from the taxpayer to the idiot who didn't wear his helmet, to his family and it may seem a little cold but it also saves on the emission of GHGs because there's a better chance at traffic jams being shorter in length of time when there isn't a fatality to take care of. In my mind the "I can do whatever I want, freedom!" mentality ends when your choices start involving the infringement of others freedoms.

I voted for # 1, although #'s 2 + 3 are true also. Am I a Leeber then?

The main problem I have with these laws is that they can rapidly become severely punitive and target the poor. Someone who can just barely afford a junk bike to get to work may not be able to afford a helmet or simply forget it and end up with a $100 fine. These people exist, for example many homeless use bikes.
Also, law such as this dilute the importance of our more meaningful laws.

I like what Anthony said. I do think it should be our own decision, but I also don't feel as though one person's ignorant choices should affect another person's insurance or taxes. I believe car companies should be required to install seatbelts in cars and those taking drivers exams should be required to know the dangers of not using one, but if after all that they still choose not to use the damn seatbelt, their injuries are their own fault. Same goes for the helmet.

I remember this kind of "nanny state" ideology appeared when leaded gas was banned...

"Protect the stupid" laws like bike and seat belt laws are terrible.

These sorts of laws give credence to the ridiculous right-wing fantasies of us 'liberal fascists' who want to tell you what to do all the time. Seriously, this is not good policy on any front. It does appreciable damage to bike culture, it gives more power to police (they don't need any more, dammit!), it gets freedom-minded individuals all pissy and saves a marginal amount of money to society after cost of enforcement. Here in Portland we have a vibrant bike culture, one that tends to reward classy old-school cruiser bikes. It is a fashion-conscious crowd, one that is growing rapidly. You go requiring helmets and you put a stopper in the whole thing-- it again becomes only something for those who place bicycling above looking fabulous, when they need not compete.

Also, you have to enforce it. And if you're enforcing it then you're bringing the police into it. It opens you up to all kinds of racist and classist profiling, needlessly targeting the poor and those already at risk. Non-vital laws support tyranny-- just look at the drug war and the ongoing militarization of the police that went on before the ridiculous "terror" crap ramped up the destruction of American freedom.

Are there societal costs to a risky activity? Yes. Is it worth repealing the freedom of individuals to eliminate them? Depends on the cost. Remember, aligning innocent citizens against government agencies has a negative impact on our entire nation. Dumb laws designed to protect me from my poor decision making process may have some economic basis, but they also ensure that we live in an uncivilized, unacceptable place where you have to constantly watch out that you do not offend an authority figure.

I am definitely a libertarian on this one. It is my choice to wear or not wear a helmet (it depends on where I am riding and the weather). If I get hurt, it is my own fault, and I don't expect anyone else to bail me out. I have wisely made consentual, pre-established arrangements with others for such a situation, which will be sufficient. I would not need nor want other peoples' money.

There is no "societal" cost inherent in my smashing my head open. "Society" only bears a cost because it chooses to subsidize my risk. It is incoherent to intrude into peoples' private lives and then complain about how their actions affect you. If you don't want to subsidize my risk, then don't. If you believe that socialized health care is so important that it is worth the side-effect of subsidizing peoples' risk, then accept the consequence of your choice.

I AM A PEACETIME LIBERTARIAN ! (and proud of it!)
I am 100% AGAINST criminalization of people.
I prefer the technology improves to comform to the human rather than the other way around. i.e. airbags over seat belts. If you are a bad, inexperienced or prone to accidents type of driver, then maybe you should choose a seat belt or helmet or both. Maybe someday we should develop soft aero-gel windshields? I have read of cases where people have died wearing their seatbelt when the other passengers lived. I have read of cases where the seatbelt was the cause of death . We do not need more criminals in society. We need to stop reducing everyone to the lowest common denominator. PS> I am against MADD.

Survival of the fittest, baby! If you're not smart enough to wear one, then its your own stupidity that may take you out.

In my opinion suicide is the most basic of all human rights. BUT, when a cyclist runs out into traffic like an idiot they should be punished for the aftermath. Dead or alive the blame falls on the person that disobeys the traffic laws.