Skip to main content

SB 174: Really, folks, teenagers have impervious heads (so do legislators)

I am not sure how I survived my parents’ neglect without ever wearing a bicycle helmet, but with SB 174,Senator Margaret Rose Henry (D-Wilmington East) wants to make sure that my own children have been protected by the state.

Anyone under age fifteen already has to wear a state-approved helmet “when operating bicycles and motorized scooters and skateboards (which can attain speeds up to 35-40 m.p.h.),” and now Senator Henry wants to extend the loving arms of the government’s protection to 16 and 17 year olds.

She notes, without the slightest sense of irony in quoting an industry lobbying group, that “the Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute supports mandatory helmet laws for all age groups.”

Isn’t that a surprise? Next you’ll tell me that the Pantyhose Integrity Institute suggests that consumers purchase new stockings whenever they detect a run.

This turkey would seem not only stupid and an example of how we’re paying our legislators too much, if it weren’t ominous.

If the General Assembly actually moves to require individuals old enough to drive automobiles to wear bicycle helmets (or else), then the only difference between them and you is that they weren’t old enough to buy cigarettes or vote these clowns out of office.

This bill is currently in the Public Safety Committee, which is a really good place for it.

Especially if they have a shredder.

Comments

A subject near and dear to my heart. As a motorcyclist, I was appalled at the introduction of Senate Bill 46 last year (which will still be alive next session) mandating helmets for motorcyclists.

While I think people should wear helmets, I do not think it should be a decision mandated by the State.

It's not the device, it's the law, however we find ourselves fighting the device when the safety nannies get in town.

This bill is also in the Public Safety Committee. I will work hard to make sure it stays there.

Keep the shredder plugged in.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

Libertarian National Committee Deathwatch Part 1

As the LNC continues to lurch towards collapse, with the latest news of mass layoffs at HQ, I've decided to begin tracking those things leading the national party to irrelevance, even as state and local parties gain power. As news, rumors and rhetoric break out, I shall chronicle them in this ongoing series at Delaware Libertarian. Organizations approaching failure have a number of characteristics. One of the most striking is renunciation of their purpose and effort to reinvent themselves as a "me-too" provider of services in the marketplace. In this, the LNC has been on a collision course with destiny for a while now. Recently, for example, it hired Republican Party web site developer TerraEclipse to redesign the LNC web site . Terra created a web site very similar to those of the clients it brags most about -- far-right Republican conservatives like Tom McClintock and BJ Lawson. A quick look at the web site they built for the LNC is instructive. The tagline on the ...

Soda tax debate reveals fundamental progressive assertions about your lack of individual rights and the "responsiblities" of the State

I thought it would be at least amusing to use the Delawareliberal comments as sub-headings regarding each category of what is wrong with the proposed tax on sodas and juice drinks. But there are so many different little strands of each comment that it would be impossible to pull them all out. So, instead, I'm going to let you read them in more or less the order they appeared, and note the assumptions. pandora: I’m perfectly okay with taxing sodas and juice drinks. Mainly because they’re total crap, and one of the main reasons our country’s children are overweight. They are also dirt cheap. Assumptions here: (1) Because "I" am perfectly okay with a new tax it should be imposed on everybody; (2) it is the government's responsibility to keep children from being obese; (3) the cheapness of the product to be taxed justifies charging people more for it. John Manifold: Soda fattens your kids [and you and your husband], shortens their lives, costs more than water [a...