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 — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...