Hacker News Reader

Comment by gwelson | Hacker News Reader

Out of curiosity, is there no way to wear a helmet over a turban? I've had Sikh friends who wear warm winter hats over their head coverings, for instance. No disrespect to Sikhs reading this, I'm genuinely curious.

View on HN

I'm guessing it has more to do with comfort and appearances (they do look badass). I never really understood laws that force adults to wear helmets, if someone want's to take the risk then thats their decision.

Do you want emergency services rendered to people who get into an accident?

I'm not really sure what you are getting at, but I think that anyone who gets into an accident deserves attention from emergency services. To suggest otherwise would be rather vengeful.

I’m not the parent commenter, but I believe they’re making the case that there are negative externalities that come from not wearing protective equipment which are borne by others in some form or another. In Canada, for example, there is a very direct cost to others because of their universal healthcare.

Thanks, I had a feeling that is what they were talking about but wasn't positive. That seems like a selfish stance to have, and also ironic considering the ideologies behind universal healthcare.

How much money even gets spent on medical bills for bikers who choose not to wear helmets? If everyones personal lifestyle choices now have a monetary impact on each other, then how much intervention does this justify? Should people be forced to eat healthy and exercise? Obesity cost the healthcare system significantly more than motorcycle injuries. Alcohol, candy, cigarettes, even OTC drugs have a huge cost on the healthcare system, should those be illegal? What about mental health? Should people be prevented from doing anything considered "health threatening" out of the fear they may cost tax payers money?

Also should people be allowed to opt-out of a universal healthcare system and be exempt from lifestyle regulations?

What is selfish about regulating some things that otherwise put a burden on society and have almost no upside for the individual if not regulated? Even if they and their families pay the highest cost for their stupidity, this doesn't mean there is no case for regulation.

You don't even know if they have families/dependents, and people should be allowed to make their own choices regardless. If you are concerned about the burden of taking care of others then you should criticize universal healthcare rather than try to dictate peoples lives. Don't bring those liabilities into your life if you are unwilling to deal with them.

It's a complicated and interesting debate. In places where we have universal healthcare we want to simultaneously provide coverage for everyone and allow the maximum freedom possible, but these goals are somewhat conflicting. We still think universal healthcare is of paramount importance for the well being of the group, so it takes the priority. This means reckless behavior can be frowned upon, smoking discouraged and seat belts enforced.

From my european pov I've always felt universal healthcare would never work in the US due to this focus on individual freedom over almost anything else.

Its not all about healthcare costs. Consider the mental impact of being involved in an accident where the other person was killed.

No. A helmet is very tight, and it has to be. It has to stay on if you take a spill.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com