- Joined
- Feb 9, 2011
- Messages
- 19,854
- Reaction score
- 7,275
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Where football is concerned, you have two groups that have mutually accepted risks - and the injuries are clearly not as routinely acutely devastating as in a major car wreck.
And do they not routinely wear helmets to minimize damage?
Everyone who plays football (well, real football, not that flag-tag wimpy stuff) uses a helmet. Over time those safety devices have gotten better and better and the number of injuries has gone down considerably. What you're doing by not wearing seat belts is worse than playing football without a helmet.
You are both actually missing the point of what I responded to. Remember that I support the seat belt laws because of how they will aid the driver in not causing injuries to others by keeping them in the seat and providing a higher chance of, if not getting the vehicle under control, providing purposeful direction. But once we put aside the issue of potential injury to others, do we make a law that removes a freedom simply under the concept of "saving the taxpayers a chunk of change"? Football was just the example that came off the top of my head that was comparable to motorcycle helmet law intent.