Please do not get me wrong. Being a generally risk-adverse person, I will wear a safety helmet if I ride a motorcycle.
This however is quite different from objecting to government mandating the wearing of safety helmet for motorcyclists, or cyclists. The fact that that mandate coincides with my preferred action of wearing safety helmet does not legitimize the mandate. This is one of those little things that a typical libertarian holds. Libertarianism can be axiomatic at times and the demand for logical consistency demands embrace of such opposition to government mandate.
While I do hold this ideal, I do think those who refuse to wear helmet are stupid, given the risk associated with riding a motorcycle. I in fact rarely argue for it because it is trivial and can be silly at times. It is clear that the convenience of coincidence erodes my temptation to argue against the mandate. Yes, in that sense, I am a cafeteria libertarian.
Why am I talking about safety helmet?
Well, this report reminds me of an old case about safety helmet:
TUMPAT, April 22 — The magistrate’s court here today acquitted five students of a religious school for riding motorcycles without wearing crash helmets, but turbans, two years ago.
Magistrate Raja Norshuzianna Shakila Raja Mamat ordered the students to be released after finding that the defence had cast a doubt on the case.
The students, Adli Abd Halim, 22, Ahmad Hafiz Shaari, 24, Mohd Hafizul Mohamad, 22, Mohd Azam Mohd Arifin, 24, and Che Mohd Noor Che Soh, 28, of the Pondok Al-Madrasah Ad-Diniah Al-Yusufiah, an Islamic religious schools in Gelang Mas here, were caught riding motorcycles without wearing crash helmets about 12.30am at Neting, here, on April 28, 2008 after performing funeral prayers at a mosque nearby. [Turban-clad Religious Students Freed For Riding Motorcycles Without Crash Helmets. Bernama. April 22 2010]
When it first appeared, I secretly sided with them (five motorcyclists) due to my libertarian stance. Still, I thought they were stupid.
What surprised me is that these guys won the case. Won!
The libertarian in me laughs in delight.
The libertarian in me is also shocked by its possible implication to rule of law.
Now, I do not know the case went. I am unsure how the defense “cast doubt on the the case.” Incompetent prosecutors, maybe? I do not know. My only piece of information is that Bernama article. I am going to be lazy and not do any more research on the matter, just to fit the bill of a responsible blogger.
Still, I hope they won they case not because they wore turbans. If it that is the case, then my question will be what is so special about turban-wearers?
If turban wearers could get away with this, this would discriminate against those who refuse to wear safety helmet and turban.
I, as a non-turban wearer, demand equality before the law!
Okay, that was me tongue-in-cheek.
Or was I?
2 replies on “[2196] Of discrimination and safety helmet”
Hey Ilia,
Frankly, this is mostly directed to motorcyclists. What I had in mind are those proper helmets that encapsulate the head, not the ones typically used by cyclists. I added cyclists as an afterthought. Probably, I shouldn’t have done that.
Nevertheless, I think it’s fair to say precautions should be taken while riding on busy streets, motorcyclists and cyclists alike.
Hello Hafiz. As a cyclist I find this post quite silly. There is nothing stupid about not wearing helmets. They are uncomfortable and annoying, and not even proven to protect you.
In fact drivers drive less carefully near you when they see a helmet (they figure you’ll survive a crash I guess). Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmet . Even though these guys were riding motorcycles, I don’t see much of a difference. In USA you must only wear a helmet on the highway I believe.
Australia is the only country in the world where helmets on bicycles are compulsory. Even so, very few cops would care about your helmet.. in the worst case they might ask you to wear one next time.