Jun 04, 2007 14:16
The bicyclist’s basic argument can be summarized as follows:
1. Freedom is valuable
2. In the United States, we have the freedom to choose our lifestyles.
3. Helmet laws are discriminatory legislation targeting riders and infringing upon their freedoms.
4. There is no discernable difference between injuries and fatalities sustained in states where helmet laws have been implemented, and those sustained in states where helmet laws have not been implemented.
5. Thus, statement four directly opposes the proponents’ claim that helmet laws protect constituents by promoting safety (as in statement 4).
6. Seeing as how motorists and pedestrians constitute the majority of injuries, they should wear helmets as a safety measure.
7. Mandatory helmet laws are annoying, and unnecessary to the small minority of citizens who would prefer to make their own decision on an issue with no effect to anyone else.
8. Ordinary citizens would sympathize with bikers’ plight if they were forced to wear helmets in daily recreational activities.
9. A TV station local to the bicyclist placed 82% of polltakers in favor of repealing helmet laws.
10. Government needs to allow responsible citizens to choose what safety measures best suit constituents needs.