I don't have kids yet, either, and I do think kids should be required to wear helmets until they're old enough to decide whether they want to or not. With adults, however, I think things like helmets and seat belts should be optional. I agree with your conclusion (quoted above) because we allow people to choose to do things that have the potential to kill them slowly, like drinking and smoking. If we can prove smoking kills (just as dead as neglecting to wear a seat belt) and yet it remains legal, people should be able to choose whether they put their own lives at risk when they get in a car or on a bike. If they want to die from stupidity and/or negligence, that is just natural selection.

I don't have kids yet, either, and I do think kids should be required to wear helmets until they're old enough to decide whether they want to or not. With adults, however, I think things like helmets and seat belts should be optional. I agree with your conclusion (quoted above) because we allow people to choose to do things that have the potential to kill them slowly, like drinking and smoking. If we can prove smoking kills (just as dead as neglecting to wear a seat belt) and yet it remains legal, people should be able to choose whether they put their own lives at risk when they get in a car or on a bike. If they want to die from stupidity and/or negligence, that is just natural selection.

I don't have kids yet, either, and I do think kids should be required to wear helmets until they're old enough to decide whether they want to or not. With adults, however, I think things like helmets and seat belts should be optional. I agree with your conclusion (quoted above) because we allow people to choose to do things that have the potential to kill them slowly, like drinking and smoking. If we can prove smoking kills (just as dead as neglecting to wear a seat belt) and yet it remains legal, people should be able to choose whether they put their own lives at risk when they get in a car or on a bike. If they want to die from stupidity and/or negligence, that is just natural selection.

50,000 die;
235,000 are hospitalized; and
1.1 million are treated and released from an emergency department.3

Among children ages 0 to 14 years, TBI results in an estimated

2,685 deaths;
37,000 hospitalizations; and
435,000 emergency department visits.

75% of all TBI's are mild.” Now, the latest data from Colorado is 3,392 TBIs annually. Of which 2,213 were male and 1,179 were female. Overall fatalities from TBIs is 938.

Those numbers are high when they are looked at without comparison to the overall population. When you do then those numbers become very small (4.939 million residents of CO; .07% of the population suffers TBIs. .01% are fatal.) Motor vehicles are the leading cause of all TBIs. So if the state legislature is going to be logically consistent, then it should mandate that everyone wear a helmet when riding in a car. Yet, your state legislature does not. Most likely because the cost of enforcement is too much and most citizens in your state would revolt — or not — I don't live in CO. Firearm use, suicide, alcohol abuse, and drug abuse are by far more dangerous to Colorado youth than TBIs, at least according to the CDC.

So those that do scream nanny state do have a legitimate question when it comes to the use of taxes and regulation. Would I be upset if it was my kid – you bet. Have I witnessed horrendous head injuries — I live in state that does not require motorcycle helmets — so yes. That does not mean I would want to have the State tell me what to do or when. To me this sounds like a feel good law during an election year.

50,000 die;
235,000 are hospitalized; and
1.1 million are treated and released from an emergency department.3

Among children ages 0 to 14 years, TBI results in an estimated

2,685 deaths;
37,000 hospitalizations; and
435,000 emergency department visits.

75% of all TBI's are mild.” Now, the latest data from Colorado is 3,392 TBIs annually. Of which 2,213 were male and 1,179 were female. Overall fatalities from TBIs is 938.

Those numbers are high when they are looked at without comparison to the overall population. When you do then those numbers become very small (4.939 million residents of CO; .07% of the population suffers TBIs. .01% are fatal.) Motor vehicles are the leading cause of all TBIs. So if the state legislature is going to be logically consistent, then it should mandate that everyone wear a helmet when riding in a car. Yet, your state legislature does not. Most likely because the cost of enforcement is too much and most citizens in your state would revolt — or not — I don't live in CO. Firearm use, suicide, alcohol abuse, and drug abuse are by far more dangerous to Colorado youth than TBIs, at least according to the CDC.

So those that do scream nanny state do have a legitimate question when it comes to the use of taxes and regulation. Would I be upset if it was my kid – you bet. Have I witnessed horrendous head injuries — I live in state that does not require motorcycle helmets — so yes. That does not mean I would want to have the State tell me what to do or when. To me this sounds like a feel good law during an election year.

In regards to the law, well what is the impetus for the law? Most times these laws come into being due to public costs relating to health care, accident response, or economic impact in some form. That is why we the seat belt laws came into being, it started costing too much in terms of money and lives.

In regards to the law, well what is the impetus for the law? Most times these laws come into being due to public costs relating to health care, accident response, or economic impact in some form. That is why we the seat belt laws came into being, it started costing too much in terms of money and lives.