Skip to main content

SB 174: Really, folks, teenagers have impervious heads (so do legislators)

I am not sure how I survived my parents’ neglect without ever wearing a bicycle helmet, but with SB 174,Senator Margaret Rose Henry (D-Wilmington East) wants to make sure that my own children have been protected by the state.

Anyone under age fifteen already has to wear a state-approved helmet “when operating bicycles and motorized scooters and skateboards (which can attain speeds up to 35-40 m.p.h.),” and now Senator Henry wants to extend the loving arms of the government’s protection to 16 and 17 year olds.

She notes, without the slightest sense of irony in quoting an industry lobbying group, that “the Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute supports mandatory helmet laws for all age groups.”

Isn’t that a surprise? Next you’ll tell me that the Pantyhose Integrity Institute suggests that consumers purchase new stockings whenever they detect a run.

This turkey would seem not only stupid and an example of how we’re paying our legislators too much, if it weren’t ominous.

If the General Assembly actually moves to require individuals old enough to drive automobiles to wear bicycle helmets (or else), then the only difference between them and you is that they weren’t old enough to buy cigarettes or vote these clowns out of office.

This bill is currently in the Public Safety Committee, which is a really good place for it.

Especially if they have a shredder.

Comments

A subject near and dear to my heart. As a motorcyclist, I was appalled at the introduction of Senate Bill 46 last year (which will still be alive next session) mandating helmets for motorcyclists.

While I think people should wear helmets, I do not think it should be a decision mandated by the State.

It's not the device, it's the law, however we find ourselves fighting the device when the safety nannies get in town.

This bill is also in the Public Safety Committee. I will work hard to make sure it stays there.

Keep the shredder plugged in.

Popular posts from this blog

Comment Rescue (?) and child-related gun violence in Delaware

In my post about the idiotic over-reaction to a New Jersey 10-year-old posing with his new squirrel rifle , Dana Garrett left me this response: One waits, apparently in vain, for you to post the annual rates of children who either shoot themselves or someone else with a gun. But then you Libertarians are notoriously ambivalent to and silent about data and facts and would rather talk abstract principles and fear monger (like the government will confiscate your guns). It doesn't require any degree of subtlety to see why you are data and fact adverse. The facts indicate we have a crisis with gun violence and accidents in the USA, and Libertarians offer nothing credible to address it. Lives, even the lives of children, get sacrificed to the fetishism of liberty. That's intellectual cowardice. OK, Dana, let's talk facts. According to the Children's Defense Fund , which is itself only querying the CDCP data base, fewer than 10 children/teens were killed per year in Delaw

The Obligatory Libertarian Tax Day Post

The most disturbing factoid that I learned on Tax Day was that the average American must now spend a full twenty-four hours filling out tax forms. That's three work days. Or, think of it this way: if you had to put in two hours per night after dinner to finish your taxes, that's two weeks (with Sundays off). I saw a talking head economics professor on some Philly TV channel pontificating about how Americans procrastinate. He was laughing. The IRS guy they interviewed actually said, "Tick, tick, tick." You have to wonder if Governor Ruth Ann Minner and her cohorts put in twenty-four hours pondering whether or not to give Kraft Foods $708,000 of our State taxes while demanding that school districts return $8-10 million each?

New Warfare: I started my posts with a discussion.....

.....on Unrestricted warfare . The US Air force Institute for National Security Studies have developed a reasonable systems approach to deter non-state violent actors who they label as NSVA's. It is an exceptionally important report if we want to deter violent extremism and other potential violent actors that could threaten this nation and its security. It is THE report our political officials should be listening to to shape policy so that we do not become excessive in using force against those who do not agree with policy and dispute it with reason and normal non-violent civil disobedience. This report, should be carefully read by everyone really concerned with protecting civil liberties while deterring violent terrorism and I recommend if you are a professional you send your recommendations via e-mail at the link above so that either 1.) additional safeguards to civil liberties are included, or 2.) additional viable strategies can be used. Finally, one can only hope that politici