Motorcycle Helmet Laws In the Unites States each state is allowed to set some of there own rules. Each State must take a stance on whether or not motorcyclists should wear helmets. Less than half of the states require the use of a helmet when riding a motorcycle. I agree with the states that have the helmet laws in place because I believe that helmets can save lives. Most States actually have what is called a limited helmet law.
Chapter 1- Case Question 3 In the case of Baughn v. Honda Motor Co the legal principle in question has to do with company liability. The judge’s mission would be to figure out whether Honda was liable for the boys accident due to a less-than-standard product. Consumer expectancy concerning risk of using the product would need to be considered. For example if the parents of the boys had reasonable expectancy that the bike could be used on the open road safely then Honda would be liable for the boys’ injuries. In this case Honda is not liable because the safety instructions were clear in that the bikes should only be used off-road, while wearing a helmet.
At first glance, it seems like a good idea to have the driving age raised to eighteen, but it is not as beneficial as it seems. Nationally, about forty percent of American teen deaths are from motor vehicle crashes, making them a major concern for parents and teens alike, but raising the driving age won’t fix this, and it could actually make this statistic worse. There are good reasons as to why the driving age should not be raised: it is inexperience not young age that causes crashes, parents of minors are allowed to deny their children licenses or permits, and raising the driving age would make it harder to get drivers proper training. It is true that the risk of crashing is higher for the sixteen to eighteen age group than any other. This is the main reason that a lot of people want to have the driving age raised.
Motorcyclists are at a higher risk for injury due to the absence of safety features. Universal helmet laws will have the greatest impact for the increased use of helmets and decrease in motorcycle crash injuries and death. The audience for this paper would be motorcyclists, anyone interested in health care costs, and motorists interested in road safety. Motorcyclists safety enthusiasts understand the risks and advocate the use of helmets for all riders. Having the support from motorcyclists would not only encourage helmet use, but also encourage the need for universal helmet laws.
Why some states such as my own force the seatbelt law would but yet let several motor cycle riders drive down a road without a helmet? I have to say, it is ridiculous. Truthfully, I believe that a driver to a car should have to wear a helmet as well as a seatbelt and to be honest; I don’t see anything wrong with a motorcyclist also having to wear the helmet “By Law”. I know it would be somewhat dangerous for the motorcyclist to wear a seatbelt considering if the person driving was to have a accident, they are normally thrown in mid air and the bike may possibly fall down up on he or she. What I don’t understand is, if the laws are pushing people to wear a seatbelt in a car and because of what I had mentioned above about the motorcycle, why are they allowed on the road in the first place?
These people feel that repealing the Second Amendment would solve the problem. These people feel that there are two reasons for the repeal; one is the rising of violence among teenagers, the second reason is their interpretation of the Second Amendment which could be considered a strict one. The side opposing these views uses arguments like how it would be impossible to repeal the Second Amendment, and a long western civilizations history with a right to bear arms. Finally one can see the conflict of views dealing with the Second Amendment, but one would also see that repealing the amendment wouldn't solve the problem facing our society. The controversy of this issue that has the potential to pulverize this country is why it is such a good topic to discuss, people should be better informed and make a decision based on fact and not fiction.
Why can I go out to fight for my country, but I can’t come home to buy a drink to celebrate? Last but not least, why would the age of twenty-one, only three years older than eighteen insure that I am much more responsible to drink? If they are given the rights to buy cigarettes and fight for their country, they should at least have the right to consume alcohol legally. I personally know people who are more mature and more intelligent that are under twenty-one who are more responsible drinking than some people I know that are over twenty-one. An age should not put restrictions on whether or not a person is capable of doing something.
Ali S. Tartacoff Phil 320 Dr. Satris December 15, 2011 * Should Laws Against Drug Use Remain Restrictive? * Both liberals and conservatives hold conflicting views on weather drug prohibition legislation has accomplished its job in curving the problems associated with drug use. Furthermore, they argue weather the current laws, banning drug use, should remain restrictive. After reading both sides of the debate, I believe that laws against drug use should indeed remain restrictive. I believe that they should remain restrictive because less restrictive drug laws are not the solution to our drug problem, and instead, less restrictive laws are an extremely dangerous idea.
Positive Effects of a Lower Drinking Age in America Arguments about the United States drinking age are commonly discussed. The law is thought of by some as a great way to keep young adults out of trouble, but by others it is thought to be an unsuccessful law that has only brought harm to many young adults. Not enough people are taking action in changing the drinking age to eighteen, which may be because Americans feel it is not necessary or because American citizens have not thought into full detail about all of the positive effects a lower drinking age could have. The United States Federal Government believes that citizens under twenty one years of age are not fully developed and consuming alcohol can harm their development, but America has the highest drinking age in the world. Other countries with low drinking ages do not have major health problems concerning alcohol and their young adults, thus proving alcohol is not necessarily unhealthy for developing young adults.
For example, what if people chose not to stop for a red light; wouldn’t there be many car accidents and things more tragic? This is why the rights are not absolute because they are made to a point where it’s to protect the people. The constitution does give individual rights but also gives the government the rights to change it based on behavior and other factors. Mayor Buddy Dyer this is why you should agree with me. Where it says the government made certain dangerous areas off-limits, which prevented residents from accessing their homes and personal property.