Headphones, Running and the Government (Page 2)

mr2tony - 2011-01-25 2:04 PM

You can get hurt falling in your tub. Thank god I don't bathe.

DerekL - 2011-01-25 7:11 AM

I just hope they ban daydreaming and thinking intently while walking too.

ChrisM - 2011-01-24 5:52 PM It's a great thing if you like being told what to do.  It's a good thing if you want a bigger government.   It's a good thing if you think we need more laws, and hire more folks to enforce them.  It's a good thing if you think people are idiots.  It's a good thing if you believe that people should not be permitted to make their own choices

Otherwise.  No

AcesFull - 2011-01-25 9:26 AM

One reason I sometimes support "nanny state" laws is that I pay taxes and want to pay less taxes.  Disability costs money and injuries cost money.  Helmet laws, for example, reduce head injuries, which reduces costs for the population to bear, whether it be through health insurance or government disability benefits, both of which come out of my pocket.  I don't give a whit whether or not someone is too stupid to wear a seatbelt and gets their foolish azz killed, but I don't want to pay for that person's SSDI for the rest of their life because they didn't wear a seatbelt and are now brain-injured and wheelchair-bound. 

As to iPods and running, I'd want to know if there is any actual research to support significantly improved safety with the ban. 

Its Only Money - 2011-01-25 9:05 AM I have several problems with these types of laws. The first is that there are already several laws in place to prevent the issues that headphones in the ears are supposedly causing. Just enforce the laws we already have in place. It is illegal to jaywalk, cross the street against a red light, step out into moving traffic. Why make it more illegal to do any of these things with headphones in? I just don't get it. Same goes with the texting and driving, but that's a whole different topic all together. The Arkansas guy just want the law on the books, he says he wants no enforcement of it. Why is he wasting our time?

Its Only Money - 2011-01-25 10:05 AM I have several problems with these types of laws. The first is that there are already several laws in place to prevent the issues that headphones in the ears are supposedly causing. Just enforce the laws we already have in place. It is illegal to jaywalk, cross the street against a red light, step out into moving traffic. Why make it more illegal to do any of these things with headphones in? I just don't get it. Same goes with the texting and driving, but that's a whole different topic all together. The Arkansas guy just want the law on the books, he says he wants no enforcement of it. Why is he wasting our time?

AcesFull - 2011-01-25 12:04 PM

Health insurance is yet another way that expenses are spread from the unhelmeted to me.  I'd rather just make the SOB wear a helmet, and avoid having to cover his injuries OR his disability.

AcesFull - 2011-01-25 2:04 PM

Health insurance is yet another way that expenses are spread from the unhelmeted to me.  I'd rather just make the SOB wear a helmet, and avoid having to cover his injuries OR his disability.

Goosedog - 2011-01-25 12:19 PM

How about making failure to wear a helmet an exclusion/exemption (can't reminder which) from coverage?

Aarondb4 - 2011-01-25 1:23 PM



Can't do that cause even if the injured rider doesn't have coverage the hospital isn't going to be able to turn them away.

Bring on the death panels I guess.

ChineseDemocracy - 2011-01-24 4:46 PM I for one think it's a great idea.  
Is it government overstepping its' bounds?
Not if we voted the folks in who support measures like this.

To me, it's common sense.  That said, not a lot of folks out there have common sense, hence, a law is sometimes required.