Helmet Laws Discriminate Against Bikers Analysis
Helmet Laws Discriminate against Bikers
It has been proven by many people that it is safe to wear a helmet. One main reason, is that there have been so many deaths of people without helmets on bicycles and motorcycles. In the essay, Helmet Laws Discriminate against Bikers, the author argues that motorcyclists should have a choice on whether or not they would want to wear helmets. I will argue that this author's argument is weak.
The author's basic argument can be summarized as follows:
1. Freedom is a most valued and cherished possession. People are willing to fight, and even die for it.
2. There is no discernible difference in motorcycle injuries or fatalities among those states where helmet use is voluntary
3. Mandatory helmet laws …show more content…
First, much of the author's argument misses the point of what his opponents are arguing. In this part of the argument, the author seems to be arguing for one main issue: that it is great to live in a place where you can make your own decisions. But this claim rest on a misunderstanding of what the actual law for wearing helmets. At best, what the author is expressing is his own personal feelings because he prefers to ride his own motorcycle without a helmet.
Secondly, the author's claims seem to be very scattered. First, he talks about the freedom that America posses, then he switches to the idea of maybe the people who had accidents in other things besides motorcycles. After that, the author asks questions about golfers and hunters and whether or not they would mess up their day by wearing protective pieces. That is a fallacy of inconsistency. Finally he talks about a local television station poll. All of this doesn't make sense.
In conclusion, the author offers a weak argument for his conclusion. Several of his arguments against the required helmet law are based on a misunderstanding of what the argument claims. His "argument" against the mandatory helmet law basically boils down to just a denial of that view. And the author's argument as a whole is neither as clear nor as explicit as it should
It has been proven by many people that it is safe to wear a helmet. One main reason, is that there have been so many deaths of people without helmets on bicycles and motorcycles. In the essay, Helmet Laws Discriminate against Bikers, the author argues that motorcyclists should have a choice on whether or not they would want to wear helmets. I will argue that this author's argument is weak.
The author's basic argument can be summarized as follows:
1. Freedom is a most valued and cherished possession. People are willing to fight, and even die for it.
2. There is no discernible difference in motorcycle injuries or fatalities among those states where helmet use is voluntary
3. Mandatory helmet laws …show more content…
First, much of the author's argument misses the point of what his opponents are arguing. In this part of the argument, the author seems to be arguing for one main issue: that it is great to live in a place where you can make your own decisions. But this claim rest on a misunderstanding of what the actual law for wearing helmets. At best, what the author is expressing is his own personal feelings because he prefers to ride his own motorcycle without a helmet.
Secondly, the author's claims seem to be very scattered. First, he talks about the freedom that America posses, then he switches to the idea of maybe the people who had accidents in other things besides motorcycles. After that, the author asks questions about golfers and hunters and whether or not they would mess up their day by wearing protective pieces. That is a fallacy of inconsistency. Finally he talks about a local television station poll. All of this doesn't make sense.
In conclusion, the author offers a weak argument for his conclusion. Several of his arguments against the required helmet law are based on a misunderstanding of what the argument claims. His "argument" against the mandatory helmet law basically boils down to just a denial of that view. And the author's argument as a whole is neither as clear nor as explicit as it should