1. take part in them are notrequired to
1. People should be free to live their lives as they see fit.2. Mandatory helmet laws affect bikers greatly and can be considered discriminatory.3. There is no distinctive difference regarding motorcycle injuries or fatalities among those states, where helmets are voluntary or mandatory.4. Motorcycles are 2% of all vehicles, but only 1% of all accidents.5. Trucks and buses have a very high percentage of accidents, but even then helmets are not mandatory for them.6. Wearing or failing to wear a helmet does not affect anyone on the road except the rider7. Mandatory helmet laws are unnecessary.8. Hunting and bull running are dangerous activities, but people who take part in them are notrequired to wear protective equipment.9. In a recent telephone poll 82% of people were in favor of repealing helmet laws.Conclusion:-Mandatory helmet laws should be repealed.Stan Daniels, in his essay “Helmet Laws Discriminate against Bikers” represents his idea using a stereotype that motorcycle bike riders generally have a “wild and rebellious” reputation. According to Daniels, laws forcing bikers to wear helmets are discriminatory and against the freedom that America promises to provide its citizens. However, the argument that Stan uses is, in general, illogical and has a poorly supported conclusion.Mr. Daniels strongest premises involve freedom. American do value their freedom a lot and if this issue was truly of freedom it might be enough to support the claim. Some people would prefer to not wear helmets, to make them wear helmets mandatorily would be considered an infringement on their freedom. This argument seems to be valid, because the conclusion follows the premise. Yet, if we consider that people are not allowed to do anything they want, then the argument could perhaps be seen as unsound, because people should not be allowed to do anything they see fit. If we are to accept this premise than we should abolish all the laws in the society.. People should be allowed their freedom, but only to an extent. Our freedom should only extend to the point.Mr. Daniels’ other arguments fail as well. He uses some distinctive statistics to support his case, but they seem like Red Herrings. Even Though motorcycles cause less accident than other vehicles, he doesn’t compare miles driven between the two types of vehicles, he also does not consider sovereignty between the two vehicles . Motorcycle accidents are notoriously dangerous. Daniels goes on to say that truck drivers should also be required to wear helmets ,he forgets to realize that truck drivers are required to wear seat belts.Perhaps the weakest line of argument he makes is the the argument that 82% in a telephone survey voted to repeal mandatory helmet laws. There are many problems with this premise because he does not provide sufficient evidence or proof of the survey.For example, Which station did the poll, and what kind of questions were asked. The question could have been phrased in a very biased way, which could lead to a very different response than normal. Furthermore, even if there were no problems with the questioning, this argument commits the fallacy of bandwagon. Stan Daniels’ argument is overall very weak. The strongest reason he provides in his argument is that of freedom, but even there he leaves out any real argument. Many of his premises are false, but even if they were true, his conclusion would not follow. All that also persuades me to believe he has committed several fallacies,including weak analogies, which make his argument unpersuasive. At the end, I believe that this argument does not provide sufficient proof in its premise that leads me to accept the conclusion.