|
Here is the finished essay that I wrote which is why I had started that thread. Criticism welcome. Compliments more so. I aplogize if I appear a little harsh or condescending to anti-helmet folks, I just wanted to stir things up a bit to make the reading a little juicier. Thanks to all for the insight and feedback generated in that thread.
Universal Helmet Laws: A Real No-Brainer
Joe “Bad-Ass” Johnson succumbs to the call of the open road as often as his middle-aged lifestyle can accommodate. A leather jacket and chaps, sturdy boots and a pair of cool shades are this weekend warrior’s uniform and a clean, well-maintained Harley Davidson Fatboy serves as his faithful steed. Cruising down Pacific Coast Highway, Johnson feels most alive with the wind blowing through his hair, a carefree swivel of the head every now and then to take in the beauty of the California coastline.
A chilly October morning was the occasion of this rebel ritual when things went terribly wrong. The driver of a large SUV lost sight of Johnson in the glare of the early morning sun, and sideswiped him during a lane change. As his large frame catapulted through the air, the wind was indeed blowing through his hair and he was able to take in an unencumbered, albeit terrifying view. His head smacked the pavement with a sickening thud and a trail of blood crept past shattered sunglasses towards the shore.
Common sense dictates that certain protections should be used to minimize potential injury in the event of such a mishap. Few would argue that besides being a fashion statement, sunglasses help shield the eyes from the sun and small particles. Similarly, a kickstand protects a motorcycle by holding it in an upright position with the added convenience of allowing the user to “kick” it into place. A rearview mirror provides a rider with a safe and efficient means to view what is occurring behind him.
Universal helmet laws effectively protect motorcycle riders against potential brain injury and death. While our friend “Bad-Ass” Johnson is a fictional character, he represents a sobering set of statistics. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Association (NHTSA), 3,181 motorcycle fatalities and 60,000 injuries were recorded on U.S. highways in 2001(MotorcycleHelmet.pdf). It is widely accepted that bikers are considerably more vulnerable than other vehicular passengers due to the open nature of their mode of transport. Any attempt to mandate additional protection for these individuals would appear to make sense. Unfortunately, many headstrong bikers have greeted such attempts with scorn, skepticism and open rebellion.
Despite the biker backlash and resultant controversy, studies have proven that helmet use is effective. The Crash Outcome Data Evaluation System (CODES) project determined that helmets are 67% effective in preventing brain injuries and 35% effective in preventing fatalities (Johnson et al). The NHTSA has found that head injury is a leading cause of death in motorcycle crashes (MotorcycleHelmet.pdf). Such data is essential in dispelling the myths driven by the anti-helmet movement.
In addition to the facts there are numerous precedents in which a helmet is commonly used to help protect the head. Athletes who participate in high impact sports such as football, baseball and hockey are required by their respective leagues to wear a helmet. Football players make contact at speeds considerably lower than that achieved by a motorcycle, and yet must wear a helmet. Soldiers also wear helmets – perhaps ineffective against direct headshots – nonetheless a practical defense against glancing blows, shrapnel, or accidents which may occur during evasive maneuvers. Similarly, motorcycle cops whose rigorous training holds them among the skilled elite are required to don helmets.
In situations where a helmet is not readily available but the risk of head injury exists, instinct and common sense prescribe that we shield the head as effectively as possible. During a fall, the body’s natural response is to protect the head. In tornado and earthquake drills we are taught to either find secure cover, or cover the head with the hands and arms in the absence of better shelter.
Another important factor to be considered concerns the legal aspects. We are all familiar with the cliché that “driving is a privilege”. While many view this concept cynically, its core component is valid. There is a mutual agreement between society and the driver that the laws will be obeyed for the benefit of all parties due to the potential hazards associated with driving a motor vehicle.
Consider the following laws: prohibition of alcoholic influence while driving, seat belt enforcement and testing requirements prior to receiving a license. Such laws were not arbitrarily enacted and society has accepted these laws as necessary and valid. Additionally, most roads are public domain. If a biker chooses to ride on private property sans helmet, they can, mainly because activity on private property is harder to enforce and there are different liability issues to consider. On public roads, however, the laws are quite enforceable and the liability to taxpayers, governmental institutions and other drivers must be acknowledged.
Financial implications also justify such laws. The impact on insurance rates as well as healthcare costs to the state affect all citizens. A segment of bikers do not have adequate health insurance, which forces the cost of care to be absorbed by the state. The NHTSA estimates that helmet use saved $762 million in 1999; an additional $486 million would have been saved if all motorcyclists had worn helmets (MotorcycleHelmet.pdf).
There is a hardheaded movement, primarily comprised of bikers, who oppose mandatory helmet laws, framing the argument as one of personal freedom. Considering the rebellious reputation and free-wheeling ideal of many members of the motorcycle community, it seems fitting that many would oppose the law on these grounds. This head on confrontation, rugged individualist attitudes aside, is misguided. Opponents must recognize that as members of society they are required to conform to whatever laws society has deemed to be beneficial to the society as a whole as long as the law is reasonable. The helmet law seems no more unreasonable than the seat belt law. This may explain why a number of credible groups such as AAA, the American Insurance Association, American Medical Association, National Safety Council and National Sheriffs Association among others all endorse these laws (MotorcycleHelmet.pdf).
The brain trust fighting these laws fuels the flames of contention with primarily emotional appeals. Comfort, convenience and even fashion have all been cited as reasons why this law interferes with a biker’s individual rights. Unfortunately, such weak arguments are likely to crash and burn. Even the most strident civil libertarians would have to concede that safety trumps all of these considerations. After all, comfort, convenience and good looks are much harder achieved from the casket or the trauma ward.
Another argument involves the idea that “no one else is affected”. Are proponents of this argument intentionally omitting friends, family members, and employers or employees? Such a self-centered perspective does not favorably advance the cause. Furthermore, it is obvious that in crashes involving other drivers, the other driver is affected. The additional liability of an unprotected rider’s well being affects a motorist’s insurance premiums and leaves them vulnerable to potential personal injury lawsuits or criminal charges. The cost implications on society have been previously noted.
Cynics argue that these laws are in effect “nanny laws”. There are even bikers who would not be caught dead without a helmet but contend that if a rider is not sensible enough to wear one they deserve the consequences. Such a Darwinist worldview is at odds with many of society’s conventions. Neither negligence, irresponsibility or stupidity are rewarded with additional liberty, nor should they be. The fundamental purpose of social institutions such as insurance and state-funded health care is to benefit the many by collective resource pooling in the event of accident or emergency. The built in caveat for such benefits is that the individual agrees to take preventive measures in the event of such a circumstance. Regardless of a rider’s skill, an accident is unpredictable and uncontrollable – hence the term “accident”. Should a rider choose to waive all rights and liability claims against other drivers, insurance companies and the state, perhaps the helmet requirement could be made optional. Wouldn’t it be easier and more beneficial for all involved to just wear the helmet?
Emmy-award winning writer and political satirist Al Franken underscored the ridiculous nature of anti-helmet sentiment in the following exchange made during one of former President Reagan’s campaign stops:
“Yeah. I’ve been following you on the press bus all day, and this morning in Derby Falls you said you were against mandatory motorcycle helmets because it’s a limit to personal freedom . . .”
People had already started booing.
“ . . . And then later this afternoon in Cornish Flat you said you were against decriminalizing marijuana because it caused brain damage . . .”
BOOO!!
“What’s your question?” says the candidate.
“Well . . . can’t not wearing a motorcycle helmet cause brain damage a lot quicker than marijuana, by, for example, the head splitting open so that actual material from the road enters the brain?” (Franken, 43)
Such a direct in-your-face statement, much like the facts presented by the NHTSA, cuts through the rhetoric and head games used as distractions by the anti-helmet crowd. When the rubber hits the road, some of these folks wouldn’t know common sense if it hit them in the head. I recognize the biker’s creed that they are born to be wild. Can we just be wild a little more safely?
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
