Helmet Use should be a personal choice

[burkbuilds]

Here is another research paper I had to write for English Composition. I went in expecting to make a case for mandatory helmet laws but after all the research I became convinced otherwise. By the way, I do wear a helmet myself, and I would even if it were not mandated but not because I think it is going to save my life, I wear it to keep my head warm in the Winter and to keep those dang big bugs we have around here from hitting me in the face! I've had a few snap my neck back when they hit the faceshield and you can call me a chicken all you want to but I don't want to take that in my face at 55+mph!

Motorcycle Helmet Use Should be a Personal Choice!

During the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, federal highway funds were automatically withheld from states that did not pass mandatory helmet laws. As a result every state, except California, passed mandatory helmet use laws by 1975. When legislation changed so that states were no longer financially penalized for lack of compliance, many states chose to repeal or amend those laws. As a result, only 20 states now require mandatory use for all riders. Three states have no helmet use laws, and the remainder have laws applying only to select groups meeting certain criteria, such as being licensed for less than a year, lacking medical insurance, or being younger than a certain age, usually 18 or 21. A reasonable investigation of the facts will confirm that the government should not mandate motorcycle helmet use. Mandatory helmet laws deprive bikers of their constitutional rights, increase the likelihood of becoming involved in an accident, offer a false sense of security to the rider, and distract from the actual causes of motorcycle traffic fatalities.

According to Jones and Bayer (2007, p. 216) “…the state has a role in protecting vulnerable members of society from misjudgments about motorcycle safety.” They go on to say “…motorcyclists have not been able to make sound safety decisions on their own and that mandatory helmet laws are needed to ensure their own safety.” However, Bikers argue that helmet laws violate the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment, are an infringement on the motorcyclist’s liberty, and an excessive use of the state’s police power. This argument was upheld by the Illinois Supreme Court when they ruled that “…the helmet laws constituted an infringement on motorcyclists’ rights” (Jones, et al. 2007, p. 210). Much of what makes this country great is the willingness of people to take risks for various reasons, some patriotic, some self serving. Where would we be without the great explorers who risked their very lives daily to blaze trails across the continent, settle new frontiers, or go into outer space? What if the Wright brothers had been forbidden to attempt flight because it was too dangerous? If the government tried to protect citizens from all their risky behavior, where would it end? There is no question that motorcycling is more dangerous than riding in a car. Bikers wearing the best protective equipment available still have a much greater risk of serious injury in a crash than occupants riding in an automobile. The important question becomes, who should decide what risks are acceptable, the individual taking them or the state? The implication of helmet advocates is that helmets will keep riders safer and that bikers are not intelligent enough to make the decision to wear one on their own, so they must be forced to wear a helmet for their own safety.

Researchers Houston and Richardson (2004) support that view by insisting that the repeal of Florida’s mandatory helmet law in July of 2000 caused the number of monthly fatalities to increase by 21%. However, a much more extensive study of the statistical evidence by Stolzenberg and D’Alessio (2003) criticized many other studies as being myopic because they looked at extremely small samples to acquire the statistics they quoted, such as the fatality rates using only one hospital’s records, over a three month period, before and after repeal of the law. They also exposed other studies that failed to take into account the significant number of new motorcycle registrations that almost always follow the repeal of helmet laws. Apparently a lot of people just won’t ride if they are forced to wear a helmet. Registrations of new motorcycles typically increase by over 20% each year for several years after the repeal of mandatory helmet laws. Those registrations contribute to the increase in both the number of riders on the road, and the number of miles traveled each year. Stolzenberg, et al. indicated that researchers often focused only on the increase in the number of fatalities per year while neglecting to take into account the increase in ridership and the total increase in miles traveled per year once those laws are repealed. Stolzenberg, et al. studied all the fatal motorcycle accidents in Florida over the period 1986 to the end of 2001 in an attempt to determine the truth relating to helmet use and motorcycle injuries. This study indicated that fatality rates peaked in 1997, were already falling before the law was repealed in 2000, and continued to decline at a similar rate for the remaining two years of the study. Interestingly, the crash rate for riders actually decreased by approximately 21%, and the fatality rate declined by 7% following the repeal of the helmet-use law in Florida. They concluded that the repeal of Florida’s helmet use law had little observable effect on serious injury and fatality rates. They also stated “…that policy makers should probably consider revising or repealing these types of laws” (Stolzenberg and D’Alessio, 2003, p. 147). Even though mandatory helmet laws are usually popular with the general public, that popularity may be based on assumptions that are not supported by the evidence.

One of the reasons popular opinion favors the use of helmets is the false belief about the protective abilities of the helmet itself. Although it may seem logical that a helmet would protect your head in an accident, the actual statistics of the Department Of Transportation (DOT), show almost no difference in the fatality rates of helmeted vs. unhelmeted riders (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2008). The actual requirements for a helmet to receive DOT certification are not very stringent. The main test requires the helmets to be dropped from a height of six feet onto a solid steel anvil. If the helmets don’t break, they pass the test (Teresi, 1999). This test replicates an impact speed of 13.7 miles per hour. Very few motorcycle accidents happen at low speeds and the ones that do would rarely result in serious injury. Another seldom published statistic is that head injuries account for only 20% of serious injuries in motorcycle accidents. The majority of serious, life threatening injuries are to the chest and abdominal areas of riders (Teresi, 1999). Understanding these facts may lead to the question, “What can be done to improve the safety of motorcycle riders?”

Those wanting to have the greatest impact on motorcycle safety should focus on driver education as the key to reducing serious injuries and fatalities. An overemphasis on protective equipment will never have as much impact as educating bikers about the main contributing factors to accidents: alcohol use, speeding, and a lack of operator training. Teaching bikers to avoid behavior that often leads to accidents is the best course of action to save lives. In fact, focusing on helmet use may actually be undermining the concept of safe driving. Teresi (1999, p. 43) states that “…helmet wearing can lead to excessive risk taking due to an unrealistic sense of invulnerability….” The plain truth is a motorcyclist involved in a high speed accident is unlikely to escape serious injury or fatality. If the goal is to save lives, the focus should be on accident avoidance, not injury prevention.

Helmet law advocates may have the best of intentions, but their insistence that mandatory helmet laws save lives is not supported by the facts and may actually be counterproductive to their stated goal of saving lives. The decision to wear or not wear a helmet should be left to the individual taking the risk, not the government!

References

Houston, D. J., & Richardson, L.E. (2004). Motorcycle safety and the repeal of universal helmet laws. American Journal of Public Health, 97(11), 2063-2069.

Jones, M. M., & Bayer, R. (2007). Paternalism & its discontents. American Journal of Public Health, 97(2), 208-217.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2008). Traffic safety facts 2006. DOT-HS-810-818. Retrieved August 25, 2008, from http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/site/nhtsa/ncsa

Stolzenberg, L., & D’Alessio, S. J. (2003). Born to be wild. Evaluation Review 27(2), 131-150.
Teresi, D. (1999). The wild one. Forbes, 163(9), 41-44. Retrieved August 20, 2008, from Academic Search Complete database.