English 101C
May 16, 2006
Dr. M. Logan
Should motorcycle helmets be a legal requirement for all riders in all states?
Although opinions on the use of motorcycle helmets vary, those opinions are usually quite strong, and my opinion is no exception. My father, who raced motorcycles for as long as I can remember, bought me a 60cc Yamaha for trail riding when I was seven years old. He taught me the proper way to ride and how to be safe while riding. A helmet was always part of the standard equipment I wore. It became second nature for me to wear a helmet. As an adult I have owned several street bikes and a helmet is still part of my standard riding equipment. Recently the state of Pennsylvania repealed its helmet law. On any given day a large number of riders can be seen cruising down the highway without helmets. Whenever I see these people I can't help but wonder what they were thinking when they made the decision not to wear a helmet. How can anyone believe that they will never be in an accident? As justification, I have heard things like, "If I am in an accident, I don't want to survive." I just can’t comprehend that kind of logic. Once you’ve narrowed down the issues, two clear sides emerge: individual freedom of choice verses legislation of personal safety. It seems that this brings us back to the original question of legislating helmet requirements. Can, or should, the government force individuals to be protected to any specific degree, or is our personal right to make choices more important than our health and lives?
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), a government organization that promotes and mandates all types of highway safety laws, maintains that, "motorcycle helmets provide the best protection from head injury for motorcyclists involved in traffic crashes" and "the passage of helmet use laws governing all motorcycle riders is the most effective method of increasing helmet use.” They argue that, "An unhelmeted motorcyclist is 40 percent more likely to suffer a fatal head injury and 15 percent more likely to suffer a nonfatal injury than a helmeted motorcyclist" and, NHTSA estimates, the likelihood of crash fatality with a helmet is reduced by 37 percent (NHTSA). While the site is maintained by a government agency, the data and studies listed seem biased toward mandating helmet use through legislation.
One independent study by Jonathan P. Goldstein, Ph.D., of the Department of Economics at Bowdoin College claims helmets are not the answer to reducing injury and fatalities. Instead, he outlines a program of education and stricter enforcement of alcohol and traffic laws. He rejected the claim that, “helmets have no effect on neck injuries” in favor of the claim that, “past a critical impact speed, they exacerbate neck injuries" but he does concede that helmets do reduce head injury (Goldstein). This study, and others like it, often used in the "helmets hurt" argument, tries to suggest that helmets do more harm than good, or to suggest that since a helmet increases the likelihood of neck injury, mandating helmet use is not saving lives.
The Helmet Law Defense League is a private organization fighting for the right to choose to wear a helmet by using the law against itself. "How can a motorcyclist comply, with certainty, with the helmet law?" they ask. If the law cannot clearly define what a helmet is and what requirements the helmet must meet to comply with the law, then the law is vague and cannot be enforced (Helmet). A second stand they take is a little more complex and uses the state and federal laws to contradict one another. In order to define what an acceptable helmet is some states have made lists of "approved" helmets. The argument against these lists is that the helmet law statutes require that someone maintain a list of "approved" helmets or adopt some existing standard or comply with the Federal Regulations, usually FMVSS 218. A "Federal Law requires that all states be uniform in the regulations (definition) they adopt." A court decision with similar impact stated, "states may enforce no standards which are not identical to federal standards." Since no federal agency, including NHTSA, maintain a list of approved helmets, the state laws that rely on such lists are unconstitutional (No List). Many other arguments, too numerous to mention, are made in the efforts to abolish helmet laws.
Although the Department of Transportation has set forth guidelines for helmet manufacture, they do not inspect, certify, or approve helmets in any way. One private organization does set standards and requires manufacturers to submit a number of helmets of each style for testing before they approve the design (Snell). The Snell Memorial Foundation, founded in 1957, is a non-profit organization dedicated to improving the effectiveness of all types of helmets. The Snell standards are also the standards that some states elect to adopt as "approved" helmets.
The side of freedom of choice and the side of legislated safety are at odds. In the legal war of helmet laws there are many arguments for both sides and many more examples and studies provided by both sides. In this study I have gotten a glimpse of just how complex this issue is. While I remain firmly rooted in my opinion that wearing a helmet is safer then not wearing one, I understand those that argue the idea that it should be a choice, freely made by the rider, to wear a helmet, and yet, it still seems to me that the logic from both sides is somewhat flawed. The study by Dr. Goldstein of Bowdoin College argues that helmets don’t reduce the risk of injury they merely make the tradeoff of head injury for neck injury (Goldstein). Opponents of helmet laws use exactly that type of logic to argue the effectiveness of helmets. The proponents argue with statistics and projections about the number of lives that could have been saved by helmet use. The NHTSA, in 2002, claimed that 3,244 motorcyclists died in highway accidents. They further claimed that helmets have saved the lives of 13,744 motorcyclists from 1984 to 2002 (NHTSA). Given the nature of any accident, determining the “what might have happened if . . .” type of scenario is extremely difficult, if not impossible. One of my concerns is, in this age of law suits for financial gain, will the families of riders that refuse to use a helmet tie up our courts with suits against the state or car makers because the road or a vehicle was harder then their loved one’s head? In my personal opinion, freedom of choice is only a right when it is coupled with the acceptance of responsibility for those choices. Let the helmet laws be repealed, but establish laws that define responsibility in the event of an accident to protect innocent people from the choices of others.
Works Cited
Goldstein – “The Effect of Motorcycle Helmet Use on the Probability of Fatality and the
Severity of Head And Neck Injuries” United States Freedom Fighters. 1986.
Helmet – “What Is A Safety Helmet; Protective Headgear; A Crash Helmet??”
United States Freedom Fighters. July, 1997
NHTSA – “Motorcycle Helmet Use Laws” National Highway and Traffic Safety
Administration. April 2004.
No List – “No List? No Law! The Theory Explained” United States Freedom Fighters.
July, 1997.
Snell – “Snell Helmet Testing Programs” Snell Memorial Foundation
