Motorcycle Helmet Laws - Research Paper Example

Helmet Laws: Persuasive paper against motorcycle helmet laws Abstract Motorcycle accidents are among the main cause of death in America, and motorcycles contribute a higher ratio to these deaths. In countering these deaths, many states enforced helmet laws, but the withdrawal of the economic incentive led to their repeal. The arguments against the importance of helmet laws include that crashes only affect the rider, helmet use raises health concerns and rider training is more useful. Other arguments against helmet laws include that helmets limit the rights and the freedoms of individuals, helmet use encourages risk-taking and failing to use helmets is comparable to other risky behaviours which have not been restricted by the government. The conclusions made from the reviews of the different positions against helmet laws were that the government and law enforcement should abolish helmet laws. Introduction Motor vehicles are a major cause for deaths in America, and 14 percent of these deaths are those of motorcycle riders. This led to the formulation of universal helmet laws, compelling riders to use helmets. Background of the issue Currently, less than nineteen US states have universal helmet laws. The remaining states have partial or no helmet laws in force. The enforcement of these laws has been challenged over the years. The arguments in support of the abolishment of helmet laws Universal helmet laws should be abolished because the rider is the only person, who is affected; the usage of helmets is affected by the issues of health among others, rider training is more effective than helmet laws, and helmet laws are a violation of personal freedom. Conclusion Motorcycle accidents are a major contributor of the accidents taking place in America, and that led to the enforcement of universal helmet laws. These laws have been challenged for different reasons, including that they are known to present health issues. The discussion led to the conclusion that universal helmet laws should be abolished. Introduction Motor vehicle accidents are the principal cause of death among the general public in the US; motor vehicle accidents are the leading contributor of deaths for the group aged between ten and thirty-four years. More than one hundred people die on the roads on a daily basis, and during 2009, more than 2 million drivers and passengers were admitted to the emergency rooms of medical institutions (Persaud et al., 2012). Despite the fact that motorcycle riders comprised about 2 percent of all the vehicles using American roads, about 14 percent of the people dying and those injured following road accidents were those riding on motorcycles. The main cause of death among the riders of motorcycles engaged in road accidents was the severe head trauma experienced during road accidents; the main contributor to the intensive head trauma was that the road users were not wearing helmets. However – since the imposition of helmet laws – bikers have challenged helmet laws successfully in many states, irrespective of the fact that the studies done in the area have shown that wearing helmets can reduce the deaths of riders. Taking into account that the imposition of mandatory helmet laws in the US has remained, almost impossible, it is important for the government to consider the option of enforcing secondary laws among all US states (Byrnes & Gerberich, 2012). The secondary laws that could work for all states include those of subjecting the riders and the passengers of all ages not wearing helmets, to more stringent penalties. This paper will explore the issue of helmet laws, presenting a persuasive argument against the imposition of helmet laws. The paper will maintain the position that, the government should let those who ride decide, whether to use helmets or not, by adopting an alternative set of laws to encourage more riders to act more safely on the roads (Persaud et al., 2012). Background of the issue Currently, universal helmet laws have been implemented in nineteen states in the US, requiring all riders (motorcyclists) to use helmets, irrespective of their age. The remaining 31 states have enforced partial helmet laws, which require the riders of different age groups, particularly 18 to 20 years, to wear helmets; others have not enforced any helmet laws. The number of states that have put universal helmet laws into action has been reducing since 1976. The decline started after the US congress required the Department of Transport to stop using helmet laws as a criterion for the assessment of state qualification for funding, during the distribution of funds for highway construction and safety programs (Thompson & Patterson, 1998). After the economic incentive to helmet laws was stopped, many states abolished the universal helmet laws they had put into place, irrespective of whether they were beneficial or not (NTSA, 2006). During 2010, the ratio of motorcycles to cars was 1: 100, yet for every single person that died following a motorcycle accident; there were only 8 that died following the crashes of cars. The huge contribution of motorcycle crashes was evident from the fact that in 2010, more than 4500 people died following the crashes; this number marked a 55 percent increment from the numbers registered during 2000 (NHTSA, 2014). Until today, little has been done to address the issue, despite the fact that the numbers of motorcycles on the roads had increased over the past decade. Irrespective of the fact that the same decade also saw an increment in the number of cars using American roads, the deaths resulting from car crashes was countered by the fact that the government put into place some measures to make cars much safer. Some of the laws enforced to improve the safety and to reduce the death of drivers included seatbelt laws, which were enforced in all states (NTSA, 2006). In the case of motorcycles, little has been done to increase the safety of riders and to counter the increasing deaths. The differential treatment of the two means of transport implies that the government needs to enforce laws and the measures aimed at increasing the safety of riders, like it did with cars (Hundley et al., 2004). Further, it is important to note that the helmet laws in force have not been effective, noting that the highest levels of death and injury are among the people aged between 20 and 24 followed by those aged between 25 and 29 years. The effectiveness of the helmet laws in force becomes an important issue in this discussion, noting that they do not cover the people aged more than 20, in more than half of the states that have helmet laws in force (NHTSA, 2014). The arguments in support of the abolishment of helmet laws The only person affected by crashes is the rider: solution to related issues One arguments used against the enforcement of helmet laws is that, despite the tragic nature of these deaths, the only person affected is the rider; the rider is responsible for the choice of wearing or failing to wear a helmet. This arguments ends with the conclusion that the government should not be concerned with the personal decisions leading a rider to their death, noting that the choice is similar to that of a smoker engaging in smoking. This position is not untrue in its entirety, noting that there are consequences likely to affect the government and the close relatives of the rider (Hooten & Murad, 2012). The effects felt by the government include the economic burden of administering healthcare services to the victims of the crash-related injuries that could be averted using helmets. In addressing the concerns related with the abolishment of helmet laws, the government can enforce secondary laws that will limit the effects of such crashes among the victims (Baldi, Baer & Cook, 2005). Some practical solutions to the problem include that the government can enforce laws requiring the victims of crashes – in the cases where they were not wearing helmets – should be borne by the insurance covers of the victims or their personal finances. For instance, this could work well, in the case that motorcycle riders are required to secure a license for not using helmets, where the licenses are given after investigating whether the insurance cover of the rider can cover their medical needs after a crash (Hooten & Murad, 2012). Apart from the emergency and the medical costs of crash victims not wearing helmets, all property damaged by the crash should be paid by the motorcyclist involved in the accident. Through the imposition of these secondary laws in this area, the government can encourage the use of helmets among riders, especially those not able to secure the licenses and those fearing the consequences of the secondary laws (Baldi, Baer & Cook, 2005). This is one area that the government needs to address; taking into account the statistics gathered among motorcyclists show that more than half do not own private health insurance. The fact that they do not have personal insurance compels the government to pay for their healthcare needs, using the tax money collected from Americans (Crowther, 2005). Through the institution of the laws related to the licensing of the motorcyclists that do not prefer to use helmets, it will be possible for the government to license those that are able to pay for their healthcare needs. The fact that the different states that abolished their helmet laws did so to safeguard the freedom of choice of motorcyclists is also catered for, using the secondary laws proposed through this paper. Firstly, after the enforcement of these secondary laws, it will not be allowed that a police officer can stop a rider because they are not wearing a helmet. However, in the case that such a rider commits any other road offense, the laws should require them to be prosecuted for the offense in question, and also failing to wear a helmet. It is apparent that secondary laws will not be as effective as primary laws, but it is also evident that they will encourage safer driving and also the use of helmets. Through the enforcement of primary helmet laws, the free choice of riders is withdrawn from them, but in the case of enforcing the secondary laws, more areas will be improved (Baldi, Baer & Cook, 2005). Among the drivers that choose not to use helmets, their driving will become much safer, and that will help in reducing the numbers of accidents taking place. The advantages of adopting secondary laws and not the primary helmet laws used before are that they will reduce the numbers of accidents, and not only the cases of deaths and injuries. When evaluating the two sets of laws from the new point of view shows that the incentive to drive more carefully will be more impactful than compelling riders to wear helmets. One of the areas that need to be checked, in order to make the laws more effective, include that the penalties required from offenders should be considerably higher than those collected from the drivers caught not using seatbelts. In many US states, the fines for a first offender are about USD 20. Requiring riders to pay high fines is very crucial, because they can forgo purchasing a good quality of riding helmet, which goes at about USD 150, when the penalty of being caught without it is more than USD 130 cheaper. For that reason, in order to compel riders to drive safely and to use helmets, the fines collected or the punishment for the offense should be relatively severe. After enforcing the laws, it will be much easier for the government to increase the usage of helmets, in the same way that helmet laws impacted the use of helmets. From the statistics collected about the use of helmets, about 97 percent of motorcycle riders wear helmets in the states that have enforced universal helmet laws. In states using partial helmet laws, the level of usage stands at between 28 and 40 percent, and 11 percent in states where there are no helmet laws in force. Addressing the usage concerns related to helmet use: solution to related issues Some of the groups against the use of helmets claim that helmets affect the abilities of the rider negatively; they restrict their hearing and vision. It is important to note that this argument is false, taking into account that only 3 percent of the rider’s peripheral vision is lost when they are wearing a full-coverage helmet. In addressing this area of argument, it is important for the government to review the manufactory standards of helmets, in order to ensure that they meet the vision thresholds required to improve the competence of drivers on the road. Additionally, it is important for the government to address the concerns related to the hearing of riders. In addressing the situation, the manufactory standards of helmets should be reviewed to ensure that they meet the threshold levels that do not compromise a rider’s ability to hear other road users and vehicles. By addressing the problems related to the use of helmets – whether those related to vision or hearing – the discomfort that discourages the use of helmets will be reduced or eliminated entirely. The effects of taking these measures include that, riders will be more willing to use helmets, and the importance of helmet laws will be reduced considerably or eliminated entirely. More importantly, it is necessary for the government to investigate the factors underlying the lack of helmet use, and through that it will be much easier to propose the design changes that may be made by the makers of helmets, in order to reduce the opposition expressed by the public towards the use of helmets (Hooten & Murad, 2012). The general goal and the benefits to accrue from this law entails more than getting the riders of motorcycles to wear helmets, but also improving the safety of US roads and highways. The ultimate goal of this law is that of preventing injuries and saving lives, by encouraging riders to take the initiative for road safety and also increasing their support for the use of helmets. Through addressing the comfort and the safety issues related to the use of helmets among riders, the options available to them will be streamlined to those of wearing or failing to wear for no apparent reason. This law and strategy of abolishing universal helmet laws, the government will also be more likely to reduce or eliminate the use of aesthetic helmets, which have been found not to improve the safety of motorcycle riders (Baldi, Baer & Cook, 2005). In this area, one of the secondary laws that can help in reducing the opposition expressed towards the use of helmets is that, the government will mediate the production and the sale of all helmets used in the country. Through the enforcement of this secondary law, the government will increase its ability to increase the initiative of using helmets among motorcycle riders, and that will reduce the need to enforce helmet laws. In order to address the issues related to this issue effectively, and also checking that the usage of helmets increases, without the need to impose helmet laws, involving the public may be necessary. Towards realizing that, the government will involve the general public in the formulation of the standards and the thresholds for the manufactory and the usage of helmet. Rider training is more effective than helmet laws: solutions to related issues Irrespective of the fact that many studies have reported positive outcomes from the use of helmets, federal statistics show that the deaths that occur among motorcycle riders could occur, even among the riders of using helmets. This fact leads to the conclusion that compelling motorcycle riders to use helmets is not effective in reducing the healthcare burden arising from motorcycle crashes (Kardamanidis et al., 2010). In addressing the problem more adequately, it is important for the government to adopt rider training, which is more effective in increasing the safety of riders and other road users. The training of riders is very important, taking into account that motorcycles are more prone to accidents, when compared to cars (Mohan, 2002). One of the main factors increasing the risk of motorcycle riders to road accidents is the lack of riding experience, and that supports the fact that the training of riders can also reduce the severity of injury and motorcycle crashes. The contents of the rider training program will include the practical and the theoretical issues that could be engaged to improve the safety of motorcycle riders as well as other road users (Perrino et al., 2002). The goals of the training include the improvement of rider skills and testing the driving abilities of riders using video footages, lectures and testing riding abilities. During the administration of the rider training program, the government will compel all motorcycle riders to go through a pre-licensing training, before they secure the licenses needed for them to ride on American roads and highways. Through the strategy, the strategy is likely to limit the non-experienced road users riding on American roads, who present a threat to themselves, other drivers and riders and pedestrians (Kardamanidis et al., 2010). The effects of the pre-licensing training program include that it could reduce the numbers of motorcycle crashes taking place on the roads, which will reduce injury levels and fatalities. The effects of the pre-licensing training of riders will result from the fact that, it will improve the riding competence of riders, and that will increase their ability to avoid accident causing situations (Kardamanidis et al., 2010). For example, by educating riders on the importance of using helmets and also the effects of using them during crashes, they will be more likely to improve road safety and to encourage responsible riding on the roads (Perrino et al., 2002). Additionally, through the imposition of higher levels of competency before riders are licensed to use the roads, it will be more possible for the government to set higher road safety standards. The constitutional and the civil rights of bikers should be respected The implementation of helmet laws is largely paternalistic, because it entails protecting motorcycle riders without their consent to do so. The enforcement of these laws is grossly undesirable, mainly because it entails the violation and the infringement of the individual’s sense of autonomy (Crowther, 2005). Despite the fact that the infringement of personal autonomy is relatively small, it raises concerns about the intrusion of the government in the personal freedoms of citizens. This is the case in the current use of helmet laws, because it raises questions related to whether all unhealthy behaviors have not been regulated by the government. By allowing the government to withdraw the rights of individuals, in relation to their freedom to use helmets or not to, it is likely that it will exercise power in a similar manner in the future. For example, one of the policies that the government could adopt in the same line include that, it could – in the near future – make the laws illegalizing or outlawing the use of motorcycles as a means of transport, due to its dangers. From a constitutional point of view, it is possible to acknowledge that the enforcement of helmet laws amount to a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment gives protection against the intrusion of the government, in the fundamental and the intimate personal decisions of citizens (Hooten & Murad, 2012). One of the freedoms and the rights protected by this amendment is the right to choose whether to wear a helmet, in a similar manner as the protection directed towards family structure, reproductive health and the freedom of parents to direct their children’s education (Braver et al., 2007). Initially, American courts acknowledged the fact that these rights are solemn, but later reversed the regard for the freedom of motorcycle riders. The reversal of the regard offered to the freedoms previously was based on the fact that the choice of wearing a helmet is not a constitutional right, due to the fact that it is not entirely a private decision. The position that the autonomy of the individual in deciding whether to use or not to wear a helmet can be supported by the fact that almost all motorcycle riders are able to evaluate the benefits and the risks of using helmets. Further, the statistics collected about motorcycle riders show that the average rider is between the age of 20 and 50, has an income above that of the average American, holds a college degree and is skilled in their area of work. The fact that all the classes that fall under the above-poverty-level and knowledgeable social class shows that the movement should allow riders to decide whether to wear or not to wear helmets. This fact leads to the conclusion that it is relatively better to allow an individual to make the wrong decision, about whether to wear a helmet, as compared to the case of restricting the freedom of all citizens. The imposition of helmet laws infringes the freedoms of riders, and the situation is further compounded by the fact that the decision to take the risks of not wearing a helmet demonstrates the rider’s assumption of liability. For that reason, the government, other policy making and law enforcement agencies should be careful enough to give a substantial justification for limiting individual freedoms. Helmet use causes injuries Some studies, notably that of J.P Goldstein found that the additional mass of a helmet increases the vulnerability of a biker to neck and spinal injuries (Goldstein, 1986). The study maintained that the additional mass of the helmet exerts more weight on the rider’s head, and that triggers a longer swing of the neck, which is likely to cause injuries. The study mentioned that these neck and spine injuries are less likely to affect the bikers that suffer the fate of crashes, when not wearing the helmets (Ooi et al., 2011). Many other studies have refuted this position, but it is important to highlight the seriousness of back and spine injuries, which could be among the factors increasing the opposition of using helmets among bikers. Additionally, taking into account that little research has been done in the area show that it is likely to hold some truth, and that is enough grounds to stop the enforcement of universal helmet laws (Goldstein, 1986). This argument against the use of helmets ends with the conclusion that, the fact that the use of helmets or failing to use is likely to expose the biker to injuries; the necessary strategy should be that of rider education (Moskal, Martin & Laumon, 2008). After riders are educated about the risks and the benefits of wearing or not wearing helmets, some will choose to wear and others not to, but with information to support their choices. Riders take more risks when using helmets Some studies have reported that the riding behaviors of motorcyclists are affected by risk-reduction, according to the risk homeostasis theory. The theory maintains that a person’s inclination to behave in a more risky way is increased by their usage of risk-reduction gears, mainly because they rely on the comfort of knowing that the adverse effects of a crash are likely to be non-tragic. This theory can be used against helmet laws, mainly because the use of helmets is likely to encourage bikers to engage in other dangerous riding behaviors, which may end up risking the lives and the property of other road users. In countering the issue, the government should abolish universal helmet laws, and put in place secondary laws restricting the misbehavior of motorcycle riders on the roads, so as to encourage safer driving. Through emphasizing the laws related to safer driving and also engaging the initiative of riders in the road safety programs put in place, it will be easier to make the roads safer for all users. A counter-side to this theory has been presented by Leonard Evans, who has emphasized that the tendency to take more risks, following the use of risk-reducing gears is largely metaphysical, philosophical, and not supported by science (Evans, 1991). However, it is important to take into account that humans are used to pushing the limits of their performance and those of machines and vehicles, and that could explain the reasons for the tendency to behave in a more risky way. Further, in order to understand this area better, it is necessary to do more research about the risk-taking behaviours of riders, and then use the information in the formulation of secondary laws to take the place of helmet laws. Helmet use is comparable to other risky lifestyles and behaviours The government has – for long – stood in the way of personal freedom and choice, in relation to helmet laws, and that gives evidence that the case of motorcycle riders has been singled out in society. The rationale given for restricting the personal freedom and the choice of riders is that their injuries cost the government a lot of money, through the experiences incurred in delivering healthcare services to them (Mueller, 2013). However, little attention has been offered to the fact that the increase in the healthcare costs arising from motorcycle crashes is similar or less than that arising from other self-inflicted diseases and ailments. Some example of the self-inflicted diseases and ailments, against which the government has not expressed fears about funding it, include lung cancer, which is mainly caused by smoking. The similarity between the two behaviors involving individual choice and the outcomes that compel the government to fund the healthcare needs shows that the government should stop helmet laws or restrict other areas and behaviors (Braver et al., 2007). In a similar manner, the instances of liver cancer known to result from excessive drinking has been on the rise, and the government has not shown any interest in stopping the sale and the drinking of alcohol, like it has done with helmet laws (Crowther, 2005). Other areas of lifestyles and behaviors, which warrant a similar treatment by the government, include the eating of unhealthy foods, which are increasing the cases of obesity and other weight-related conditions, which are a major cause of death in America. Taking into account that personal choice and freedom has not been restricted in these areas of life should give the evidence needed to compel the government in scrapping helmet laws, and set secondary laws to take its place. Conclusion Motor vehicle accidents are one of the main causes of death in America, and the larger number of these deaths is that of motorcycle riders. Fourteen percent of the deaths caused by road accidents were those of riders, despite the fact that for every 1 motorcycle on the road, there were 100 cars. The arguments in favour of the abolishment of helmet laws include that the only person affected by rider crashes are the riders, despite the fact that it is important to check their ability to meet their healthcare services demands. The second argument in favour of abolishing helmet laws include that addressing the concerns related to the use of helmets can end the need for the laws. Rider training is more effective than helmet laws, because it affects the overall safety of road users, and helmet laws restrict the civil and the constitutional rights of riders. Other arguments in favour of abolishing helmet laws include that helmet use has been found to cause injuries, the use of helmets encourage more risk taking, and isolating helmet use as the only risky behaviour is inappropriate. These arguments lead to the conclusion that there are better options to helmet laws, and their abolishment is more advantageous than enforcing them. References Baldi, S., Baer, J.D., & Cook, A. L. (2005). Identifying best practices states in motorcycle rider education and licensing. Journal of Safety Research, 36(1), 19–32. Braver, E.R, et al. (2007). Persuasion and licensure: a randomized controlled intervention trial to increase licensure rates among Maryland motorcycle owners. Traffic Injury Prevention, 8(1), 39–46. Byrnes, M., & Gerberich, S. (2012). Motorcycle helmet use and legislation: a systematic review of the literature. Minnesota Medicine, 95(1), 60–65. Crowther, G. (2005). Engaging with motorcyclists: UK police and the BikeSafe Road Safety Programme. Published proceedings of the Australasian Road Safety Research Policing Education Conference, Wellington, New Zealand, Issue. 1, 1–11. Evans, L. (1991). Traffic Safety and the Driver. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Goldstein, J. (1986). The effect of motorcycle helmet use on the probability of fatality and the severity of head and neck injuries: a latent variable framework. Evaluation Review, 10(3), 355–375 Hooten, K., & Murad, G. (2012). Helmeted versus nonhelmeted: a retrospective review of outcomes from 2-wheeled vehicle accidents at a level 1 trauma center. Clinical Neurosurgery, 59, 126–130. Hundley, J., Kilgo, P., & Miller, P. et al. (2004). Non-helmeted motorcyclists: a burden to society? A study using the national trauma data bank. Journal of Trauma—Injury, Infection and Critical Care, 57(5), 944–949. Kardamanidis, K., Martiniuk, A., Ivers, R. Q., Stevenson, M.R., & Thistlethwaite, K. (2010). Motorcycle rider training for the prevention of road traffic crashes. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 10(CD005240), 2-23. Moskal, A., Martin, J. L., & Laumon, B. (2008). Helmet use and the risk of neck or cervical spine injury among users of motorized two-wheel vehicles. Injury Prevention, 14(4), 238–244. Mueller, T. (2013). Scooter crashes at university: intervention tactics for modified behavior and helmet use. Traffic Injury Prevention, 14(4), 335–339. NHTSA. (2014). The Economic and Societal Impact Of Motor Vehicle Crashes, 2010. US Department of Transport. Retrieved from: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/812013.pdf NTSA. (2006). Motorcycle Helmet Use Laws. Retrieved from: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/Rulemaking/Articles/Associated%20F iles/03%20Motorcycle%20Helmet%20Use.pdf Ooi, S., Wong, S., Yeap, J., & Umar, R. (2011). Relationship between cervical spine injury and helmet use in motorcycle road crashes. Asia-Pacific Journal of Public Health, 23(4), 608– 619. Persaud, N., Coleman, E., Zwolakowski, D., Lauwers, B., & Cass, D. (2012). Nonuse of bicycle helmets and risk of fatal head injury: a proportional mortality, case-control study. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 184(17), 921–923. Thompson, D., & Patterson, M. (1998). Cycle helmets and the prevention of injuries. Recommendations for competitive sport. Sports Medicine, 25(4), 213–219. Perrino, C. S., Ahmed, A., Callender, A., Rozier, E., Cantwell, A., & Stewart, O. (2002). The role of Maryland’s motorcycle rider course in promoting saver behaviors and attitudes. Baltimore, USA: National Transportation Center, Morgan State University. Read More