QuestionI'm doing a project on if the U.S. government should make it illegal to ride a motorcycle without a helmet.Do you agree and why?If you can, please give facts.
AnswerI disagree--the US and state governments should not mandate helmet use for all motorcycle riders.
Adult, licensed motorcycle riders should be able to choose what gear they wear when they ride.
However, high-risk groups (young riders; those new and returning to riding; riders with poor driving/crash history; those without safety training/certification) should be required to wear helmets for a period of time--at least six months and as much as three years--in order to minimize risk of head injuries while learning or re-learning to ride. They should also be placed under heavy "instructional permit period" restrictions, such as maintaining a clean driving record, mandatory rider training, no riding at night, 0.0% BAC, no passengers, engine size restrictions, and a reflective vest and special license plate requirement, with revokation of riding priveleges being the consequence of violations.
The reason is because head injuries are caused by crashes, and helmets don't prevent crashes. Mandating helmet use would attack the symptom of the problem, and not the cause. Speed, inexperience, and alcohol use are the primary causes of motorcycle crashes, in addition to other drivers making mistakes (failure to yield right of way; inattention).
However, if you put the question another way: "Would mandatory helmet use reduce crashes, injuries, and fatalities?" the answer would be yes, they would. If the government was trying to save motorcyclists' lives through legislation, a helmet law would be the simplest way to do so. (The permit period and restrictions I mentioned above would be a better way!) In Minnesota from 2001 to 2005, for example, there were 260 motorcycle fatalites. Of these, 93 died specifically of head injuries. Of those 93, only 9 (approximately 10 percent) were known to be wearing a helmet. Using those numbers as a guide, one could extrapolate that a mandatory helmet law might have saved an additional 76 lives, or about 15 lives a year. Unfortunately, that still leaves 167 (260 minus 93) lives lost that a helmet law could not account for.
You see the dilemma? A helmet is not the silver bullet that everyone thinks it is.
A couple final thoughts. A helmet law would also reduce crashes, injuries and fatalities because many people would choose to not ride at all, rather than wear a helmet. That would reduce exposure. A recent study from Monash University in New Zealand suggested that wearing a white helmet can reduce your chances of a multi-vehicle crash by 24 percent, because the white helmet makes the rider more visible. (Should the government mandate white helmets?) Lastly, it is well known by voluntary helmet users that helmets also protect riders from the extremes of heat and cold, sun, wind, rain, and flying debris like dirt, bugs, sand. This insulation from the elements allows riders to concentrate better and longer, which, in my experience, helps them ride safer--thus, fewer crashes in the first place.
I hope this answers your question and gives you some ammunition for your project.
Pat
