Home > Politics, News & Issues > US Politics > Government & Policies
Created on: April 29, 2008
I got the obligatory newspaper clipping from my mother the other day. You know, the one that talks about how motorcycle deaths are up at the same time that some states are relaxing their helmet laws.
Let's face it, moms are just being moms when they send these things. They would rather you didn't ride at all because "it's too dangerous" but if you're going to ride "you'd better wear your helmet every time." They also tend to believe strongly that all states should mandate wearing helmets all the time.
I disagree. I do wear my helmets (I have several) a lot of the time. But there are times when I do not, and I would argue that I know more about the risk I am taking than someone who has never been on a motorcycle in their lives. I'm also a registered Libertarian, so obviously I believe the government has no business telling me I have to wear a helmet.
So let's look at the information this particular article presents. It came from the Gannett News Service so presumably it appeared in a number of papers, maybe yours.
I'll give them credit, it talks about deaths rising on the basis of per 1,000 riders. So many such articles say simply that deaths are up, but fail to mention that the number of riders is up as well. And if deaths per thousand riders are increasing then that is definitely of concern to us.
My issue is with the interpretations that people put on the statistics. They're much too simplistic. Helmets are not some miracle cure for motorcycle fatalities. For example, the article states that "About 42 percent of riders killed were not wearing helmets." What that means then is that 58 percent were wearing helmets and they were killed anyway. To me that says the cause of the accident should be more the focus than the gear the rider was wearing.
Another factor noted is the increase in the age of the average rider. Decreasing physical dexterity and slower reaction times are listed as the suspects.
Then it goes on to say that "Half of motorcyclists killed between 2002 and 2006 lost control and crashed without colliding with another vehicle." This is what I'm talking about above. How did these accidents occur? Surely some involved other vehicles that may well have been the cause but were not involved in any contact. But in other cases, what we are talking about is rider error. This calls for better training but, again, has nothing to do with the gear the rider is wearing.
The article goes on to say that southern states have higher death rates, and they attribute that to
Below are the top articles rated and ranked by Helium members on:
Motorcycle helmets: Mandatory or optional
Living in Australia, where wearing a motorcycle helmet has now been mandatory for many years, I find the argument against
by Karon Brandt
There are some things worse than death - and that could be surviving a cycle accident with severe burns, disfigurement,
by Karen Moore
Whether or not the mandatory helmet laws enacted by many states are a government intrusion into personal choice is simply
I got the obligatory newspaper clipping from my mother the other day. You know, the one that talks about how motorcycle
by monkeybone
mandatory helmet law?
we are required to wear a seat belt...we are required to place our children in safety seats...driving
View All Articles on: Motorcycle helmets: Mandatory or optional
Helium Debate
Cast your vote!
Should the federal government bail out homeowners facing foreclosure?
Click for your side.
Featured Partner
Nature's Voice Our Choice's mission is to preserve, conserve, and restore water resources in communities throughout the world through public awareness, education, and the implementation of projects that use applied science and traditiona...more