Newsfeed
Printer-Friendly ModePotential no-helmet law illogical
April 4, 2005 —
There's a good chance that I'm not the only person who remembers that whole "stupid law" craze. Forwarded e-mails would bounce from person to person proclaiming it illegal for a woman in Michigan to cut her hair without her husband's permission or that citizens of Wilbur, Washington cannot legally ride an ugly horse (insert inappropriate joke here). Don't ever loan your vacuum to your next-door neighbor in Denver (it's illegal) but feel free to drive 1,500 sheep down Hollywood Blvd. (but be aware that any more than 2,000 is unlawful).
Yet, for the people who still have those dusty forwards sitting in their inbox, be aware that our Michigan lawmakers are preparing to add one more to the list of silly laws. While not containing any provisions applying to farm animals (always a favorite staple of strange laws) the new plan will certainly appeal to asses of all types.
"In Michigan, it is legal for a person riding a motorcycle to ride without a helmet if they've been licensed to operate a motorcycle for at least 2 years or have taken a safety course."
Cue the laughter.
Legislation is currently floating around Lansing that will make helmet wearing an option for motorcyclists over the age of 21 who fit the aforementioned criteria.
In an era where lawmakers and politicians continually sing their own praises about protecting their constituent's best interests, it is clear that passing this law would hurt more people than it would help.
After September 11, our nation has become obsessed with protecting its citizens, often times trying to do so despite accosting a person's right to privacy in the process.
Almost every day, Americans hear that there is some new bill, law or proposal that will make our country a safer place to live.
We're supposedly protected by gun laws and the Patriot Act - which most people will agree are good and bad in that order - and Americans have even been exposed to Sister Act and Sister Act 2 - which most will agree are bad and worse in that order. Yet in the end, the people we trust to make decisions in our best interest are prepared to let us live in a society where an 80-year-old man needs to be buckled in the passenger seat of a Hummer while a 21-year-old can fly by helmet-less on a crotch rocket.
Lawmakers and bill supporters will tell you that there are a number of reasons for going through with this bill.
Statistics show that states with voluntary helmet laws have lower fatality rates than those with mandatory helmet laws.
These politicians say that helmets are more of a distraction and can hamper vision and hearing (yet cell phone use while driving remains legal).
These points are all fine and good but contribute only minimally to the picture as a whole.
While statistics show that voluntary laws reduce fatality rates, they also show that injury rates are considerably lower when helmets are used. These varying statistics can be twisted and changed in whichever way each side deems fit.
The key in the end, though, is that everything is speculation and it's impossible to know just what would have happened had someone been wearing or not wearing a helmet.
With that said, I'd expect that if someone were to get in an accident while on a motorcycle, they'd hope they were wearing a helmet when it happened.
A family friend of ours would probably tell you that helmets are a good thing. A few years back he was riding his motorcycle down Tittabawassee when he hit a deer, of all things. The accident left him with more injuries than room to list and the extent of his head trauma left him with short term memory loss and slowed motor skills. At the time of the accident, he was wearing what's referred to as a "shorty" - a helmet that covers only the top of the head. Doctors told him it's likely that he would have died had he not been wearing it and that there's a good chance his injuries would have been lessened had he been wearing a full helmet.
When it comes to motorcycle accidents, those for the bill will tell you that helmets don't provide much protection against serious head injury when going over 20 miles per hour. While the numbers might be solid, the logic just plain sucks.
Saying you shouldn't wear a helmet because it doesn't do much good after 20 mph is like saying manufacturers shouldn't put safeties on guns because people will just click them off anyway. And while the likelihood of surviving a plane crash into the ocean is slim to none, I still find it comforting that my seat cushion can be used as a floatation device in the event of an emergency.
What's incredibly wrong about all of this is that someone's elected official decided that taking helmets off motorcycle riders would be beneficial.
Today's world is one in which our children are taught to be ultra cautious. Kids are told to wear helmets, knee pads and shin guards just when getting out of the bathtub. Want to ride a bike down the street? We now ask our kids to wear bulletproof vests to do so.
Imagine then what message we'd be sending to the American youth when we say, "You have to wear a helmet when you ride your Huffy on the sidewalk but your daddy doesn't have to when riding 80 down the expressway."
Yet somewhere along the line, someone indeed stopped and said, "You know what, helmets are just too safe. I'm sick of not being able to feel my hair blow in the wind. I look forward to being hit in the eye by a June bug when doing 65 on the highway."
If this bill were to pass, there would ultimately be people who choose to take advantage of it and ride without a helmet. For all of those who decide to go ahead and ride without one, I say go ahead: there isn't much in that head to protect.