6 opinions, 16 replies
Add your opinion:
Preview:
(mouse over or touch to update)
Add your opinion
100
1 vote
Apr 4, 2015

Helmets save lives, so yes, they should be mandatory.

In 2011 4,612 motorcycle riders in the U.S. died in crashes. Alternatives are costly and/or ineffective. Also there is no evidence that motorcycle rider training reduces crash risk. Critics of helmets laws often say that helmets cause neck and spinal injuries during crashes and restrict vision, etc. Bollocks; death rates from head injuries are twice as high among motorcyclists in places without all-rider helmet laws. Motorcycle helmets are about 40% effective in preventing motorcyclist deaths and about 70% effective in preventing brain injuries.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
100
main reply
2 votes,
Apr 4, 2015

although i agree with you, the word mandatory is troubling.there are situations when it should be a choice.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
100
2 votes,
Apr 4, 2015

What situations do you have in mind? Helmet protects head from injuries - that's a fact. Risk of death or serious injuries is too high to just not wear it. Accidents happen. If there is the slightest chance of accident, it will happen sooner or later. Of course you must buy the helmet first, it costs money, it's not super cheap, but I think my life is more valuable than money.

subscribe
load further replies (4)
::unhide-discussion::
100
main reply
1 vote,
Apr 4, 2015

There is all kinds of evidence that training people to perform complicated tasks makes them better and safer at completing those tasks. Rider training does what it is supposed to do. It trains people to be better riders. Better riders crash less. You may be right in that the risk of crashing is the same, but training gives you the skills to perceive the risk, weigh the risk and perhaps even avoid the risk in the first place.

Helmets help prevent injury and death in the event of a crash. Even the most highly trained people can crash, sometimes from their own mistakes and sometimes just because stuff happens. It is the rider's responsibility to be as safe as possible. To that end, I believe everyone should choose to wear all of the gear all of the time, including a helmet.

Seatbelts are mandated. Air bags are mandated. Safety glass is mandated, padded dashes are mandated, child safety seats are mandated, There are lots of mandated safety items. Personally, I think helmets should be mandated too. Maybe even for car occupants More people die from head injuries in car accidents than in motorcycle accidents. The safety gear should be mandated where it will do the most good. Of course, helmeted auto drivers will just have one more excuse for not seeing that motorcyclist.

Did you know that 234,094 people were injured in bathroom injuries in 2008? Maybe we should outlaw bathtubs.

We can get overzealous in protecting people from themselves. At some point, you have to let people do what they need to do and be there to pick up the pieces when they fall on their face.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
0 votes,
Dec 31, 2015

When you say that 234,094 people were injured in bathrooms in 2008, what do you classify as an "injury"? Are all 234,094 serious injuries, like slipping in the tub and hitting one's head? Or does that number also include cutting oneself shaving and scorching one's hair with a curling iron?

Bathing has its risks surely, but cleanliness is necessary to good health, whereas motorcycle riding is not. There are risks in life no matter what we do, but there are things that simply don't need to be done. As for your point about people having more fatal head injuries in car accidents than on motorcycles, that may simply be a function of the vastly greater numbers of people who drive and/or ride in cars compared to the number of motorcycle riders. To have a fair comparison between the two, you would have to calculate the number of head injuries for every 100,000 motorcyclists versus the number of head injuries per 100,000 car drivers and passengers.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
100
main reply
1 vote,
Apr 4, 2015

Helmets save lives, so yes, they should be mandatory.

What if someone doesn't want a "daddy" to protect him? How about giving him the freedom to decide whether he wants to be protected or not?

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
100
1 vote,
Apr 4, 2015

If you get into a motorcycle accident while not wearing a helmet, you won't necessarily die. You might just have severe brain damage. I know of a speech therapist whose first job out of school was teaching twenty-something young men how to talk again after they went riding without helmets. I imagine those guys also had surgeries, physical therapy, and other re-training of their motor functions. I dare say that they gave up a lot more personal freedom by not wearing helmets than they would have by wearing them. But one thing that's definitely not free is all that health care. Do you think their insurance covered all that care, assuming they even had insurance? Or do you suppose some of those costs got passed on to the taxpayers of that state? Or maybe the hospital made up any shortfalls by raising prices for everyone else. If you want the "freedom" to make a mess of your life, maybe you ought to make sure you have enough money to clean up that mess.

subscribe
load further replies (2)
100
1 vote
Apr 4, 2015

This brings up the greater debate of, can the government force us to do something that is good for us, or are laws 'just' when they protect us against our will. On one hand we have the rights of the individual that need to be protected(the right to choose whether or not you want to wear a helmet) and on the other we have the duty of the government to protect the people(by requiring helmets to be worn).

This reminds me of the arguments between republican government and pure democratic governments. The reason that most governments today are republics and not democracies(such as that of ancient Greece) is that elected representatives are often better at making decisions for people than the people themselves. In a republic the government not only protects the rights of the people but makes decisions for them. These decisions are made daily by the appropriately qualified people, like economic policies or military doctrine, and are far beyond the abilities of most US citizens individually. This alone could cause one to say that the government has the right to make it law based solely on this principle.

There are few comparisons that can be made with helmet laws since they are unique in that without them, no one else except the rider will be in danger. Opponents to helmet laws would cite this as a prime reason to get rid of those laws in the interest of protecting the right to choose. But this 'free-market' style of approach, I feel, is inadequate to even warn people of the higher death chance of riding without a helmet. The end choice I feel comes down to allowing people to put their lives in danger or stepping in to enforce helmet laws as the will of a society that doesn't want, or is actively harmed by, motorcycle helmetless deaths.

Edited for spelling

Addition: The side effects of motorcyle deaths due to having no helmet may be a prime motivating factor.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
main reply
0 votes,
Apr 4, 2015

I understand your point, but I feel governments exist to protect us from each other -- not to protect us from ourselves.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
0 votes,
Apr 4, 2015

One of their prime responsibilities is most certainly to protect us from each other. But another is to do what we the people tell them to do, and many people have demanded that the governments in the US do something about motorcycle mortality rates. If the government were to say that we couldn't have weapons, that would be an obvious violation of our liberties and wrong. Taking our weapons takes away the advantages they give us. I don't necessarily think that the extra fun derived from not wearing a helmet is enough to go against the will of the majority of society.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
0 votes,
Apr 4, 2015

It's not the will of the majority. If states don't pass these laws they don't get federal highway funds!

subscribe
0
opinion
0 votes
Apr 4, 2015

The biker without a helmet takes the risk and the medical profession and insurances pay for the losses.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
main reply
0 votes,
Apr 4, 2015

This was the actual origin of helmet laws -- not some real concern for rider safety, but to limit insurance company payouts.

subscribe
0
User voted No.
0 votes
Apr 9, 2015

If I have been informed about the risks i.e., informed consent, then I feel like I should have the right to legally endanger my own life (and only my own life) if I so choose to.

subscribe
0
User voted Yes.
0 votes
Jul 20, 2015

If someone on medicare or medicaid crashes we all have to pay their bill.

subscribe
0
User voted Yes.
0 votes
Nov 25, 2015

As long as we don't want natural selection doing it's job, yes, they should be mandatory.

subscribe
Add your opinion
Challenge someone to answer this topic:
Invite an OpiWiki user:
OR
Invite your friend via email:
OR
Share it: