What about helmet laws? This is something that I think about a lot. Georgia, North Carolina, and Tennessee all have mandatory helmet laws, so as a practical matter, I always wear a helmet. But I would wear a helmet with or without the law. It is my personal choice to gear up when I ride to reduce the risk of injury. By the same token, I try to manage other health risks, e.g. eating well, exercise, etc. But I don’t really know how to feel about states requiring motorcyclists to wear helmets. If someone is riding without a shirt or a helmet, it doesn’t hurt me. If he wrecks and is injured, its no skin off of my back. (Sorry - I just couldn’t resist.) To me it’s no different than someone who eats fast food every day and does not exercise. Bummer for them - not my problem. So should states have mandatory helmet laws?

The Study: This is what made me think about this issue - an international group of researchers recently examined 61 studies from all around the world and concluded that helmets reduce the risk of head injuries by approximately 69% and death by 42%. (See, Sciencedaily.com article.) The researchers claim that this should pretty much close the door on any serious dispute about whether helmets reduce the risk of injury or death in a motorcycle accident. I say that these guys are pretty amazing in that they got someone to pay them to discover the obvious. Maybe I’m being harsh, but I guess it seemed pretty intuitive to me.
Here’s the problem: let’s apply the same arguments that people use for helmet laws to motorcycling in general:

Reducing the Risk of Injury: According to the study we just discussed, helmets reduce the risk of head injury and death. The same argument can be made for using a car rather than a motorcycle. For miles ridden, motorcycles have a much higher rate of death and injury than riding in an automobile.

Taxpayers Pay the Cost of Injury: This seems to be a popular argument lately. This argument popped up in the article about the international safety study mentioned above. I also recently read it in a motorcycle magazine that I read in the last month or so. (Great researcher, eh? I throw away my magazines as soon as I read them.) Again, you could say the same about motorcycling in general. The added risk of injury by riding is borne to some extent by the taxpayers. But what about people who eat junk food and don’t exercise? Don’t they add to healthcare costs? What about cigarettes and alcohol? What about any risky activity? I worry about this argument because if it is taken to its logical conclusion, it can be used to justify banning just about anything.

Balancing the Cost of Compliance Against the Possibility of Injury: The “balancing test” is a trick that courts like to use when they don’t want to make a hard and fast rule. In this case, the argument would be that the burden of wearing a helmet is relatively light compared to the serious injury that could be avoided. Of course, people who ride without helmets argue that the experience of motorcycling is much more exhilarating without a helmet. Again, both sides of the argument can be applied to motorcycling in general. Why not just ban motorcycles in general? Most people don’t NEED motorcycles - they ride them because they are fun. Should people be allowed to engage in fun activities when they increase their risk of death and injury?

Peer Pressure: This is my own argument - one advantage to states with helmet laws is that no one feels peer pressure to ride without a helmet. I like being able to wear my full-face helmet without feeling like a complete dork - well the Aerostich in 90 degree heat pretty much makes me a dork, but at least the helmet does not draw undue attention. On the other hand, when I am in states like Florida, I rarely see anyone wear a helmet. I wonder how many people would wear a helmet if they did not feel peer pressure. This is one argument for helmet laws that I think does not apply to motorcycling in general.

Other Safety Factors: If I have to wear helmets, then why can 16 year olds drive cars? Why do we have so little driver training? Why is there so little enforcement of driving laws, such as signaling or unsafe lane chances? If we were serious about safety, then we would approach it from all angles. Why do we focus on one piece of protective equipment?

I love my helmet. I also love the people that I know who were saved by their helmet. But I also miss some people who would have been alive if they would have never gotten on a motorcycle. I don’t want the fun police to take away all of my fun. If we have to wear helmets, we should make sure that we can articulate some reason that does not apply to motorcycling in general. Anyone else have an opinion about this?