Printable Version Post a Comment Article Rating

The choice of protection and safety

Today's News-Herald
Published Wednesday, November 17, 2010 1:08 PM MST

Last week, federal safety officials called on all states to require all motorcycle riders to wear helmets.

Members of the NTSB said motorcycle fatalities have increased over the last decade even as other traffic fatalities have declined. There were 4,400 motorcycle deaths in the U.S. last year, more than in aviation, rail, marine and pipeline accidents combined — and nearly twice as many as a decade ago. Head injuries are the leading cause of death in motorcycle accidents.

Twenty states currently make all motorcycle riders wear helmets. Some states have limited helmet requirements, and three states — Iowa, Illinois and New Hampshire — have no requirement.

When states were required to impose helmet laws in order to receive federal highway funding, they all did. But in the mid-1990s, Congress repealed the requirement, leaving it up to the individual states. As states began repealing helmet laws, fatalities started to rise.

Arizona’s helmet law requires anyone under the age of 18 to wear a protective helmet.

In Arizona last year between January and September, there were 98 motorcycle fatalities — unchanged from the same time period in 2008, according to the Governors Highway Safety Association.

California exceeds all other states in the number of motorcycle fatalities there, but those stats fell between 2008 and 2009, the data indicated. California has a helmet law on its books.

Those opposed to helmet laws when asked, point to a matter of personal choice and freedom. If every motorcyclist that has been fatally injured because they were not wearing a helmet could push a rewind button, they might say something entirely different.

The NTSB said it estimates there would be 450 fewer deaths per year if mandatory helmet laws were in effect. About 10 percent isn’t a lot, but it is a start.

The states without helmet laws and those with limited laws will doubtless take a look at whether they should make changes.

The bottom line in Arizona lies with the motorcyclist, though. Knowing the statistics for those involved in accidents with helmets and those without should make it a pretty easy choice. Taking responsibility for one’s wellbeing and safety is, for sure, a personal choice for adult riders in Arizona. When personal choice leads to increased fatality stats and possible future funding restrictions, government almost always is forced to step in to regulate.

— Today’s News-Herald

Printable Version Post a Comment Article Rating

Article Rating

Comments (5 comment(s))

bill516 wrote on Nov 23, 2010 9:38 AM:

" How many handicapped riders wind up on disability ?, probably not many.It's fiscally insignificant, I mean, what percentage of the population ride bikes?

Typical gov't overreaction! The gov't would have you believe 30% of highway fatalaties are caused by Drunk drivers, independant studies based on NHTSA data say its around 12% yet the people believe the gov't due to fear mongering.

Start looking for a nice helmet, your complicit ! I'd rather see people have the freedom of choice.Bikers are a minority, no comparison to seatbelt laws. "

Wisconsin wrote on Nov 20, 2010 8:30 AM:

" Excellent points, hadit. Lets work on crash avoidance, not safer crashing! The stat that isn't pointed out is that most of these crashes are caused by right of way violations. The very people that are killing us want to make it mandatory for us to wear helmets. In the crash at Palo and Acoma, the only thing known for certain that could have saved a life, would have been for the auto driver to yield the right of way. If we must write a new law, lets try mandatory jail for ROW violations involving injury or death to a cycle rider, then take another look at the stats. I bet that would make a world of difference. "

Ivehadit wrote on Nov 20, 2010 6:50 AM:

" I concur with Had it with havasu's comments. On the face it looks as if the authorities really care for individual rider safety. In reality, both the seat belt law and helmet law are cash cows for the local, county and state coffers via citations. Insurance companies standing behind grieving parents pushed for the law to positively impact their actuarial forecasts. Local police stood behind it under the guise of "safety" for the drivers.
And as for the state eventually taking care of a brain injured one's medical care, most often it reverts back on the insurance company. If that were the case, most patients of mental illness, health problems would be under government care. Anytime government mandates something upon the American Citizen, there is a subsequent cost to ALL. "

TBI wrote on Nov 18, 2010 9:04 AM:

" The question of whether motorcyclists live or die is not the whole issue. For every brain injured cyclist who dies, up to a half-dozen survive with some degree of brain injury. The most severe are extremely disabled and require support beyond what most private insurance provides, and they eventually become a public responsibility, dependent on tax payers. We all have a duty to try to keep ourselves productive and useful. Helmet requirements are consistent with a responsible citizenry. "

Had it with Havasu wrote on Nov 18, 2010 8:30 AM:

" This is a passionate issue for true motorcycle riders. Let break this down realistically.

One in 10 fatalities may have been avoided by forcing riders to wear helmets? Maybe, but doubtful. How about the Nine in 10? Why don't we work on making the motoring public a bit more aware as it was a lack of that which killed the rider at Palo Verde and Acoma. Going after the nine in 10 just has better odds of saving a life rather than focusing on the one in 10 where you must take away freedom and choice to achieve an unproven result.

I lived in California when the helmet law was passed. Initially, they tied the law to the seat belt law and it failed. So they separated the two and passed the seat belt law first and then came back and passed the helmet law. By separating the two they reduced the opposition by dividing it. The forces behind the two laws were insurance companies, not a concern for public safety but an effort to reduce claims for minor injuries, not deaths.

So I'm disappointed in people who push for a helmet law while ignoring that at least 90% of the fatalities can be affected by improving the overall safety of everyone through simple awareness and keeping road hazards to a minimum. That helps everyone.

Wake up, learn to drive and just let me ride. "

WRITE A COMMENT

Comment posters are responsible for the opinions they express and the accuracy of the information they provide. We urge comment writers to treat this as a public forum where manners matter. We encourage a collegial, non-insulting tone and we reserve the right to withhold or remove any comment from publication.

Do not post:
    * Potentially libelous statements or damaging innuendo.
    * Obscene, explicit, or racist language.
    * Personal attacks, insults or threats.
    * The use of another person's real name to disguise your identity.
    * Comments unrelated to the story.

Opinions, advice and all other information expressed in havasunews.com's story comments represent the individual's own views and not necessarily those of Today's News Herald. Today's News Herald provides an interactive computer service and does not endorse and is not responsible for statements, advice or opinions offered by anyone other than authorized Today's News Herald spokespersons.

Thank you for your comments!

You must register with a valid email to post comments. Only your Member ID will be posted with the comments.

Registered users sign in here:

Become a Registered User

*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login? (requires cookies)

Do not use usernames or passwords from your financial accounts!

Note: Fields marked with an asterisk (*) are required!

*Create a Member ID:
*Choose a password:
*Re-enter password:
*E-mail Address:
*Year of Birth:
	(children under 13 cannot register)
*First Name:
*Last Name:
*Zip Code: