There are few issues that do more to crystalize the balance between personal freedom and personal responsibility than motorcycle helmet laws.
Twenty states require motorcyclists to wear helmets, which means thirty do not. Opponents of helmet laws see it is a personal choice and often claim wearing a helmet increases visibility and situational awareness. Could be.
Proponents of mandatory helmet laws note that fatality rates appear to be higher in states without helmet laws; common sense indicates that falling off a bike onto one’s head without a helmet is likely to cause a more serious head injury than if one was wearing a helmet.
And there is an ongoing back and forth debate on the merits of statistical analyses and the results thereof, a debate that leads nowhere and gets folks all wrapped up in numbers, thereby obscuring the real issue – ultimately wearing a helmet is a personal decision, until you get a traumatic brain injury, whereupon it becomes a societal issue.
Here’s an idea.
Those who want to ride without a helmet have to buy insurance that reflects that decision. That insurance must provide comprehensive coverage for medical care for associated with the covered individual, including long term custodial care, with a really high limit – say $10 million, that is indexed to the medical CPI to account for inflation. Upon showing proof of coverage, they get a special license plate. Insurance companies take the risk, society does not get harmed due to the adverse consequence of a personal decision, and those who want to ride with their hair blowing in the wind are free to do so.
Oh, and they should be required to be organ donors as well.
Jul
8
Joe~
That’s a great idea! I do believe though that those who choose to “blow in the breeze” and go helmut-free, upon seeing the premium for the coverage, may find the cost of freedom stiffer than any wind their flowing locks might experience.
My brother just had a bad motorcycle accident (the car that broadsided him was found at fault), and thank the universal fairies he is a helmut wearer. He got away with a broken neck (thankfully, no SCI) and a crushed foot. Thanks to Florida’s no-fault, he and his insurance company are footing the bill.
fatality rates appear to be higher in states without helmet laws;
If this also means that organ recovery is higher, the lack of a helmet law serves a society purpose and may help off-set the loss of organs from the seatbelt laws
Same should go for those who don’t wear their seatbelts. A portion or majority of the financial burden should shift to the injured party if they do not wear a helmet or seatbelt.
I just got my new motorbike. I wear a protective jacket as well as a full face helmet. I feel I still have the freedom of spirit as the riders that do not have a helmet. We need to have a balance in society, as does mother nature.
Joe,
Texas already has a similar law on the books. If a rider chooses to ride without a helmet, he or she must provide proof of medical/accident insurance.
Don’t listen to Ncky Otts, he is a pharmacist and a weekend rider. His knowledge of the industry is mute.