PENNSYLVANIA: Another take on cycle helmets...

OFF THE WIRE

http://sentinelsource.com/articles/2010/12/11/opinion/columnists/free/id_421282.txt

Another take on cycle helmets

 December 14, 2010
 In July 2006, three years after the Pennsylvania Legislature repealed the state law requiring all motorcycle riders to wear helmets, a report indicated that the number of riders who suffered severe head injuries had increased 55 percent, and most of those who suffered head trauma — 62 percent — were riding without helmets.
You might think that would have been enough to prompt lawmakers to wonder whether they had made a mistake when they contended that education was a better method for reducing injuries from motorcycle accidents than helmets. You would be wrong. Legislators at the time said they want more time-tested data before they revisit the law.

Now they have it.
According to figures released earlier this month by the National Transportation Safety Board, motorcycle deaths have increased over the last decade even as other traffic fatalities have declined.
Last year 4,400 riders died nationwide, nearly twice the number of fatalities from the years before Congress repealed a federal helmet law and allowed each state to write its own standards.
The leading cause of death among those 4,400 riders was head injuries, most inflicted upon riders who did not wear a helmet.
But so what? Wearing a helmet should be an individual right, shouldn’t it? After all, the only person in increased danger is the person who is opting not to wear a protective device.
That is essentially the same argument that was made concerning the seat-belt laws. Few people would disagree that seat belts and shoulder straps do save lives, especially when used in conjunction with air bags. Together they prevent drivers and passengers from flying through the windshields when their cars come to a sudden stop. They also greatly reduce the chances of an occupant being tossed from a vehicle during a rollover accident.
But, again, so what? Shouldn’t each driver, each adult passenger in any vehicle, be able to make a personal decision as to whether he wants to put his life at greater risk? Why should the state compel anyone to protect himself ?
The answer comes in the form of emergency-response crews, the safety of other people on the highways and the expense involved in treating and insuring people who risk greater injury or death by not wearing seat belts or motorcycle helmets.
We all pay more expensive premiums for insurance when injuries are more frequent and more severe, as they are when helmets and seat belts are not used. We all pay for emergency personnel who have to remain on an accident scene longer when a severe injury or death is involved. We all pay when highways are closed as a result of those accidents and investigations. We all pay when doctors and nurses in an emergency room or a trauma center must deal with life-threatening injuries that might have been avoided with a simple click of a seat belt or snap of a chin strap.
Seat belt laws and helmet laws are not an extension of the nanny state trying to protect us from ourselves. Rather they are an attempt to reduce costs for everyone who uses the public roads, for everyone who may need an ambulance crew and for everyone who has to be treated at a hospital.
It is time for the Legislature to reinstate Pennsylvania’s motorcycle helmet law.
— Reading (Pa.) Eagle