IOWA: Helmet poll... please vote against helmet law

OFF THE WIRE
Please vote!!
http://www.dailyiowan.com/2010/09/08/Opinions/18617.html Should the state require motorcyclists and moped drivers to wear a helmet?
BY DI EDITORIAL STAFF | SEPTEMBER 08, 2010 7:20 AM
Should Iowa pass a helmet law? Yes. Many people don’t realize the dangers of not wearing a helmet.
Yes. They save lives.
No. These laws infringe on individual liberty.
No. It’s just another crime that cops could pull people over for.
Vote View Results Share ThisPolldaddy.com
YES
Iowa City is packed with motorcycles, mopeds, and the like. With the cost of fuel and parking — and lack of parking — these vehicles are the perfect way to cut costs.
But these convenient means of transportation can also be dangerous, as seen with Iowa offensive lineman Josh Koeppel's recent moped accident.
Luckily, the helmet-less Koeppel was not badly injured. But a number of different scenarios could have turned his story into a tragic one involving a life-threatening head injury.
State helmet laws are divided into three categories — motorcycles, low-power cycles, and bicycles. Iowa is one of just two states without a helmet law for any of these categories, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.
"The only helmet law in Iowa is that there is no law," Iowa City police Sgt. Denise Brotherton said.
Three weeks ago, I was involved in a moped accident on Melrose Avenue near the University of Iowa cultural centers. I slid on some gravel from a construction van and kissed the pavement. My injuries were not very intensive, except for a fractured foot. I was not wearing my helmet, and the paramedics, Good Samaritans, and doctors all reminded me of this.
As a naïve college student, I thought I had a certain resiliency that granted me immunity from such an accident. I thought helmets were unnecessary and annoying. However, I was gravely wrong. It took my accident to make me realize this.
That's usually the case — people begin wearing helmets after the fact. The state cannot afford to have every rider get into an accident in order to realize the importance of wearing a helmet. We have seat-belt and air-bag laws, laws that ensure the safety of cars and children. Why not a helmet law?
— by Emily Inman
NO
Helmet laws are the strangest of beasts: They aim to prevent individuals from harming themselves. Iowa is, with Illinois, one of two states that doesn't require anyone riding a scooter or motorcycle to don protective headgear.
While the benefits of helmet use have been documented in the scientific literature (one study estimated a 37 percent effectiveness in mortality reduction), wearing a helmet should be up to individuals, not the state.
It is ludicrous to argue that helmet use has no appreciable effect on motorcycle safety. At the same time, the choice to neglect wearing a helmet is one that harms only the rider. Any externalization of costs — increases in health-insurance expenses, greater damages awarded in court — can be minimized without mandatory helmet laws via higher premiums and decreased liability in injuries affected by the lack of a helmet.
With registered motorcycles composing approximately 3 percent of America's vehicles as of 2006, motorcycle use is not a significant public-health crisis and does not require legislative action.
Simply put, it is not the government's job to ensure that citizens always make the best choices for their personal safety. At the risk of contributing to the over-veneration of past philosophers, I think John Stuart Mill was spot-on: "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."
The state does not have a vested interest in controlling what sorts of risky, potentially self-harming behavior its citizens engage in, until those behaviors endanger others or pose a risk to society at large. This is reflected in government policy on cheeseburgers; it should be reflected in motorcycle helmet laws, as well.