READERS SOUND OFF, Case Against Motorcycle Helmet Laws

OFF THE WIRE.
Could you possibly provide your qualifications as to yourself professed expertise on the issues? I find it hard to believe that you have been standing in the wings, so to speak, while the rights of motorcycle riders from this state and riders that visit this state are being violated on a regular basis and I have only heard from you now. You seem to be an individual of intelligence yet you state your position as angry and fail to present any facts that can be verified.

SENT BY TIGERLILY,
Someone posted this article on the national Victory Motorcycle Club. Here is a comment and my response to him:

whodabob - 2010-11-28 8:31 AM
I thought trying to justify allowing no helmet riding by claiming dead bikers are a benefit to society was a bit over the top. My biggest problem with articles like this is that the author is trying to make a logical argument against restricting an individual right or liberty. And, when you go down that route, in a case like this, your opponent can come up with just as many logical arguments for restricting the same rights. I would much rather see this argument made on an emotional appeal rather than a logical one. Instead of claiming the costs don't outweigh the benefits I would appeal to one's sense of right and wrong, and justice. What does freedom mean? What does freedom cost? Are you (gentle reader) willing to pay for your freedom by living in a society where your fellow citizen is free to do something stupid like ride a motorcycle without a helmet? And if not, how many rights, and which ones, need to be restricted before freedom no longer rings? That I think would be more persuasive, at least for my ears.

Hey whodabob,
Good points. One of the biggest "arguments" in favor of helmet laws is the burden to society. Government-employed statisticians might calculate what it costs to maintain a quadriplegic. They will argue that the quadriplegic might have not been a quadriplegic had they worn a helmet. They also argue that helmets save lives. These arguments favor more laws. And more laws give government more control.
Here are a few statistics that I would want to know:

About people NOT wearing helmets:
1. How many people died as a direct result of not wearing a helmet?
a. In those cases, how many people would have survived the accident?
b. And, what is the cost to the following assumed "survival" scenarios?
(1) What would it have cost to treat non head trauma injuries, such as crushed livers, spleens, lungs, intestines, broken bones, skin damage, etc.?
(2) In how many instances, would a helmet made the difference between death and becoming a quadriplegic? And to what cost? Add to that the cost of any other non-head trauma-related injuries.
(3) How many instances of rider death were unassociated to helmets? (Cases such as where a vehicle crushes a rider.) Most of us know of persons who did not survive a motorcycle crash - for which a helmet would have never made a difference. How many of those cases are out there?
2. Let's look at crashes involving people wearing helmets.
a. How many people died in spite of wearing a bad-ass helmet?
b. How many became quadriplegics who would have prefered to die - and would have, if they were not wearing a helmet?
c. How many full-face injured people were not able to get cpr because it was impossible to remove their helmet to give them CPR?
d. How many helmeted people became quadriplegics because the person(s) who removed their helmets to give them CPR snapped their neck?
e. How many people became quads because the helmet was responsible for snapping their neck?
f. How many cases are there where a helmet was clearly the cause of a crash - such as when a visor comes off and distracts a rider going 70 mph?
Since the government is "in charge" of collecting stats, they slant the stats in the direction that persuades citizens to give government more power over us. Therefore, the data is conveniently slanted. Because face, it - here in Nevada, helmet laws are used as a means to fuck with motorcyclists. If people are not wearing a gigantic helmet, it gives law enforcers the authority to detain us, check our helmets, fine us ($305 in North Las Vegas), and fine us for any other bullshit reason.

So as far as burden to society for not wearing a helmet - the issue is certainly debatable.

Now let's calculate the cost of freedom.
How much does it cost to go to war?
How much does it cost to defend our constitution?

How many lives have been sacrificed since our founders signed the Declaration of Independence?

I agree completely with you that the issue is emotional. My question is this: Does the government have the constitutional authority to limit our freedom for our own good based on their perception of what is best? I say no.
TigerLily

Jan responds,
"Is that your nose or are you eating a banana?" really is a good reply to the first one, if you want to say it humorously, like adding a Groucho Marx imaginary flick of a cigar, but if you want to stay in her good graces, zing her with another question or statement real quickly.
To the people who say "a helmet saved my life", that happens every now and then. I either just walk away, or I ask "Does that mean you think it is the governments right to decide for ME, or do you agree with my right to decide for myself?"
A lot depends on who is saying it. In most cases, I highly recommend just walking away - you are not likely to get anywhere arguing with those pea brains who think it;s true. It could be those people know it's a focus of yours and were trying to let you know where you stand in the pecking order.
If I were ever to meet former US DOT Secretary Mary Peters who claimed a "helmet saved my life" I'd launch into a non-stop verbal assault, and would have to be carried away.
There was a study done in Australia. People who say "a helmet saved my life" tend to be clutses. Such people report hitting their head seven times as frequently compared to those who don't. Seven? Ten? Something like that....I'll have to try and find the study for you.