Today's News-Herald
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 But in the mid-1990s, Congress repealed the requirement, leaving it up to the individual states.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.
COMMENT
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. "
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. "
" 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. "
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. "
