I am not one looking for the government to get more involved in my life. I do not believe that they should make laws that restrict personal freedom. That is, of course, unless those laws protect the good of society. So, how do I feel about helmet laws?
Every year in Tennessee, the idea of repealing the helmet law comes before the legislature. Every year, I make calls and send emails to my representatives, telling them we must keep those laws intact. Every year, so far, those laws have not passed both houses.
So, why would a conservative support such laws? It’s simple; the good of the public.
Many people have argued with me that it should be a person choice. If this is the case, so should seatbelts. Yet, most would agree that they should be required. Many will cite safety as the reason, and the arguments against such laws state that it is not the government’s job to make sure I’m safe. They are correct.
The government, though, does have a responsibility to taxpayers to protect them. That’s where this issue gains it foundation.
Several years ago, Louisiana, Kentucky and Florida repealed their helmet laws. They placed stipulations that if you rode without a helmet, you had to have enough insurance to cover any potential injuries you might sustain. This seemed to please everyone. Recently, though, Louisiana reinstated their helmet law after it was determined that a large number of helmetless riders were not properly insured and the state was left with a hefty tab in excess of $1 million per year. Simply put, the state, not the rider, was assuming the risk of riding without a helmet.
This doesn’t even take into consideration that the insurance of other riders increases, even if they ride with a helmet. The insurance companies must cover their assets by increasing the premiums of all riders. Tell me how this is fair to me.
I wonder sometimes, though, the logic behind why someone would want to ride without a helmet. There is overwhelming evidence that helmets provide far more protection than they do risk. Some cite the idea of a helmet increasing the possibility of neck injuries. Some claim the limitation of sight and hearing. These are nonsense.
For the possible protection a helmet offers, we need look no further than NASCAR. If a helmet were to endanger the driver to the possibility of neck injury, they wouldn’t wear one. They certainly don’t have as great a risk as a motorcyclist of hitting their head, yet not one driver would consider driving without one. Some may cite the use of the HANS device to protect from this. I would counter with the fact that many times they are going over 200 mph. I know of only a few motorcycle riders in danger of that. In that case, though, there is more wrong with the situation than a helmet whipping the neck!
Helmets are made to protect the head in the event of an accident. Head injuries from helmetless riders generally exceed $100,000. Most are far more, up to death. Would you really want to saddle your family with that debt, while you are either dead or a vegetable? More over, is it fair that you saddle society with that debt when the risk was all yours?