Fighting Against Motorcycle Helmet Laws: The Wall Street Journal (no link available) featured an excellent article yesterday about the crusade of motorcycle riders to repeal mandatory helmet laws in states across the nation. Currently, twenty states and the District of Columbia have laws requiring all riders to wear helmets. Of the other 30, some require helmets for younger riders or riders without insurance; others leave the choice to riders.



Opponents of helmet laws say that they restrict vision, are overly hot in the summertime, and that the choice should be with the individual rider. Advocates say that the injuries caused when a rider does not wear a helmet are far worse than with, and the state often picks up the bill for these increased costs. From the Journal article:

The statistical case for helmet laws seems solid, according to analysis of government figures. In each state that recently repealed its mandatory helmet law, motorcycle deaths have more than doubled, sometimes in as short a span as three years.

Opponents also argue that helmets can actually cause more damage than they prevent. Supporters point out that the same arguments were made about seat belts, but now only New Hampshire ("Live free or die!) does not mandate seat belt use.



I am not sure what I think of this debate. I have never ridden a motorcycle and probably never will. I understand that some riders do not want to be burdened by helmets, no matter how much safer it makes them. I also understand the state wanting to cut down on the costs and resources associated with treating extreme head trauma. I suppose the best solution is just to let the political process decide -- and that is exactly what is happening in state legislatures across the country.

Posted in: