creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Steve Chapman
Steve Chapman
27 May 2012
Are We Headed for a Fight with China?

SHANGHAI — The Soviet Union is gone, al-Qaida is decimated, and Iran may never acquire nuclear weapons. … Read More.

24 May 2012
From Mao to 'Money Worship'

CHANGSHA, China — On an island in the Xiang River stands a massive bust of the late Chinese ruler Mao … Read More.

20 May 2012
China and the Lure of the Status Quo

BEIJING — A rising Asian power with an unstoppable export machine, rapidly growing wealth and a sense … Read More.

The Case Against Motorcycle Helmet Laws

Share Comment

If you have a strong disregard for your own health and safety, you are free to express it in all sorts of ways. You can smoke cigarettes. You can gorge on fast food five times a day. You can go live among bears in Alaska.

You can stagger through the worst part of town at 2 a.m. You can become a trapeze artist. You can join the Marine Corps. But if federal regulators get their way, you will not be able to ride a motorcycle without a helmet.

That's already the law for all riders in 20 states and the District of Columbia. Other states require head protection only for minors or passengers. And in three states — Illinois, Iowa and New Hampshire — all riders are free to feel the sun on their scalps and the wind in their hair.

This small zone of personal autonomy causes great annoyance at the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), a federal agency. Last week, it urged that "everyone aboard a motorcycle be required to wear a helmet." Polls indicate most Americans agree.

The reasons are obvious enough. From 1997 to 2008, the number of motorcycle fatalities more than doubled, while total traffic deaths were falling. Two out of every three bikers killed were not wearing a helmet. Said NTSB Vice Chairman Christopher Hart, "It's a public health issue."

Oh, no, it's not. A public health issue arises when masses of people are exposed to illness or injury by dangers beyond their control — contaminated water, sooty air, natural disaster, marauding bands of hyenas — or when I get a serious disease that I may pass on to you against your will.

In these cases, government action is necessary. It's perfectly legitimate for governments to regulate pollution, build levees and require people to get vaccinations.

But riding a motorcycle without a cranial cushion poses no danger to anyone except the rider. Skull fractures are not contagious. The public is not at risk if I decide to mount a Harley with nothing but a pinwheel hat on my head.

The mandatory helmet crowd, however, insists there is a threat to the public: the threat of being forced to cover the medical costs of bikers who are injured or disabled.

Notes the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, "Only slightly more than half of motorcycle crash victims have private health insurance coverage. For patients without private insurance, a majority of medical costs are paid by the government."

Under the new health care law, of course, everyone will have to obtain coverage. But even then, the premiums of healthy people will have to cover the costs of motorcyclists' injuries.

The complaint has a point, but it considers only the costs of motorcycle accidents, not the — yes — benefits. At the risk of sounding macabre, let me note that a 50-year-old biker who dies in a wreck saves us money, since he won't be around to collect Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid in his old age. A 20-year-old fatality may yield a harvest of excellent organs for patients awaiting transplants.

Besides, the argument on safety and medical costs is one that proves too much. Brain buckets reduce the chance of being killed in a wreck, but federal data indicate that most of those who die in motorcycle accidents would be killed even with a helmet. So it's safe to assume that most of those seriously injured would be laid up in the hospital either way.

The real danger is not from riding a motorcycle without a helmet, but from riding, period. If you crash a hog at 70 mph, your head is only one of the body parts that will come out much worse for wear. If we're justified in requiring helmets to save medical expenses, why not simply outlaw motorcycles entirely? That would prevent a lot more death and injury.

It's also hard to see why we single out motorcyclists for the sin of saddling everyone with higher health care costs. Plenty of patients suffer from self-inflicted ailments — lung cancer from smoking, liver damage from drinking, diabetes from eating unhealthy foods, AIDS from unprotected sex. Yet we don't ban these activities.

Why not? Because we retain a respect for individual freedom and choice — even in matters of life and death, even when individual choices have collective costs. Motorcycle helmet laws are an unwarranted exception to our normal, sound approach, which can be summarized: It's your life, and it's your funeral.

Steve Chapman blogs daily at newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/steve_chapman. To find out more about Steve Chapman, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM


Comments

1 Comments | Post Comment
Following the safety nazis' logic, we should ban motorcycles altogether. Let the people drive Volvos, and wear helmets inside.

Here in New Hampshire we not only have the right to ride without a helmet, we may drive without a seat belt. Nonetheless, seat belt usage is higher here than in neighboring Massachusetts, and traffic fatalities per mile driven are not particularly high, especially given the weather (I recently spun out on an icy highway, but was of course wearing my seat belt). Freedom and responsibility--that's why New Hampshire was chosen by the Free State Project.
Comment: #1
Posted by: SteveC
Thu Feb 10, 2011 3:21 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Steve Chapman
May. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31 1 2
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Author’s Podcast
Roland Martin
Roland S. MartinUpdated 20 Jun 2012
Marc Dion
Marc DionUpdated 28 May 2012
Steve Chapman
Steve ChapmanUpdated 27 May 2012

9 Sep 2010 What Mayor Daley Leaves Behind

16 Aug 2007 A Bump in the Road for Air Travelers

8 Dec 2008 Keeping Calm about the Tribune's Bankruptcy