Helmetless Motorcyclist Dies Protesting Helmet Laws
On a NY ride with 550 other motorcycles, he fishtailed and flipped over the handlebars of his 1983 Harley Davidson. His head hit the pavement:
“The medical expert we discussed the case with who pronounced him deceased stated that he would’ve no doubt survived the accident had he been wearing a helmet,” state Trooper Jack Keller told ABC News 9 in Syracuse.
James Joyner is “skeptical about both helmet and seatbelt laws, given that the negative externalities are incredibly limited.”
Susie Madrak says, “the rationale behind helmet laws is that head injuries are very expensive to treat. Even victims with insurance often end up on Medicaid after they’re tapped out, and that means taxpayers are picking up the rest of the tab.”
A scooter-rider, I’m glad for the law. I wiped out in my driveway at 7 mph over a year ago and continue to feel it. Still, I’d be inclined to hop on and run a quick errand without a helmet… if the law didn’t make me think twice. The same goes for seat belts.
The Helmet Law Defense League calls helmet laws “discrimination against the class of people known as ‘bikers.’”
What say you TMVers?
Helmet Dummy Image from a lawyer representing motorcycle injury victims in a post opposing helmet laws. How do you spell self interest?
27 Responses to “Helmetless Motorcyclist Dies Protesting Helmet Laws”
While I am usually a fan of smaller government, as long as we are going to be picking up the tab (both in terms of resources used and money spent) for injuries they might sustain then helmet laws are proper.
That of course is the nanny state trap. They enact government-funded health benefits which have the side effect of giving the government grounds to control each and every health choice individuals might make.
I honestly do expect that the government will begin to monitor individual exercise programs within the next 20 years. And it is worth remembering that the place that particular feature of government intrusiveness cropped up before was in the novel 1984.
The thing about motorcycle accidents is that the motorcyclist always loses regardless of who is at fault. It might feel good to drive a motorcycle without a helmet, but there are lots of things in life that feel good but are dangerous. And head injuries are very serious. You don’t need to crack your skull open to die from a head injury. The brain sustains injury if it is jostled about. Anyway, I think it’s foolish to risk such severe injuries or death just because it feels good to drive around without a helmet. For me the risks outweigh the rewards in this case. I guess some people are willing to risk death for a few minutes or a couple hours of pleasure. This would be their business, except as pointed out, in many cases taxpayers end up footing the medical and disability bills. So I’m all for helmet and seat belt laws.
Besides, when I think of people riding motorcycles without helmets I can’t help but wonder how many bugs they eat.
“They enact government-funded health benefits which have the side effect of giving the government grounds to control each and every health choice individuals might make.”
LOL!
The people in hospital beds and without jobs are free to decline government assistance (medical and disability benefits). In fact I hope that they do.
If you’re going to accept services either now or in the future then you’re going to have to play by the rules. This is society and civilization. You just can’t do what you want whenever you want and live like a savage. Well…. you can…. and if you want to, then move to your own mountain or a deserted island.
Darwin wins again.
I’m a motorcyclist. I’ve ridden for many years, including Harley’s. Riding brings me great joy. The helmet law is a simple no-brainer (pun intended). Helmets save lives. It’s quite ironic that we mandate seatbelts in cars (a much safer vehicle) and not helmets on motorcycles (a much less safe form of transportation). Nothing will actually make riding a motorcycle safe. However, helmets make riding safer and help keep other taxpayers from paying the bill if an accident occurs. I just can’t support the motto: “I have the freedom to do whatever I want and you have to pay for it when things screw up”. Ultimately it isn’t about freedom, it’s about having the courage to take responsibility for one’s own actions and how they impact family and society.
jdwincu, “Ultimately it isn’t about freedom, it’s about having the courage to take responsibility for one’s own actions and how they impact family and society.”
That’s a fantastic point. Your whole post is well put. Thanks!
Honestly, there is a simple solution to this helmet issue:
If you don’t wear a helmet and get into an accident, make it illegal for any government employed healthcare professional (Ambulance Driver, Paramedic, Nurse, etc..) to help you…
You get the privilege of dying on the side of the road, any takers, libertarians?
as a biker from oh, say starting 40 years ago, we’ve been round and round this in colo. Our good harley guys show up at the capital each year, rolling around the drive, protesting any helmet law. the sport rice burners wear futuristic helmets, but not sure how safe/tested the liners are. The liner is the thing in helmets; the outside casings crack when bashed. And I’ve lost one friend a year in last ten years, without helmet if a head bounce, and with helmet or without helmet if a T-bone.
I’ve three friends with closed head injuries who will never be the same. None were helmet wearers. Though their loved ones would give a lot had they had some protection.
Myself, head-on collision with old full size Olds, me riding the pegs trying to get out of the way when I saw he crossed the line and revved his horses, but tree in the way, I arced high through the air both me and 660 cc bike landing in mid road on shoulder and head. Helmet liner cracked clean through. They say I still have my wits. Chipped collarbone, black bruises the size of pancakes. Have a slight limp when I’m tired. Otherwise better than before… some days. lol
ps. many harley riders wear helmets. Most do not.
And, there is some odd thing, similar to wearing a condom, it reminds me of… Some kind of illogical resistance. And you are right Stockboy and others here, a lot of helmetless riders appear not to have health insurance, and closed head injury and shattered bones, and months in rehab is horribly costly. Too, many who ride put all $$ they have into the bike; even food can become secondary. There’s a psychology to it that is similar to soldiering, if you’re familiar with that. And, taxpayers do pay the bills for others who have not taken out insurance. Whether they ride or not.
Alternative headline: Another Darwin Award Candidate a Victim of Brutal Irony.
They ain’t called ‘donor’ cycles fer nuthin’.
Condolences to family and friends.
I’ve had experience motorcycling, including being struck by a car.
Who would ride without a helmet? Even if helmet and set belt use laws (which I don’t fear as something tyrannical) can’t be passed, certainly “contributory negligence” laws should be in force and in effect. Someone striking someone unbelted or unhelmeted may be responsible for property damage, but next to nothing for head or internal injuries if the rider or driver of the struck vehicle is ejected, or suffers injuries likely to be reduced or prevented by seat belt use, or dies of head injuries that would have been reduced or prevented by wearing a helmet.
As it is, I think all the time of the Organ Donor license plate I’ve also displayed in the past, every time I encounter someone riding a motorcycle without a helmet.
I’m conflicted on helmet laws, but I’d like to bring up two points:
Is there actually data to support the assertion that non-helmeted motorcyclist are a burden on the healthcare system? It seems to me that you could also argue that they are much more likely to die quickly in an accident and therefore could actually cost less money, on average. I’m not saying they do, I’m just saying it’s not obvious to me that wearing a helmet is the more cost-conscious option.
Secondly, freedom to do only what society thinks is appropriate for you to do is not really freedom at all. The reasoning behind helmet laws seems obvious, but similar reasoning is used to justify education policies that discriminate against home-schooling, for example. There is a slippery slope argument here.
Like I said, I’m conflicted myself. It’s a question of how far we want to take the principle of freedom. Should it include behavior that almost everyone agrees is stupid and irresponsible when the only victim is the person choosing the behavior?
“Should it include behavior that almost everyone agrees is stupid and irresponsible when the only victim is the person choosing the behavior?”
The problem is the person choosing the behavior isn’t the only victim. There is the victim’s family, the other person/people involved in the accident (if there was another), and the health care and rehabilitation time, costs, etc. which we all help cover.
So which dangerous behaviors should we allow? Which should we prohibit?
It’s not government’s role to make the choice in my view. Behaviors that directly harm others (meaning victims) are a different category of things.
Anyone who doesn’t where a helmet while riding a motorcycle is an idiot. That said, being an idiot is OK…there should be no law against it.
The line that many are espousing here places no limit on government interference since all behaviors (pretty much) have risk and some (sometimes very small) portion of that risk is a shared burden. If shared burden is all that is required, there is no behavior that is safe from government meddling.
Family: My family is the primary reason I will not ride a motorcycle, helmet or not. Nevertheless, I don’t see it as the government’s role to make sure the father or mother does not recklessly endanger him or herself. In any case, what if the rider doesn’t have any children? If that were the concern, the law could be targeted only at parents. (Not that I think that would be appropriate–as I said I don’t think that’s the government’s place).
The other person: what does that have to do with helmet laws?
Society: As I said above, I question whether helmet laws really save us money. But, even if they do, I don’t accept the argument that our freedom should be restricted because of a system of healthcare that we also don’t get to choose individually. We have chosen, as a society, to provide emergency healthcare to those who can’t pay. That decision comes with consequences, both positive and negative. One of those negative consequences is that we pay for other people’s stupid behavior. I agree with Logan that this line of reasoning leads to more nanny-state protections. I strongly suspect that bad diet and lack of exercise costs the taxpayer far more than helmetless riders, so why shouldn’t the government determine what we eat and how much exercise we get?
I think what enacts helmet laws is not fiscal concerns, but rather that we (myself included) just find the idea that someone could be so reckless with their own life to be disturbing. It makes me feel better when I see a motorcyclist with his helmet on. I get uncomfortable when I see one without a helmet. We like to feel comfortable so we pass helmet laws. This allows us to continue with our comfortable illusion that other people care about their own lives as much as we care about ours. The question that we must ask ourselves (and I ask myself) is whether feeling comfortable is worth allowing an encroachment on individual freedom.
“My family is the primary reason I will not ride a motorcycle, helmet or not”
I’m with you on that one. I don’t trust myself on a motorcycle or other drivers. It is too easy to die from someone else’s mistake.
SteveInCH
“It’s not government’s role to make the choice in my view. Behaviors that directly harm others (meaning victims) are a different category of things.
Anyone who doesn’t where a helmet while riding a motorcycle is an idiot. That said, being an idiot is OK…there should be no law against it.”
As long as idiots are transferred to local hospitals for treatment when they are not required to have insurance, another stupid law you’re against, no idiot suffers alone.
Society pays for his freedom.
If you don’t want to wear a helmet or wear a seat belt, make it mandatory that you sign up for organ donation and no special medical treatment to save your life. Freedom to risk your life doesn’t mean you should have carte blanche for help. Owning insurance would remove this disparity and unfair advantage you want to play with the system.
Play dice with other people’s money is what your advocating, Steve.
Hemmann,
Would you support government mandated diet and exercise programs, then? Do you agree that bad diet and lack of exercise cost the government more than helmetless riders?
Why not let people who can demonstrate that they have insurance ride without helmets? The government could mandate that insurance companies provide a sticker to anyone who wishes to ride without a helmet, and the cyclist would put that sticker on the license plate. This would have the added benefit of helping insurance companies appropriately charge for the additional risk.
But something like this is never considered, because the real reason these laws are enacted is not to save money.
adelinesdad
diet and or exercise etc does not have the mechanical efficiency of skull to concrete.
as to a helmet waiver, the number one group pushing for helmet laws are the insurance companies.
now if a tag could be issued to those who have demonstrated personal financial self-support, I’d have no problem with that. Rich idiots can pay for themselves.
the diet / exercise idea you try to make equivalent to no seat belt or helmet is silly. one takes a lifetime to cause death, while the other loses a life in a moment.
“Society pays for his freedom”
I keep hearing crap like this but no one backs it up with facts. If you have a head injury due to no helmet you are most likely dead. That means everyone saves a crap load of money. Everyone cost society a crap load in medical care if they live long enough and more the longer they live. The idea that the survivor may cost more than they would cost Medicare anyway is weak and when you add in the subtraction of costs for those killed……. I always wear a helmet but the idea that it’s some big money issue is an obvious lie.
Hemm,
Far more people die from poor diet/exercise in one year than will ever die from lack of helmets and, to EEllis’s point, the cost relative to Medicare/Medicaid is far, far lower.
This isn’t about cost…it’s about forcing people to do the “right” thing. Without philosopher kings, that’s a power I’d rather not give to the government.
Hemmann,
The argument put forth by most of the defenders of helmet laws on this thread is that is that helmetless riders cost the government money. I pointed out that people who have bad diets or don’t exercise cost the government much more, which logically would imply that diet and exercise should also be regulated by the government. I don’t see how the mechanical efficiency or the immediacy of a head injury changes that calculation.
But if we want to point out the differences between motorcycle injuries and diet and exercise, we should also point out that the vast majority of motorcyclist who don’t wear helmets will suffer no ill effects because of their decision, and neither will the government. On the other hand, virtually everyone who eats poorly or doesn’t exercise enough will end up costing the government to some degree because of their choices. So, I still don’t see a principled position that would suggest we should require helmets but not ban junk food or require a minimum exercise regimen.
I’ve riden motorcycles most of my life and have owned several. My last was a stripped down Yamaha FJ1200 and it was instant adrenaline at your fingertips. I wouldn’t think of riding without a helmet and even in summer wore leather jacket, boots, and leather gloves. Hey, if I come of the bike I’d like to keep the skin grafting to a minimum. I have no trouble with helmet laws, and all the ridiculous talk about the “nannystate” misses a greater point: When you are a teenager you think you will live forever and you tend to do a lot of crazy things. I know I did. There is nothing wrong with giving a little more in the way of protection to people whose minds aren’t yet developed enough yet for their own good. Call it what you will, but it saves lives – maybe even the life of your kid, your cousin, your brother, your sister, your friend, yourself.
When I was in Phoenix people used to give me grief about wearing a jacket and long pants even in 115+ degree weather (in addition to a helmet). I’d rather reduce the odds or at least the extent and degree of injury in the event of a crash. (In mine, when I was struck, I was catapulted over the car and after turning a somersault, slid along the road for a long time. My skin was pretty much intact even though the clothing and helmet were scratched.)
The previous writer refers to “invincible” youth, but don’t forget that the rest of us who have come to know better also know that it’s not always that you’ll cause “your” crash; somebody else can.
Evolution in action. No problem with that…
… although I feel sorry for the loved ones of those who chose unwisely.
zephyr,
I respectfully disagree and would offer two counterpoints:
1) If the intent of the law is to protect young, less responsible motorcyclists, then the law could easily accommodate that without a blanket restriction. Apparently some states do require helmets for people under a certain age or who have a learning permit.
2) If a young motorcyclist cannot be trusted to make good decisions about his own safety, then I would suggest that perhaps we should not trust him to make decisions that affect other people’s safety by allowing him to ride a mechanical bullet through town in the first place, helmet or not. I understand the point of view that young adults are often less responsible, but once someone becomes an adult, I just don’t see any principle that would justify protecting him from himself in this way (at least not one that would also not justify food and exercise police).
Regarding the “ridiculous talk about the nannystate”, I intentionally avoid using the word “nannystate” because it is a buzzword that is too easy to both throw arround and to dismiss. What I’m asking for is for someone to articulate a principled position that justifies requiring helmets but would not justify regulating diet or physical activity. I understand that helmet laws seem to be common sense to many people, but I find that when my principles conflict with my common sense, it is a useful exercise to attempt to resolve the conflict. Either my principles need adjusting or my “common sense” may not be as sensical as I had thought. But it doesn’t appear that anyone else is interested in that exercise, so I’ll stop beating a dead horse.
Addendum: I actually did use the word nannystate, but only paraphrasing another person’s comment. I try to avoid words like that, but I’m not perfect.