Brianna Reinhart CAS 138T, Section 12 April 4, 2013 Motorcycle Helmet Enforcement: A Simple Solution to a Serious Problem Motor

vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death in the United States for individuals between the age of five and thirty-four. Over a hundred people die per day on the roads, and in 2009 more than 2.3 million motor vehicle drivers and passengers were treated in the emergency room. And despite making up less than 2% of all vehicles on the road, 14% of the dead and injured were riding motorcycles. Severe head trauma was the primary cause of death in motorcycle accidents, and helmets can reduce the risk of such injuries by up to 69% (Motor Vehicle Safety). Yet, the majority of people injured or killed in motorcycle accidents were not wearing helmets. To increase the use of helmets, the government needs to step in and pass a secondary enforcement law in all states requiring both drivers and passengers of all ages to wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle. Currently, nineteen U.S. States have universal helmet laws in place, meaning that all motorcyclists must wear helmets regardless of age. The other thirty-one have either partial laws, meaning only people under a certain age (usually 18-20 years) are required to wear helmets, or the state has no law at all. The number of states with universal helmet laws has been in decline ever since 1976 when Congress stopped the Department of Transportation from assessing states qualifications for certain federal safety programs and highway construction funds based on their helmet laws ("Motorcycle and bicycle helmet use laws"). Once

Reinhart, 2 the economic incentive was gone, most states repealed their laws. Even as the death toll has increased in the past ten years, states continue to repeal and not reinstate them. Now, it is far past time for those thirty-one states to restore their universal helmet laws, regardless of any fiscal reward. In 2010, for every one motorcycle on the road there were over 100 cars. Yet, for every person that died in a motorcycle crash, there were only eight that died in car crashes. The massively disproportionate number of 4,500 lives that were lost on motorcycles in 2010 is a fifty-five percent increase since the year 2000 ("Helmet Use"). And yet, nothing has been done to try and prevent those deaths. It is true that there are significantly more motorcyclists out on the roads today than ten years ago, but there are also more cars on the road today, and the number of deaths resulting from car crashes has actually seen a slight decrease in the past ten years. This is because measures have been taken to make cars safer. Seatbelt laws are now being enforced in every state, while naught has been done for motorcycles. In order to decrease the number of deaths from motorcycle accidents, the government needs to act to protect their resident motorcyclists as they did with car riders. In addition, the highest death and injury rates from motorcycles countrywide were among 20 to 24 year-olds, followed by 25 to 29 year-olds, correlating with the fact that helmet laws do not apply to people above the age of twenty in more than half of our states ("Helmet Use"). Some argue that while these deaths are tragic, they affect only the person who died; and it was their choice whether or not to wear a helmet, so the government shouldnt interfere with its residents personal decisions. This is

Reinhart, 3 entirely untrue. Aside from affecting the lives of the people close to the rider, every death takes a huge economic toll. In one year, the cost of motorcycle crash-related injuries and deaths that could have been prevented by helmets totaled $12 billion. This includes injury-related costs such as medical and emergency services costs, as well as work productivity losses. It does not take into account property damage or other negative consequences that are purely a result of the crash, and not of the death or injury due to the absence of a helmet. Then there is the matter of who pays for injured motorcyclists healthcare; over half of motorcyclists do not have private health insurance, so most of their medical bills are paid for by the government with tax money that is needed elsewhere ("Motorcycles-Helmets"). Many of these consequences could be reduced with a universal helmet law. If states required their citizens to wear helmets, fewer people would suffer serious head injuries or death. This law would require anyone on a motorcycle, regardless of age, to wear a helmet. The main counterargument to this idea, and the reason why most states repealed their laws after congress took away the economic incentive, is because it takes away peoples freedom of choice. The government is, technically, telling you what to wear (Why Rise in Motorcycle Deaths Hasn't Meant Tougher Helmet Laws). For this reason, the policy I propose is a universal helmet law subject to secondary enforcement, similar to the seatbelt law in most states. Secondary enforcement means that the police cannot pull someone over just for not wearing a helmet; but, if someone commits an unrelated road crime such as speeding or running a red light, they can then be prosecuted for not wearing a helmet in addition to their other crime. Although secondary enforcement may not be

Reinhart, 4 as effective as primary, it not only encourages helmet use, but also safer driving. With a primary enforcement law, an element of free choice would be taken away; but a secondary enforcement law would force riders who still choose not to wear helmets to become safer drivers, which, unlike simply wearing a helmet, would prevent accidents. And the riders that do choose to wear a helmet will be better protected in accidents. Thus, this law would not only decrease the number of head injuries and deaths, it should also decrease the overall number of motorcycle crashes, since people who do not wear helmets will have an incentive to drive more carefully. In order for this law to have a noticeable effect, the penalty for being caught without a helmet while driving irresponsibly would need to be much higher than the fee for being caught with out a seatbeltthe average base fine currently being around $20 for a first offense (Seatbelt Laws). Anyone can strap on a seatbelt with no inconvenience to himself, since all cars come with seatbelts built in. However, motorcycle helmets can be pricy. Some people may not pay $150 for a good quality helmet if the penalty for not having one is $130 less than that. In terms of cost, a motorcycle rider could pay the helmet fine seven times and still save money. So, in order to promote the use of helmets or encourage safer driving, the fine or punishment for breaking this law has to be something fairly severe. Otherwise, not enough people may take the law seriously enough for it to have an effect. With this law in place, helmet use will increase. In states with universal helmet laws 97% of riders wear helmets, compared with 28 to 40% in states with a partial helmet law and 11% in states with no law at all ("Motorcycle Crash Studies

Reinhart, 5 and Statistics"). This data shows that helmet laws are effective. While the secondary enforcement law I am suggesting is not as strict and thus may not be as effective as the universal helmet law in place in 19 states, it is stricter than the total absence of enforcement present against adult riders in the remaining 31 states. The overall goal of this law goes beyond getting riders to wear helmets; the ultimate goal is to save lives and prevent injuries. And if this law were passed, motorcycle riders would be given two choices: Either to not wear a helmet and drive safer, which would prevent accidents, or to wear a helmet, which would prevent injuries, deaths, and other costs to society. Because helmets workthey are designed to cushion and protect riders heads from the impact in a crash. They reduce the risk of death by 42% and the risk of head injury by 69%. In 2010 alone, analysts proved that helmets saved over 1,500 lives and could have saved another 700 (Helmet Use). Unhelmeted riders that get in a crash are three times more likely to suffer severe brain trauma than helmeted ridersand the severe head injuries that come of motorcycle accidents require extensive treatment and could even cause a lifelong disability (Motorcycles-helmets). There are some claims that helmets do as much bad as good for motorcycle ridersthat they restrict vision and hearing capabilities. This is entirely untrue. Less than 3% of peripheral vision is lost when using a full coverage helmet. All helmets provide a field vision of 210 degrees, well above the 140-degree standard necessary to possess a drivers license. In addition, a helmet protects the eyes from wind, which actually improves a drivers vision. Testing has also shown that there are no differences in hearing abilities when using no helmet, a partial coverage, or

Reinhart, 6 full coverage. With no helmet, the noise generated by the motorcycle engine and wind is very loudso any other sounds, like horns and cars, must be even louder to be heard over top of them. Helmets do reduce noise volume, but they reduce all sounds proportionally; meaning, any noises that could be heard over the wind and engine without the helmet can still be heard with the helmet ("Do Motorcycle Helmets Interfere With the Vision and Hearing of Riders?"). Lastly, a study by J.P. Goldstein is often cited that says the mass a helmet adds to a head increases the risk of neck and spinal injuries. More than a dozen studies have refuted Goldsteins findings, proving that "helmets reduce head injuries without an increased occurrence of spinal injuries in motorcycle trauma" (Motorcycles-Helmets). Thus, the use of helmets is purely positive for the wearer. All these preventable deaths and injuries are a major cost to society. The cost of motorcycle accidents to society has been increasing steadily over the past decade, and more helmet use by riders could prevent deaths and injuries to combat this increase in costs (Motorcycle Crash Studies and Statistics). The amount of money that could be save saved by helmets is estimated to be $1.2 million per fatality, $170,00 per serious injury, and $7000 per minor injury (Helmet Use). Additionally, states with a universal helmet law saved $725 per registered motorcycle, compared to $198 per motorcycle in states with partial helmet laws. Saving all that money would also lower health care costs since over half of these injured riders do not have private insurance. These costs saved include injuryrelated costs such as medical care and loss of work productivity; it does not even include what is perhaps the most important element, the number of human lives

Reinhart, 7 saved. Part of the governments job is to keep its residents safe, and so just like how the government enforces the use of seatbelts and forbids the presence of open alcohol in a car, they should enforce the use of helmets for motorcycles. The millions of dollars that could be saved by motorcycle helmets could then be put to better use. Rather than paying the medical bills of motorcyclists, the government could spend the money on any number of things, from research to the environment to paying off the national debt. Some of the money could even be used to pay for helmets for motorcycle riders that cannot afford to buy one; the government could provide helmets to people with registered motorcycles the same way they provide healthcare and food stamps. Or, all motorcycles could be sold accompanied by a helmet, like how all automobiles are sold with seatbelts. A secondary enforcement helmet law would prevent the injury and death of motorcyclists without taking away any freedom of choice. It would dually encourage safer driving and an increased use of helmets. This law would save billions of dollars a year in medical fees and productivity losses to the government, as well as decrease the cost of health care; and above all, it would save the lives of countless people across the country.

Reinhart, 8 Works Cited "Do Motorcycle Helmets Interfere With the Vision and Hearing of Riders?" Motorcycle Safety For Everyone. Network of Employers for Traffic Safety, 05 Jan 2013. <http://trafficsafety.org/safety/sharing/motorcycle/motor-safetyeveryone/motorcycle-helmets-for-all-riders>. "Helmet Use Among Motorcyclists Who Died in Crashes and Economic Cost Savings Associated With State Motorcycle Helmet Laws United States, 2008 2010." Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, June 15 2012. Web. <http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6123a1.htm>. "Motorcycle and bicycle helmet use laws." Highway Safety Research and Communications. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, March 2013. Web. <http://www.iihs.org/laws/HelmetUseCurrent.asp&xgt;. "Motorcycle Crash Studies and Statistics". Skilled Motorcycle Association, 20 Mar 2013. Web. <http://www.smarter-usa.org/research/crash-studies/ "Motorcycles-Helmets." Highway Safety Research and Communications. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, May 2012. Web. <http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/helmet_use.asp&xgt;. "Motor Vehicle Safety; Injury and Prevention Control." Costs and Prevention Policies. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. <http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/costs/index.html>. "Seatbelt Laws." State Laws and Funding. Governors Highway Safety Association, March 2013. Web. 25 Mar 2013. <http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws/seatbelt_laws.html>. Why Rise in Motorcycle Deaths Hasn't Meant Tougher Helmet Laws. 2012. Video. PBS News Hour Web. 23 Mar 2013. <http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/janjune12/motorcycles_06-19.html>.