By Eric Peters
I was reading an article the other day that expressed “concern” – What an expression! It manipulates by feigning the protective instincts of a parent that are instinctively deferred to – that there are still a handful of states that allow people to ride motorcycles without having to wear a helmet. And yet, it is still legal in every state to eat whatever you like. To not exercise.
One wonders for how much longer.
This brings us to one of the interesting things about helmet laws, which is their strange arbitrariness. A rider – in states where the requirement exists – must wear a helmet but may legally wear next to nothing else. A pair of shorts and sandals will do, insofar as the law. Why is that allowed? Spinal injuries, paralysis, horrific road rash, compound fractures and general mangling of the body are among the risks assumed by one who rides wearing nothing but shorts and sandals.
But his head will be protected. It will still look good when he is in that wheelchair for life.
Why are motorcycles allowed at all? Even fully geared up – armored riding suit, boots, gloves and the helmet – riding a motorcycle is inherently less safe than riding in a car. If “safety” truly were the baseline criteria, motorcycles would be illegal. The only reason they aren’t is because of an ancestral memory of a time when people were free to choose whether they wanted to ride in the open air – sans helmet, if they liked – or within a car, of they preferred – where they did not have to “buckle up.” It’s like how they still allow the legal pretense of being homeowners rather than outright deeding the title to the government and calling what you’re forced to pay in “property taxes” the rent it actually is.
So – since they can’t (yet) outlaw motorcycles altogether, they can pass laws making riding one less enjoyable, which is what being forced to wear a helmet does.
The Helmet largely eliminates the whole point of riding, which is to feel the sun and and wind on your face, to be in the moment – rather than clamshelled up inside a helmet. But all of that is beside the point. Never argue utilitarian points with anyone who is arguing about what you should and should not be allowed to do.
It is the principled point that matters.
You can point to the arbitrariness of helmet laws – and not just them but generally. Take it to logical absurdity. Not only should riders have to wear full gear – armored riding suit, boots and gloves as well as the helmet – they ought to stay home, preferably in bed. That would be safest of all and it would at least be consistent. They don’t go that far, of course. This reveals the arbitrariness (and so the injustice) of the thing. Punishing a rider for not wearing a helmet – but not punishing him for not wearing an armored riding suit, boots and gloves – is like punishing a child for wearing one muddy shoe in the house.
It’s actually worse, of course, because (a) the helmetless rider is an adult and (b) he has not tracked mud inside your house. The argument is he might. Ok. So might the rider who isn’t wearing the full armored riding suit, boots and gloves. How does a broken back and wheelchair paralysis for life – assuming it actually happens – impose greater “costs on society” than the cracked-open head of a helmet-less rider, if that actually happens?
Is it really reduced to an argument about that?
If so, has anyone done an accounting of the costs not imposed on society when a healthy man in his 40s or 50s is killed on a motorcycle, perhaps because he was not wearing a helmet (and perhaps because he was not wearing an armored suit, boots and gloves) who will never grow old and draw Social Security, thus saving “society” a great deal? And never mind the savings achieved by not having to spend all that money on senior care when the old duffer can’t take care of himself anymore.
If it’s all about the money, then one can make a case that riders ought to be allowed to ride helmet-less. Wheelies ought to be encouraged, too. The same goes for all the People of Wal-Mart. They ought to be given BOGO discounts for cases of high fructose corn syrup-sweetened drinks and lots of canola-laden snacks. The sooner they die from diabetes or heart disease the more money “society” will save!
They never say that, of course.
Because it is not “safety” or “societal costs” that “concern” the people who demand and amen helmet laws. It is certainly never the riders who are “concerned,” which is odd in view of the fact that they are the people most directly affected. You would think if wearing a helmet truly were in the self-interest of riders, laws requiring it would be as needed as laws requiring the wearing of shoes in the woods. Most people wear shoes in the woods because it’s generally sensible to wear them in the woods. Some will say the same about motorcycle helmets, including some who ride. But it is also true that many who ride do not agree – as far as the forcing, at least – and also that most if not all who push for helmet laws do not ride.
Riders understand different strokes.
It is one of the chief reasons why they ride rather than drive. Few riders like the idea of forcing anyone to wear a helmet, even if they think it’s a good idea themselves. They also don’t support forcing anyone to eat healthy or to hit the gym. They’re ok with you eating what you like to eat and being heavy, if you don’t mind being heavy.
How about you not minding us feeling the wind in our hair and the sun our faces, even if it’s not something you’d chose to do yourself?
Editorial Disclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in this blog post are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the National Motorists Association. We believe in fostering open dialogue and welcome diverse perspectives on issues affecting motorists. If you would like to submit a response or opposing viewpoint, we encourage you to contribute. Please email us at greg@motorists.org for submission guidelines.
