Helmet Law – Disagree
From a legal perspective, what is the helmet law saying to the public? Do we really want that sort of government intervention? Do I want to be told that I must wear a helmet because that will protect my life in the event of a crash? Aside from the the medical debate this produces, (i.e. live as a vegetable or die), why should anyone want to decide for someone else whether or not that person should exercise personal safety? Even if others are involved in the crash, (such as collision with a car), little difference will be determined in the outcome if or not the motorcyclist is wearing a helmet. Really, the most significant effect is experienced by the motorcyclist. And if he or she chooses to go bare-headed, what difference can it make to the rest of us? These are the personal choices to which each individual should have total freedom.
As an EMT (formerly) I had quite a lot of experience with motorcycle accidents. They are a fairly common "MVA" if you work a stretch of highway as I did. Some people were definitely saved by the use of a helmet, and I'm guessing they were glad they did. But should that make it a law? Shouldn't each of us have the right to decide to what degree we wish to take our lives into our own hands at any given time as long as it does not infringe on the safety of others? The helmet law does not save others from reckless motorcyclists, nor does it protect the conscientious. Motorcyclists who are cautious wear helmets anyway. The point is, it's interference in a most patronizing manner, suggesting we have neither the right nor the means to figure out what is best for ourselves.
I have heard the argument that the helmet law saves lives. I'm not debating this. Debatable is the question of medical financial obligation when a serious accident has occurred and the motorcyclist is now alive, albeit permanently mentally incapacitated. In other words, what's worse? Being a vegetable or being dead? Again, this is a personal choice. If these choices are not left to the individual, where does society draw the line? If I am dictated to regarding personal safety choices, at what point am I being told what I am allowed to read? Anyone person's personal position may dictate that my favorite reading material is detrimental to my health and should therefore be banned. Personal liberties are fragile and easily expunged by those doing "societal service." We must exercise extreme caution in dictating the "may" and "may nots" of individual choice.
