In the three years after Michigan repealed a mandatory motorcycle helmet law, deaths and head injuries among bikers rose sharply, according to a recent study. Deaths at the scene of the crash more than quadrupled, while deaths in the hospital tripled for motorcyclists. Head injuries have increased overall, and more of them are severe, the researchers report in the American Journal of Surgery. Senior author Dr. Carlos Rodriguez decided to do the study after noticing an abrupt change in the trauma unit at Spectrum Health Hospital in Grand Rapids, where he works. The first week after the law was repealed in April 2012, he told Reuters Health, “I just could not help but notice the number of patients that had been in motorcycle crashes with no helmet on, which was enormously different in number and volume than we had experienced the weekend before.”
So Michigan repealed a mandatory motorcycle helmet, because…freedom, I’m guessing. It’s not as if there’s a logical, coherent argument to be made in support of allowing motorcyclists to make their own call about wearing a helmet. Would you go out into a driving rainstorm without a raincoat? Would you walk over broken glass without proper footwear? Would you decide crosswalk signals are merely good ideas- suggestions- and walk into traffic? Of course you wouldn’t. There are certain things which, if you paid any attention at all to your mother, should just be accept as common sense. It’s what makes the idea of repealing a mandatory motorcycle helmet law such a head-scratcher. Are riders and the motorcyle industry pro-traumatic brain injury? Do they consider scraping the brains of a few motorcyclists off our highways to be the cost of freedom? Do they believe that personal freedom (the desire to feel the wind flowing through their hair) by right should- and does- override all other considerations, even public safety?
If you’re thinking this argument sounds as absurd as it does familiar, you’re not alone. It’s as if they’ve taken a page from the playbook of Proudly Closed-minded Gun Control Foes ©.
I could couch this in diplomatic terms, but the truth that there’s no effective or kind way to ask someone, “ARE YOU F——-G STUPID???” Most states have seatbelt laws, meaning that in order to ride in or operate a motor vehicle, one must be buckled in. In order for an automobiles to operate legally on public roadways, a certain minimum level of precautions are mandated. That’s just the way it is; you don’t have to like wearing a seat belt, but the choice is yours: wear one and drive, or decline and take the bus. Yet for reasons that defy rational explanation and understanding, Michigan has made motorcycles helmets optional. Are legislators there getting kickbacks from the Darwin Awards?? Did they receive large campaign contributions from hospitals who want their emergency rooms to be more fully utilized?
Not surprisingly, motorcycle-related injuries and deaths have increased substantially. Someone more cynical than myself (hard to imagine, I know) might see this as natural selection, and perhaps there’s an element of that in play.
About 10 percent of non-helmeted riders brought to the hospital died there, compared to 3 percent of those who had been wearing helmets.
Among riders who died at the crash scene, the proportion not wearing helmets rose from 14 percent before the law was repealed to 68 percent afterward….
Riders without helmets also drank more alcohol after the law was repealed, based on blood tests at hospital admission.
The severity of injuries increased for non-helmeted riders, as well as the number of life-threatening head injuries.
Non-helmeted patients tended to stay longer in the Intensive Care Unit and to need machine assistance with breathing.
Overall, hospital costs averaged $27,760 for non-helmeted riders versus $20,970 for patients who had been wearing helmets.
The consequences and costs listed above are not borne solely by a motorcyclist whose injuries were worsened or even made fatal because of their refusal to wear a helmet. They also fall onto society in general in terms of resources and tax dollars expended to respond to and deal with the aftermath of an accident. People who refuse to wear a helmet may choose to couch their argument in terms of personal freedom, but what they conveniently ignore is that freedoms come with corresponding responsibilities. The “personal freedom” argument is actually a childishly selfish refrain employed by those who don’t like to be told what to do…but the problem is that decisions have consequences and neither exists in a vacuum. I may decide not to use my brake when I drive because the freedom of my left foot is important to me…but just watch me trying to explain the importance of my “personal freedom” to the Mercedes S-class sedan I just rear-ended at 60 MPH. Do you think the owner of a $100,000 four-wheeled orgasm…or their attorney…will be sympathetic to my enlightened views?
It’s a pretty simple equation, really. If you’re going to exercise the freedom to operate a motorcycle on public roadways, you have a responsibility to those of the rest of us sharing the road with you to take every reasonable precaution. Personally, I’m not disturbed by your me-first attitude; what disturbs are the costs and the consequences all of us will bear when you lay your bike down at 70 MPH and your brain matter becomes one with the asphalt.
If it’s a Darwin Award you’re chasing, do it in a manner that doesn’t involve traumatizing others or forcing society to bear the cost and consequences. Stupid and irresponsible isn’t a public good, nor should the aftermath be a public responsibility.
