Common sense crashes and burns without a helmet

Opinion

[5 Comment(s)]

By Emley Kerry

It has always surprised me that the helmet law is such a contentious topic because it seems like such a patently obvious non-issue: wear a helmet. It is completely ludicrous that our state is devoting so much time and money to the repeal of the law.

According to the Louisiana legislature's Web site, House Bill 639 "repeals the requirement to wear a helmet for certain motorcycle riders and operators." The bill passed through the House Transportation Committee, then the House and is now before the Senate Committee on Transportation, Highways and Public Works.

In a pathetic attempt to justify the bill, Jindal claimed that repealing the helmet law will help stimulate the state's economy because some motorcycle groups avoid Louisiana because of its helmet law. The amount of money that the state will spend on those incapacitated by motorcycle accidents will far exceed any amount of tourism dollars that the Hell's Angels will bring to the state.

As Rep. Charmaine Marchand Stiaes, a biker herself, has stated, "Your constituents will be paying for brain-dead motorcyclists."

Rep. Jim Morris-Rep, sponsor of HB639, added insurance minimum requirements to his repeal bill so that it would pass through the House. The rider who chooses not to wear a helmet must have health insurance and $100,000 in liability insurance coverage because uninsured bikers who crash without a helmet could be permanently debilitated, causing an additional burden on the state's health care costs.

However, Rep. Hollis Downs wisely argued that even the minimum insurance is not enough.

"With those lingering, things can turn into thousands or millions of dollars in medical expenses," he forewarned.

Stiaes summed it up concisely: "If you don't have a helmet on and your head hits the pavement, you will be either brain dead or dead dead. That is not hard to understand."

It's really not.

It also seems like those who ride a bike seem to agree that they will continue to wear protective headgear regardless of the outcome of the measure. Jindal supports the measure, but admits that if he rode a bike, he would wear a helmet. Morris, a Harley Davidson enthusiast, has said that he would continue to ride with a helmet if the bill passed.

I am all for freedom of choice, but there are laws that need to be enacted for the individual and the greater welfare of society. Riders for Justice, a group that seeks to "stamp out helmet laws," argues that mandatory helmet laws undermine their freedom.

This is where conservative and liberal ideology about personal freedoms and the individual's right to choose gets mixed up. Supporters of the helmet law repeal are conflating the "wind in the hair on the open road" sense of freedom with civil freedoms, two completely separate and distinct notions. Just because your hair isn't whipping behind you as you ride down I-10 into the sunset, it doesn't meet your civil liberties are being impinged upon.

In this same vein, perhaps I feel "free" when I don't wear pants; however, we can probably agree that I should not be given the choice to do this in public.

When I see motorcyclists whizzing by on the interstate, their clothes flapping in the intense wind, I can't help but think of the vulnerability and fragility of the human body at that moment. To see someone in that same situation but without a helmet would turn my blood cold. Whatever the outcome of the bill in the Senate, please wear a helmet if you plan to ride a motorcycle.

Originally Published: Issue 805 - June 24, 2009

Share on Facebook

Back to the top