Critical Essay about Helmet Laws Discrimination

• Does the compulsory wearing of helmets reduce the number of fatalities associated with motorcycling and pedal cycling accidents?
• Provide evidence in support of and against the following statements and state whether you agree with the statements and why.

'Wearing a motorcycle helmet increases the chances of having an accident.'

'Legislation requiring the wearing of motorcycle helmets is a breach of an individual's civil liberties.'

Save your time!
We can take care of your essay

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Place an order

'It is negligent for parents to permit their children to ride a bicycle without wearing a helmet.'

When riding a motorcycle, the individual is not in an enclosed area like a car, which has doors, windows, airbags, and other features to ensure some degree of safety. One of the only things that might serve as a layer of protection is the helmet, otherwise, if a collision does occur, it is due to the body being fully exposed to external objects. Through its protective padding, it “reduces the deceleration of the skull and therefore the brain by dissipating the impact energy through controlled deformation of its structure” 1. Also, it serves as a shield for both the eyes and the face from any harmful objects.

Ample number of studies supported the usage of helmets as a safeguard from preventing injuries or fatalities. One of the studies that focused on the positive side was conducted by Abbas, Hefny, and Abu-Zida (2012), which focused on motorcycle helmet-related fatalities at a global level. Data from 70 countries were collected. Head injury was deemed to be the main cause of death related to motorcycle collisions, which accounted for 70% of the deaths. The utilization of helmets has been considered one of the vital safety gears to prevent fatalities, as they help absorb energy and prevent head injuries. On the other hand, non-helmeted motorcyclists accounted for 40% of fatal head injuries. The study further established the point that per 1,000,000 habitants, one life could be saved each year for every 10% increase in the usage of helmets 2. The study evaluated the impact of helmets at a global level, however, because it compiled data from 70 different countries, some of the vital background information was not included to make a constructive assessment. Laws and regulations vary from country to country; one might be more stringent compared to the other. For example, are there any laws that regulate the speed limitations in these countries? Both developed and undeveloped countries were compared, such as New Zealand and Uganda. The road conditions in these countries may have drastic differences, such as, in terms of riding a motorcycle, Uganda’s roads may not be as safe as New Zealand’s. Will just wearing a helmet in this scenario justify as a preventative step? The study does not provide further insight regarding the average age or gender of the drivers in each country. It is, also, unclear if the reported number of fatalities were associated with any reckless behaviors, such as alcohol intoxication, being under the influence of drugs, and much more.

On the other hand, Lee (2018) performed a study emphasizing on the fatality rate associated with helmet usage. However, rather than at a global level, it highlighted the issue from a national standpoint, revolving mainly around the USA. In 2015 alone, 3081 fatalities were reported in the states that did not implement any laws related to helmet usage. The study compared the number of fatalities in Florida, Texas, and New York. Florida - which has a partial helmet law requiring 21 years old and under to wear helmets - had 546 deaths. Texas, similar to Florida, only requires a certain age group to wear helmets, which is 17 years and younger. The state reported 454 deaths related to motorcycle crashes. Unlike these states, New York has established a law, which mandates the usage of helmets and as a result, their death toll was reported to be the lowest, 155 3. Even though Texas had the highest number of fatalities compared to New York, the study data did not take account of the state population, as Texas is more populated compared to New York 4. It cannot be determined whether these crashes took place in major cities with traffic congestion, which could imply one of the reasons behind the fatalities. Furthermore, neither of the studies mentioned whether the wearing of a helmet should be a requirement for only the rider of the motorcycle, or should all passengers be required as well. In terms of safety, is the importance given to the rider versus the passenger?

Besides motorcycles, bicycles are another mode of transportation where the utilization of helmets is essential. Meehan, Lee, Fischer, and Mannix (2013) explored fatalities related to bicycle-motor vehicles over 12 years, which ranged from January 1999 to December 2010, in the United States. It reported a total of 1612 fatalities amongst children less than 16 years old. The study further compared data between states that implemented helmet laws versus the ones that did not. States without any established helmet laws had an increasing number of fatalities, unlike the states that did have laws 5. This study primarily focused on a limited age group, which leaves the reader wondering about the impact of wearing a helmet on ages 16 years old and above. Another limitation is that this study focused only on the details of collisions with motor vehicles. There is a lack of data in terms of fatalities associated with other external objects, such as trees, rocks, etc. Furthermore, the authors do not state the location of the fatalities, for example, if these incidents took place in small neighborhoods, major city roads, and much more. Moreover, there was an absence of providing information on whether such collisions involved any reckless behaviors. These findings may provide an understanding of the rate of fatalities.

'Wearing a motorcycle helmet increases the chances of having an accident', I disagree with this statement. The helmet is a protective gear, as it prevents major injuries to the head and fatality. In addition, the individual’s behavior plays a major role in terms of fatal accidents. Both factors contribute, simultaneously, to ensure whether safety measures are being followed. According to Patel, Staley, Runner, Mehta, and Schenker (2019), in 2013 there were 4668 mortality cases related to motorcycle crashes, and a staggering 88,000 injuries were reported in the United States. The study reported that the non-helmeted individuals had an increased number of ICU admissions, lower Glasgow Coma Score, required mechanical ventilation, and inpatient mortality, unlike the riders who wore helmets 6. The study did not explore whether such high rates involved any irresponsible behaviors, such as being under the influence of drugs or alcohol, speed limit violations, and much more. Some of these points were supported by French, Gumus, and Homer (2012), who reported that alcohol intake and speeding resulted in motorcycle-related crashes, which led to a fatality. Furthermore, it was also noted that limiting blood alcohol concentration (BAC), speed, and rider training programs can decrease the rate of fatalities 7. Key safety issues were examined in this study, however, there was a lack of information in terms of the riders’ demographic. For example, in which age group or gender were these matters more prevalent?

'Legislation requiring the wearing of motorcycle helmets is a breach of an individual's civil liberties.' Once again, I disagree with this statement. Wearing a helmet is not the same thing as wearing your choice of clothes, which one has the right to choose based on their level of comfort and will. Wearing a helmet ensures safety, it may be the only barrier between injuries and death. A study conducted by Jones and Bayer (2007) focused on helmet legislation and the reasons behind its opposition. Two reasons behind disapprovals were stated, such as it “violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or state constitutional equivalents by discriminating against motorcycle riders as a class” 8 and it was “ an infringement on the motorcyclist’s liberty and an excessive use of the state’s police power under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or similar state provisions” 8. However, the same individual who opposed the law failed to understand that besides ensuring safety, non-helmeted individuals were deemed to be a medical burden. This statement can be supported by Patel, Staley, Runner, Mehta, and Schenker’s (2019) study, where non-helmeted individuals had an increased number of ICU admissions, lower Glasgow Coma Score, required mechanical ventilation and inpatient mortality, unlike the riders who wore helmets 6. Jones and Bayer's (2007) study mainly reported claims of opposition from anti-helmet groups, such as the American Motorcycle Association, the Modified Motorcycle Association, and A Brotherhood Against Totalitarian Enactments (ABATE) 8. However, it is unclear whether all the reported non-helmeted riders were involved in such groups or not. If not, then were there any other possible explanations or reasonings behind opposing the legislation?

I would agree with the statement, “It is negligent for parents to permit their children to ride a bicycle without wearing a helmet”. Up until at least the age of 16, it should be the responsibility of the parents to warrant safety measures and to make sure that they are being followed. Jewett, Beck, Taylor, and Baldwin (2016) reported that 90% of the children were more likely to wear helmets if they witnessed their adult respondent wearing them as well. In addition, it was also stated that instead of just parents providing their child with bicycle safety information, the prediction of a child’s safety behavior was related to their parents’ safe behaviors. The total study period was only 30 days long, as surveys were conducted during the summer, regarding riding bicycle and helmet usage 9. Even though summer is a popular time for riding a bicycle, an extended study length, such as over a year, could have evaluated whether there were any changes in the number of helmet usage.

References:

1. The United Nations Motorcycle Helmet Study. United Nations, 2016, https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/publications/WP29/United_Nations_Motorcycle_Helmet_Study.pdf.
2. Abbas, Alaa K., et al. “Does Wearing Helmets Reduce Motorcycle-Related Death? A Global Evaluation.” Accident Analysis & Prevention, vol. 49, Nov. 2012, pp. 249–252. ScienceDirect, doi:10.1016/j.aap.2011.09.033.
3. Lee, Jonathan M. “Mandatory Helmet Legislation as a Policy Tool for Reducing Motorcycle Fatalities: Pinpointing the Efficacy of Universal Helmet Laws.” Accident Analysis & Prevention, vol. 111, Feb. 2018, pp. 173–183. ScienceDirect, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2017.11.042.
4. “State Population by Rank.” Infoplease, Infoplease, https://www.infoplease.com/us/states/state-population-by-rank.
5. Meehan, William P. 3rd et al. “Bicycle helmet laws are associated with a lower fatality rate from bicycle-motor vehicle collisions.” The Journal of Pediatrics vol. 163,3 (2013): 726-9. doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2013.03.073
6. Patel, Parth B., et al. “Unhelmeted Motorcycle Riders Have Increased Injury Burden: A Need to Revisit Universal Helmet Laws.” Journal of Surgical Research, vol. 242, Oct. 2019, pp. 177–182., https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2019.03.023.
7. French, Michael T., et al. “Motorcycle Fatalities among out-of-State Riders and the Role of Universal Helmet Laws.” Social Science & Medicine, vol. 75, no. 10, Nov. 2012, pp. 1855–1863. ScienceDirect, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.06.022.
8. Jones, Marian Moser, and Ronald Bayer. “Paternalism and its discontents: motorcycle helmet laws, libertarian values, and public health.” American Journal of public health vol. 97,2 (2007): 208-17. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2005.083204
9. Jewett, Amy, et al. “Bicycle helmet use among person 5 years and older in the United States, 2012.” Journal of safety research vol. 59 (2016): 1-7. doi:10.1016/j.jsr.2016.09.001