Why Aren't You Wearing a Helmet, Idiot?

Of all the divisive subjects mankind knows, few match the bitter dichotomy found in the motorcycle helmet debate. Well, religion is up there, but when it comes to recreation and safety, riders have long argued over the need for mandatory helmet laws, which are popping up throughout the United States and are already in effect in many European nations. The two sides boil down to this- one believes that riders have a responsibility to wear helmets for the same reason car passengers must wear seat belts, and the other believes that the right to choose what is safe for yourself is more important. While to many, the issue is cut and dried, and helmets are (pardon the pun) a no-brainer, the subject of freedom is uniquely important in the motorcycling community.

For many, getting on a motorcycle and cruising the roads is the ultimate expression of freedom. You openly interact with your environment, and experience every aspect of it (temperature, weather, terrain, traffic) in a way that no enclosed vehicle can rival. Motorcycles are far, far more maneuverable than cars, and can both accelerate faster and brake more quickly as well. These factors suggest that riders are marked by their need for choice, responsibility, and independence on the road. The freedom the motorcycle imbues the rider with is both functional and philosophical, if you will.

For some, this freedom extends beyond the experience itself, and becomes an expression of their desire for an unshackled and rule-free environment. To wear a helmet is a choice, and if you choose not to, in their opinion, you are entirely justified. It is YOUR life, and you have chosen to take whatever precautions you felt necessary to protect yourself in event of an accident. Others may feel a helmet is essential, but you do not, and you bear that responsibility when you crash.

I respect this rather libertarian ethic. I believe in a person's right to make decisions for themselves, and worry about their own wellbeing without interference from the state, or other people. But motorcycle helmets laws are not only about the individual wearing them, in my mind. The laws are there to protect the government from having to support an injured rider who sues them over road conditions (or other factors the state may be responsible for) when a great deal of injury could have been prevented by head protection. But more importantly, the laws are there for the people who are involved in crashes with motorcyclists and have to continue living with the guilt of their role in the injury or death of another person. Helmet laws ensure that a person has a decent shot at living through a wide variety of accidents, just as seatbelts do. A person wearing a helmet will survive wrecks that unadorned riders will not. Wrongful death suits often follow fatal motorcycle accidents, which can be devastating for the responsible party. Even the smallest and most innocent of mistakes can cause a driver to hit a rider, or force the rider into dangerous circumstances. This is a common theme in motorcycle wrecks, and even though they are the responsible party, much secondary harm towards them (lawsuits, guilt and trauma) can be avoided in addition to the primary harm the rider is spared from if helmet use is mandated.

In summary, I believe in the freedom of the road and I feel that the liberty that motorcyclists enjoy is precious. However, public safety is a complex issue, and while helmet laws restrict people from certain choices, they are crucial to the mental and physical wellbeing of all parties involved in wrecks. The many arguments in opposition to helmet laws are valid, but ignore the fact that crashes have long-lasting mental and physical consequences not just for the injured or killed rider, but for their family, friends, and the responsible driver. The dramatic increase in safety alone makes it a foolish choice, in my mind, not to sport a brain bucket. But if one looks at the possibility of long-lasting effects and aftershocks from a wreck, the choice should be obvious.