Motorcycle Helmet law debate Essay

crosswise the get together States, every yr one million million millions of license drivers take aim to ride bicycles instead than drive automobiles for a change of reasons Reasons range from someone pleasure to a much(prenominal) more cost effective way to travel. The normal bicycle helmet impartiality debate over the past(a) forty historic end has revolved around whether the federal official governing body should adopt a frequent helmet police force that edicts both motorcyclists to gull helmets at every last(predicate) times when ride to void societies economic cost, or whether the respective(prenominal)(a) rider should come the aright to choose quite an to wear or non wear a helmet.In 1967, nearly all States implemented a mandatory ecumenic helmet right in gild to receive federal pecuniary resource to repair and purify our Interstate routes. Once the 1966 National main road condom device spiel was imposed, the archives of motorbike hel met edict began. Americans ask continuously debated over the balance between an individuals rights, the best interest of the public and when the political science should take measures to protect the people of the United States from rail at. tetrad out of five Americans ar in aliveness of a planetary helmet equity, yet motorcyclists represent still about two percent of all registered vehicles in the United States (National path Traffic condom government activity 2008). This suggest that a majority of animationers atomic number 18 each non wheel give birthers and/or seemed to beget taken a utilitarianism cost and benefits analysis approach, which according to Michael Sandel galore(postnominal) argue, that a weakness in utilitarianism is that it fails to respect individual rights. Supporters retrieve that wearing a bicycle helmet protects riders by preventing just head injuries and lowers mortality rates, which offsprings in clubho persona saving an immense dea l of economic cost, such(prenominal)(prenominal) as taxes, amends premiums and government funded health sympathize with expenses. Non-supporters, including myself a registered cycle receiveer, argue that a global helmet law is unconstitutional, as it prostitutes our right to Freedom of pickax as indite in our Bill of redresss.Despite the fearsome amount of statistics, that claim motorbike helmets whitethorn reduce head injuries and lower fatalities, as of now b bely cardinal States and the District of Columbia present-day(prenominal)ly put one over and enforce a universal motorcycle helmet law, twenty-seven States that do enforce partial motorcycle helmet laws that are directed at riders under a original age (usually 18) and trinity States (Illinois, Iowa, and New Hampshire) still currently abide no helmet laws in map (National channel Traffic precaution administration 2008).In graze to direct a better understanding of the finale of the universal motorcycl e helmet law, you turn in to know the history of the legislation of the universal motorcycle helmet law. The beginning of motorcycle helmet legislation in the United States was when the 1966 National Highway Safety Act was originally drawd to generate supernumerary federal funding to States for our Interstate Highway constitution.However, in order for the States to receive funding, the federal government situated stipulations that influenced States to concur with sentry duty laws that the federal government cherished to be in place. If the States did non comply, they would lose these funds (see Note a, b, c, d and e in understand 1, Homer, Jenny and French, Michael 416. ) Prior to 1966, only three States (New York, Massach put ontts, and Michigan) had motorcycle helmet use laws, even though motorcycle helmet manipulation began as early the 1920s by ride racers as a form of protection (Jones, Marian Moser, and Ronald Bayer 209).By 1967, subsequently the federal timewor n for State Highway Safety Programs was implemented requiring States to have a universal motorcycle helmet law in effect in order to qualify for supererogatory federal funds All nevertheless three States (California, New Hampshire and Illinois) complied by implementing and enforcing a universal helmet law that necessary all motorcycle riders to wear helmets, so they would qualify to receive the additional Interstate Highway funding. Then, By 1975, 47 states and the District of Columbia had follow universal helmet laws.This trend reversed dramatically in the latter half of 1975 when social intercourse acquiesced to the pressure exerted by groups such as slow down, and amended the Act to subscribe the contingency of federal highway funds on universal helmet laws. The amendment conduct to the repeal of universal redress coverage in 27 states shortly thereafter (Derrick, Allison J. , and lee side D. Faucher 229). amidst 1989 and 1994, copulation once again began to quiz an d influence the States to mandate a universal motorcycle helmet law by implementing the Intermodal Surface Transportation talent Act of 1991, likewise known as ISTEA.ISTEA provided surplus incentive divides to states with both universal motorcycle helmet laws and passenger vehicle safety belt use laws. A state qualified for a first-year set apart by having these two laws in effect. In incidental years, the state also was awaitd to exceed negligible motorcycle helmet and safety belt use levels (helmet use of 75 percent in the second year and 85 percent in the third year). cardinal states and the District of Columbia received grants for one or more of the fiscal years 1992, 1993, and 1994 for which the grants were authorized (R. G. Ulmer and D.F. Preusser 5).The ISTEA Act was much more effect on the universal safety belt law rather than the universal helmet laws States were more successful in implementing and convincing Americans to comply with safety seat belt laws rather t han a universal motorcycle helmet law. I agree with Charles Umbenhauer of ground forces Today who believes Unlike seat belts, helmets represent a separate purchase. Helmet laws, on the new(prenominal) hand, are a manifestation of alliances belief that its members insufficiency the wisdom to grass decisions about personal safety and must therefore be subjected to arbitrary laws. Between 1995 and 2001, sexual relation implemented the National Highway System Designation Act. This Act repea lead the ISTEA largely in solution to mansion houseing by the cultivated and very organized motorcycle groups, such as American Motorcycle connection AMA, Motorcycle Riders fanny, and American Bikers Aimed Toward Education ABATE. The vestibuleing of these groups resulted in five States (Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana and Texas) repealing their universal helmet requirements. jibe to the Congressional Record- Senate on June 20, 1995 that after very much debate over mandating a unive rsal motorcycle helmet law, US Congress decided that States would be required to implement motorcycle rider education programs sort of of a universal helmet law to receive funding. Congress acted in accordance to Aristotle belief that Legislators make the citizens untroubled by forming habits in them, and this is the wish of every legislator, and those who do not effect it miss their mark, and it is this that a just constitution differs from a bad one (Sandel, Michael 198).Of the current thirty States that allow adult riders to choose rather they prefer to wear helmets or not, three States require the rider must be 18 years or older Five States require the rider must be 21 years or older The remaining nineteen States have other stipulations that require riders to either complete motorcycle discipline courses, have a helmet in possession, but not required to wear the helmet and/or a stripped of $10,000. 00 of medical insurance that is specifically for injuries resulting from mot orcycle crashes (National Highway Traffic Safety regime 2008).In November 2010, supporters led by safety groups and the insurance industry began to lobby that all States that currently do not have and/or enforce a universal motorcycle helmet law should implement a universal motorcycle helmet law Aristotle would have most likely back up this act, as he stated The purpose of government is nothing less than to enable people to forge their distinctive human capacities and virtuesto deliberate about the familiar good, to acquire practical judgment, to share in self-government, to care for the fate of the community as a completely (Sandel, Michael 194).While on the other hand, universal helmet law opponents like Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner that stated It is the job of Congress to make the liberty and individual responsibilities that motorcycle riders crossways the nation enjoy as they travel the give way roads of America, and Mr. Stricklands plan greatly concerns me as it is n ot the job of the federal government to name one-size- fits-all helmet laws. Mr.Strickland appears to be intent on pursuing all means possible to enact mandatory helmet laws either at the federal level or by violating the principles of the 10th Amendment and bullying the States into enacting mandatory helmet laws. Motorcyclists under the continue of very organized motorcycle groups in the United States, since 1967 have continued to lobbying for repeal in the twenty States that currently have a universal helmet law. about Americans agree there is a need to create laws that set limits and regulations in order to have a civilized society However, motorcyclist believe this can be done without the government violating our individual Freedom of Choice, which allows a person to decide to take risks as massive as they are only risking their own person and their worthyty. According to libertarian theory of rights, Even if riding a motorcycle without a helmet is reckless, and even if hel met laws free lives and prevent devastating injuries, libertarians argue that such laws violate the rights of an individual to decide what risks to assume.As long as no third parties are harmed, and as long as motorcycle riders are responsible for their own medical bills, the state has no rights to dictate what risks they may take with their bodies and lives (Sandel, Michael 60). Despite the overwhelming evidence, some motorcyclists (including myself) refuse to wear helmets all the time when riding and counterbalance universal helmet laws because universal helmet laws represent government hobble and these laws impede an individuals Freedom of Choice. near Americans would agree that wearing a motorcycle helmet is in all likelihood one of the safest pieces of protective outerwear when riding a motorcycle, but opponents of a universal helmet law, are disagreeing with the intellect that the government should not mandate laws that take off an individuals right to choose what to we ar base on the Ninth Amendment The Ninth Amendment to the US Constitution says no law shall be enacted that regulates the individuals granting immunity to choose his personal actions and mode of nip off so long as it does not in any way affect the life, liberty, and happiness of others.We are being forced to wear a contingent emblem of apparel because we choose to ride motorcycles (Jones, Marian Moser, and Ronald Bayer 212). The United States Constitution is the foundation for the laws written in the United States. Our founding fathers created the constitution to attain a government for the people of the United States of America, but it does not grant you individual rights. The Bill of Rights was created to grant and protector your individual rights by limiting powers of government.A universal helmet law is an act of means ends paternalism based on Immanuel Kants distinction made between hypothetical and categorical imperatives. Means-ends paternalism mirrors a hypothetical im perative, because it fundamentally takes the form of requiring people to do things that will lead to the satisfaction of their own goals. States Legislatures have passed a universal motorcycle helmet law in the past and reassert by claiming it would prevent people from exposure of serious head reproach, which would cause financial and emotional harm to others, not just to the riders.Those who continue to support and lobby for a universal helmet law, make the claim that helmets are effective in reducing head injuries, which society bears the be of non-helmet riders injuries, thereby establishing a public interest. By requiring the rider to use reasonable safety equipment, such as a motorcycle helmet, it prevents harm to others, not just to the motorcyclist. If the motorcyclist chooses not to wear a helmet, they may increase the risk that when an accident occurs, it could possible result in more severe injuries.The riders is guarantee government funded medical assistant under the United States Constitution, so the be of those accidents will become a inwardness not only on the riders, but also on taxpayers, because not all riders have commensurate insurance or savings to pay for all of their medical expenses. According to John Stuart Mill, subject to downplay duties of justice and fair contribution, state coercion is reassert only to prevent or punish acts do harms to other persons, not harms to self.Harm to others can be found in almost any causa of behavior indirect harm is subject to infinite expansion. Those who support apparently paternalistic policies identify petty harms to others, such as financial burdens associated with risky behaviors. Examples of this type of behavior would be the costs of emergency reception and health care for injuries that could have possibility been prevented by wearing a motorcycle helmet. According to NHTSA distinguish to Congress regarding the Benefits of Safety Belts and Motorcycle Helmets society would be able to drop a line cost by mandating a universal helmet law.An analysis of linked selective information from CODES with universal helmet laws showed that without the helmet law, the total extra inpatient charges due to head teacher injury would have almost doubled from $2,325,000 to $4,095,000 A number of studies have compared hospital costs for equipped and un-helmeted motorcyclists problematic in traffic crashes. These studies have revealed that un-helmeted riders involved in crashes are less likely to have insurance and more likely to have high hospital costs than helmeted riders involved in similar crashes Estimates that motorcycle helmet use save $1.3 billion in 2002 alone and an additional $853 million would have been saved if all motorcyclists involved in fatal crashes had worn helmets Estimates that motorcycle helmet use saved $19. 5 billion in economic costs from 1984 through 2002 and an additional $14. 8 billion would have been saved if all motorcyclists had worn helmet s during the same period CODES study also found that top dog injury cases were more than twice as costly as non-brain injury cases for the one-year period studied. Among the un-helmeted motorcycle inpatients, charges for those detriment brain injuries were 2.25 times higher than for those without brain injuries. Long-term costs were not included. (See EXHIBIT 13 National Highway Traffic Safety judicial system 1996). Both sides of the debate present strong arguments that support their reasonings regarding a universal motorcycle helmet law. Supporters of a Universal motorcycle helmet law continually argue that, a universal helmet law would save not only health care costs it would in addition also lower taxes, insurance rates and save lives according to NHTSAs reports.Meanwhile, those who pair a universal motorcycle helmet law believe Despite the strong evidence implicating repeal of helmet use laws as the cause of the large recent increases in fatally injured motorcyclists, the Am erican Motorcyclist Association claimed that after an examination of available current data on motorcycle accidents, fatalities, registration and licensure, in addition to such relevant topics as weather conditions, we find that the NHTSA was birthday suit premature in its judgment .. . in faulting the widespread repeal of helmet use laws. The Motorcycle Safety Foundation has also recently suggested that the NHTSA has selected information supporting helmet use laws and disregarded information to the contrary (Watson, Geoffrey S. , Paul L. Zador, and Alan Wilks 580). NHTSA, the insurance industry, and motorcyclist groups use FARS and GES Auxiliary Datasets, which are one-to-one mappings of the Accident, Vehicle, and soulfulness files.When conducting research you have the ability to analyze the data in either its full detail as coded or only the data you want to, it depends on the safety issue that is being questioned and the results that you which to obtain, which can led to bias es results. By passing a universal motorcycle helmet law, the Federal Government is suggesting that the average adult motorcyclist does not have enough common sense to make their own prizes, therefore they are required to mandate or should I say dictate proper behavior for a motorcyclist.The best solution is to educate both motorcyclist and automobile drivers through safety study that will help prevent motorcycle accidents, rather than mandating a universal motorcycle helmet law that only violates the rights of the motorcyclist right to choice or not to choice to wear a helmet. It is the history of motorcycle legislation debate that demonstrates to me, American motorcyclist have placed a value on their Freedom of Choice and have been successful over the past four decades communicating that they value their Freedom of Choice to the government For that I am thankful.Motorcyclists in general, enjoy the sense of freedom that we associate with riding and by passing a universal motorcyc le helmet law it would strip past that sensation from us. As, when I am riding a motorcycle without a helmet my senses come alive, that includes my sense of freedom It is the power of the sun warming my skin, the touch of the engine cooling system breeze across my face, the aroma of the salty marine air or the giant redwoods, the sound of skag roaring beneath me, which allows me to have the sense of passing freely.Works Cited Derrick, Allison J. , and Lee D.Faucher. Motorcycle helmets and rider safety A legislative crisis. Journal of customary wellness Policy 30. 2 (2009) 226-242. donnish Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 23 Oct. 2011 Homer, Jenny, and Michael French. Motorcycle Helmet Laws in the United States from 1990 to 2005 Politics and Public health. American Journal of Public wellness 99. 3 (2009) 415-423. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 12, Oct. 2011. Hope Gilbert, Neil Chaudhary, Mark Solomon, David Preusser, Linda Cosgrove, paygrade of the reinstatement of the he lmet law in Louisiana, DOT HS 810 956. upper-case letter DC National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (May 2008) Web 22, Oct. 2011, www. NHTSA. dot. gov. Houston, David J. , and Lilliard E. Richardson Jr. Motorcycle Safety and the strike down of Universal Helmet Laws. American Journal of Public Health 97. 11 (2007) 2063-2069. Business Source Premier. EBSCO. Web. 12 Oct. 2011. Jones, Marian Moser, and Ronald Bayer. Paternalism & Its Discontents. American Journal of Public Health 97. 2 (2007) 208-217. Academic Search Premier.EBSCO. Web. 20 Oct. 2011. Jim Sensenbrenner Representative. Sensenbrenner introduces resolution to defend the rights of motorcycle riders. FDCH Press Releases (n. d. ) Military & Government Collection. EBSCO. Web. 20 Oct. 2011. Sullum, Jacob. Freedom Riders. Reason 37. 6 (2005) 40. MasterFILE Premier. EBSCO. Web. 01 Oct. 2011. Charles C. , Umbenhauer. Its our right to decide. USA Today n. d. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 01 Oct. 2011. R. G. Ulme r and D. F. Preusser. military rank of the Repeal of Motorcycle Helmet Laws in Kentucky and Louisiana, DOT HS 809 530 working capital DC National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (October 2003) Web 12, Oct. 2011, www. NHTSA. dot. gov. Sandel, Michael. Justice Whats the Right Thing to do? New York, Farrar, Straus, and Groux, 2009. United States part of Transportation. National Health Traffic Safety. Report to Congress Benefits of Safety Belts and Motorcycle Helmets DOT HS 808 347, Washington DC National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (February 1996) Web 2, Oct.2011, www. NHTSA. dot. gov. United States Department of Transportation. National Health Traffic Safety. Traffic Safety Facts DOT HS 810 887W, Washington DC National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (January 2008) Web 12, Oct. 2011, www. NHTSA. dot. gov. Watson, Geoffrey S. , Paul L. Zador, and Alan Wilks. The Repeal of Helmet expend Laws and Increased Motorcyclist Mortality In the United States, 1975-1978. American Journal of Public Health 70. 6 (1980) 579. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 4 Oct. 2011.