Vetoing changes to helmet law is a real no brainer
Ben Roethlisberger was injured while driving without a helmet in 2006.
Missouri lawmakers have taken a giant step toward increasing the number of human organs available for transplantation. But, alas, not on purpose.
They did it by voting last week to change the state’s motorcycle helmet law. Riders over the age of 21 no longer would have to wear protective headgear except on interstate highways.
It’s a spectacularly bad idea. And not just because it’s almost impossible for police to gauge the age of a rider racing past at 70 miles per hour.
In states with similar laws, underage riders often ignore the law, with disastrous consequences; fewer than 40 percent of those who suffered fatal injures were wearing helmets. In states where helmets are optional, only slightly more than half of all riders choose to wear helmets.
Motorcycle riders’ groups have been trying to get helmet laws repealed for years. They don’t want the nanny state telling them what precautions they should take.
Some even go so far as to say that it’s safer to ride without a helmet. Nothing to restrict their vision or interfere with their hearing, they say.
The numbers tell a different story. An unhelmeted rider is 40 percent more likely to die in a crash and 15 percent more likely to suffer serious injury. Riders without helmets are three times more likely to suffer brain injuries than those who wear them.
Those brain injuries are crushingly expensive. In Florida, the total medical cost of treating injured motorcyclists more than doubled in the 30 months after the law was changed in 2000, to $44 million from $21 million.
One of the first unhelmeted riders to die was a woman who led a high-profile campaign to change Florida’s helmet law.
We wouldn’t object to letting those who ride decide, if those who rode could pay the costs of their care. But they can’t. Indeed, very few of us could.
Statistics show that nearly half of all motorcycle riders have no health insurance. The average cost of treating injuries to an unhelmeted rider in 2003 was about $67,000. In case you haven’t paid attention, health costs have soared since 2003.
Expensive injuries suffered by insured riders result in higher premiums for the rest of us. Uninsured riders wind up on Medicaid. The cost of their care — which often includes years of extensive physical therapy to help recover from brain injuries — is passed on to the rest of us.
The same lawmakers who voted to saddle taxpayers with higher costs for treating uninsured motorcyclists have refused to extend Medicaid to working parents struggling to raise children at incomes well below the poverty line.
Ghoulish and unintentional though it may be, the law’s only redeeming feature is that it could increase the number of organs available for transplantation in our state. The number of transplantable organs has declined because of improvements in automotive and highway safety.
But that unanticipated consequence doesn’t justify all the extra suffering and expense this new law will produce.
Gov. Jay Nixon shouldn’t have to think twice about Senate Bill 202, the helmet law repeal.
PD “Editorial Board” – Odds are that you are one of the one-in-three morbidly fat gluttons that roam among us in search of the next buffet. Question, can you cover the healthcare cost of your conduct, or will it, too, fall on “society”? [Government] control freaks are more deadly than plain old stupid conduct (like not wearing a helmet). 100m people were killed in the last century by their own leaders that knew what was best for them.
It’s a no brainer. If the idiots want to ride without helmets, so be it. Society can’t legislate brains that are scattered on the pavement.
The pro-helmet ant-freedom crowd want you to think wearing a helmet protects against fatal injures. Remember actor Christopher Reeve? What good did a helmet do him? Sure, he was thrown by a horse during a steeplechase, not riding a bike, - but the lesson is the same.
When the human body is somersaulted during a collision, the whole of the neck, spine and major organs are vulnerable to damage. The helmet that the PD Editorial staff believes in, becomes just a minor safety device.
After an accident, even well-heeled actors can use up their insurance coverage limit. So one could well argue that result of riding any open motor vehicle or horse results in higher premiums for the rest of us.
But it becomes too ridiculous, too intrusive to personal freedom, to restrict or regulate every citizen’s activity just on the merits of anticipated medical costs. And in the same vein, it is wrong to mandate a helmet law using false promises regarding life and injury.
It is a personal decision for an adult to ride a bike, a horse, to ski or skydive, and it is a personal decision whether they avail themselves of a helmet at the same time.
You can’t protect everyone from everything. It is dumb to not wear a helmet but should government get involved.
While I don’t ride without a helmet since they saved my head no less than twice, I don’t agree with this editorial and also question the statistic that only half of the motorcycle riders have health insurance. That is by itself a blatent distortion. If someone has enough to cough up the price of one of these expensive toys, they almost always have jobs with health insurance. Added to this is the fact that it’s usually the irresponsible riders that have the life-threatening accidents and they are the mirnority by far. Also, if an adult wants to ride without a helmet, it’s freedom personified, something of which liberal thinkers abhor for some unkown reason. Perhaps the Post Dispatch editorialists that careen down the highway jabbering on cell phones in their gas-hogs might forego the augmented tripe about Motorcycle riders and comment on the more dangerous driving habits and the pathetic tests that almost guarantee every moron in the State a license to drive two tons of vehicle amongst thousands of others while they jabber on a phone. So far, this editorialist, in dripping condescenion, seems more concerned with the costs of repairing injuries by the self-serving, greed-ridden medical profession than real safety issues. The insulting ‘no brainer’ title should refer to their own mental state. This sounds a bit like the same propagandist that thinks that by removing guns from honest citizens, crime will go away.
What about pedestrians? Time to turn our attention to saving them, Make them wear uncrushable full body armor like medieval knights. Let’s do away with stairs, and ladders too. And bathrooms and kitchens are very dangerous places, maybe we should hold government hearings on eliminating them…
I’m a Biker. I ride year ’round (yes, even here in St Louis). Well, let me amend that. I DRIVE my motorcycle. If you’re just riding a motorcycle, you are going to end up as roadkill pretty shortly, helmet or not, thanks to all of the morons in their steel cages who think that, because they’re bigger and heavier, they own the road and people on motorcycles had better just get out of their way. I learned 40 yrs ago when I started riding that EVERYONE out there in a car was actively trying to kill me. The only thing that could save my life was my skill and my wits. I love getting out on the back roads where the only things I have to worry about are oil slicks, gravel or other debris on the road, potholes (and you don’t have those in the city streets, do you?) and the occasional wildlife encounter (I’ve actually had to kick deer out of my way). But when a car comes into view, I instantly go to red-alert status. Driving my bike hasn’t put me in the hospital yet, and yes, I lose the brain-bucket every chance I get.
I support rider education, and I agree that inexperienced riders (of any age) need to wear helmets; but education for automobile drivers would do more to promote bike (and auto) safety than anything else. For example, people who text while driving are not smart enough to be allowed to have a driver’s license! Ditto putting on make-up, shaving, or any of the other things that I see people in cars doing. I have seen people speeding up Interstate 270 like they were in their recliners at home in the living room, stereo blasting, seat reclined, leg hung up on the window, talking on the cell phone. This was a responsible driver? Not even in anybody’s dream. Cops, prosecutors, and judges need to start treating these accident cases with the severity they deserve as potential serial killers.
………..I’ve owned four motorcycles in my life and always wore a helmet (even in Illinois), but I’m against helmet laws as they represent yet another predictable Post Dispatch nanny-state edict.
While on the subject of concern for motorcycle riders, why not just ban motorcycles (and scooters too)? Motorcycles don’t have seatbelts or airbags, and I can tell you from my own experience that there is no such thing as a minor accident on a motorcycle.
And lets make law for automobile passengers to wear a hans-device. How many automobile accident victims suffer from neck injuries? A hans-device would stop that right now.
Yeah, if a veto by Nixon is a `no-brainer,’ what’s that say about our elected state reps and senators? Really, how the hell do these people get elected? People obviously need to quit voting just on the basis of the number of political signs someone can afford. I’d wean myself away from sound bites as well.
fnbrowning… Personally, I’m all for ant freedom, so long as they stay off my picnic lunch.
WHY DO I STILL HAVE TO WEAR IT ON THE INTERSTATE?????
Rotert, you know good and well that the Post Editorial Board considers the vetoing of any and all legislation coming out of the Republican controlled State Legislature to be a “no brainer.”
How about a trade….You can ride helmetless if you’ve signed your organ donor grant on the back of your license.
Why is it that I picture the editorial board chastising riding without a helmet while they participate in risky behaviors like smoking, drinking, or over-eating?
How about ed board? Any unhealthy habits that is going to cost us money in the future ala helmetless riding?
The obvious and correct course of action is to abolish helmet and seatbelt laws. The reason? Government has no responsibility in this area. This is an area of personal responsibility. If a mother can choose to kill her baby, certainly that same mother can choose whether to buckle up or buckle her own kids up.
PS Your poster boy for this article is almost laughable. A star quarterback, had to be worth millions, and I imagine the team picked up any lingering medical bills, not the taxpayers. In addition, he was out of the hospital in less than 48 hrs and went back to playing football. There’s a real no brainer!
I don’t care if anyone wants to splatter their brains all over the road. It is NOT okay to ask taxpayers to foot to bill for medical care costs to clean up the mess.
I have to agree with big John. My husband and I were discussing this just this morning. First off is 270 considered an interstate? This could get dicee. Anyone who rides would know Lindbergh is more dangerous for a motorcycle than 270. And the comments on the manner in which some drive the “big steel cages” has merit too. The biggest safety issue on a motorcycle is being attentive, not the helmet. You literally have to assume you will be pushed off the road. I’ve had it with the soccer moms on the cell phones weaving all over the road without even looking in the rear view to see if anyone is there and yes one actually pushed my husband next to the concrete median. She didn’t have a clue as too how much danger she was putting another person in and I’m not sure she cared. That doesn’t even count the 18 wheelers changing lanes without looking, becuse hey, what’s going to happen to them?
And I also agree that the Post stating not even half the riders have insurance is totally bogus. Prove it. Just where did you get the information. I don’t honestly know anyone we ride with that doesn’t carry insurance. Of course, we are not the stereotype that most people want to invision of bikers.
And the idea we should all sign an organ donator card, fine as long we are really brain dead.
Amazed… Actually, I hear tell that all members of the editorial board are Harley riders themselves (excepting Eddie Roth, who rides a Vespa). The word is they even ride their bikes roughshod through the newsroom, to the consternation of the news staff. Then, they park the bikes right next to their desks, forcing the other staffers to have to squeeze by as they head out the door to interviews. I’ve been told Horrigan’s bike is the loudest of them all. He’s deliberately shortened his bike’s tailpipes to cause the most ruckus. Nevertheless, I’m sure each member of the editorial board would personally love for this bill NOT to be vetoed. I’m sure they, as well, would love to raise hell in the newsroom sans helmets, all the while with the wind in their hair. Given this, I’m extremely impressed with their objective stance on this issue — that they have chosen to argue that this bill SHOULD be vetoed, despite their subjective interests.
I agree with catwoman, and this should also be applied to people showing up at the emergency rooms without health insurance. THINK, we tried to tell everyone when they first brought up the helmet laws years ago that the seatbelts would be next.
Somebody’s going to have to explain the rationale of: wear the helmet or gimme your organs. Would that same rationale apply to promiscuity, know what I mean?
I don’t understand the argument about health costs going up for the rest of us. To hear this coming from the same group that gives away free health care to illegals is quite laughable.
Government has no business in this. This is about getting revenue, nothing more.
Car drivers cost twice as much in head trauma cost according to the CDC research wow a governemtn agncy tells us that auto drivers are 14% of head trauma costs while motorcycle riders are 6%,so before you put a helmet on a bikers put one on every car driver that is if your argument is the cost factor of accidents. Which is a lame argument to begin with. So if you are so woried about the cost of head trauma that you would have to bear from a head trauma case then you would not have a problem wearing a helmet in your car. Protest the helmet law wear a helmet in your car.
The real choice here is freedom,seems our now complacent society forgets all the people who gave and are giving their precious lives to secure freedomn for all americans. My thinking is you should go to the next servicepersons funeral and then think at what price freedom.
one more thing Ben was the victim of a car driver failing to give right of way,he wouldn’t have needed a helmet or any surgery if the woman had followed the rules of the road. I wonder if she had enough insurance to cover his injuries caused by her negligence?
why not tell about all the spinal injuries that occur with helmets and the sky high medical cost for that? This is a freedom issue that should not be made by those who it does not affect.
Helmets obscure your sight and block your hearing. I have owned more than 30 motorcycles, and had one major accident caused by my failure to hear a truck coming in from a blind alley. If I had not been wearing the helmet, I would have been able to avoid the accident, or at least minimize my injuries. Ironically, the State I was in allowed ADULTS to choose (under 18yrs, helmet required). My helmet did not have a scratch on it after the accident, because I instinctively protected my head with my arms. This was a 35 mph accident that easily could have been avoided IF I COULD HEAR. THE HELMET CAUSED THE ACCIDENT.
Anyone that actually rides a motorcycle knows that there are many times in low to moderate speed riding when wearing a helmet is a BAD idea… You can hear and/or see CHILDREN, DOGS, DEER, and VEHICLES APPROACHING BETTER WITHOUT A HELMET (PARTICULARLY FROM SIDE ROADS OR FROM BEHIND OR IN AN ADJACENT LANE).
To those fear-mongers taunting with stories of “more organ donors” or trying to scare people into supporting helmet laws by overstating cost and risk… it is called natural selection. You wear a helmet if you want to (if you even ride a motorcycle!!). When you are in an accident because the helmet prevented you from hearing or seeing and RESPONDING TO a traffic situation, my condolences to your family (I’m not being cute here, an accident can be a tragedy). But DON’T pretend to be an expert on when or where it is appropriate for others to wear a helmet. AVOIDING accidents is easier without a helmet on, and in moderate speed situations, no helmet is just BETTER for seeing and hearing.
Missouri needs to join the other 30+ states allowing ADULTS to decide when and where a helmet is appropriate. GOVERNOR NIXON- PLEASE sign the bill!