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Motorcycle riders’ groups have been trying to get helmet laws repealed for years.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.
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.