[Vision2020] re: Motorcycle Helmet Laws (was RE: Legistlative update V from Rep. Trail - Feb 7-11)

[Saundra Lund]

OK, I am just going to ***have*** to chime in here, and not just on Dan's
comment, either.

I think that many of y'all are taking a nice over-simplistic view of the issue.
Sure, it makes things nice & easy, but it leaves out a whole lot of fact.

For as long as I can remember, there has been *plenty* of evidence that
mandatory helmet laws ***reduce*** deaths & serious injury *and* the associated
health care costs from motorcycle accidents.  Certainly, such laws don't
*prevent* all bad outcomes from motorcycle accidents and it isn't a magic cure,
but it certainly is a step in the right direction.

Dan brings common sense (I'll leave the intelligence slam out of it) into the
picture, and he says we can't legislate common sense.  Well, I think there's
some truth to that, but the *fact* is we have many paternalistic laws which do
just that, and with success, too.  We have mandatory seat belt laws that *have*
worked -- what on earth is the logic behind not seeing the wisdom of mandatory
helmet laws?!?!

Yes, we all know that ER docs have long referred to motorcycles as
"Donorcycles," but that little quip -- and the sentiment that seems to be behind
its use here on V2020 -- doesn't change the fact that helmet laws *do* work.
Not only does it provide some protection for those who may lack the common sense
or intelligence to use them without motivation, but it protects others as well.
Sure, it's easy to "blame the victim," but the fact is that many motorcycle
accidents *aren't* the fault of the riders but of other drivers.

I could go on & on & on about the benefits, but I'm getting the feeling that
some of you didn't pick up on the ***financial*** costs for all of us non-riders
that result from not having a helmet law.  Rep. Trail wrote:
"Motorcycle Helmet Legislation  --  At the request of the ASUI Students, several
Moscow doctors, and others, I introduced legislation that would require all
motorcyclists and passengers to wear helmets.  This was voted down by the
Transportation Committee 7-5.  Idaho voted in such a law in 67 but it was
repealed in 78.  The death  of three students in Moscow last fall who were
killed in accidents where they weren't wearing helmets triggered my interest in
the issue.  Nationally, motorcycle accidents are up 97% since 1997.  In Idaho
only 39% of motorcyclists wear helmets.  The cost of  motorcycle accidents in
2003 was $32 million for those wearing helmets and $66 million for those not
wearing helmets.  The evidence is clear that wearing helmets prevents many
deaths  and injury.   About 50% of motorcyclists don't have insurance and  so
counties or the state pick up the medical expenses.  Those who  voted against
the bill said it was a matter of personal responsibility.  ***My point is that
the Idaho taxpayer is picking up the medical costs  for these uninsured cyclists
that total over a million dollars.***  I'll bring  the bill back again next
year."
[Emphasis is mine.  SL]

I'm going to take the discussion a step further:  not only are medically
uninsured riders costing us money for their incredible health care costs, but
even those with insurance are costing us money.  Accident costs are higher for
unhelmeted riders than for helmeted riders.  Insurance companies, naturally,
pass along those increased costs to the rest of us in the form of higher
premiums.  Duh!  Those increased health care costs undoubtedly factor into the
level of coverage your employer offers you, so we could well be having our
coverage scaled back because of the lack of a helmet law and the associated
increase in health care costs.

And, even those riders with insurance coverage max out their benefits, and then
we as taxpayers are back to picking up the tab.

What, pray tell, is the argument against having a helmet law?!?!  If the only
issue was personal responsibility, then perhaps I could understand.  But, it
isn't.  Besides, I can tell you that I've seen many motorcycle riders drunk off
their *sses take the time to helmet up before riding.  Why?  In asking, I've
gotten a variety of answers, but I don't really care about their reasons -- I
just care that they do it.

With respect to the UI students whose lives were lost, would the deadly outcomes
have been different if we'd had a law on the books?  There's no way of knowing,
maybe not, but *maybe*.  Maybe they'd still be alive and their families and
friends and fellow students and our community wouldn't be mourning the loss of
lives tragically cut short because of *one* stupid mistake.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I just don't get it:  what's the *cost* of a
helmet law?  The loss of freedom for motorcyclists whom, according to some here,
aren't worthy of our concern if they ride sans helmets???

What about the costs (financial, emotional, etc.) for the rest of us of *not*
having a law???

Instead of spouting empty rhetoric, try doing an Internet search on "motorcycle
helmet laws" -- there's an absolute *wealth* of information out there.  Then,
please give me compelling reasons for *not* having a helmet law.  Personally,
this seems to be *one* area where we have an opportunity to do *something* about
spiraling health care costs that are detrimental to us all.  Competition for our
tax dollars is fierce, and I resent having to pay for the lack of common sense
those who "choose" to ride without helmets.

I'm very glad to hear that Rep. Trail will be reintroducing the bill again next
year -- I wish him success.  Maybe by then, folks will figure out that they have
absolutely nothing worthwhile to lose by *not* having a helmet law.


Saundra Lund
Moscow, ID

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do
nothing.
-Edmund Burke

-----Original Message-----
From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com] On
Behalf Of Dan Carscallen
Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2005 9:13 AM
To: 'vision2020'
Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Legistlative update V from Rep. Trail - Feb 7-11

All,
 
As a motorcyclist, I am not necessarily in favor of helmet laws.  Mind you, I
wear one all the time.  It's not a "conservative vs. liberal" thing, it's a
common sense thing.  I just figure you can't really legislate intelligence or
common sense.  The whole thing is just a "feel good" law brought on by some UI
students.  That right there is a "liberal" thing.  While the loss of life last
year is sad, I have a hard time supporting the making of laws that will
supposedly prevent said accidents from happening.
 
It's illegal to operate a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol, but that
didn't seem to stop these kids, did it?
 
I'll keep my lid on, and I hope you all wear yours.
 
	DC