Motorcycle Helmet law debate Essay

Across the f exclusively in States, every year millions of license drivers contain to effort wheels rather than drive automobiles for a variety of reasons Reasons range from undivided merriment to a much more cost performanceive way to travel. The linguistic oecumenic wheel helmet fair play debate everyplace the past forty years has revolved around whether the federal presidential term should adopt a frequent helmet police that mandates all motorcyclists to wear helmets at all times when move to reduce societies economic cost, or whether the individual passenger should stick out the veracious to choose rather to wear or non wear a helmet.In 1967, nearly all States utilise a authorisation world-wide helmet justness in order to receive federal specie to hearten and improve our Inter put in channels. Once the 1966 discipline Highway synthetic rubber accomplishment was imposed, the report of motorbike helmet legislation began. Americans surrender contin uously debated over the equaliser between an individuals pays, the best interest of the public and when the governing body should take measures to protect the people of the United States from harm.Four out of five dollar bill Americans atomic number 18 in support of a cosmopolitan helmet righteousness, yet motorcyclists array only about two percent of all registered vehicles in the United States ( home(a) Highway occupation Safety judgeship 2008). This suggest that a majority of supporters argon each non motorbike owners and/or seemed to curb interpreted a utilitarianism cost and benefits analysis approach, which according to Michael Sandel many argue, that a help littleness in utilitarianism is that it fails to respect individual rights. Supporters believe that substantiate on a motorbike helmet protects riders by pr horizontalting solemn head injuries and lowers mortality rates, which results in society speech an immense deal of economic cost, much(preno minal) as taxes, insurance premiums and administration funded healthcargon expenses. Non-supporters, including myself a registered bicycle owner, argue that a widely distri merelyed helmet law is unconstitutional, as it violates our right to Freedom of Choice as written in our Bill of Rights.Despite the tremendous amount of statistics, that charter pedal helmets whitethorn reduce head injuries and lower disastrousities, as of now only xx States and the territory of Columbia currently cook and inflict a public bicycle helmet law, twenty-seven States that do enforce partial cycle helmet laws that atomic number 18 directed at riders under a certain age (usually 18) and tether States (Illinois, Iowa, and New Hampshire) still currently have no helmet laws in wasting disease (National Highway vocation Safety administration 2008).In order to have a better understanding of the ratiocination of the comprehensive motorcycle helmet law, you have to know the history of the l egislation of the linguistic universal motorcycle helmet law. The beginning of motorcycle helmet legislation in the United States was when the 1966 National Highway Safety bet was originally created to generate redundant federal funding to States for our Interstate Highway System.However, in order for the States to receive funding, the federal giving medication placed stipulations that influenced States to watch over with asylum laws that the federal government wanted to be in place. If the States did not comply, they would lose these coin (see Note a, b, c, d and e in skeletal frame 1, Homer, Jenny and French, Michael 416. ) Prior to 1966, only three States (New York, Massach utilizationtts, and Michigan) had motorcycle helmet part laws, even though motorcycle helmet usage began as early the 1920s by wheel racers as a form of protection (Jones, Marian Moser, and Ronald aspirin 209).By 1967, after the federal standard for State Highway Safety Programs was implemented requi ring States to have a universal motorcycle helmet law in effect in order to diversify for additional federal funds All but three States (California, New Hampshire and Illinois) complied by implementing and enforcing a universal helmet law that required 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 adopted universal helmet laws.This trend reversed dramatically in the latter half of 1975 when Congress acquiesced to the pressure exerted by groups such as ABATE, and amended the Act to remove the contingency of federal highway funds on universal helmet laws. The amendment led to the repeal of universal coverage in 27 states shortly thitherafter (Derrick, Allison J. , and Lee D. Faucher 229). Between 1989 and 1994, Congress formerly again began to try and influence the States to mandate a universal motorcycle helmet law by implementing the Intermodal Surface Tra nsportation Efficiency Act of 1991, to a fault known as ISTEA.ISTEA provided special incentive grants to states with both universal motorcycle helmet laws and passenger vehicle safety belt use laws. A state qualified for a first-year grant by having these two laws in effect. In subsequent years, the state alike was required to exceed stripped-down motorcycle helmet and safety belt use levels (helmet use of 75 percent in the second year and 85 percent in the thirdly year). Twenty-three 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 privy belt laws rather than a universal motorcycle helmet law. I suit with Charles Umbenhauer of USA Today who believes Unlik e seat belts, helmets represent a clear purchase. Helmet laws, on the early(a) hand, are a manifestation of societys flavor that its members lack the wisdom to make decisions about personal safety and must therefore be subjected to arbitrary laws. Between 1995 and 2001, Congress implemented the National Highway System Designation Act. This Act repealed the ISTEA largely in response to pressure grouping by the educated and very organized motorcycle groups, such as American motorbike Association AMA, Motorcycle Riders Foundation, and American rockers Aimed Toward Education ABATE. The lobbying of these groups resulted in five States (Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana and Texas) repealing their universal helmet requirements. fit in to the Congressional Record- Senate on June 20, 1995 that after very much debate over mandating a universal motorcycle helmet law, US Congress purposed that States would be required to implement motorcycle rider education programs instead of a uni versal helmet law to receive funding. Congress acted in accordance to Aristotle belief that Legislators make the citizens good 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 good 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-spot States require the rider must be 21 years or older The remaining nineteen States have other stipulations that require riders to either complete motorcycle training courses, have a helmet in possession, but not required to wear the helmet and/or a minimum of $10,000. 00 of medical checkup insurance that is specifically for injuries resulting from motorcycle crashes (National Highway profession Safety brass 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 supported this act, as he stated The purpose of politics is nothing less than to alter people to develop their distinctive human capacities and virtuesto deliberate about the common good, to acquire practical judgment, to share in self-government, to care for the fate of the society as a whole (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 contradict the liberty and individual responsibilities that motorcycle riders across the nation enjoy as they travel the open roads of America, and Mr. Stricklands plan greatly concerns me as it is not the job of the federal government to create one-size- fits-all helmet laws. Mr.Strickland appears to be aspiration on pursuing all means possible to enact mandatory helmet laws either at the federal level or by violating the principles of the tenth Amendment and bullying the States into enacting mandatory helmet laws. Motorcyclists under the leadership 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.Most 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 do without the government violating our individual Freedom of Choice, which allows a person to decide to take hazards as long as they are only risking their own person and their veraciousty. consort to libertarian theory of rights, Even if riding a motorcycle without a helmet is reckless, and even if helmet laws save 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 fight universal helmet laws because universal helmet laws represent government interference and these laws impede an individuals Freedom of Choice. Most Americans would agree that wearing a motorcycle helmet is probably one of the safest pieces of protective overclothes when riding a motorcycle, but opponents of a universal helmet law, are disagreeing with the composition that the government should not mandate laws that take away an individuals right to choose what to wear based on the 9th Amendment The Ninth Amendment to the US Constitution says no law shall be enacted that regulates the individuals freedom to choose his per sonal actions and mode of dress so long as it does not in any way affect the life, liberty, and happiness of others.We are being forced to wear a particular type of garnish because we choose to ride motorcycles (Jones, Marian Moser, and Ronald Bayer 212). The United States Constitution is the bottom for the laws written in the United States. Our founding fathers created the constitution to establish 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 hypothetic and categorical imperatives. Means-ends paternalism mirrors a hypothetical imperative, because it essentially takes the form of requiring people to do things that will lead to the pleasure of their own goals. States Legislatures have passed a universal mo torcycle helmet law in the past and averageified by claiming it would prevent people from exposure of serious head injury, 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 cost of non-helmet riders injuries, thereby establishing a public interest. By requiring the rider to use presumable 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 see government funded medical assistant under the United States Constitution, so the be of those accidents will become a burden not only on the riders, but in any case on taxpayers, because not all riders have adapted insurance or sav ings to pay for all of their medical expenses. According to John Stuart Mill, subject to background duties of justice and fair contribution, state irresistible impulse is justified only to prevent or punish acts causing harms to other persons, not harms to self.Harm to others can be found in intimately any type of behavior indirect harm is subject to immensurable expansion. Those who support apparently paternalistic policies identify superficial harms to others, such as financial burdens companiond with risky behaviors. Examples of this type of behavior would be the costs of need response and health care for injuries that could have possibility been prevented by wearing a motorcycle helmet. According to NHTSA Report to Congress regarding the Benefits of Safety Belts and Motorcycle Helmets society would be able to save cost by mandating a universal helmet law.An analysis of linked data from CODES with universal helmet laws showed that without the helmet law, the total pointles s inpatient charges due to virtuoso injury would have almost forked from $2,325,000 to $4,095,000 A number of studies have compared hospital costs for helmeted and un-helmeted motorcyclists composite 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 saved $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 helmets during the same period CODES study also found that brain injury cases were more than twice as costly as non-brain injury cases for the one-year period studied. Among the un-helmeted motorcycle i npatients, charges for those suffering 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 Administration 1996). Both sides of the debate present well 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 oppose a universal motorcycle helmet law believe Despite the strong evidence implicating repeal of helmet use laws as the cause of the large juvenile increases in fatally injured motorcyclists, the American 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 we ather conditions, we find that the NHTSA was altogether 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 musical accompaniment 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 Person files.When conducting research you have the skill to analyze the data in either its full detail as coded or only the data you want to, it depends on the safety egress that is being questioned and the results that you which to obtain, which can led to biases 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 choices, ther efore 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 training 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 motorcycle helmet law it would strip away 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 cheer fulness warming my skin, the touch of the cooling breeze across my face, the aroma of the stimulating ocean air or the giant redwoods, the sound of thunder boom beneath me, which allows me to have the sense of flying freely.Works Cited Derrick, Allison J. , and Lee D.Faucher. Motorcycle helmets and rider safety A legislative crisis. Journal of Public health Policy 30. 2 (2009) 226-242. Academic 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 health 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 helmet law in Louisiana, degree HS 810 956.Washington DC National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (May 2008) Web 22, Oct. 2011, www. NHTSA. dot. gov. Houston, David J. , and Lilliard E. Richardson J r. Motorcycle Safety and the revolutionise of Universal Helmet Laws. American Journal of Public wellness 97. 11 (2007) 2063-2069. avocation 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. Ulmer and D. F. Preusser.Evaluation of the Repeal of Motorcycle Helmet Laws in Kentucky and Louisiana, DOT HS 809 530 Washington 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 Department 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 Use Laws and change magnitude 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.