By Barb Shelly, Kansas City Star editorial page columnist
Luann Ridgeway, the Missouri Senator who sponsored the bill to free motorcyclists from the onerous responsibility of wearing helmets, explained her helmet aversion this way in an interview with The Star earlier this year:
"You have people who don’t ride motorcycles pointing fingers at motorcycle riders and saying, ‘I’m going to tell you what’s best for you.’ "
Behold, the pointed finger of Gov. Jay Nixon, who today vetoed the legislature's repeal of Missouri's helmet law.
In his veto message, Nixon cited the reasons for his decision:
When Florida repealed its universal helmet law in 2002, the cost to treat patients diagnosed with head injuries as a result of motorcycle accidents doubled, reaching a total of $44 million. [Traffic Safety Facts, NHTSA, 2008] Nationally, one academic study estimated that the total cost to treat motorcycle accident victims who were not wearing a helmet is $250,231,734 a year more than the cost of treating victims who were wearing a helmet.
So, Sen. Ridgeway et al, it's not really about telling motorcycle riders what's good for them. It's about protecting state taxpayers from having to cover enormous medical bills for preventable injuries.
Delicious
Digg
Stop, Look, Read
However, though it may not make much sense to have the current patchwork, it's hardly "hypocrisy," unless you want to change the meaning of the word, a la Humpty Dumpty.
Interface: Some food for thought.
First, in a collision over 35 MPH, wearing a helmet, or not, really has no bearing on survivability. In fact, at those speeds, those wearing a helmet actually have a potential for costing the taxpayer even more. In such a collision where the head/helmet would be involved, a rider not wearing a helmet will quite possibly be killed (a potential one-time expense). At the same speed and in the same circumstance, a rider wearing a helmet will most likely suffer severe neck/spinal cord damage. If the rider is paralyzed, they now potentially create an on-going burden on society.
Now for the second missing item. You may have noticed my repeated use of the word potentially. It is pure conjecture to assume that the death (or even injury) of a rider is going to place any hardship on the populace. It assumes that riders have no type of insurance to cover the cost of their care. It also assumes that there is no "other party" involved who would/should have insurance to cover the rider's costs. On this point, the argument of the employer having to replace a worker and driving costs up to the consumer comes into play. This is pure fantasy. It happens every day when an employee decides to seek other employment without notice... or gets canned.
Cat has Everyone's Tongue?
How would you feel if you “HAD” to put a helmet on every time you entered your car?
.
It's called a seatbelt, and by the way, now it's law that if you aren't wearing one, they can stop you JUST FOR THAT and give you a ticket. Of course, if you are a young person, or look a certain way, they will search your car for anything illegal.
Of course - you are evading the point. Let me repeat it. The VAST majority of atomobile DEATHS are the result of HEAD INJURIES even if a seat belt is worn.
So, now ANSWER my question.
How would you (or anyone else who cares to answer) feel if the law REQUIRED you to wear a helmet each and every time you entered your car??
Here is an informative site:
http://www.iihs.org/laws/HelmetUseOverview.aspx
I'd like to quote Benjamin Franklin. "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
I guess the cat has suddenly gotten everyone's tongue - huh? Figures.
Answer the Question Please
How would you feel if you “HAD” to put a helmet on every time you entered your car?
.
It's called a seatbelt, and by the way, now it's law that if you aren't wearing one, they can stop you JUST FOR THAT and give you a ticket. Of course, if you are a young person, or look a certain way, they will search your car for anything illegal.
Of course - you are evading the point. Let me repeat it. The VAST majority of atomobile DEATHS are the result of HEAD INJURIES even if a seat belt is worn.
So, now ANSWER my question.
How would you (or anyone else who cares to answer) feel if the law REQUIRED you to wear a helmet each and every time you entered your car??
Here is an informative site:
http://www.iihs.org/laws/HelmetUseOverview.aspx
I'd like to quote Benjamin Franklin. "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
from our January seat belt discussion
http://voices.kansascity.com/node/3449
I googled:
The refusal of a driver to wear his seatbelt can endanger the lives of other occupants, as well as his own. In the event of a collision, he can be thrown against another occupant, thrown onto the dash or windscreen, or out of the vehicle. The fact remains that your death affects taxpayers who have to pay to have your remains removed and they may also have to make a contribution to support your family. Your death affects your employer who has to find a replacement and has to train him. This cost is borne by customers in the form of higher prices. If you do wear a seatbelt you stand a better chance of retaining control of the vehicle and avoiding a secondary collision with a pedestrian or another vehicle.
http://www.drivealive.org.za/DriveAlive/WebSite/WearingSeatbelts.asp
Ponz - we do, sort of....
How would you feel if you “HAD” to put a helmet on every time you entered your car?
.
It's called a seatbelt, and by the way, now it's law that if you aren't wearing one, they can stop you JUST FOR THAT and give you a ticket. Of course, if you are a young person, or look a certain way, they will search your car for anything illegal.
Ponz
you make a good point, despite yourself -- it'd be better to have an across-the-board helmet safety law for motorcycles than to have the current patchwork.
However, though it may not make much sense to have the current patchwork, it's hardly "hypocrisy," unless you want to change the meaning of the word, a la Humpty Dumpty.
Backward Missouri
What's nonsensical is to claim that it's hypocrisy for MO state law not to comport with other states' laws.
It certainly makes more sense to have an across-the-board ban on riding w/o helmets, but it's hardly "hypocrisy" for there to be differences between jurisdictions.
What nonsense you espouse. Let’s assume I become injured after crossing the state line (one mile from home), after removing my helmet “OR NOT”. Let’s also assume I’m uninsured. Which state foots the bill? I would guess my home, backward state of Missouri. How would you feel if you “HAD” to put a helmet on every time you entered your car? You should feel safer and comfortable knowing that most automobile fatalities are caused by head injuries. And to top it off, you’d be saving we taxpayers a lot of money. What a joke!!
hypocrisy?
What's nonsensical is to claim that it's hypocrisy for MO state law not to comport with other states' laws.
It certainly makes more sense to have an across-the-board ban on riding w/o helmets, but it's hardly "hypocrisy" for there to be differences between jurisdictions.
The right to choose please
By the way - the aforementioned friends were wearing helmets!
Ponz - read the paper
you'll see the incidents. Also, I mentioned the problem is usually with the younger riders on racing-style bikes.