There’s a certain element of the riding community who resist wearing a helmet. Maybe they believe that it ruins the purity of the riding experience, or they think that it infringes upon their freedom of choice, or they could feel that its a macho expression of rebellion, or they are just too stupid to appreciate the dangers. Regardless of these rider’s reasoning, the question we want to try to answer is whether these rider’s insistence upon a supposed infringement of personal freedoms could actually get them killed.
A Bit of Background on Motorcycle Helmets Documented evidence of human beings wearing helmets dates back as far as 2,300 BC.
These helmets were primarily used by warriors during battle. In fact, right up to the present day, helmets are still worn by the armed forces, emergency services and law enforcement. It didn’t take long for the early pioneers of motorcycling to quickly recognize the benefits of wearing a helmet when riding. These early helmets were typically made of leather with a cork interior to absorb the impact.
Compared to todays helmets, these early versions were nothing more than sturdy headgear. Yes, they did provide some level of protection, but they are a far cry from what’s available today. Many believe that the evolution of the modern motorcycle helmet can be traced back to Lawrence of Arabia.
T.E. Lawrence was a British officer who became legendary when he fought alongside Arab guerrilla forces in the Middle East during the First World War. In fact, his achievements were immortalized in the iconic 1962 film ‘Lawrence of Arabia.’ T.E. Lawrence was also a passionate motorcyclist who died tragically in a motorcycle accident in 1935, while riding his Brough Superior.
This incident kicked off some major investigations into the severity of head injuries arising from a motorcycle crashes. Dr Hugh Kearns (F.R.C.S.) personally treated T.E. Lawrence while he was in the hospital. Kearns later became the top researcher into how motorcycle helmets could save lives.
As a result of his findings, in 1941 the British Army mandated that dispatch riders must wear helmets. In the same year, the United States Army followed suit and imposed similar regulations.
Helmet Laws in The United States
So far so good, but imposing operational regulations upon Military personnel is relatively straightforward. Mandating Helmet laws for the civilian population is quite a different matter. It took until the 1960s before the United States Government started to take Helmet laws seriously.
In the booming post-WW2 economy, the number of motorcycles increased dramatically - and so too did the number of injuries and fatalities. By 1960, nearly 37,000 Americans died through preventable injuries arising from vehicle-related incidents. As a result of these alarming statistics, the US House of Representatives and the Senate unanimously approved the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and President Lyndon B. Johnson signed this into law in 1966. This Act resulted in the formation of NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) who are still responsible for the vehicle safety standards today - including Seat-Belts, Airbag Systems, car seats for children and the Motorcycle Helmet laws - all of which have proven to be highly effective at reducing road traffic fatalities across the United States. By 1967, 22 US States had adopted mandatory Helmet Laws and, by 1975, 47 States had also done so.
However this was all about to change. California, Utah and Illinois had all refused to introduce mandatory helmet laws and were facing financial penalties from the Department of Transportation. All three of these states pushed through amendments that limited the DOT’s power to impose those financial penalties. This laid the foundation for all State governments to reverse their helmet laws.
All of this has resulted in a highly confusing situation and one in which Helmet laws differ enormously from one State to another. In a bizarre irony, California now has a universal helmet law - even though they were one of the States originally responsible for opposing the laws in the first place. In typical American fashion, a universal law that mandates the wearing of Helmets has very little to do with riders’ safety and everything to do with State funding.
To make matters worse, any attempt to introduce mandatory Helmet laws now faces resistance in the form of human rights violations.
The Statistics
Throughout all of this confusion, some 40 years worth of data has been accumulated. From the multitude of studies that have been conducted, the conclusions are totally beyond question. Head injuries are the leading cause of death in motorcycle crashes. The wearing of a motorcycle helmet reduces fatalities by up to 42% (source: NHTSA). Furthermore, riders without helmets who managed to survive a crash are three times more likely to suffer a traumatic brain injury.
States that implemented mandatory helmet laws saw, on average, a 26% reduction in motorcycle fatalities. In contrast, those States that had chosen not to impose mandatory helmet laws experienced a dramatic increase in fatalities.
In addition to the tragic loss of life, there are also other factors to consider. Most notably, there are the increased costs and resources associated with healthcare and the emergency services. Not to mention the impact that arises from personal trauma and rehabilitation programmes.
Despite all of the evidence detailing the benefits, only 18 of the 50 States have universal helmet laws. Three States - Illinois, Iowa and New Hampshire - have no helmet laws whatsoever. As for the remaining States, their helmet laws are confusing, inconsistent and polluted with very peculiar or random restrictions.
The incontestable truth is that mandatory helmet laws are proven to save lives. Faced with such an incredible truism, why is there even a debate about it?
Individual Freedom and Civil Rights
Just like the gun laws in the United States, some Americans consider the mandatory imposition of helmet laws as an infringement of their civil liberties. Or, if you prefer, an unwelcome restriction to their personal freedoms.
There are motorcycle lobby groups - such as ABATE (American Bikers Aimed Toward Education) - that actually campaign for the abolition of helmet laws. They believe that the decision to wear a helmet should be the left solely to the individual and not be determined by the government.
Whilst they claim to promote the rights/issues that affect riders, its clear that Rider Safety is not one of their priorities. ABATE spend their time focused on personal freedoms rather than recommend any practical measures that minimize preventable deaths.
For Rider Action Groups - such as ABATE - the statistical evidence that proves the safety aspects of wearing a helmet is irrelevant. They choose to dismiss the facts entirely and their only real concern is the naive fight for personal freedoms.
At the heart of their argument are the rights of the individual to be free to make their own choices, regardless of the inherent risks or the dire consequences. They believe that, in a free society, each individual has the right to decide whether they wear a motorcycle helmet or not. Its immaterial to them that these choices may be foolish or ill-informed. It’s a belief that their civil liberties are being violated in some way, and that’s the only thing that matters.
By confusing a warped interpretation of individual freedom, whilst ignoring the undeniable facts, they seem oblivious that their stance can get riders killed. But maybe those who die as a result of their defiance, or their unintentional ignorance, will be held up as martyrs for the cause. What’s clear is that a failure to take an holistic view to the helmet laws can have deadly consequences.
There is nothing wrong with the defence of personal freedom. In fact, in the right context, this is an admirable endeavour. In this instance though, the advocates for the abolition of helmet laws may be failing to appreciate that their actions will have a dramatic impact on others. Motorcycle deaths do impact others. Not just the individuals who are directly involved, but their families, their friends, the motorcycle community, the emergency services personnel and the society as a whole.
Aside from the tragic human cost, there’s also a considerable financial cost - healthcare, policing and increased insurance rates, to name but a few. These aspects have far-reaching implications for all motorcycle riders - let alone how the rest of society perceives us.
Surely this can’t be what these advocates are aiming to achieve?
If this whole issue was just about a set of individuals who don’t want to wear helmets, perhaps they should take up a different activity other than motorcycling. Skydiving without a parachute is something that immediately springs to mind.
Religious Freedom
Its fascinating that the very same riders who oppose helmet laws are also the first to condemn other riders who are allowed to ride without a helmet on religious grounds.
For example, take the Sikh motorcycle riding community. In certain countries - including the UK, parts of Canada and parts of Australia - Sikh riders are exempt from wearing a helmet so long as they wear a turban. The UK first introduced this exemption in 1976, while Ontario (Canada) only passed their law in 2018.
It’s interesting that, when the Ontario government introduced this exemption, it was met with outrage and a great deal of resistance. It’s remains highly questionable whether this is a genuine exemption that’s based solely on religious grounds - especially as their is an alternative. Many Sikh riders choose to wear a head covering that preserves their religious convictions - such as a patka or chunni - and this allows them to wear a regular motorcycle helmet.
Perhaps the real question to ask is why the Sikh riding community would want this helmet exemption in the first place. Not only are they exposing themselves to unnecessary risk, they are also compromising their personal safety. It makes one wonder what point the Sikh community are really trying to make.
Not All Helmets Offer Equal Levels of Protection
An indisputable fact is that not all types of motorcycle helmet offer the same levels of protection. Some styles of helmet are far safer than others.
There are multiple different helmet safety certifications - such as DOT, SNELL and ECE - but the testing standards do vary. The DOT standard is essential a self-certification and, as such, doesn’t really mean anything. On the other hand the ECE and SNELL certification is far more comprehensive which means that the helmets have passed the most stringent safety tests.
Full-face helmets are by far the safest type. These helmets offer added protection for the frontal area (face and chin) of the head. This is an area that is highly vulnerable in a crash. Full-face helmets have the added benefit of fully protecting your face and eyes while you’re riding. This means that injuries from stone chips, bugs and the elements are virtually eliminated. In contrast, open-face helmets leave your face exposed to the elements and thereby susceptible to potential injury.
In study after study, it has been proven that riders wearing open-face and half helmets are twice as likely to suffer traumatic brain injuries in a crash when compared to riders in full-face helmets.
‘Beanie’ helmets offer the least protection of all. These helmets are so minimal that we strongly recommend that they be avoided altogether.
Full-face helmets tend to be far more costly than the other types of helmet, but the added protection that they offer is well worth in additional investment.
Personal Safety
Motorcycling is an inherently dangerous activity. Everyone who participates in the activity does so knowing that there is a high degree of risk. Each rider will have their own level of what they consider to be an acceptable degree of risk. Motorcycle riders do not have the luxury of being surrounding by an array of safety features. Cars have roll-bars, crumple zones, air-bags, seat belts and crash avoidance systems. The only protection that a motorcycle rider has from serious injury is what they are wearing. The helmet being the most important item of all.
In order to minimize their risk, a high percentage of riders do take responsibility for their own personal safety. In fact, the more experienced the rider, the more they are aware of the risks and the more precautionary measures they will take. This manifests itself in the wearing of suitable motorcycle gear and a top-quality protective helmet.
For experienced riders, helmet laws are nothing more than common sense. It wouldn’t matter whether there were mandatory helmet laws or not. Experienced riders know the benefits of wearing a helmet and will wear one whenever they ride. Anyone who opposes that perspective is often viewed as delusional, foolhardy, a candidate for a Darwin Award, or a person who’s contribution to the gene pool is somewhat questionable.
It does beg the question why any rider would knowing choose to disregard their own personal safety, especially with an activity as potentially dangerous as riding a motorcycle.
This article is about those riders who vehemently oppose the helmet laws. They claim that they should be left to decide whether to wear a helmet or not, rather than have the government make that determination for them. All that results from this is that these riders get bogged down in a discussion about personal freedom, and the supposed infringement of their civil liberties, whilst rejecting any dialogue related to their own personal safety. The sad reality is that this is a bizarre reversal of priorities that has dangerous consequences.
Is There a Solution?
Helmet laws are there for a reason, if only to protect certain people from themselves. Civilized societies operate within a set of rules. These rules are usually there for the benefit of society as a whole. They deal with acceptable behaviours and impose consequences upon individuals who break those rules.
We’ve already discussed the dangers of not wearing a motorcycle helmet while riding, so what can done about those riders who oppose it?
One solution is to adopt the approach that is taken in other parts of the world. For instance, in the UK, the insurance companies actively encourage the wearing of protective motorcycle gear - including a helmet - and incentivize riders accordingly. They offer discounts on riding gear and reduced insurance rates. Maybe, the US insurance companies could follow suit by imposing higher insurance rates for people who insist upon riding without a helmet. These higher rates would reflect the increased risk and go some way to cover the potential medical costs.
Just a thought!
Summary
In light of the overwhelming statistical evidence, one would think that everyone would be able to clearly recognize the importance of wearing a helmet for themselves. And yet, there are riders who defiantly oppose this - preferring instead to claim that mandatory helmet law are nothing more than an infringement upon their personal freedoms.
All of the studies have consistently proven (beyond any doubt) that wearing a helmet significantly reduces motorcycle fatalities. Despite this evidence, there are still some truly remarkable inconsistencies with the helmet laws across the various States in the US.
According to Statista, due to their universal helmet laws, the motorcycle fatality rate per capita throughout Europe is significantly less than any one of the States in the US. The lower European fatality rate is between 3% and 18% less than the United States. There’s demonstrable proof that the highest motorcycle fatality rates exist in those States that have Partial or no helmet laws at all.
Opposition to mandatory helmet laws for the United States is complicated by the on-going discussion about, and its tenuous link to, the infringement of personal freedoms. Unfortunately, this whole debate has nothing whatsoever to do with promoting rider safety. This is the sad reality that can get these anti-helmet riders killed.
In an ironic twist to this story, anti-helmet supporters have died in motorcycle crashes. One such tragic instance occurred while the rider in question was participating in a ABATE-sponsored ride to actually protest against the helmet laws.
On 4th July 2011, A New York man died while participating in an ABATE-sponsored ride with 550 other motorcyclists to protest the state's mandatory helmet law. Police said Philip A. Contos, 55, hit his brakes and his motorcycle fish-tailed. Contos was sent over the handlebars of his 1983 Harley Davidson and hit his head on the pavement. He was pronounced dead at the hospital.(source: ABC News)
A spokesman for ABATE said: "Mandatory helmet laws do nothing to prevent accidents.”
Jim Hedlund (Governors Highway Safety Association) told the Associated Press that “A helmet meeting federal standards reduces the chance of fatality in an accident by more than 40 percent.”
On that note, we’ll leave you to formulate your own conclusions and opinions.
We hope that you enjoyed this article. What do you think about riders who are anti-helmet?
Finally, If you have an idea for an article that would like us to consider publishing, simply drop us a line and we’ll be happy to work with you.
Have your Say:
Do you believe that helmet laws should be mandatory? What do you think about the helmet laws in your country? Do they go far enough or do they need to be revised?
We’d love to hear your thoughts & comments. Why not get in touch and let us know?
댓글