Arrow-right Camera
The Spokesman-Review Newspaper
Spokane, Washington  Est. May 19, 1883

Helmets for all, always

Bob Sikorsky The Spokesman-Review

I am not against helmet use — in fact, my research indicates that we should consider expanding their use. What I am against is government-mandated headguards for bicyclists and motorcyclists.

The governing body of The City of Spokane Valley recently showed some good sense when they listened to reason, and shot down the proposed mandatory helmet legislation. The council showed that they are people of reason despite their city’s moniker, as they threw discrimination to the wind, and refused to intervene in the lives of a small group — bicyclists. After all, there are thousands of municipalities and counties in the United States, and only about ten of them legislate bicycling headgear.

Yes, if everyone riding a bicycle or motorcycle wore a helmet, it would save lives. I just wonder why these minority groups are singled out as the only Americans in need of head protection. Consider some facts: There are more than 40,000 deaths from automobile accidents in the United States annually (over 100 per day), while yearly deaths to riders of motorcycles and bicycles combined are roughly 2,500. Annual bicycle rider deaths are a substantial portion of that total, at around 600, but hardly where the legal emphasis should lie.

I know that many of the bicycle death statistics represent children — a horrible tragedy, but many more children yet are dying of head injuries while riding in automobiles and engaging in other play. How about helmets at the playground? It would probably save lives, but where does one stop? It should be the choice of individual riders and parents of young riders as to when to don the dome cap.

Of course, on first whim, it seems like there is less protection for the rider while on a motorcycle or bicycle than in a car — but it only seems that way. The body is more protected, but the head is just as prone to injury inside of a vehicle. That’s why nearly 90% of automobile deaths are from head injuries. Only half of the deaths are due to head injuries on two-wheeled toys — the lack of body protection on the bikes allows for more deaths from other internal/external injuries. That’s also why the auto manufacturers install seat belts, shoulder belts, front air bags, and especially side air bags — mainly to keep your head from coming into contact with some part of the car during impact.

So I wonder why it is so politically correct to initiate bike helmet legislation, and maintain the motorcycle helmet laws, when so many more lives, both children and adults, could be saved with obligatory car caps. I may know — the lawmakers, en masse, don’t ride bicycles and motorcycles, so helmet laws don’t affect them. They do drive automobiles, though, and they don’t want to wear helmets, or would like them to be a personal choice.

While there would be infinite wisdom in wearing helmets when driving our cars, trucks, and SUVs, we engage in many other activities that warrant head protection as well. The category of home accidents is the only other one to rival the automobile as a cause of death from head injury — other sports activities (basketball, football, snowboarding, and skateboarding) even surpass bicycling for head injuries.

So again, since there are deaths from head injuries to bicyclists and motorcyclists, wearing a helmet for most of these activities makes good self-preservation sense. However, since deaths for riders of these vehicles are only a small portion of total vehicle deaths — 5% for motorcycles, and 2% for bicycles — why do governments pick on them?

A popular “argument” used by proponents of helmet use is that societal costs are high when an injured motorcyclist or bicyclist is disabled and requires long-term care. Again, I say that those occurrences and costs are astronomically higher for the four-wheeled driving community. By the way, the two-wheel riders are more apt to be insured, on the average, than the motoring public in cars and trucks.

I concede that there are more deaths per mile traveled, and per 1000 vehicle registrations from motorcycling as compared to automobile driving. But this just tells me that there should be better rider education and training as part of the licensing process. Some states, like Connecticut, have shown that for motorcycles, rider training, safety education, and experience, greatly reduce accidents. I feel the same when it comes to cars — it is far better to strive to become a precision driver, and avoid the accident altogether, rather than try to protect your head from the accident.

Why do these helmet advocates feel so protected in their cars as compared to bikes, when statistics refute the safety of that perceived sanctum? That’s hard to say, but for sure, we’d be safer if helmeted for our future auto joyrides. And with government certified helmets, one could avoid injury or death by sporting a helmet while engaging in other potentially dangerous behavioral segments of our lives — virtually everything!

If you believe that the law should require bike (pedal and/or motor) riders to wear helmets, yet not address other far more common sources of head injuries, then please explain why — I welcome debate. My stance is that helmet use and other personal risk decisions should be left up to individuals or their legal guardians.