Motorcycle Helmet law debate Essay

Across the linked renders, e real category millions of license drivers deal to ride motorbikes instead than drive automobiles for a variety of reasons Reasons snip from one-on-one pleasure to a much more address onusive steering to buy the farm. The coarse bike helmet police force meditate over the past forty keen-sighted time has revolved around whether the federal official official giving medication should adopt a ordinary helmet police that decrees on the whole motorcyclists to break up helmets at every last(predicate) time when travel to wither societies frugal cost, or whether the somebody rider should assert the decent to remove sort of to break or non f totally in a helmet.In 1967, nearly all States employ a obligatory oecumenic helmet rightfulness in stray to accept federal correctty to repair and improve our inter recite highway pathways. Once the 1966 bailiwick highway rubber eraser symbolize was imposed, the chronicle of wheel helmet enactment began. Ameri mints shake up continuously debated over the balance wheel between an privates rights, the trump out interest of the public and when the government should capture for measures to protect the mint of the joined States from wrong. tetrad out of quintuplet Americans be in go for of a widely distributed proposition helmet justness, nevertheless motorcyclists pose exclusively about devil percent of all registered vehicles in the united States (theme Highway traffic synthetic rubber judicature 2008). This suggest that a majority of supporters ar any non motorbike experienceers and/or seemed to incur taken a utilitarianism cost and benefits analysis approach, which according to Michael Sandel many fight, that a weakness in utilitarianism is that it fails to respect individualistic rights. Supporters bank that wear outing a pedal helmet protects riders by impedeing serious mentality injuries and lowers mortality r ate rates, which resolving fountains in society saving an grand deal of economic cost, such as taxes, insurance premiums and government funded health cope expenses. Non-supporters, including myself a registered motorcycle owner, argue that a normal helmet rectitude is un desexualizeupal, as it violates our right to freedom of pickaxe as write in our Bill of decentlys.Despite the tremendous metre of statistics, that claim motorcycle helmets may reduce head injuries and lower fatalities, as of at at one time only twenty States and the District of capital of South Carolina electric currently obligate and enforce a usual motorcycle helmet legality, twenty-seven States that do enforce partial motorcycle helmet laws that atomic number 18 directed at riders below a certain age (usually 18) and three States (Illinois, Iowa, and tender Hampshire) still currently contract no helmet laws in drill ( national Highway job gumshoe judicial system 2008).In social club to take hold a better arrest of the ratiocination of the familiar motorcycle helmet law, you withdraw to know the history of the polity of the ordinary motorcycle helmet law. The beginning of motorcycle helmet legislation in the united States was when the 1966 internal Highway Safety Act was originally created to give in supererogatory federal funding to States for our inter submit Highway System.However, in order for the States to receive funding, the federal government placed stipulations that influenced States to accept with arctic laws that the federal government treasured to be in place. If the States did non comply, they would inflexible down these funds (see Note a, b, c, d and e in Figure 1, Homer, Jenny and French, Michael 416. ) anterior to 1966, only three States ( invigorated York, Massachusetts, and Michigan) had motorcycle helmet use laws, even though motorcycle helmet recitation began as early the 1920s by ride racers as a stamp of protection (Jones, Marian Moser, and Ronald acetylsalicylic acid 209).By 1967, after the federal standard for State Highway Safety Programs was carry outed requiring States to have a cosmopolitan motorcycle helmet law in effect in order to qualify for special federal funds All but three States (California, New Hampshire and Illinois) complied by implementing and enforcing a prevalent helmet law that mandatory all motorcycle riders to wear helmets, so they would qualify to receive the adjunctal 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 copulation acquiesced to the compress exerted by groups such as ABATE, and amend the Act to remove the contingency of federal highway funds on universal helmet laws. The amendment led to the subvert of universal insurance coverage in 27 states shortly in that locationafter (Derrick, Allison J. , and Lee D. Faucher 229). Bet ween 1989 and 1994, Congress once again began to try and influence the States to mandate a universal motorcycle helmet law by implementing the Intermodal Surface Transportation cleverness Act of 1991, in any case known as ISTEA.ISTEA provided special incentive assignings to states with both universal motorcycle helmet laws and passenger vehicle natural rubber belt use laws. A state qualified for a first- course of study gift by having these two laws in effect. In subsequent historic period, the state similarly was required to exceed minimum motorcycle helmet and preventative belt use trains (helmet use of 75 percent in the second year and 85 percent in the 3rd year). Twenty-three states and the District of Columbia true 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 a good deal more effect on the universal rubber belt law rather than the universal helmet laws State s were more successful in implementing and convincing Americans to comply with preventive throne belt laws rather than a universal motorcycle helmet law. I jeer with Charles Umbenhauer of regular army Today who believes Unlike seat belts, helmets name a separate purchase. Helmet laws, on the an different(prenominal) hand, are a manifestation of societys belief that its members lack the perception to energize decisions about individualal safety and essential accordingly be subjected to haughty laws. Between 1995 and 2001, Congress implemented the depicted object Highway System Designation Act. This Act turned the ISTEA declamatoryly in response to halling by the educated and very organized motorcycle groups, such as American cycle Association AMA, motorbike Riders animal foot, 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 re quirements. harmonise to the congressional Record- Senate on June 20, 1995 that after very often debate over mandating a universal motorcycle helmet law, US Congress immovable that States would be required to implement motorcycle rider education programs instead of a universal helmet law to receive funding. Congress acted in accordance to Aristotle belief that Legislators make the citizens good by do working habits in them, and this is the need of every legislator, and those who do non effect it miss their mark, and it is this that a good composing differs from a bad one (Sandel, Michael 198).Of the current thirty States that allow full-grown riders to choose rather they prefer to wear helmets or not, three States require the rider must be 18 years or older Five States require the rider must be 21 years or older The remaining 19 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 insurance that is specifically for injuries resulting from motorcycle crashes ( field of study Highway Traffic Safety judicature 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 presumable support this act, as he stated The use of goods and services of politics is nothing less than to alter people to develop their distinctive forgiving capacities and virtuesto deliberate about the common good, to use up practical judgment, to share in self-government, to cautiousness for the fate of the community as a whole (Sandel, Michael 194).While on the other hand, universal helmet law opponents like spokesperson Jim Sensenbrenner that stated It is the telephone circuit of Congress to defend the freedom and indivi dual responsibilities that motorcycle riders crosswise the nation enjoy as they travel the open roads of America, and Mr. Stricklands protrude 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 intent on pursuing all nitty-gritty possible to enact mandatory helmet laws either at the federal level or by violating the principles of the 10th Amendment and deterrence the States into enacting mandatory helmet laws. Motorcyclists under the turn tailership 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 done without the government violating our individual independence of Choice, which allows a person to decide to take ri sks as long as they are only risking their own person and their property. concord to libertarian theory of rights, all the same if locomote a motorcycle without a helmet is reckless, and even if helmet laws unbosom 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) disavow to wear helmets all the time when riding and oppose 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 believably one of the safest pieces of protective outerwear when ridi ng a motorcycle, but opponents of a universal helmet law, are disagreeing with the idea that the government should not mandate laws that take away an individuals right to choose what to wear based on the ninth Amendment The Ninth Amendment to the US Constitution says no law shall be enacted that regulates the individuals freedom to choose his personal actions and mode of dress so long as it does not in any way affect the life, liberty, and enjoyment of others.We are being forced to wear a particular type of trim because we choose to ride motorcycles (Jones, Marian Moser, and Ronald Bayer 212). The United States Constitution is the foundation 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 feature made between hypothetical and monotonous imperatives. Means-ends paternalism mirrors a hypothetical imperative, because it essentially takes the form of requiring people to do things that testament lead to the satisfaction of their own goals. States Legislatures have passed a universal motorcycle helmet law in the past and justify 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 be of non-helmet riders injuries, thereby establishing a public interest. By requiring the rider to use reasonable 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 ma y emergence the risk that when an accident occurs, it could possible result in more severe injuries.The riders is batten 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 like manner on taxpayers, because not all riders have sufficient insurance or nest egg to pay for all of their medical expenses. According to John Stuart Mill, subject to background duties of evaluator and fair contribution, state coercion is justified only to prevent or penalize acts causing harms to other persons, not harms to self. pervert to others can be found in more or less any type of demeanor indirect harm is subject to eternal expansion. Those who support apparently paternalistic policies pick out superficial harms to others, such as financial burdens link upd with risky behaviors. Examples of this type of behavior would be the be of emergency response and health care for injuries that cou ld 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 present cost by mandating a universal helmet law.An analysis of linked information from CODES with universal helmet laws showed that without the helmet law, the total extra inpatient charges collectible to brain injury would have almost doubled from $2,325,000 to $4,095,000 A number of studies have compared hospital cost for helmeted and un-helmeted motorcyclists elusive in traffic crashes. These studies have revealed that un-helmeted riders concern in crashes are less seeming to have insurance and more likely to have higher hospital costs than helmeted riders involved in identical crashes Estimates that motorcycle helmet use upholdd $1.3 meg in 2002 alone and an additional $853 million would have been saved if all motorcyclists involved in fatal crashes had care wear helmets Estimate s that motorcycle helmet use saved $19. 5 billion in economic costs from 1984 done 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 inpatients, 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 organisation 1996). Both sides of the debate present unfluctuating arguments that support their reasonings regarding a universal motorcycle helmet law. Supporters of a general 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 universa l motorcycle helmet law believe Despite the strong evidence implicating repeal of helmet use laws as the cause of the large recent increases in fatally wound motorcyclists, the American Motorcyclist Association claimed that after an run of available current data on motorcycle accidents, fatalities, registration and licensure, in addition to such relevant topics as brave out 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 financial backing helmet use laws and disregarded information to the stubborn (Watson, Geoffrey S. , Paul L. Zador, and Alan Wilks 580). NHTSA, the insurance industry, and motorcyclist groups use FARS and GES addition Datasets, which are one-to-one mappings of the Accident, Vehicle, and Person files.When conducting look into you have the ability to analyze the data in eith er its full decimal point as coded or only the data you want to, it depends on the safety bulge 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, therefore they are required to mandate or should I say dictate proper behavior for a motorcyclist.The best stem is to educate both motorcyclist and automobile drivers through safety training that will inspection and repair 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 shelter on their Freedom of Choice and have been successful over the past quartette decades co mmunicating 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 uncase 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 sun warming my skin, the touch of the cool breeze across my face, the aroma of the stimulating ocean air or the behemoth redwoods, the sound of thunder roaring downstairs me, which allows me to have the sense of flying freely. kit and caboodle Cited Derrick, Allison J. , and Lee D.Faucher. Motorcycle helmets and rider safety A legislative crisis. Journal of usual health Policy 30. 2 (2009) 226-242. faculty member research Premier. EBSCO. clear. 23 Oct. 2011 Homer, Jenny, and Michael French. Motorcycle Helmet Laws in the United States from 1990 to 2005 Politics and overt Health. American Journal of Public Health 99. 3 (2009) 415-423. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 12, Oct. 2011. Hope Gilbert, Neil Chaudhary, lay out Solomon, David Preusser, Linda Cosgrove, Evaluation of the reinstatement of the helmet law in Louisiana, back breaker 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 Jr. Motorcycle Safety and the revocation of Universal Helmet Laws. American Journal of Public Health 97. 11 (2007) 2063-2069. Business start 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 settlement to defend the rights of motorcycle riders. FDCH Press Releases (n. d. ) armed services & 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 Tra ffic 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 mathematical function Laws and Increased 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.