Beginning on January 1, 1992, motorcycle riders in California had to wear helmets or risk receiving a moving violation citation. The helmet law was controversial on several fronts, with hard-core motorcycle riders concerned about the loss of freedom that goes with not wearing a helmet, helmet manufacturers interested in an increase in sales and insurance companies concerned both that the helmet law would reduce the seriousness of injuries received by riders while increasing the number of product liability cases that were filed against manufacturers of helmets. This research examines the motorcycle helmet law and considers its economic effects both to individual riders and to society as a whole.
At the heart of the controversy surrounding the helmet law is where an individual's personal freedom to enjoy a leisure activity in the way he desires ends, and the responsibility of that individual to society begins. Helmets are designed to lessen the degree of injuries, or prevent death, as a result of motorcycle accidents. Unlike passenger vehicles, which provide a confined "cage" for drivers and passengers, motorcycles offer little structural protection in the event of an accident. Riders are generally thrown off the bike and head injuries are both common and serious.
Some motorcycle riders cite the increased sense of freedom that they receive when not wearing a helmet, and suggest that since injuries that helmets mitigate occur only to the rider, it should his left to his discretion as to whether or not a helmet is worn. While the argument that the physical injury is suffered by the rider alone, economic injury extends to a larger segment of society.
If the motorcycle rider is insured, the insurance company must pay additional monies as a result of the increased injuries suffered by the lack of a helmet. If the rider dies, the insurance company pays out the life insurance benefit. As a result of these increased claims, ins...