Mandatory Helmet Laws
This is an excerpt from the paper...
In recent years, a controversy has arisen over the issue of whether or not motorcycle riders should be required by law to wear helmets. Those who favor such laws claim that helmets help to reduce the occurrence of head injuries in motorcycle accidents. As such, it is argued that the use of helmets helps in reducing the number of deaths and disabilities which are caused by such injuries. Those who are opposed to mandatory helmet laws claim that the motorcycle rider cannot see or hear properly while wearing a helmet. In addition, the opponents of laws mandating helmets argue that they have a right to freedom of choice in the matter. It is argued that the government has no right to legislate on this issue, and that any attempt to do so is an infringement of personal liberties (Sahagun, 1991, p. A19). At this time, the controversy over motorcycle helmets is essentially a state issue. However, since the 1960s, the federal government has also been involved in one way or another in the debate. For example, the federal government has proposed various laws which would require a reduction in highway funding for those states which "fail to pass mandatory helmet laws for motorcycle riders of all ages" (Heard, 1989, p. 11). Currently, there are more than twenty states which have instituted laws similar to this federal proposal. Those states impose fines and other punishments on motorcyclists who are caught riding on the public streets without approved safety helmets on their he
. . .
ad-injured victims is approximately $4.5 million (Sussman, 1991, p. 67). In the words of the Journal of the American Medical Association, "disability related to the nonfatal injuries is extensive, and much of the cost is borne by the public" (Sosin, Sacks and Holmgreen, 1990, p. 2398). Because of the large number of motorcycle accidents with head injuries which occur each year, the burden to taxpayers caused by this problem tends to quickly add up. Estimates for the state of California, for example, indicate that "it costs California taxpayers $65 million to $100 million annually to treat people for brain damage sustained when they were injured in motorcycle accidents while riding without a helmet" (Sahagun, 1991, p. A19). Thus the general view of the pro-helmet faction is that laws requiring their use "would save society millions of dollars and prevent thousands of deaths" (Heard, 1989, p. 12).
Those who are opposed to laws requiring helmets complain that the helmets can be very expensive. From this perspective, it is argued that the government has no right forcing motorcyclists to make an expensive purchase against their will. The opponents of mandatory helmet laws also claim that riders cannot see or hear properly while we
. . .
Some common words found in the essay are:
Sacks Holmgreen, Estimates California, , Safety Act, Billy Idol, Medical Association, A19 Instead, Heard Republic, Utah Illinois, helmet laws, Patricia Holmgreen, mandatory helmet, mandatory helmet laws, motorcycle accidents, head injuries, 1991 a19, holmgreen 1990, sahagun 1991 a19, freedom choice, sahagun 1991, american medical association, sacks holmgreen, federal government, sosin sacks holmgreen, sacks holmgreen 1990,
Approximate Word count = 1781
Approximate Pages = 7 (250 words per page)
More Essays on Mandatory Helmet Laws
|
Customer Service
to Over
32,000 Professionally Written Papers!!!
