Currently there are 19
states, including the District of Columbia, that have universal helmet laws
enacted for motorcycle riders. Only 3
states have no law, with the rest having varying degrees of obligation to wear
one. These helmet laws have a strong relation
to seatbelt laws in the way that paternalism is the principle through which
they were yielded. To argue whether or not states should be allowed to have
laws requiring helmets for motorcyclists, it is necessary to analyze related
laws and their precedents, as well as the principle about which these laws
revolve.
With seatbelts, they are
necessary for drivers and front-seat passengers in every state besides New
Hampshire. There is clearly a large
consensus that enforcing safe choices onto those using our roads is
accepted. With helmet laws, it should
follow the same line of thinking. This
is because both forms of protection significantly increase the chances of
mitigating the effects of a crash. It is
estimated that seatbelts prevent around 75 percent of deaths and 90 percent of
injuries. For helmet usage with
motorcyclists, 7.3 percent of crashes without a helmet result in traumatic
brain injury (TBI), while only 4.7 percent yield TBI when using a helmet. The use of a helmet nearly split the
percentage in half, proving them to be vital to one’s safety much like
seatbelts for automobiles. As both forms
of self-protection fulfill their purpose proficiently, it is only logical to
view helmets in the same way as seatbelts.
This means that not only should states be allowed to enforce this law,
but it is surprising each one has not yet enacted it.
One of the main reasons
people oppose helmet requirements is because they believe it limits their
freedom of choice, which is an issue that arises with all laws based on
paternalism. Paternalism is a principle
characterized by the idea of protecting one from one’s self. Laws following this system include drug
restriction, seatbelt laws, and drinking/smoking age requirements. All of which do in fact limit one’s ability
to choose for themselves whether or not to participate in potentially harmful
actions. Although this principle is
widely accepted and seen through several laws, it is still important to
reevaluate why this is actually ethical.
Though many philosophers, like Mill or Kant, would argue that such a law
is inherently wrong because you are stripping someone of their ability to gauge
for themselves what is right or acceptable for themselves, there is still
reason to accept this principle. Those
in support argue paternalism is warranted in situations where one’s
shortsightedness or impulsivity would make someone want their freedom
restricted, especially in cases involving harmful or irreversible
situations. Since people refusing
certain safety measures become more likely to use them after an incident occurs
as a result of the refusal, paternalism becomes justified to protect one from
the shortsightedness of their earlier self.
In this way, the restriction of choice becomes validated as it works to
maintain the highest overall level of safety, happiness, and well-being of all
involved.
With an indisputable
ability to significantly reduce the severity of injuries during crashes and
paternalism proving to be a rational guideline for law creation, motorcycle
helmet laws appear logical and necessary.
If one were to denounce the ability to create this law, they would also
have to denounce the existence of seatbelt laws, certain drug illegalities, and
drinking/smoking age requirements. It is
obvious those laws hold great precedent over our country’s legal structure, as
a result of their positive effect on all citizens, which is why helmet laws
should not even be of question. Through
the analysis of statistics, related laws and philosophical underpinnings,
states should be allowed and encouraged to require that motorcycle riders wear
helmets.
Sources Consulted:
Link 1
Importance of Helmets
Link 2
Info about current Laws
Link 3
Crash Statistics
Link 4
Seatbelt Laws
Link 5
Paternalism
Comments
Post a Comment