TodayNo smoking, no helmets either
Print
Share
Email to a friend
Add This
Feeds
Editorial
Article RatingIn the realm of personal choice, what individuals can and can’t do is often determined by the state — too often, many citizens contend.
The fact that the rationale the state uses to regulate behavior is inconsistent doesn’t help to reconcile the infringed-upon to their fates.
Every smoker knows by now that Gov. Ed Rendell last week signed into law a bill to ban smoking in many public places and in all public buildings. It goes into effect 90 days from the signing.
The bill is so riddled with exceptions that the American Lung Association refused to endorse it. Nonetheless, the state has taken another leap down the road of regulating personal freedoms.
This is the same state Legislature, give or take a few dozen members, that in 2003 decided Pennsylvania motorcycle riders no longer had to wear helmets.
In reversing the state’s total ban on helmetless riding, this bill also had its exceptions: Riders must be at least 21 and they must have been licensed to ride for two years or take a state-approved safety course before they can exercise their right to choose.
In fighting for the smoking ban, advocates cited the deleterious effects of second-hand smoke on non-smokers and the higher likelihood of disease and death experienced by smokers. It will be years before any study can show these benefits being realized, but we will be awaiting the first results eagerly. We fully expect to see improvements in statistics relating to cancer and cardiopulmonary diseases.
We’re hard pressed to recall what benefits were cited as the helmet-optional law made its way forward.
But last week, the University of Pittsburgh released a study showing that in the two years after helmet use became a choice, the number of motorcyclists dying of head injuries went up 66 percent.
When the mortality rate is adjusted to take into account the fact that motorcycle registrations increased, fatalities were still up by a third. Researchers said the findings mirror studies in other states that show riders are safer when they wear helmets, the Associated Press reported.
Those who still support rider choice when it comes to helmet use say the study doesn’t take into account such considerations as speed, how the accidents happened or whether alcohol was a factor. They also claim it overlooks the number of accidents that didn’t happen because a rider’s vision and hearing weren’t impeded by a helmet.
This all seems irrelevant to us, since the Pitt study also shows that in the same time period, the non-head-injury death rate remained the same.
Clearly, the decision not to wear a motorcycle helmet means also accepting personal responsibility for a greater risk of head injuries in an accident and even death.
Would that it were just a question of personal choice, however.
Just as head injuries rose, the study reports, costs for hospitalization to treat them went up 132 percent. That is a bill that, one way or another, all of us help to foot.
A major part of the rationale behind the new smoking bill is keeping a lid on health care costs in the commonwealth. It is generally accepted that prevention is the most effective means of staying healthy, whether that means exercising, eating right, getting regular checkups or avoiding obvious risk whenever possible.
That was the impetus behind helmet laws when they first came into being years ago.
Twenty states have laws requiring all motorcycle riders to wear helmets, while 27 states have laws that require minors or passengers to wear head protection. Only Iowa, Illinois and New Hampshire have no helmet laws.
There is no sane reason why Pennsylvania should be in the minority on this point. Everyone in a vehicle is expected to use seat belts — in a much more protected environment. Why do motorcyclists get a free ride?
