169.974. Motorcycle, motor scooter, motor bike:
Subd. 4. Equipment for operator and passenger. (a) No person under the age of 18 shall operate or ride a motorcycle on the streets and highways of this state without wearing protective headgear that complies with standards established by the commissioner of public safety; and no person shall operate a motorcycle without wearing an eye-protective device.
Motorcycle helmet laws have always been a heated argument over how it invades our basic rights of freedom. Many advocates out there including a group USFF (http://usff.com/hldl/hlstatutes/minnesotahl.html) are against the very nature that a law can exist that limits your ability to choose whether or not to protect yourself. it is against the very notion that our country is based on the freedom to choose. What is interesting about this argument is that it is juxtaposed to the seat belt laws. People who firmly believe that thier safety should be left to them. People claim that this regulation is not needed and that it simply allows states to have more power over the people's rights.
This topic is more than a stumbling block, it leads a very stern question; how much regulation is to much regulation? I am for the seat-belt laws, and am an advocate to create a helmet law in Minnesota. Now that my stance is out of the way, I will try my best to give an unbiased view on why such a conflict even exists.
Taking a look at the saftey advocates position, we can see that through statistics alone that helmets save lives. "Helmets are estimated to be 37 percent effective in preventing fatal injuries to motorcyclists. (NHTSA Traffic Safety Facts, Motorcycles, 2006)." That is a little more than 1 in 3 people could be saved in an accident by a helmet. In terms of survival this is an astounding number. "Per vehicle mile, motorcyclists are about 37 times as likely as passenger car occupants to die in a traffic crash and about 8 times as likely to be injured." These are just some of the statistics that the Michigan State Police reported. Facts like this are common in almost every state. Arizona noticed a huge increase in motorcycle deaths after repealing the law in 1977, Eight years later, they reinstated the law and noticed over a 30% decrease in death.
Despite these very powerful statements, many people fight that helmets do more harm than help. Claims that most accident deaths are a direct result of speed and alcohol consumption, not whether they wore a helmet. Also that the helmet restricts the riders view and impairs hearing, causing a decrease in situational awareness. The fact that the state tries to implement a law that cannot be argue these facts, is not for their safety but just to regulate a citizen's freedom of choice.
Being a part of this ongoing issue, it is easy to see where the conflicts arise from. Many people fear regulation, and how far it creeps into their personal lives. Whether or not its safer, they want a choice. They were raised with the belief that they live in a free country. Some look at the advertising that is displayed to them, were most riders are without a helmet, portrayed as rebellious and cool. Being a docile body, they want to willingly accept this idea of what a motorcyclist should look like. They want the leather jacket, Ray-bans and hot girl sitting on the tail seat. That intelligent body is their goal, and the regulation keeps them from achieving what they believe is right.
Advocates of safety are not after their freedom but to save their life if such an accident were to occur. They have no interest in whether or not its a choice, they want to see less mortuaries of riders who wouldn't take care of themselves. They have beliefs that people can be raised wrong, given the wrong information by those that they look up too, or grew up with. Some just don't know or understand the severity of not wearing a helmet, and these laws help protect them by forcing their cooperation.
We have to take a look at where these opinions came from and formed. What part of the hegemony of society has this freedom of choice as a natural law? What part of it comes from the natural sanctity of life? Choice should be a freedom that nature has granted them, and for that they should be given the choice of what they wear on the road. On the other side, they believe that it is only natural to try to save lives of others who could be making rash choices based on wrong beliefs. These two sides, though both are fighting for different reasons, will continue to fight over what is constitutionally right. One fights for freedom, the other for life. It is a complex understanding, after all who wouldn't want to live? However, who wouldn't want the choice of how to live?
No comments:
Post a Comment