Re: “Ride without a helmet? Not at public’s expense” (editorial, 2-5).
I see The News Tribune reacts in a predictable fashion with helmet laws. The 99 percent – car drivers – wish to force the 1 percent – motorcycle riders – to wear helmets. To do this, the societal/taxpayer cost argument is dragged out once again.
The Centers for Disease Control lists the No. 1 cause of head injury and traumatic brain injury as car accidents, including passengers and pedestrians. This makes sense as cars are the 99 percent. Can you imagine the cost reduction in head injuries if all car drivers, passengers and pedestrians were required to wear helmets?
The truth of this is obvious yet will never happen because most people would find the helmet an unacceptable inconvenience. Convenience trumps safety.
In 45 years of riding motorcycles, I have always worn a helmet and anyone who doesn’t is taking a horrific risk. Then again, I mountain climb and ski and don’t always wear a helmet.
There are societal costs to every activity, especially ones considered recreational. A person’s level of risk is his own.
If you want to make an argument for forcing motorcyclist to wear helmets, don’t use the societal/taxpayer cost one. It is invalid, outdated and used up.