Letters to the Editor

Your views in 250 words or less

Tag: HELMETS

Feb.
26th

HELMETS: Preventing brain damage is cost-effective

Re: “Study has several problems” (letter, 2-26).

The writer says that a Centers for Disease Control study fails to explain where any savings is gained by requiring motorcycle riders to wear helmets.

Let me explain it. If you fall off your motorcycle and die, from any cause, it is relatively inexpensive for society. If you fall off and survive with injuries other than brain damage, it is a bit more expensive for society. But if you fall off and scramble your brains and live, it is extremely expensive to maintain you for the rest of your life.

That is

Read more »

Feb.
6th

HELMETS: TNT has tired, kneejerk reaction

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

Read more »

Feb.
6th

HELMETS: Legislator can’t be serious about repeal

Re: “Ride without a helmet? Not at public’s expense” (editorial, 2-5).

Your editorial is spot on. I have ridden a motorcycle since I was 16. Forty-five years later, I still enjoy a good ride with friends, but I can’t think of a more regressive piece of legislation than to repeal the helmet law. Surely state Sen. Don Benton can’t be serious.

I can’t find any rational basis as to why the taxpayers should be responsible for lifetime care of a fellow rider so he can feel the breeze go through his hair. Let’s move on to the more serious

Read more »

Feb.
6th

HELMETS: Why single out motorcycle riders?

Re: “Ride without a helmet? Not at public’s expense” (editorial, 2-5).

When I ride my motorcycle, I choose to ride without a helmet wherever allowed. For many years I rode bicycles and never rode without a helmet. I could try and explain the difference, but I doubt the writer of your editorial would understand.

So let me pose this question: Why single out motorcyclists? Shouldn’t we mandate specific safety equipment or requirements for skiers, mountain climbers, boaters, hikers, etc.? Should all of our aged population be required to subscribe to Life Alert? For that matter many of them would

Read more »