Freedom is important to every American Citizen. We cling heartily to the constitution and specifically to the bill of rights, allowing enumerated civil liberties, ensuring as individuals we maintain those freedoms. However, we also collectively determine the law to ensure the safety and well-being of all members of society, providing health and financial parity with decreased overall hardships. Those types of decisions protect the vulnerable or prevent one group or individual from influencing or impacting upon one another; to unburden. Achieving a good balance for everyone is important to the process. It is within this context I wish to make an argument against the changing laws that decrease motorcycle rider helmet use because, in my opinion, it increases the risk for motorcyclists and their families.
Beyond the motorcyclist, there is an even larger societal burden resulting from the crash induced head trauma or death of motorcycle riders. Other road users, governmental institutions, law enforcement agencies, emergency responders, healthcare workers, legal representatives, insurance users, and their extended families can also suffer from the results for years afterward (NHTSA, 2019). The cost associated with reducing rider helmet use is incalculable on society creating long-term systematic expenses unforeseen to individuals but paid for by all. As a motorcycle rider education professional, it is natural to advocate for the use of appropriate motorcyclist Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) to reduce the severity of the injury and possible death during motorcyclist crashes. Of the recommended and agreed upon PPE in the motorcycle world and the safety community serving motorsports, the helmet is the most researched, proven, and advocated prophylactic in the reduction of injury and mortality rates.
Every motorcycle rider education curriculum developed and used in the United States advocates for the use of helmets, as well as other PPE, to reduce the risk of head trauma or resultant death while riding (NHTSA, 2014). These curriculums are currently in use by many of the State Motorcycle Rights Organizations (SMROs), state rider education, U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), motorcycle industry, law enforcement, higher education, and privately owned motorcycle rider education programs. Every curriculum advocates for helmet use because helmets are known to reduce injury as acknowledged by numerous health and traffic safety organizations, primarily based on exhaustive scientific research.
Helmet use for motorcyclists could be compared to the use of seat belts for passenger cars. Although federal safety code first advocated for the use of safety belts in January of 1968, it was not until December of 1984 when New York was the first state to institute a law supporting the federal code. Today, every state but one has enforceable rules on the use of driver and passenger seat belts. The public, over time, has grown to acknowledge the comprehensive research, accepting the value of wearing seat belts, despite a small population speaking against their use. The use of seat belts continues as one of many ways to reduce more severe injury and death, the parallels with recommended and mandatory all-rider helmet use are important to note.
The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) has advocated helmet use since the publishing of the 2000 National Agenda for Motorcycle Safety, suggesting PPE and primarily a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) helmet is the only defense against injury in a crash. Research on the topic commonly cites the Hurt report (1981) commissioned by NHTSA, however much research since that date has reaffirmed those recommendations. The National Association of State Motorcycle Safety Administrators (SMSA) advocates for the same policy (2015). NHTSA’s July 2019 report reaffirms the stance using the 2017 crash data showing a stark contrast between states with and without mandatory helmet laws showing decreased mortality rates where compulsory helmet laws are in place. The World Health Organization advocates for the same, with much agreement from many of the countries who follow the recommendation even in what may be considered more impoverished areas where two-wheel vehicles are more predominant.
Potentially more important to decisions in support of helmet use are the last two decades of research on the effects of Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) in the military communities under the DoD (Lippa, Fonda, Fortier, Amick, Kenna, Milberg, & McGlinchey, 2015). Even more importantly, medically difficult to diagnose, Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE) in the professional sports of Football and Soccer (Omalu, DeKosky, Minster, Kamboh, Hamilton, & Wecht, 2005). The one-piece of PPE which can reduce the severity of TBI and CTE is the use of a helmet and is used to decrease the severity of impact by absorbing energy and decreasing the rotational motion of the brain in the skull. Traumatic impact to the head causes an effect on the brain against the inside of the skull, causing a concussion, bruising, or extreme soft tissue damage. Motorcyclists who do not use helmets, and survive the initial head trauma of the crash, may dramatically increase the risk for the ravages associated with TBI and CTE for the entirety of their lives. Equally so, loved ones or care facilities may have to assist with treatment, the cognitive decline, potential bouts of extreme anger, depression, and the deterioration years before actual death.
Dr. Bennet Omalu (2005), a forensic pathologist who discovered CTE in 2002, battled the NFL for a decade to have CTE acknowledged and change how Football Players approach concussive events and treatment. Hana Walker-Brown (2019) chronicled Great Britain’s Football Association Challenge Cup winner Jeff Astle’s death and the family’s journey to get the association to acknowledge the terrible outcomes of CTE. Her investigative documentary explains how the simple act of heading a soccer ball and impacts and affects the human brain. One should imagine how one blow of the unprotected human brain causes detrimental concussive events while crashing a motorcycle at speeds significantly greater than heading a leather ball or being tackled by someone on a football field to understand the potential repercussions.
The connections between TBI and CTE injury and the trauma caused by not wearing a helmet are easily visible to the concerned. The freedom to choose only treats the symptoms of desire, it does not accommodate the result or outcome of the decision, nor does it alleviate the emotional and financial burdens of the affected afterward. How often do motorcyclists ride at above a simple walking or running speed? How long will it take for the motorcycling community to consider the protection of our stakeholders when rider decisions result in brain jarringly horrible consequences? Why would our governmental leaders remove the one research-validated measure and defense of injury in a crash? Who will be accountable for the effects after the decision?
Repealing laws that decrease rider helmet use is antithetical to scientific research and to reducing injury and death rates. Repealing such laws suspends the individual and societal reasons and does not take into consideration the study and value we should place on human life and the effect on others. Like the lessons with seat belts, TBI, and CTE, we need to embrace the importance of carefully conducted research and make educated decisions that enhance motorcyclist lives sooner rather than later.
A significant amount of the research regarding the effectiveness of motorcycle helmet use and all-rider helmet laws is available at: http://smarter-usa.org/research/helmets-laws/
References
Hurt, H.H., Ouellet, J.V. & Thom, D.R. (1981). Motorcycle accident cause factors and identification of countermeasures, volume 1: technical report. Los Angeles, California: Traffic Safety Center, University of Southern California, 90007, Contract No. DOT HS-5-01160, January 1981 (Final Report).
Lippa, S. M., Fonda, J. R., Fortier, C. B., Amick, M. A., Kenna, A., Milberg, W. P., & McGlinchey, R. E. (2015). Deployment-related psychiatric and behavioral conditions and their association with functional disability in OEF/OIF/OND veterans. J Trauma Stress. 28(1), 25‐33. doi:10.1002/jts.21979
U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (1968, January 1). Title 49 of the United States Code, Chapter 301, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 – Occupant Crash Protection Passenger Cars. Retrieved from https://icsw.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/import/FMVSS/#SN208
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (2000). National Agenda for Motorcycle Safety. (Report No. DOT HS 809 156). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Retrieved from http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/ injury/pedbimot/motorcycle/ 00-NHT-212-motorcycle/index.html
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (2014, November). Model national administrative standards for state motorcycle rider training programs. (Report No. DOT HS 812 071). Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nti/pdf/812071-ModelNatlAdminMotorcycle.pdf
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (2019, December). Traffic safety facts: Lives and costs saved by motorcycle helmets. DOT HS 812 867. Retrieved from https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812867
Omalu, B. I., DeKosky, S. T., Minster, R. L., Kamboh, M. I., Hamilton, R. L., & Wecht, C. H. (2005). Chronic traumatic encephalopathy in a National Football League player. Neurosurgery. 57(1),128‐134. doi:10.1227/01.neu.0000163407.92769.ed
The National Association of State Motorcycle Safety Administrators (2015). Policy 15-01 SMSA personal protective gear – policy position. Retrieved from http://www.smsa.org/SMSA%20PDF’s/Policy%2015-01%20SMSA%20Personal%20Protective%20Gear.pdf
Walker-Brown, H. (2019). The beautiful brain. Narrated by Hanna Walker-Brown, Audible, Audiobook.
