Saving lives the hard way

There are more than 40,000 federal and state regulations controlling the average American cheeseburger, according to the book "Keeping the Republic" by IU professor Christine Barbour. These rules address such important safety issues as the burger's frying temperature to the vitamin content of the bun. Wow, I hear you say. With all of these safety measures on a lowly cheeseburger, can you imagine the legislative precautions that exist for really dangerous activities?\nBrace yourself; here comes the hypocrisy. It was only 12 years ago that Indiana made wearing seat belts a mandatory activity. What's worse, legislators do not require motorcycle helmets for riders over the age of 18. Naturally, lawmakers thought the more dangerous of the two vehicles needed less safety requirements. If the government assumes the responsibility of protecting our safety in one mode of transportation, there is no justifiable explanation for neglecting the other. The Indiana State Legislature must pass a law requiring all motorcyclists to wear safety helmets.\nThe advantages of brain cushioning are painfully obvious. However, it seems they need repeating to the deaf ear of the legislature. First, helmets provide the useful service of keeping your cranium intact when the asphalt becomes too close for comfort. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, this lifesaving Styrofoam reduces the risk of death by 29 percent and lessens the risks of a pesky fatal head injury by 40 percent. Second, motorcycle fatalities are rapidly increasing. According to the same NHTSA report, motorcycle fatalities nationwide rose from 51 percent between 1997 and 2001. The death toll rose from 2,056 deaths to 3,109 deaths in four years.\nBut why do we need legislation? If helmets are so good for you, won't everyone wear them regardless of the law? You might think so, however some people are just plain contrary. A second NHTSA study showed that only 28 to 40 percent of riders wear helmets voluntarily. But nearly 100 percent of riders comply with state helmet laws if they exist. It's a shame that we have to force safety onto people, but sometimes it's necessary. \nOn the other side of the argument are some bikers and motorcycling interest groups. They claim it is the cyclist's right to choose whether or not to wear a helmet. If the quick deaths of these foolhardy individuals affected only themselves, they would be correct. However, we all have a stake in the safety of our nation's motorcyclists. As compassionate human beings, we naturally want to protect and keep safe our fellow humans. Also, anybody that knows a biker would be devastated if he or she died needlessly.\nIf such emotional appeals don't hold water with you, try the callous monetary approach. Tax dollars fund the cleanup of mangled corpses from the roadways. It's much cheaper if a motorcyclist can drag him or herself off the road in one piece.\nIf by chance the crash is non-fatal, a helmet will dramatically decrease subsequent medical bills. The data of one study on the State Legislative Fact Sheet indicated that brain injuries increase inpatient costs 2.75 times. Also, helmets are 67 percent effective when preventing brain injuries. Or, bareheaded riders are three times as likely to break their noodle. \nIndiana did have a completely mandatory helmet law until 1976. Then, the American Bikers Aimed Toward Education, a group that ironically advocates motorcycle safety, successfully lobbied to have the law repealed, according to the ABATE Web site.\nHowever, when the legislature enacted the statewide 'Click It or Ticket' laws a decade ago, it conveniently forgot to reinstate the safety laws for motorcycles. If the legislature is going to be our safety watchdog, it needs to drop the double standard.