Helmets ought to be mandatory gear for cycle riding in Utah
Text 
No comments [ Add Comment ]By PAUL STEPHENS
Guest commentary
S
everal people have written lately concerning their desire to ride motorcycles without a helmet. They insist on their right to choose not to use such basic safety equipment. One writer claimed there was no difference in motorcycle death rates between states with a helmet law and states without.
Their primary argument for this foolish behavior is the mistaken belief that this is a personal choice that affects only the rider. Death in cycle accidents is not the primary measure. If a helmetless rider does not survive a serious crash, his or her family will grieve the loss of a loved one and gradually resume a relatively normal, though lonelier, life.
As Charles Trentelman pointed out in a recent "Wasatch Rambler" column, the real problems begin when the rider sustains a serious brain injury and doesn't die. The decision not to wear a helmet is far-reaching and long-lasting. An honest biker would approach a spouse with, "If I crash and sustain a serious brain injury, will you choose to change my diapers, bathe me, feed me and care for me 24/7 as long as necessary? Will you choose to stay married despite my new abusive personality? Will you choose to bankrupt our family to meet my needs?"
It is easy to believe your health insurance will cover medical expenses. But remember the typical 20 percent co-pay. Who has $100,000 readily available to pay 20 percent of a $500,000 medical bill? Perhaps you could pull it out of an IRA or 401(k). Under that plan, you could end up in retirement living on Social Security Disability Income and a park bench. But cities are doing great things with parks these days.
The typical brain injury accrues expenses in excess of $4 million, most of which is paid by insurance policy holders and taxpayers. Initial acute care; physical, occupational and speech therapies; special education until age 22 (if the survivor is still in school); vocational rehabilitation; food stamps; Supplemental Security Income; Social Security Disability Income, Medicare/Medicaid: These dollars add up quickly and last a lifetime.
Since the biker's choice not to wear a helmet is so important, should health and vehicle insurers also have the choice to refuse payment to someone who rejects this piece of basic safety equipment? Should the general society have the choice to withhold the listed financial supports from a brain injured survivor who chose not to wear a helmet? If not, why not? The effects of choice run deep.
By choosing not to pass a cycle helmet law, our legislators choose to pay the lifetime support costs for permanently disabled brain injury survivors. By choosing not to pressure the state Legislature to pass cycle helmet laws, Utah's taxpayers also choose to pay the taxes to fund these lifetime benefits. Obviously, the consequences and responsibilities of choice are felt far and wide.
The biker's argument that wearing or not wearing a helmet is a personal choice issue is bogus. In reality, wearing a helmet is a personal responsibility issue. All motorcyclists and bicyclists have the personal responsibility to protect themselves, their families and society from the consequences of stupid behavior, and society has the right to require them to do that!
As Mr. Trentelman pointed out, in the matter of helmet laws, our Legislature is dominated by willful ignorance of, and disregard for, the personal and social consequences of lawmakers' failure to require cycle riders to wear helmets. If you care, and if you want some say in controlling state spending, tell your state legislators to dredge up the courage -- a commodity in obvious short supply -- to protect Utah citizens by passing a helmet law.
My arguments and reflections herein are not based upon abstract hypotheticals. They are grounded in 14 years of direct family experience in the life of my brain-injured son.
Stephens lives in North Ogden.
