Pitt News stance on helmet laws ill-considered

I am writing in response to a [June 18] editorial regarding the helmet law in Pennsylvania…. I am writing in response to a [June 18] editorial regarding the helmet law in Pennsylvania. I’ve ridden motorcycles for almost as long as I’ve driven, and I can say with total certainty that repealing the helmet law is not a great stride forward. In fact, it’s anything but.

I can relate to the large population of riders who feel it’s their God-given right to ride without a helmet. But the notion that these people impose no greater burden on the rest of us is simply wrong. Who pays when a rider’s $10,000 medical insurance, which might pay for an ambulance ride and half a day in the hospital, runs out? If you want to ride without protecting your dome, you should give up the right to any additional aid.

I hope my insurance company changes their policy so that non-helmeted riders receive no medical benefits. The alternative would be a significant rise in the cost of a premium, and I’ll switch in a second to avoid paying for someone else’s reckless disregard for safety.

What about the rider who takes an errant rock to the face? Do you think he’s going to maintain the same level of control over his bike as a helmeted rider? If you’re driving a car and you hit me, I’m much more likely to survive when I’m wearing protective gear. What is the scene going to be like when you tag someone without a helmet, and he or she spills the contents of his or her skull onto your windshield? You’re not going to visit a dead guy in the hospital, and most insurance companies don’t appreciate vehicular manslaughter.

Even for people who don’t ride, I guarantee in the long run that they, too, will pay for this law change. How about the highway driver who tosses a cigarette out his window? I can tell you from experience that it stings and burns, even through a pair of jeans, so what happens when it hits a rider in the forehead?

You would be amazed at the things that collide with your head when you’re driving free of a steel cage and shatterproof glass. I’ve got scuffs, chips and splatters all over my helmet, and the bugs – which many shrug off as harmless – do not seem so mild-mannered when a beetle hits you at 65 mph. I had cuts and bruises from the flying creatures before I bought the ballistic armor, studded gloves and full-face helmet that I wear every time I ride, 105 in the shade or 55 and raining.

Suggesting that helmets could be a safety hazard is nothing short of ridiculous. The trade-off for impaired vision is an infinitely improved level of protection, which is totally negated with a non-full-face helmet.

Rescinding this law frustrates a large portion of the riding community. Many riders are never educated about the different dangers that exist. The notion of “I might die” is entirely too ambiguous to make an impact. Most never take a safety course, and because it’s so easy, some riders never even get their license and opt instead to renew their permit each year.

I understand that editorials are opinion-based, but I hope you’ll at least reconsider your stance on the matter. Riders with helmets are much safer than those without, both for themselves and the people around them. Perhaps I’ll be proven wrong in the long run. Right now, I’m gonna go order a new helmet.

Caleb Wallace is a senior information science major. He can be reached at racerx@csonline.net.