A matter of protection
Strong-headed motorcyclists won a legislative victory. They soon will not be required to wear helmets. It was foolish for the General Assembly and governor to acquiesce to the request to repeal the helmet law. Activists for the repeal claim that the head gear provides little protection yet hampers vision and sounds. Emergency room doctors who tend to bikers after they crash tend to think otherwise and claim the cost to families and societies will rise now that bikers can choose to ride helmet free. Commonsense puts us squarely on the doctors’ side, and a few years of statistics that will be gathered in studying future accidents will bear this out.
In the meantime, the helmet law repeal has renewed the argument that drivers ought not to be told by the government what they can and cannot wear. In fact, the next inroad is the question as to whether seat belt laws aren’t infringing on drivers’ rights. After all a car, truck or SUV provides much more protection in a crash than a motorcycle, so why should Pennsylvania enact laws requiring restraints?
While pondering that question, consider this: During the recent four-day Fourth of July holiday, state police investigated accidents in which eight people were killed. Not a one was wearing a seat belt.