Born to be Mild

There is something undeniably American about the idea of having the sun upon one’s face, the wind in one’s hair and the wide-open spaces in which to experience it. The thought instantly conjures up images of sailing the high-seas, racing through the old west on horseback, barnstorming in a vintage biplane… or riding a motorcycle on ribbons of endless asphalt into the sunset. It is the definitive vision of liberty and freedom that so many Americans hold close.

Except, that is, when said activity might be “dangerous.” Picture that sailor, cowboy or pilot wearing a Department of Transportation (DOT) approved helmet and the vision of freedom quickly comes apart. Yet in 47 states, some sort of motorcycle helmet law robs America’s two wheeled enthusiasts of this iconic American experience.

We live in a country where liberty is among our stated “unalienable rights.” This “self-evident” truth is so important that it is specifically enumerated in the Declaration of Independence. Boiled down, it is an idea that allows us to do as we please so long as it doesn’t harm anyone else.

Of course, the interaction between government, society and politics is rarely that simple, but there are some cases when it is. Enter the motorcycle helmet law.

Many motorcycle enthusiasts are opposed to these laws on the grounds that helmets are actually an impediment to safety or because the statistics are wrong or somehow misleading. However, the data from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and other organizations is pretty overwhelming - helmets do save their wearers from serious injury and/or death. Granted.

But shouldn’t we be able to determine the level of risk acceptable for each of us?

Those advocating for helmet laws say there is financial harm done to others who had no part in the decision-making process. It is a form of involuntary social welfare granted to those who choose not to take precautions and suffer serious injury as a result. Without adequate medical insurance, society as a whole picks up the tab. It is a valid argument, although hardly unique to motorcycle riders.

The do-gooders who have lobbied for these laws are hiding behind the tried and true “it’s not fair that I should have to pay for your carelessness,” or, let’s just say what they mean, stupidity. But there are a host of dangerous activities that are not regulated - far more than are. Although this is an inconsistent and somewhat myopic argument, it is still true enough. This is a problem when people engage in “risky” activities without adequate insurance - someone has to pay.

Unlike some other “dangerous” hobbies, however, there is a simple and relatively painless way to address the financial cost of those wishing ride without a helmet. Simply add a small surcharge to all motorcycle registrations or licenses to fund an account that pays for those wishing to take the risk. Because all motorcycle riding could be defined as risky, motorcycle riders should not mind funding an account to cover their collective butts - or heads. If it was about money, there is a solution.

But, alas, it is not about money… it is about control and the idea that we, or at least some of us, don’t know what is good for us. There is a not-so-hidden agenda at work here. Those who are absolutely convinced that anyone who would decide to ride without a helmet must surely be insane and as such, must be unable to make rational decisions for themselves. Therefore, it's the government's job to step in and save us from our own stupidity.

The idea is one that extends well beyond two wheels and a motor; it is about who decides what is best for us. Has the government evolved into some kind of nanny that tells us when to wipe our nose and what time to go to bed? Is that what we really want?