The enactment of universal helmet laws has been an ongoing issue for quite some time. Back in World War II Hugh Cairns a neurosurgeon from the British side of the army began studying the effects wearing a helmet had on his soldiers after one of their men died after being in a bad accident while unhelmeted. His research went to prove that wearing a helmet does in fact reduce the risk of severe brain injuries (Jones and Bayer). In 1966, Congress passed a Highway Safety Act that said every state must enact a universal helmet law and if they fail to do so by a certain date, ten percent of their states federal highway construction fund will be withdrawn. By 1975, all but three states complied to these terms. However, in 1976 Congress amended the act. Individuals not only advocate for universal helmet laws because they prevent death but to promote safety, as well as reducing the societal burden the lack of helmets have. However, the act was primarily amended because of opposing lobbyists who were gaining traction with their infringement argument the law posed. Due to safety concerns and societal impacts, all motorcyclists should by law be required to wear a helmet.

Individuals advocate for the enactment of universal helmet laws because it promotes public health, safety, and welfare of not only the motorcyclist but as well as society. According to Adam Eltorai et al, “Federally mandating motorcycle helmets in the United States”, motorcyclists account for less than three percent of all registered vehicles, while constituting fourteen percent of all traffic-related fatalities. Motorcyclists are also 30 times more likely to die in a traffic-related crash than individuals in a car, for each mile traveled. It is clear to see that there is a major public health concern that needs resolved. Unhelmeted motorcycle accidents have a large societal impact. Kurt Nolte, “Motorcycle Policy and the Public Interest” reviewed research conducted by a level two trauma center that had 1,738 motorcyclists transported in from accidents and 760 of them were unhelmeted riders. 

It is easy for people in society to think motorcyclists are irresponsible but the riders’ actions have no effect on their life, however, this happens to not be the case. From the level two trauma center data, fifty-nine percent of the motorcyclists were either unhelmeted, uninsured, or both. Also, Patrick Carter says unhelmeted motorcyclists have a forty percent greater chance of fatality and are fifteen percent more likely to end up with a traumatic brain injury. So, the money that goes to fund these motorcyclists’ injuries who chose to be ignorant and ride without their helmet comes from the public. Each individual in society who has a paying job suffers the consequences of these motorcyclists. In a single year, the economic cost of motorcycle-related crashes total over $12.8 billion nationwide (Eltorai). This is society’s money that could be used elsewhere that would benefit the individuals who are paying into the system, instead the individuals money is paying for motorcyclists’ injuries, injuries that have a sixty-nine percent chance of being prevented by wearing a helmet. Unfortunately, the societal consequences do not stop there, the motorcyclists’ injuries result in increased insurance rates, tax rates, and lost tax revenue. Most people in society would argue that insurance rates as well as tax rates are already high enough and if they have the opportunity to prevent the rising rates as well as promoting safety it is well worth it.  By advocating for the enactment of universal helmet laws, society is preventing the consequences of death for the motorcyclist and the grief his/her family will face. In addition to taking the societal burden off that motorcyclists impose.

The enactment of universal helmet laws also receives negative attention. Individuals who advocate against the law are usually lobbyists who are motorcycle riders. According to Marian Jones, “Paternalism and Its Discontents”, lobbyists present two well developed arguments. The first argument being, helmet laws violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The second arguing, helmet laws constituted an infringement on motorcyclists’ liberty and it is an excessive use of police power under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Back in the 1970s after the first universal helmet law was enacted, lobbyists were expanding into larger groups becoming stronger and having a larger impact in court setting which helped get the helmet laws repealed. William Greene, “Legislating Self-Risking Behaviors”, says as motorcyclists were appealing as a public threat, motorcycling without a helmet was emerging as a social problem. A lobbyist group called ‘A Brotherhood Against Totalitarian Enactments’, argued in court that the universal helmet laws were against the Ninth Amendment that states no law shall be enacted that regulates the individual’s freedom to choose his personal actions and mode of dress so long as it does not in any way affect life, liberty, and happiness of others (Jones and Bayer). It is clear that lobbyists were relentless in getting the enactment of universal helmet laws repealed and their relentlessness paid off. Right now, there are only twenty states that have universal helmet laws enacted, twenty-seven states have a partial helmet law in place, while three states have absolutely on helmet law enforced at all (Carter). To lobbyists it is not about making the right choice but rather having the freedom to choose.

Both sides of the public health concern; the individuals who advocate for the law as well as the individuals who oppose the law both present well-formed arguments as to why they believe in either the enactment or the repeal of universal helmet laws. Theoretically, if all of the evidence to support both sides of the argument in this public health issue was erased, and the government simply said, it is morally right to have helmet laws enacted universally, the majority of the society would agree that it would be moral to enact universal helmet laws for the self-explanatory reason of safety and helping to protect motorcyclists lives. Therefore, the answer seems quite easy, enact universal helmet laws to promote the safety and welfare of motorcyclists and their families. Unfortunately, it cannot be that easy and this is where the problem is present in the governments choice of action. Since there are two sides to the public health concern, legislation has tough decisions they are faced with, it is almost guaranteed that the actions they take in which they believe will better society will eliminate the beliefs of the opposing argument. This is how the public health issue arose in the beginning. Thus, even when legislation carefully considers each debate and the moral values at stake they are bound to anger the opposing argument. 

Although individuals who advocate for the enactment of universal helmet laws are a larger group than those opposing universal helmet laws, the motorcyclists who oppose the law have proposed a strong argument as to why the enactment is morally wrong. However, it is arguable that the party who opposes the law is simply looking to achieve the greatest happiness of themselves such as feeling free when riding without their helmet and feeling the wind go through their hair because there is simply no greater feeling when riding (Eltorai). On the other hand, the individuals who are advocating for the law are advocating to prevent traumatic brain injuries, death, societal damage, and the loss of a loved ones, which is hardly disagreeable. 

There is a solution to this public health concern and it is in the works of being enacted in certain states. As enacting a universal helmet law has been enacted and repealed so many different times, a new partial helmet law is currently being worked on. Instead of requiring motorcyclists to wear their helmet, legislation is requiring them to hold responsibility in their choice of riding unhelmeted. It is rather simple, instead of imposing on the rider and their individual freedom, legislation will allow them to have the choice of riding helmeted or unhelmeted. However, riding unhelmeted will come at a cost. This means when motorcyclists go to register their motorcycles they have to specify if they are a helmeted or unhelmeted rider and if they choose to be unhelmeted they have to pay an upfront fee that will take the burden off of society and holds the motorcyclists responsible. This partial law not only emphasizes on fairness and personal responsibility but is core values in the conservative and liberal view (Eltorai). This solution can be successful as it appeals to the people advocating for the enactment of universal laws because motorcyclists will think more seriously about their decision to ride unhelmeted which in turn may make them wear their helmet because they don’t want to wear a helmet and it also promotes the welfare of the society. This proposed solution also reduces the argument that lobbyists have as they still have the choice to ride without their helmet, therefore, legislation nor society is infringing upon their rights which eliminates their argument. 

The enactment of universal helmet laws has many more positives than the repeal of the law. The amount of lives that will be saved from universally enacting such a law is substantial, evidence can be seen from states that enforce a helmet law. However, from the research that has been conducted, universally enacting these laws have caused an uprising from motorcyclists who believe it is morally wrong to enact laws due to an infringement on personal liberties. Therefore, a novel partial helmet law that holds riders accountable will have positive effects on society as well as motorcyclists. Although it does not guarantee that every rider wears their helmet or is required to wear their helmet, it will make motorcyclists more aware of their decision to ride unhelmeted. It will also make them think if it is truly worth paying the upfront fee to risk their life and possibly never see their family again. In turn, more motorcyclists will choose to ride helmeted. Also, as time goes on, I think a substantial number of riders will become helmeted due to being held responsible and seeing the detrimental damage it has on the motorcyclist as well as the family. 
