Pursuasive Paper

Motorcycle Helmet Use Policy Change
Courtney J Woelber
University of Northern Iowa

The morning of September 12, 2011, was a time that motorcyclist Ryan Zaugg will never
forget. He was in a motorcycle accident that hits close to home--on our own Hudson Road by the
Target Distribution Center. Zaugg collided with a car at an intersection. Suffering multiple
injuries, he was sent to the hospital (Magee, 2011). Luckily, he was wearing a helmet, which is
why he will never forget that date, instead of it being engraved on his tomb stone. If Zaugg had
made a different decision that day and decided not to wear a helmet, his life would be a lot
different today. Thousands of Iowans every motorcycle season decide to not wear a helmet when
riding and hundreds of them lose their lives due to crashes without helmets. Sadly, the state of
Iowa is one of three states that does not require motorcyclists to wear helmets, even though a
universal helmet law could lower the motorcycle rider fatality rates by 20-40% (U.S. Department
of Human Services, 2015). Helmets need to be a requirement when riding a motorcycle because
helmets save lives, reduce tax payer bills, and diminish guilt on vehicular drivers.
The instructor for my motorcycle safety course referred to riders who do not wear a
helmet “organ donors” because if the rider is not wearing a helmet and something happens to
them, the likelihood of them dying and not needing their organs anymore is very high. No matter
how it’s stated, helmets save lives. "People who don't wear helmets are two to five times more
likely to suffer head traumas," said Dr. David Palafox, who is an emergency room doctor and a
motorcyclist himself. "There have been many statistics recorded in states that have strict helmet-
use laws, which show up to a 45 percent decrease in head injuries" (Harr, 2016). In 2014 alone,
there were a total of 4,295 motorcyclists who died in crashes nationwide. That number is double
what it was in 1997 (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, 2014). The number of deaths from
motorcycle crashes is on the rise. One way to bring the mortality number down is to legally
ensure that riders are wearing their helmets. The National Trauma Data Bank says, “Helmet

users in motorcycle collisions had lower injury-severity scores, mortality, and resource
utilization than nonusers” (U.S. Department of Human Services, 2015).
If there was a law change and all Iowan motorcycle riders wore helmets, many lives
would be saved, but not all. Wearing a helmet will help save lives immensely, but not all those
who wear helmets are able to be saved from death. There is opposition to this law change by
those who would rather have legal action saying that we need to require people to go through a
safety course, claiming that that would save more lives (Clemmit, 2012). Yes, a safety course is a
great idea and will probably save accidents. However, people go through driver’s education
classes and still get into car crashes. Are those courses helpful? Yes, absolutely, but so are
seatbelts. Seatbelts save lives when the rules of road are not followed correctly. If all drivers
were safe on the road, vehicle passengers would not need seatbelts, but Iowa still requires those.
We should require a motorcycle rider to wear a life saving device too, a helmet because many
lives can be saved by this extra little step, just like wearing a seatbelt.
Even when drivers are as careful as they can be, accidents still happen and medical bills
still need to be paid. In the unfortunate event that a motorcycle rider does get put in the hospital
after an accident and cannot pay for their stay, then who pays for it? The American population.
Tax payers pay for the riders who are in the hospital if they do not have the correct coverage or
need more money to fully recover. Half of all motorcyclists that are admitted to hospitals lack
the health insurance coverage needed to pay for their medical bills, so the public picks up the
extra costs (U.S. Department of Human Services, 2015). The state of California alone paid $40
million through their state medical insurance program for people who had motorcycle-related
head injuries in 1991 before they implemented their current law. After they enforced the new
helmet law, that figure dropped by 40% to $24 million. On average, the charge for a medical bill

for a motorcyclist with a brain injury is twice as high as it is for a motorcyclist that is receiving
care for non-brain related injuries (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration). Requiring
a helmet to be worn by riders will free up those extra millions of dollars for other purposes. The
researchers at the National Trauma Data Bank estimate that the use of helmets could have saved
$32.5 million, over a seven year period, by reducing costs that come with intensive care while
staying in the hospital (U.S. Department of Human Services, 2015). The National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration predicts that the state of Iowa alone during the twelve years
between 1984 and 1996 could have saved $206,019,886 if there was 100% helmet usage. The
citizens of the United States are paying millions of dollars each year to care for motorcycle
drivers with brain injuries. The general public is paying through taxes, insurance companies, and
medical bills of their own being raised, etc. Senator John Cullerton from Illinois said it quite
well, “On behalf of the taxpayers I represent, I must ask: Is it worth spending these millions of
dollars to pay for the wind in the hair of motorcyclists? My answer is no” (National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration). There is no opposition to saving money. Many people simply are
not aware of these statistics and how much money could be saved by a change in policy.
Not only would it save the general public money, but also the feeling of guilt. A Florida
study showed that 60% of the motorcycle-vehicle crashes were caused by the driver of the
vehicle not the motorcyclist (Streeter, 2013). All drivers in an accident could have done
something different to avoid the collision, however, there is only one driver at fault in most
accidents. The majority of accidents that happen with vehicles and motorcycles are not legally
the motorcyclists’ fault. They are the businessmen and women on their way to work, the mom’s
going to soccer practice, high school students on their way to the football game. The ordinary Joe
Smiths like you and me are the ones who are to blame for a majority of accidents with

motorcycles. That means that if a car hits a motorcycle and it’s the vehicle driver’s fault, they are
the ones whose conscience will hold if they seriously injured or killed someone or injured them.
As a vehicle driver, would you rather have a motorcyclists be required by law to wear a helmet
when the collision occurs so they are alive, or suffer with the consequences of a death on your
conscience? One helmet and one law can make a world of a difference.
Helmets save lives, reduce costs to tax payers, and diminish the guilt on the general public,
and yet America still has opponents of this policy change and yet many other developed
countries have no resistance to motorcycle helmet laws. In fact, according to the senior vice
president for communications at the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Russ Rader says,
“The United States is the only advanced country where there is organized opposition to
motorcycle helmet laws.” In general, the public motorists when given a choice to wear a helmet
or not, will choose not to. In states where a choice is given to riders above the age of 21, 73 % of
riders chose to not wear a helmet (Da Corte, 2010). The opposing side claims that it takes away
the purpose of riding a motorcycle; a motorcycle is meant for freedom, to feel the wind in the
hair on the head and feel free. (Clemmitt, 2012) However, say for example, if a crash happens
and the rider has a serious brain injury and cannot walk again, it is a lot more confining to be in a
wheelchair than it is to simply wear a helmet while driving a vehicle that has no other protection.
Which states are opposing this change? The state of Iowa is one of three states in America
that has no helmet law along with Illinois, and New Hampshire. Twenty-one states say that
everyone has to wear a helmet, and 27 states put an age minimum on their law, so that if the rider
is under a certain age, they have to wear a helmet. The states that have a partial helmet law vary
by what age they require, some are 17, and some are 18, while others are 21 (U.S. Department of
Human Services, 2015). Many people think that this is a good idea, to just put a minimum age

limit on the law stating that if the rider is under the age of 21, they must wear a helmet.
However, when a study compared the three states with no motorcycle helmet laws with three
states that had an age minimum on their law, they found that there is, “…no significant
difference in average fatality rate per 10,000 registered motorcycles or helmet use in youth
motorcycle-related fatalities indicating that a partial law has no public health benefit over no law
at all” (U.S. Department of Human Services, 2015). This compromise of only some of the riders
wearing a helmet will not help. In the case of motorcycle helmet laws, it should be all or nothing
according to the statistics, and it would be better to save hundreds of lives by requiring them to
be worn.
The state of Iowa has been compromising. Since the declaration of motorcycle helmet laws
are in the power of the states, the national government cannot do anything to force the states to
pass a helmet law. However, they can give money and reward the states that comply with their
wishes. In 1975, they provided monetary incentives to states that did have a law, and made states
pay a penalty if they did not have a universal helmet law. Thus Iowa did at one point have a
universal helmet law in order to avoid the penalty. In 1976 that original law was voted on again
and was repealed, and since they did not make states pay a penalty, Iowa took away their
universal law (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, 2016). The Secretary of Transportation
has the power to grant funds to any state that has a program to check the helmet usage of riders
with checkpoints for those traveling on a motorcycle. On April 16th of last year, a law was
introduced in the House of Representatives that would like to take the power away from the
Secretary of Transportation to grant funds to those states with a motorcycle helmet law
(Congressional Research Services, 2015). It is of utmost importance that the people of the United

States pressure our congressmen and women to not support that bill. If it does get passed, then
Iowa will have absolutely no incentive to require the use of helmets.
Ryan Zaugg’s life could have been dramatically different today if he had not been wearing a
helmet on September 12, 2011. The point of helmets is to save lives, and they do remarkably
well at that as long as they are actually worn and not on a shelf at home. Requiring people to
wear a helmet causes less tax payer money to be used on medical bills that could have prevented
if a helmet was worn at the time of the accident. Having a law that covers all riders is important
to keep the general public’s guilt at bay in case there is an accident because if a vehicular driver
collides with a motorcycle it most likely will not be the motorcyclist’s fault. Not wearing a
helmet because the rider wants to feel free is a mistake that many will regret in their lives to
come if they are confined to a bed for the rest of their lives. Supporting the idea of a universal
helmet law in Iowa is important for all the drivers on the road because a partial helmet law
simply is not going to make the impact that we need it to. Please support the congressmen and
women that will protect their incumbents with a helmet law.

References
Clemmitt, M., Katel, P., Mantel, B., Weeks, J., (June 1, 2012). Traumatic Brain Injury.
Retrieved from
http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/getpdf.php?id=cqresrre2012060100
Congressional Research Services., (April, 2015). Summary: H.R. 1861—114th Congress
(2015-2016). Retrieved from https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-
congress/housebill/1861?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22%5C%22Motorcycle+Hel
met%5C%22%22%5D%7D&resultIndex=3
Da Corte, J., (February, 2010). Motorcycle Safety and Crashes: Transportation Issues, Policies,
and R&D Series. Retrieved from
http://site.ebrary.com/lib/rodlibrary/reader.action?docID=10670900
Harr, M., Palafox, D., (March 22, 2016). Helmets May Have Eased Injuries. Retrieved
from http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic/
Hutton,L., (March 1, 2016). GMA: Lauren Hutton DescribesMotorcycleCrash.Retrievedfrom
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=127213&page=1
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety., Highway Loss Data Institute., (2014).
Motorcycles. Retrieved from
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/motorcycles/fatalityfacts/motorcycles
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety., Highway Loss Data Institute., (March, 2016)
Motorcycle Helmet Use. Retrieved from
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/laws/helmetuse/helmethistory
Magee, D., (Sept. 13, 2011). Update: Cedar Falls Man Seriously Hurt in Car-Motorcycle

Crash. Retrieved from http://wcfcourier.com/news/local/update-cedar-falls-man-
seriously-hurt-in-car-motorcycle-crash/article_150f6f3e-dd3c-11e0-9c67-
001cc4c03286.html
National Highway Traffic Administration., Universal Motorcycle Helmet Laws Reduce
Costs to Society. Retrieved from
http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/pedbimot/motorcycle/safebike/costs.html
Streeter, Angel., (March 9, 2013). Car Drivers Cause Most Crashes with Motorcycles,
Study Finds. Retrieved from http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2013-03-09/news/fl-finding-
fault-in-motorcycle-crashes-20130309_1_motorcycle-crashes-chanyoung-lee-
motorcycle-riders
U.S. Department of Human Services., (December 2, 2015). Injury Prevention & Control:
Motor Vehicle Safety. Retrieved from
http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/calculator/factsheet/mchelmet.html

Pursuasive Paper

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Pursuasive Paper