“We did all we could to save his life, but it wasn’t possible.” This was heard in an emergency room when a motorcyclist didn’t wear a helmet. The answer to this problem seems simple enough: WEAR A HELMET, right? Well, every story has two sides.
Most proponents of a mandatory law requiring that cyclists wear helmets, base their arguments on medical reasons and medical expenses. Who is going to pay for the medical care of a cyclist whose injuries could have been prevented with a helmet?
Opponents base their disagreement on the basis that mandatory helmet laws are unconstitutional: A growing number of Nevada cyclists feel that the state law (requiring that they wear a helmet) violates their 4th amendment right under the guise that a search (which is detention without probable cause) must be conducted to determine if a helmet is “approved by the Department of Transportation .” I’ve also read that cyclists feel the law violates their 10th amendment right and their 1st amendment right to freedom of expression and freedom of association.
Given a similar accident rate, can it be inferred that people who wear helmets suffer the same injuries as do their non-helmet wearing counterparts, but helmet-wearers are more likely to survive and be quadriplegic; and that people who rode with a feeling of freedom, without helmets; did not survive?