High Price of Gasoline Results In More Motorcycle Fatalities.

As the price of gasoline hovers around the $4/gallon mark, more and more people across the country are turning to motorcycles as a more economical means of travel. According to the US Department of Transportation, the number of registered motorcycles has increased from just less than 4 million nationwide to almost 7 million in the last 10 years.

In the meantime, fewer and fewer states are retaining mandatory helmet laws for motorcycles. Only 20 states today (New York included) mandate the use of helmets, as compared to 47 states in 1975. For whatever reason, many people only use safety devices when they are mandated. In the case of motorcyclists, many refuse to wear helmets even when they are mandated, preferring instead to pay the fines rather than protect their brain. As a result, more and more motorcyclists are cruising the road with the protection of a helmet.

The result of all these unprotected brains cruising the highways at 60 mph+ is predictable. In the last 10 years, the number of fatal motorcycle accidents has tripled from approximately 2,000 per year to more than 6,000 per year.

The point of this article is not to blame motorcyclists for the problem. They have as much right to use the highways as anyone. On any given day of the week there are usually one or two motorcycles parked in our employee lot. I have to admit that riding a motorcycle back and forth to work sounds pretty appealing every time I fill my tank.

My point is that if you choose to operate a motorcycle, no matter how great an operator you may be, the chances of you avoiding a VERY serious injury are substantially increased if you wear a helmet. Here in the Twin Tiers, we represent motorcyclists from New York who are required to wear helmets, as well as our Pennsylvania neighbors who are not.

My personal observation from a very busy motorcycle practice is that helmets save lives. Isn’t that reason enough to wear one?

Thanks for reading,

Adam M. Gee, Esq.
New York and Pennsylvania Personal Injury and Malpractice Attorney
Ziff, Weiermiller, Hayden & Mustico, LLP
303 William Street
Elmira, NY 14901
Phone: (607)733-8866
Fax: (607)732-6062
Email: agee@zifflaw.com
www.zifflaw.com

Share on Facebook

Subscribe to our blog!

6 Responses

Dave de Andrade Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 1:49 am
Adam,

If, for example, people were legally required to wear helmets while driving in automobiles, it is a certainty that lives would be saved.

This is only one simple example — I can easily imagine many, many other simple measures that would save lives.

“Saving lives” is not always reason enough to do something.
Adam Gee Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 6:30 am
Dave - I disagree with the example you have cited (head injuries are not a significant cause of motor vehicle fatalities) but understand your point. The line between the right of the state to interfere in people’s lives and the right of individuals to make their own decisions has always been grey. In order for the state to interfere, it must demonstrate a compelling interest. Let me try to explain why the state has a compelling interest in mandating the use of helmets on motorcycles

It is undisputed that motorcycle helmets save lives. Individuals who fail to wear them are at much greater risk of suffering serious injuries or death. When a motorcyclist who does not wear a helmet sustains a very serious injury, who bears the cost? Not the rider’s motorcycle insurance, as there is no “no fault “insurance for motorcycles, at least in NY and Pennsylvania. So does only the rider who chose not to wear a helmet bear the expense? Hardly! That cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills is spread out to other policy holders of the rider’s private health insurance company, if in fact there is insurance. If not, the taxpayers pick up the tab courtesy of medicaid. When that rider suffers a traumatic brain injury and can never work again, who bears the cost of them going on welfare and receiving Social Security Disability for the rest of their life? The taxpayers.

Now lets say the motorcyclist dies in the wreck. Who bears the added expense of their children receiving SSD because of that death, who bears the expense if the rider’s family has to go on welfare because of the loss of income? Once again, it is the taxpayers on the hook.

It is this significant financial stake, in conjunction with the inarguable fact that helmets reduce the risk of death and serious injuries, that gives the state the right to interfere in your decision making process, much the way they have done with the use of seatbelts. You can thank your significant lobbying efforts for the fact that helmet use has not been tied to highway funds the way seatbelts were, or we would not be having this discussion.

I want to conclude this response by saying that in my experience it is rarely the motorcyclist who is at fault for any multi-vehicle collision in which they are involved. For whatever reason, there is a portion of the motoring public who fails to take notice of motorcycles. That is a reality that every biker must struggle with when making their decision on whether they will wear a helmet.

Thanks for reading,

_______________________________
Adam M. Gee, Esq.
New York and Pennsylvania Personal Injury and Malpractice Attorney
Ziff, Weiermiller, Hayden & Mustico, LLP
303 William Street
Elmira, NY 14901
Phone: (607)733-8866
Fax: (607)732-6062
Email: agee@zifflaw.com
http://www.zifflaw.com
Dave de Andrade Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Adam: The expense to the State from injured, non-helmet-wearing motorcyclists pales in comparison to the expenses directly caused by the State’s tolerance of cigarettes, alcohol, handguns, etc., etc. There is absolutely no comparison in terms of cost to the State.

A “compelling interest” is a sham justification — the State has singled out motorcyclists simply because they have no political power. The activities that are truly costly to society are protected quite efficiently by big lobbies and big business (ie: cigarettes, handguns, etc.) who make big money at society’s expense.

Riding a motorcycle without a helmet is not one of those activities.
Adam Gee Says:
September 4th, 2008 at 6:53 am
Dave - You are absolutely correct about alcohol and tobacco. I disagree with you about firearms, as our right to possess them is guaranteed by the Constitution and already severely limited (and taxed) by the states. The difference is that the State and Federal government have figured out how to make a TON of money off these vices by taxing the hell out of them. Is it enough to cover the damage they cause and the expense it places on society? No way. Does it supply a steady stream of income to governments desperate for exactly that? You had better believe it.

Alcohol was banned once, and that didn’t work out too well. It would not surprise me at all to see an attempt to ban tobacco at some point in the future.

Understand that I am not advocating the mandatory use of helmets, though personally I would never consider getting on a bike without one. I believe in self determination. I also believe that people should make informed decisions, which was the purpose of writing the article in the first place.

So tell us, are you a biker? Do you wear a helmet? What about your friends?

Thanks for reading,

Adam M. Gee, Esq.
Dave de Andrade Says:
September 4th, 2008 at 10:47 am
I am a biker and I do use a helmet. Why? Not to save the State or the insurance companies any money, and not because the State requires it, but only because my head is relatively soft compared to asphalt.
Adam Gee Says:
September 4th, 2008 at 11:07 am
My head is rumored to be harder than asphalt, but like you, I choose not to find out.

The fact that you choose to wear a helmet tells me that you are a rational person. As a rational person, I am sure you can understand why the States would choose to pass laws regulating the use of helmets. But as we have discussed, that doesn’t mean they should.

Bikers should actually consider themselves lucky. In a time when so many of our rights and independence seem to be eroding, the right to ride free of a helmet across this great nation is actually expanding. Whether that is wise, however, is certainly up for debate.

Thanks for reading,

Adam M. Gee, Esq.