Revision of Literature Review and Introduction (see Attached draft for review)Follow the directions below for the completion of the introduction and literature review revision assignment for Unit V. I

Draft of Introduction and Literature Review

George Landry

Columbia Southern University

05/28/2019

Draft of Introduction and Literature Review

Introduction

• • Sentence 1: Introduce the general topic

The topic is about effects of states Helmets laws to the motorcyclist. This law was drafted with an aim of ensuring there is a reduction of accidents and major head injuries.

• • Sentence 2: Pro side (general)

The advantage of this law includes effective in the implementation of the law in states; reduction fuel and medical cost, and other indirect benefits to the public. The public will gain if the law is well implemented to the state as it will help lower accidents and improve public services delivery in the hospital.

Sentence 3: Con side (general)

The law increase risk behavior among riders, curtain freedom of riders, affects those who have problem with visibility as they cannot see well hence it may expose them to accidents hence affecting other road users. The helmet odor brings discomfort to a rider. It denies the repair shop market to repair and sell motorcycle part. The insurance firm loses market when the law is enacted.

• • Sentence 4: Narrow the scope (1)

The law specific discuss the impact of the law on motorcyclist and society

• • Sentence 5: Examples of the narrowed topic

The example of a narrowed topic is on the law effects to motorcyclist users, the road users, society and the police departments. This specifically discussed the impact of the topic to those parties.

Sentence 6: Narrow the scope (2)

Effects of the state helmets law in accidents reduction and its impact on society

• • Sentence 7: Specific controversy

The controversy includes disagreements with motorcyclists lobby groups because it curtails their freedom of cycling and still exposes some to risk behavior.

• • Sentence 8: Pro side (specific)

These areas will discuss specific issues that related to the effect of helmets and accidents where it reduces accidents, death due to head bleeding and injuries and reduce hospital emergencies and hospital cost as well as the cost to states on emergencies.

• • Sentence 9: Con side (specific)

It affects those will eyesight problem contributing to more accidents, increases risk behavior results in more accidents,

• • Sentence 10: The thesis

The states and community will gain through enacting the law as it will reduce mortality rate relating to accidents and severe injuries if enacted in all states

Literature review

Effects of State Helmets laws to Motorcyclist

The Universal helmet law was first enacted in the United States in 1966, in order for states to receive highways construction funding. The states that failed to enact the law lost approximate 10 percent of the state construction funding. The states helmet law has both positive side and negative but the positive side overweighs the negative side. The positive sides include reduce careless motorcycling, the financial burden on medication in case of accidents, make the states lower cost of emergency and hospital traffic relating to accidents emergence which leads to more hospital supplies and demand for more nurses. The negative side includes breaking the neck when one fall while wearing helmets and other effects. The states and the community will gain through enacted of this law as it will lower the mortality rate relating to accidents.

History of the Universal Helmets Elements

The universal helmets law was first enacted in 1966, in order for the states to receive highway construction from the federal government (Croce, Zarzaur, Magnotti, & Fabian, 2009). The politician took advantage of the financial incentive to enact the law but they did not fully support the law because it was putting more regulation to youth an issue that most motorcyclists opposed because they need to have freedom while cycling (Homer, & French, 2009). The main purpose of the law was to lower the death and injuries arising from cycling without helmets. Currently, around 20 states enacted the law while others repealed the law to cover only motorcyclist riders below the age of 18 years leaving other older motorcyclist lover to cycle without helmets or wear helmets at their will.

The controversy of Universal Helmets laws

The law faces several oppositions arising from motorcyclist's enthusiast's groups, the motorcyclist lobby group that take their fight to the court, and the Congress eliminating the incentive for states helmets laws (Jones, & Bayer, 2007). The motorcyclist enthusiast interest increased pressure to the Congress leading to repeal a law that curtailed their freedom. The motorcyclists' lobby group takes their fight to the court hence undermining the implementation of the law or applicability of the law. This is because the riders had freedom of cycling without a helmet before the case was heard and determined. Congress eliminated the financial incentive for states helmets laws hence making many states to repeal the law.

Pros of the Universal Helmets

The advantage of this law includes effective implementation of the law in states; reduce fuel and medical cost, and other indirect benefits to the public (Philip, Fangman, Liao, Lilienthal, & Choi, 2013). The application of universal states reduced the number of severe head injuries ceased by slips and falls especially when motorcyclist rider gets into a pothole. It also contributed to a reduction in mortality rates and many severe head injuries. The law enforcement officer did not have to burn fuel to respond to accidents call all time and other first aid supplies reduced significantly. The indirect benefits to the public include preventing motorcyclists from engaging in careless motorcycling hence protecting other road users. The hospital saved on expenses especially on the need to increase nurses and emergency traffic.

Cons of the Universal Helmets

The disadvantage of this regulation is that it poses safety risks to the rider, for example, in case the user falls the weight of the helmets may contribute to motorcyclists breaking his or her neck. The head and neck may not support the weight of the helmets, especially for children. The helmet may influence careless driving for those wearing helmets because they assume they are protected by the helmet if they fall. Those with a problem with visibility may not see well with helmets which is dangerous to other road users. The helmets offer discomfort to riders because of the sweat which may cause the helmet to have an unpleasing odor. The rider loses a sense of freedom when they wear helmets.

Conclusion

The universal helmets laws enacted was financially driven and that why most states reveal it later when Congress lifted financial incentive to the states to construct a highway. Despite of that many states still have the law in operation and some only lifted for those above 18 years of ages leaving those with the right age to have freedom while cycling. The disagreements between the motorcyclist enthusiasts groups and lobby group placed big roles towards pressuring the states to consider their need. The motorcyclist enthusiastic indicates that the law curtailed their constitution freedom and could not offer safety as they thought because even when a driver falls there is a high chance of breaking a neck.

The motorcyclist lobby group found some legal gap in the law and challenged it in court even though the group lost the case they were able to delay the implementation. The congress was pressured to the extent of cutting financial incentive which motivated states to adopt the law but after cutting the funding the state official repeal it. The law provides benefits such as fewer accidents, low cost, and other indirect benefits. States and the community will gain through enacted of this law as it will lower the mortality rate relating to accidents. The states and community will gain through enacting the law as it will reduce mortality rate relating to accidents and severe injuries if enacted in all states.

References

Croce, M. A., Zarzaur, B. L., Magnotti, L. J., & Fabian, T. C. (2009). Impact of motorcycle helmets and state laws on society's burden: a national study. Annals of surgery, 250(3), 390-394.

Homer, J., & French, M. (2009). Motorcycle helmet laws in the United States from 1990 to 2005: politics and public health. American journal of public health, 99(3), 415-423.

Jones, M. M., & Bayer, R. (2007). Paternalism & its discontents: motorcycle helmet laws, libertarian values, and public health. American Journal of Public Health, 97(2), 208-217.

Philip, A. F., Fangman, W., Liao, J., Lilienthal, M., & Choi, K. (2013). Helmets prevent motorcycle injuries with significant economic benefits. Traffic injury prevention, 14(5), 496-500.