InstructionsConclusion and AbstractFollow the directions below for the completion of the conclusion and abstract assignment for Unit VIII. Please used attached paper.Purpose: The purpose of this assig

The Body Revision

George Landry

Columbia Southern University

06/11/2019

The helmets use laws was introduced in 1966 when the federal government added some new requirement for states in order to partake in the interstates highway construction. Each state was required enact helmet use law and driver license requirement for the motorcyclist. If any state fails to enact the laws it was lost approximate 10 percent of their highway construction funds. There were no motorcyclist rights. The focus of the helmet use law was to lower motorcycle-related head injuries and fatalities. The helmets use laws brought some benefits to the states and the community, for example, the law made it possible for the states to receive states construction funds, it helps lower motorcycle-related injuries, reduce the cost of medication, states expenditure on cost and emergencies and improve public delivery in many healthcare centers. The law brought some risk to the users and the states. The law increase risk behavior among motorcyclist, it made politician lose influence after curtailing rider’s freedom. The riders lose freedom of riding without helmets. The riders with eyes problem were at high risk of engaging in accidents, road users were at high risk due to risk riders behavior, the odor discomfort on the helmets, deny repair shop market for repair and selling motorcycle part hence affecting employments level and insurance lost market for motorcycle comprehensive life cover and other liability covers. The debate on these helmet laws is about the dissatisfaction between stakeholders involves and the state's benefits of implementing the laws and it effective in lowering injuries and deaths. The helmet use law brought some benefits to the riders, for example, lowering injuries, reducing family-related medical burden, lowering states expenditure on roadblock and emergencies, reduce hospital supplies. The helmets use brought in some problem for riders with eyesight problem, increased rider risk behavior, not address rider road use risk because a rider can get injured in other body areas and die also due to the high bleed, lowering rider's freedom. The helmet use law plays significant roles towards reducing accidents related to motorcyclist leading to lower mortality rates, low head injuries, lower cost of medication burden to families and other expenditure that might be incurred by the states.

Literature review

Effects of State Helmets laws to Motorcyclist

Motorcycle first entered into the U.S market from the 1940s to 1950 this was after the veteran returned from WWII. They return home with a passion for motorcycles after being introduced to them oversee. The helmets use laws was introduced in 1966 when the federal government added some new requirement for states in order to partake in the interstates highway construction. Each state was required enact helmet use law and driver license required for a motorcyclist. The states that failed to enact the helmets use laws’ were to lose approximately 10 percent of their highway construction funds. The pros of helmets use laws include reducing careless motorcycling, lowering financial burden on medication, reducing states expenditure on emergencies and other related cost and improving public health services The cons of the laws includes injuries attributed to falling while wearing helmets, increase careless motorcycling and effects of the law to other macroeconomics variables. The laws are crucial in reducing accidents related to motorcyclist leading to lower mortality rates, low head injuries, lower cost of medication burden to families and other expenditure that might be incurred by the states.

History of the Universal Helmets Elements

The passion for motorcycling started to grow from 1940 to 1950 after veteran return from WWII. The introduction of helmet use law was first introduced in 1966. During this period, the interstates highway was under construction with massive amounts of federal money from gasoline taxes. The NHSA granted state federal funds to develop a program that targeted to improve traffic safety but those funds were tied to conditions of implementing helmets use laws and motorcycling licensing (Eltorai et al., 2016). The states that had already implemented the helmets use law faced lower accidents than those states that had not implemented. As results, 1989, Senator John Chafee introduced national highway fatality and injury reduction act of 1989.

The act backed the provision of 1966 which made states to implement helmets laws in order to get 10 percent federal highway aid. The states rushed to enact the law to benefits with the funds but other states lobbies behind to repeal the law. The states that repeal the law faces many accidents related to the motorcyclist that those who that never repeal the law for example Georgia (Williams, C., 2011). 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 helmets use 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 Helmets use laws

The pros of these laws include effective accidents reduction in states, reduction on states expenditure on 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 hence lowering states expenditure. 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 reduction on emergency traffic.

Cons of the Helmets use laws

The corns of these laws include imposing risk to rider especially when they falls the weight of the helmets may contribute to motorcyclists breaking 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 helmets use laws enactment was financially driven and that why most states repealed it later when Congress lifted financial incentive to fund interstates highway construction. Even though some states helmets use laws are in operation they are only limited to underage motorcyclist. The disagreements between the motorcyclist enthusiasts groups and lobby group pressured the states to repeal the laws. The motorcyclist enthusiastic fought for their right because the laws curtailed their constitution freedom while other cited the laws as not effective in reducing accidents. Motorcyclist lobby group identified some legal gap in the laws and that why they were able to win in the court. The U.S congress was pressured to the extent of cutting financial incentive which motivated states to adopt the law which contributed to states to repeal the laws. The helmets use laws provides benefits to motorcyclist users and their families, road users and states ta large. The helmets use laws are crucial in reducing accidents related to motorcyclist leading to lower mortality rates, low head injuries, lower cost of medication burden to families and other expenditure that might be incurred by the states.

Motorcycle Helmet Laws: My Support for Helmet Laws

Helmets use laws was introduced for states to receive funding for interstates highways construction. The states were expected to lose approximately 10 percent for failure to enact the law. The states were in a hurry to enact the laws in order to benefit from the states funding on construction. The helmets use law brought in some health benefits to the motorcyclist riders through lowering injuries, reducing family-related medical cost burden, lowering states expenditure on roadblock and emergencies, reduction in hospital supplies. The reason for not use of helmets use is because of it heavy and that why people don't use, causes neck pain, feel the heat on the head when wearing, the problem of vision, increase riders risk behavior for over speeding and lowering freedom of riders. This resulted to rider's controversy where riders advocated for scrapping the state's helmets laws. Others questioned the legality of the laws in court. The resulting pressure made states to lift the limits making the law unconstitutional but still, those not wearing can be fined even though it is optional not to wear helmets.

The reason for supporting helmets use laws is because it helps in reducing the causes of injury-related fatality and disability and head injuries which is a major cause of most death and long term disabilities (Faryabi, Rajabi, & Alirezaee, 2014). Studies reveal that head injuries and death related had significance relationship on accident. Most motorcyclist riders are those around 30 years age or lower which is the productive age group of society. Therefore when a rider develops injuries and disabilities it will have a severe social and economic problem in society. The helmets law helps families save on the cost of medication and other costs of fines which riders pay once police pull them over without a helmet. The hospital reduces expenses on supplies and expansion needs. The supplies include the blood bank, emergency supplies and other supplies needed in the emergency room. States reduce cost relating to responding accident and rushing the injured riders to the hospital. The numbers of the officers assigned to roadblock are reduced so long the law is in operation because people will fear to ride without a helmet.

The reason not for use of the helmet is because the rider complains that the helmet is heavy and sometimes riders are not able to support it. As a results it result in severe neck pain, feel heat when wearing helmet especially in summer, feeling of suffocation when wearing helmets due to odor smell when one sweat wearing helmets, and it cause limitation in neck and head movement and difficult carrying the helmets after use especially when leaving the motorbike outside in the parking area. Rider complains about helmet use laws because it affects their freedom to ride without a helmet on open air even when they don't want to over speed or when riding their bikes in silent streets and valley. The rider complains about the appearance of a motorcyclist when wearing a helmet and how it affects rider vision during rainy days or sunny days. The female riders may not feel comfortable when the helmets interfere with their hairs and makeup. The riders could see well because they don't have helmets that prevent them from enjoying their time (Croce, Zarzaur, Magnotti, & Fabian, 2009).

The rider's freedom violation through the helmet use laws enactment increases debate on the legality of this law were some tries to find loopholes or gaps about the law in order to challenge it in court. The stakeholder affected by this law challenges the provision citing it as unconstitutional because it curtails their bill of right or freedom protected in the U.S constitution. Those challenging the law based their arguments on the merits of the laws and reason for implementing it where some emphasize that the law was financially driven and was not drafted with riders needs in mind because they were not consulted even if the laws were to reduce states related injuries caused by motorcyclist riding. The rider's movements opposed the bill and even pressured the Congress to consider their intention on the helmet use laws. This caused the states to repeal the law that gave rider freedom to the rider without helmets unless one would like to wear a helmet. Some states lift limits on adults but other states made it illegal for children less than 18 years to ride without helmets.

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.

Eltorai, A. E., Simon, C., Choi, A., Hsia, K., Born, C. T., & Daniels, A. H. (2016). Federally mandating motorcycle helmets in the United States. BMC public health, 16(1), 242.

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.

Williams, C, (Mar 17, 2011). The Next Era: A Helmet Law History. Mrf resources library. Retrieved from http://mrf.org/library2/index.php/mrf-white-papers/white-vol3/a-helmet-law-history/