The Case For No Helmets
|
|
It’s time for the nation’s oldest bike festival. This weekend, 150,000 motorcycle enthusiasts have converged on Laconia, N.H., for the Laconia Motorcycle Rally. Ah, the joys of motorcycling! The throaty roar of your V-twin engine, the call of the open road, the wind in your hair . . . . Wait. Forget about that last part. The riders en route to Laconia won’t feel any wind in their hair. They’ll just feel the rush of air over their plastic helmets — at least until they cross into New Hampshire, which doesn’t require riders over 18 to wear them. Forty-seven states have some helmet requirements. At the rally, plenty of T-shirts will deride motorcycle helmet laws. They’ll sell well. In a survey of 2,500 bikers at the 1993 rally, 98 percent of the respondents said they opposed such laws. This opposition is often dismissed by nonriders as evidence of bikers’ rebelliousness. But we oppose the laws for reasons other than personal freedom. Helmets are not necessarily the life-savers some people think they are. In some cases, they may be killers. Deep in the plush recesses of any helmet approved by the Department of Transportation is a tiny warning label: “Some reasonably foreseeable impacts may exceed this helmet’s capability to protect against severe injury or death.” The unspecified “reasonably foreseeable impacts” are any collisions at speeds greater than 15 miles per hour. The department tests the protection provided by helmets by dropping them on an anvil from a height of six feet. This is equivalent to an impact at 14.4 miles per hour. So if you’re riding to Laconia, keep your speedometer below 15 miles per hour. More : query.nytimes.com |