helmet laws

Boone has a helmet law. I was stopped again the other day by the man, while riding on a remarkably flat, boring swath of public park path, obviously naked from the eyebrows up. I had no ID available, which usually seems to result in me being released back into society with a mere verbal lashing. I am of course annoyed. Because I chose to ride my bike to the store rather than drive, I am effectively being penalized. Had I provided an ID, I'd be $55 down. If I had chosen to drive without a seatbelt and while talking on a cell, I would never fear any real legal apprehension even though such behavior is equally as illegal and an accident more probable.

Recently, I resurrected the studies from 1984 (Thompson et al) and 1988 (Forester et al) that were apparently used as references in enacting the local helmet compulsion ordinace. I read through them both, reflecting on the methods that I have assimilated into my own apprenticed research and writing, and finishing with mostly an example of what not to do.

Both publications have been widely critisized with respect to research and methods, one was funded by Bell (Forester) and the other (Thompson) used a cohort of less than 50 children and later revised their findings to a much less dramatic set of results. The reader should seek more discussion independently as it's widely documented and discussed. Personally, I found the research stunningly slighted and misguided. I am not surprised that once again policy makers seek what fits from research results, discard the rest and build legislative roads to acheive public behavioral objectives. This seems to be the role that research plays in society anymore.

Regardless, every time I get pulled over for not strapping on the magical force field of styrofoam, I walk away with a few questions that completely transcend the research inconsistencies and efficacy debates:

1. Is the purpose of a law to cause specific public behaviors? It is stated in the ordinance that the law was enacted to encourage helmet wearing. Why can't this apparent public need be met through educational initiatives, etc? The gun people are ruling the country with this argument. Why has this failed with plastic hats?


2. Is it possible to enforce someone's safety? If so, why are unsafe behaviors so inconsistently tolerated? Why are sorority sisters allowed to jaywalk a 4 lane hiway while talking on cell phones and drinking lattes at rush hour (I see it daily)? Why is the speed limit through campus 35 mph at all hours? Why are cell phone text messaging drivers not repremanded for doing so, even when they are pulled over for other violations? Why is it perfectly legal to drive a car in NC on state roads WITH NO DOORS? Yet I must wear a bicycle helmet and this is actively enforced.

Admittedly, there can be little harm done by wearing a helmet and arguably serious harm by not wearing one, albeit improbable. It is 95% a matter of convenience to choose not to wear a helmet. I have no real argument beyond this. Yet the helmet safety perceptions have developed into a social juggernaut. It is currently more socially acceptable to drive 85 mph on the interstate while talking on a cell, than it is to ride down to the store without a bike helmet. There's a public atonement regarding bicycle helmet wearing that belies the very deliberance of riding. I know it is this energy which the Boone helmet law was founded on: It was publicly acceptable, beyond reason, without purpose. Please repeal.