by Matt Barr

There oughtta be a helmet law!

Predictably, Super Bowl winning quarterback Ben Roethlisberger's near-fatal motorcycle accident has inspired calls for helmet laws. The Philadelphia Inquirer agitates today to reinstate Pennsylvania's helmet law, repealed in 2003:

Bikers who ride without a helmet often dismiss the risks fatalistically - when your number's up, etc. But advances in trauma medicine mean more people survive serious accidents. Accident victims sometimes endure long aftermaths of pain and disablity. And head injuries can be among the most devastating.

The same motorcyclists talk about riding uncovered as a personal matter. Well, it's not. This choice to be stupid can bring expense and pain to their families, others involved in an accident, and society. Those disabled by a horrific accident saddle society with the staggering cost of their medical and nursing care.

Not including Ben Roethlisberger, who's brought down more than half a million in base salary so far in his career plus more than three times that amount in bonuses. But logic aside, it's kind of creepy to argue that unfortunately, some motorcycle accident victims survive. The Inquirer's lead in, ironically, gets it right:

The next motorcyclist who ditches his bike while wearing a safety helmet may owe Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger a hearty thanks.

How so? On Monday, Roethlisberger did a lot to drain the so-called romance and thrill from riding a bike without a helmet.

True enough. But introducing your argument in favor of a helmet law with this tidbit is what trips you up. Because a potentially horrific accident is bound to convince more motorcycle riders to choose to wear helmets, we must change the law. Say what? If you're right, and this very visible example of the idiocy of riding without a helment is bound to have such a positive effect on others' behavior, that's an argument the law need not be changed, isn't it?

This is not unlike Mr. Justice Kennedy saying that because several states have outlawed the death penalty for offenders who were 17 when they committed their crimes, the remaining states can't be trusted to do so and must have that policy choice forced upon them by the Supreme Court.

In both cases, aren't you saying in one breath that the system in place is working and in the next saying therefore it has to be scrapped?

One state over, the Cincinnati Post thinks there oughtta be a law too:

Apparently it hasn't dawned on [Roethlisberger] that cars are a lot bigger and faster than opposing linemen, and hit harder too.

Really? You don't think that's dawned on him?

At one time all states required helmets, but under pressure from those who advocate "freedom" lawmakers in 30 states have rolled back those laws, including in Ohio and Kentucky.

Those scare quotes are scary.

Riders should wear helmets, and if they're not going to, perhaps government should step in and make them.

The Post's statistics for the life- and money-saving power of wearing a helmet are impressive, and as with much of the material in its and the Philly paper's editorials it argues persuasively in favor of the wisdom of riders wearing helmets. But neither piece so much as argues, beyond taking it as a given that if something is a good idea it should be required, why the force of law is necessary or desirable.

That's the unfortunate part of all this. Both editorial boards treat the absence of a helmet law like some bone dad's thrown his teenage son to teach him a lesson. Now that there have been negative consequences, it's time to wag your finger and ask Junior if he's learned his lesson, restoring the status quo.

In this country, there's not supposd to be a dad and a Junior. They're supposed to be the same. Right?

Browse books from Amazon.com: