<p>Largely due to the radical Christian right and Ralph Nader, the federal government passed a seatbelt law. Although it may seem to help people, it was in fact detrimental to the general population. Feeling “safe”, people started driving faster and the speed limits rose. Fatalities from moving collisions remained the same, and pedestrian fatalities actually increased!. Now, I am not here to debate the legalities of a seatbelt law (I do find, however, seatbelts to be restrictive and uncomfortable), but rather to debate the constitutionality of the helmet law.</p>
<p>Wow. You must be thinking that I am crazy. Trust me. I am a bit crazy, but I am a rational lunatic. For a cyclist to wear a helmet is actually harmful and even dangerous. There are two main types of injuries cyclists can sustain: a surface injury and what I can an impact injury. Surface injuries are simply scratches and injuries of the flesh. Impact injuries are injuries of the brain. When you fall with a helmet, you may escape the minor scratches and possibly a bump on the head, but your brain’s chance of getting injured is hardly reduced. In fact, it is increased. The helmet does indeed have a slight protective effect, but it multiplies the risk of injury. Peripheral vision and hearing are the essentials of safe biking. A helmet will drastically reduce both. For example, compare America and China. In America, helmets are required, and 1/273 of the population suffer severe biking related injuries, and 1/371 suffer a biking fatality according the National Cycling Association. In China, however, helmets are not even sold in the stores. Peripheral vision and hearing are maximized, greatly boosting overall safety although it does increase the risk of a surface injury somewhat. According to a Beijing survey, only 1/926 suffer severe biking related injuires and a minimal 1/3769 suffer biking fatalies. The facts are clear. Although it is not intuitive, helmets are indeed dangerous.</p>
<p>Now that we have determined the helmet law to have good intentions, but dangerous consequences, let us discuss the legalities of a helmet law. Nowhere in the Constitution is the right of privacy explicitly guaranteed, although it is often inferred from the fourth amendment. This right of privacy, however, has been nevertheless deeply ingrained in our society. The government should not have the power to decide what goes on in a woman’s womb nor should the government possess the power to force individuals to wear helmets, which can pose risk to our health. People deserve the right to choose, especially in the case of helmets which significantly increase risk of severe injuries. These laws, products of conniving politicians after key votes, serve not the general public. This country was founded on the principles of life, liberty, and property. What is life without liberty? What is liberty without property? Penalties for failing to obey this helmet law include a fine that causes financial hardship on individuals. In the case of oppressive government, as Thoreau tells us, “Jail is where the just belong.” Thus, I urge you to follow the steps of Martin Luther King Jr. While the issues we deal with nowadays are nowhere as great as the evils of bigotry and prejudice, we too can follow his footsteps and make a positive difference in the life of others. Refuse to wear a helmet!</p>
<p>Make a difference and send this to your congressman.</p>