|
 Opponents of helmets claim that these reduce hearing capacity and peripheral vision. Any concrete and credible evidence, however, does not support these arguments. Studies show that full-coverage helmets provide only minor restrictions in horizontal peripheral vision.
Wearing helmet does not restrict the ability to hear horns; the noise generated by a motorcycle is such that any reduction in hearing capability that may result from wearing a helmet is inconsequential. Sound loud enough to be heard above the engine can be heard within a helmet.
Some claim that helmets increase the risk of neck injuries. They often cite a study by J.P. Goldstein as evidence that helmets cause neck injuries, allegedly by adding to head mass in a crash. A study reported in the Annals of Emergency Medicine in 1994 analyzed 1,153-motorcycle crashes and determined that, "Helmets reduce head injuries without an increased occurrence of spinal injuries in motorcycle trauma." Yet another point that will be of interest to all two-wheeler riders, especially in India, is that the use of helmets also leads to a decline in motorcycle thefts. This could be possibly because some potential thieves don't have helmets, and not wearing a helmet would attract
police notice. After Texas state in USA, enacted its universal helmet law, motorcycle thefts in 19 Texas cities decreased by 44 per cent during 1988-1990.
Motorcycle thefts dropped dramatically in some European countries after the introduction of laws that fined motorcyclists for failure to wear helmets. In London, motorcycle thefts fell 24 per cent after Great Britain enacted a helmet law in 1973. The Netherlands saw a 36
per cent drop in thefts in 1975 when its law was enacted. And in former West Germany, where on-the-spot fines were introduced in 1980, motorcycle thefts plummeted 60 per cent. Courts, world over have repeatedly upheld motorcycle helmet use laws. In 1972 a federal
court in Massachusetts, USA, told a cyclist who objected to the law: "The public has an interest in minimizing the resources directly involved. From the moment of injury, society picks the person up off the highway; delivers him to a municipal hospital and municipal
doctors; provides him with unemployment compensation if, after recovery, he cannot replace his lost job; and, if the injury causes permanent disability, may assume responsibility for his and his family's subsistence. We do not understand a state of mind that permits plaintiff to think that only he himself is concerned." The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed this decision.
 Some proponents of safe driver training programmes put forward the argument that these would help reduce accidents, even without helmets. There is no scientific evidence, however, that motorcycle rider training reduces the risk of an accident. Laws requiring motorcyclists to wear helmets are in effect in many countries. Among them
are Australia, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, and the United Kingdom. Victoria, Australia had the first motorcycle helmet use
law in the world. It took effect January 1, 1961.
Without a helmet law only about 50 per cent of two-wheeler riders wear helmets. Helmet use is near 100 per cent when a law requiring all motorcyclists to wear helmets is implemented. World wide it has been established that as the use of helmet has increased, deaths and
injuries in two-wheeler mishaps have decreased. No one will ever claim that helmets alone will prevent or even reduce accidents. A helmet
only reduces the severity of brain damage. It bears the brunt of the impact in an accident. The impact is spread over a larger area and the time lag also reduces the ultimate intensity reaching the brain. Brain damage rather than becoming irreversible becomes reversible.
(to be continued)
|
