| |
This month’s message consists of the following
correspondence between AAA insurance representative
Michael Geeser and me.
---
April 4, 2008
I read the email you sent on behalf of Bruce Arnold
with great interest.
Mr. Arnold makes a lot of strong points. I have no doubt
he sincerely believes what he has written. The passion
he has comes through loud and clear in the response.
In listening to you, your passion for motorcycle safety
comes through as well. I respect you and Mr. Arnold
a great deal for that.
I also consider you an expert when it comes to riding
a motorcycle. I hope our differences on the helmet law
never mislead you the high esteem I hold you in.
The one part of the argument against a helmet bill that
I can't get past was mentioned again in the response.
I believe its one of the cornerstones of the helmet
law itself.
Mr. Arnold states, "that a motorcycle safety policy
based on universal mandatory helmet usage as a means
of crash survival FAILS TO ADDRESS OVER 84% OF ALL MOTORCYCLE
FATALITIES"
If 15.5% ( or 16%) of lives are saved by wearing helmets
isn't that a good thing?
We know a helmet isn't going to save everyone's life.
There isn't a 100% fail proof piece of equipment out
there. We know that. But what I never seem to hear from
anyone is that one death is too many. If we can agree
that a helmet has saved one life, isn't that worth it?
Perhaps with better education, better rider training,
better equipment, better technology and other advances
that number of lives saved will go up over time. I believe
the meeting we held in Carson City and hopefully others
to come is a start in improving motorcycle safety.
But to say, since the helmet doesn't save every life,
every time, we shouldn't have to wear it, is painting
such a broad stroke over the issue, it doesn't make
sense to me.
Anyway, just my thoughts.
I appreciate being able to discuss this issue with you
outside of the legislature and outside of some public
forum where we often get pitted again each other as
arch enemies. I don't see it that way. I believe we
actually see eye to eye on more issues than not.
Look forward to working with you on this.
Thanks,
Michael
---
April 4, 2008
Hi John,
Just to catch up on the latest and greatest with ABATE,
I logged on to your web site.
I thoroughly enjoyed reading your account of the OTS
Motorcycle Safety Meeting in Carson City.
Of course, I wasn't too pleased to read the numerous
misspellings of my name (its Geeser) but we're just
getting to know each other so I'll give you a friendly
pass.
Your account of my reaction to your thought of wearing
a helmet in a car was highly descriptive, "He had
this look of confusion or contemplation."
I guess my surprise to that comment was that you were
comparing cars and motorcycles. I even mentioned that
comment to some of my colleagues when I returned home.
They asked why you said that and I said he was trying
to make a point that helmets are an intrusion and cumbersome.
One colleagues asked, "Surely, he didn't mean to
compare the safety of cars versus motorcycles, did he?"
I said, I don't think so.
Then I read your web site comments and thought maybe
I'm wrong.
At any rate, just wanted to correct you on the spelling
of my name.
Take care,
Michael
---
April 6, 2008
Michael,
Your compliments to me and your expressed interest in
the motorcycle helmet issue really caught me by surprise,
a pleasant surprise I will say. I want to respond to
each of your comments in a manner that will uphold the
respect you say you have for me. First of all I apologize
for misspelling your name; spell check let me down again.
I think it is important to share with you the basis
of my opinions. The older I get, the more patriotic
I become. My father and grandfather fought in our world
wars. I have a cherished daily diary my father kept
during the Battle of the Bulge as the flagship tank
driver under General Patton. The carnage my father faced
to protect our freedoms will forever guide me. The military
has been very successful in protecting our American
freedoms from foreign invasion. The loss of freedoms
in our country is internal, through the congressional
and legislative process. As a citizen of this country
I feel it is our responsibility to protect freedoms
so gallantly fought for by our solders. I don't remember
the exact number, but something like 1,500 bills were
passed last session and you can be assured that most
of those bills took some form of freedom away. When
I am faced with the decision regarding safety verses
freedom I will always lean toward freedom. I would like
to reference a quote from Benjamin Franklin "Those
who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little
temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety".
I want to make it very clear, ABATE is not against the
use of helmets. It is the law that takes a very basic
American right away, the freedom of choice that we oppose.
The value of a motorcycle helmet as an effective safety
devise is too controversial to mandate its use. As Mr.
Bruce Arnold stated in his March 27th letter paragraph
#5 that I forwarded to you states; "New Hampshire
and Iowa, which have no helmet laws, reported fatality
rates of 3.0 and 3.5 per 10,000 motorcycles, respectively,
in 2006. By comparison, the rates in Mississippi and
Maryland, which require helmets for all riders, where
much higher--20 and 12 respectively. In order to prove
that helmet laws save lives, one would need to show
that an increase in helmet usage by motorcycle riders
yields a decrease in fatalities among those riders."
This is also true of our neighboring states of Idaho
and Utah; they do not have mandatory helmet use but
have a lower percentage of registered motorcycle fatalities
than Nevada.
In response to your comment, that if we can agree that
wearing a helmet saves one life isn't it worth it. I
again refer to Mr. Franklin’s quote. The apparent
small amount of safety that is offered by a helmet does
not warrant the loss of a personal right to make a decision
regarding ones own safety. Remember, the decision not
to wear a helmet only affects the safety of the person
that is making the decision. This is not the same problem
as impaired alcohol or cell phone accidents that kill
innocent people that are crash victims because of someone
else’s bad judgment. Michael, it is a reality,
we cannot preserve life. We are all going to die. It
is the pursuit of happiness and quality of life that
is important.
You can tell your colleagues my question is that if
it is believed helmets are a good safety devise for
protecting a head from impact in a motorcycle accident
then why aren’t they worn in cars? Yes, I am comparing
the safety of a car head injury and a motorcycle head
injury. The head can’t tell the difference, an
impact is an impact, whether it be falling off a motorcycle
and hitting the ground or a car windshield that is forced
out of it’s frame and onto the car occupants head.
Because of the higher percentage of cars on our roads,
80% of highway related head injuries are a result of
car accidents. There is no question that it is believed
that helmets in cars are a good idea, every motor car
competition requires the use of helmets. Going around
an oval dirt track in the same direction with a maximum
speed of 50mph is less dangerous than passing opposing
traffic on our highways at 75mph. Don’t miss understand
me, I do not want helmets mandated in cars, I just use
this as another example of the inconsistencies in helmet
usage.
Add all this together and it is apparent there is a
real injustice going on. Motorcyclists are a minority
that has been targeted with unfair prejudice safety
regulations. The majority, who do not ride motorcycles,
believe that saving just one life is worth taking a
small freedom away, especially if it doesn’t affect
them.
Respectfully,
John Bland
|
