Regarding the Aug. 11 Metro article “Motorcycle helmets to become optional?”:
I am a neurosurgeon, and I find the proposed federal legislation to abolish D.C.’s universal motorcycle helmet requirement troubling. The proposal is remarkably difficult to reconcile with decades of medical and public-safety evidence.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reports that helmets reduce motorcycle fatalities by approximately 22 to 42 percent and brain injuries by 41 to 69 percent. Universal helmet laws are associated with substantially fewer motorcycle deaths. Abandoning this requirement represents a deliberate retreat from an established and effective injury-prevention measure.
A helmet absorbs and distributes impact energy that otherwise would reach the skull and brain, reducing the likelihood and severity of skull fractures and traumatic brain injury. Such injuries can leave survivors with permanent cognitive, neurological and functional disabilities.
Protection is not confined to the brain. Full-coverage helmets protect the face, eyes, scalp and soft tissues from direct impact and abrasion against pavement. Facial injuries, road rash, scalp avulsion, permanent scarring and hair loss are not trivial consequences simply because a rider survives.
Proponents frame repeal as a victory for individual freedom. Yet society requires elementary safety measures — seat belts being the obvious example — when overwhelming evidence demonstrates that they prevent death and catastrophic injury. Severe motorcycle trauma affects not only riders but families, emergency services, trauma centers, rehabilitation systems and society.
Taken to its grim logical conclusion, the only predictable public health benefit of encouraging helmetless riders would be more fatal traumatic brain injuries and, consequently, more potential organ donors. That is hardly a rational foundation for public policy.
Paul Kanev, Philadelphia
The writer is a senior surgeon emeritus at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia’s department of pediatric neurosurgery.
I agree with Rep. Derrick Van Orden (R-Wisconsin) and Sen. Tim Sheehy (R-Montana), who introduced bills in the House and Senate that would overturn D.C.’s law requiring all motorcycle operators and passengers to wear a helmet, regardless of age. Wearing a helmet should be optional.
Congress should enshrine that right in federal law, with resulting consequences for the rider’s insurance. If a rider opts not to wear a helmet and suffers a head injury, their insurance should be allowed to deny coverage. And if the rider dies, their life insurance should be nullified. Riders should have the freedom of choice, but no one else should have to pay for their poor decision.
Nell Payne, Washington
My father, after serving as a young doctor in World War II, worked as a pathologist and sometimes as a medical examiner. As part of his duties, he performed autopsies.
His stories about horrific motorcycle injuries he’d seen were legendary as he railed against riders taking crazy risks on their Harleys. But he mostly talked about the riders who suffered brain injuries and would never get a chance to live a full life.
He made me and my sister promise never to get on a motorcycle.
The proposal to repeal helmet laws in D.C. is foolish and medically risky. If you doubt me, check with your local emergency room doctors — or the morgue.
Legislators incapable of taking the wise, long view on what constitutes the best laws to protect citizens from hazardous activities deserve to be rebuked by their colleagues and at the ballot box.
Joan McQueeney, Kensington
Ethics are the speaker’s business
There are many upsetting things in The 7’s Aug. 5 newsletter, “Speaker Johnson says Ethics Committee should carry out Max Miller investigation,” but the most disturbing was a quote from House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana), who said that it is “not my business” to get involved in this ethics issue. Mr. Speaker, you are wrong. You have a solemn responsibility to enforce ethics in the House.
Miller’s alleged transgressions are part of a broader ethics problem facing Congress. And an avalanche of news stories has led to diminished public trust in the institution. One example is the unintended consequence of the 2012 Stock Act. The new transparency of Congress reporting stock trades in turn led the American public to believe that members were enriching themselves through insider information. The recent spate of sexual assault and harassment allegations has also added to Congress’s dreadful image.
Congress cannot respond to these crises with half-measures and by looking the other way. It must address the ethical lapses so apparent to the American public. Congressional leaders for too long have ignored their responsibilities to police their own institution. The vast majority of those in Congress are decent, hardworking public servants. If that truth is to be displayed to the American public, Congress must swiftly take action to restore faith in the legislature by prioritizing ethics reform within the institution.
Bradford Fitch, Washington
Letter submissions
Send letters to [email protected].
Submissions must be exclusive to The Post and should include the writer’s address and day and evening telephone numbers. Letters are subject to editing and abridgment. Please do not send letters as attachments. Because of the volume of material we receive, we are unable to acknowledge submissions; writers whose letters are under consideration for publication will be contacted.
The post I’m a neurosurgeon. Trust me, motorcycle helmets should not be optional. appeared first on Washington Post.
