HERALD POLL: Choices vs. Laws on helmets
(Good arguments on both sides)ABOUT THIS PACKAGE: The Daily Herald published an editorial on Wednesday applauding the Utah County Commission for enacting measures to protect public safety on the Provo Parkway Trail but criticizing its decision to require helmets for anybody on wheels -- such as longboarders and bicyclists. The Commission hosts a public meeting on Wednesday, Aug. 29, at 5:30 p.m. at the County building on east Center Street, Provo, to discuss the question.
Executive editor Randy Wright received a letter from the county Health Department critical of the newspaper. Following is the e-mail exchange with Wright, edited for clarity.
After you read, let your voice be heard. Should helmets be required? Vote at <a href="http://www.heraldextra.com">www.heraldextra.com</a>;.
Dear Editor --
We are sorry to read in your column (August 15, "Helmet Law Goes Too Far") that you care so little for the health and safety of Utah County citizens, and especially children.
A properly fitted helmet reduces the risk of head injury by as much as 85 percent and the risk of brain injury by as much as 88 percent. Bicyclists injuries involving head trauma are 20 times more likely to result in death. In addition to bicycling, skateboarding and longboarding have become very popular sports in Utah. These activities involve speeds reaching between 35-50 mph while traveling downhill (such as in the Canyon). In the Utah County area there have been three fatalities and 31 hospital admissions in the last 18 months as a result of individuals not wearing helmets while longboarding and skateboarding (statistics collected from the UVRMC Emergency Room). In the U.S., boarding injuries account for nearly 50,000 visits to emergency rooms.
There is also the very real cost to individuals and society as a whole in the direct and indirect medical cost, time away from work to care for loved ones, long term care, and pain and suffering of those injured and their families that we should also care about. Helmets are designed to help protect individuals from traumatic brain injuries. When something as simple as a helmet can prevent brain damage that leads to learning and behavioral disorders, paralysis, or death, we feel it important to speak out.
Sincerely,
Lance Madigan and Andrea Miller
Utah County Health Department
Editor responds
Thanks for your letter on the subject of safety helmets -- though you misrepresent the Herald's view. We never said that protective equipment isn't a good idea; the question is one of government mandates when it comes to matters of personal choice.
I am very interested in learning more about the risks. Perhaps you will indulge me in a few observations.
A colleague of mine many years ago at a newspaper in San Diego took a very hard line on bicycle helmets -- a line similar to yours. When I challenged some of his conclusions, he had to admit that the problem really isn't very large. When you attempt to analyze the countless millions of people toodling around on bicycles (children included), you need to include at least the following subsets:
-- total hours spent on bicycles or skateboards
-- riders who injure themselves in any fashion during those hours
-- of those injured, how many receive head injuries
-- of the head injuries, how many are traumatic brain injuries
Your figure of 31 hospital "admissions" in 18 months is less than 2 per month -- not exactly an epidemic. If I take "Utah County area" as a pool of 500,000 people, the rate would [be] roughly 6 per 100,000.
By comparison, the risk of death by taking aspirin or riding in a passenger vehicle is about 11 per 100,000 nationally. That's considerably higher than your figure for longboards and skateboards. And it's deaths, not just hospital admissions.
You also claim that hospital admissions are "a result of individuals not wearing helmets while longboarding and skateboarding." I would appreciate it if you could give me the scientific basis for this claim. I do not believe you can show that John Smith would have avoided a hospital admission had he been wearing a helmet.
Clearly, if one is going to bash his head he would prefer to be wearing a helmet. But gross numbers like "50,000 visits to emergency rooms" across an entire nation of 300 million people doesn't produce a high rate. It's 17 per 100,000 "visits" compared to 11 "deaths" in the case of aspirin and automobiles. Throwing out a number like 50,000 nationally is simply not helpful in understanding the problem.
I am willing to learn. Perhaps you would be willing to present your figures as a frequency per 100,000 population or some other basis that lends itself to comparison to other activities? Compared to many other sources of injury, I believe you will find that serious skateboard and bicycle injuries are infrequent.
I believe something like six bicyclists are killed each year in a collision with an automobile in Utah. That's not a good thing, but it's not necessarily a worrisome statistic given the enormous number of auto/bike encounters. By comparison, about 275 people will die as a result of auto accidents in Utah this year. How many auto accident victims survive with traumatic brain injury I can only imagine. I'm sure you have figures on this. Perhaps automobile drivers should wear helmets.
Randy Wright
Daily Herald Madigan's rebuttal
In my e-mail, I was referring to incidents, not rates. As you are obviously aware, rates are incidents divided by a population with the intent of comparing it to another area with a different population. We weren't trying to do that, nor am I sure we really could -- you can't use a Utah population as skateboards only represent a small portion of the larger population.
The numbers we used were given to us by a Utah Valley Regional Medical Center (UVRMC) emergency room staff member (I believe it was a nurse, but I will have to check on that). "Utah County area" was used because UVRMC sees patients from the entire county, as well as other surrounding areas (especially down south and to the east). This was also not meant to represent ALL cases, as it was only UVRMC, not Orem Community, American Fork Hospital, Payson Hospital, etc.
We are also not trying to suggest number of incidents is as high as motor vehicle injuries. On the other hand it might be interesting to look at if we could look at the rates ... I am sure they are probably nowhere near the same level, but again looking at the number of boarders to the number of drivers, it might be interesting. On the other hand, you do make a point that vehicles are required to meet safety standards and aspirin come in child-proof bottles.
The point we were trying to make is that this law is intended to protect a vulnerable population. This is not a general law for the entire county, but for a specific area where it is known that boarders can reach excessive speeds. While many boarders are experienced and "in control," it is very easy for inexperienced boarders to "lose it" when faced with the more advanced conditions (as seen by the accidents that have occurred). I think it is arguable as well that even experienced boarders could find themselves entering into an unforseen situation and getting into trouble.
The effort here was to protect people while being as unobtrusive as possible. Obviously, no one was happy with the ban. On the other hand, helmets are inexpensive, noninvasive, and effective. We are very much in support of the Commissioners in this action. We were trying to provide a supportive viewpoint in your open forum, and hope that our opinions are considered in this light.
Thank you.
Lance Madigan
Editor's rebuttal
In deciding when to legislate anything for the public good, the proper approach is to look at the degree of public harm -- and that's typically done as a rate to population. If a harm has a low rate or low cost, it should not call forth a law. Otherwise elected officials will be running around reacting to every little thing.
The mere fact that certain sports -- skiing, rock climbing, mountain biking, motocross, ice hockey and others (possibly longboarding) -- have higher rates of injury within their own populations is no argument for regulation. Harm must be shown to extend to the general population and warrants intervention based on the cost to society as a whole.
Certainly pedestrians on the Parkway Trail have a right to expect that they'll be safe from whizzing longboards, and that was a primary reason for the ordinance.
The argument is sometimes made that society picks up medical costs when people are uninsured, etc., but that's not necessarily a good reason for regulation. The cost has to be great enough to justify the heavy hand of government.
It's a balancing act, which is why we have such things as variable speed limits. We can drive faster on a freeway even though the risk of serious injury increases with speed, and even though government could prevent virtually all freeway deaths by lowering the speed limit to, say, 15 mph. A speed limit of 70 mph is something we tolerate, and we accept the costs and injuries associated with it.
Society selects its level of tolerance for all sorts of activities. For example, we are willing to accept a certain murder rate, because we're unwilling to pay for (or accept the presence of) the police state that would be required to guard everyone 24 hours a day.
The fundamental issue is the same with longboarders. Do the public costs of longboarding justify regulation? I don't think so. The government of a free society should be slow to intrude on personal choices. Is the County Commission going to mandate safety equipment that must be used in all sports? I hope not.
The Herald supports the County Commission's measures that mitigate public harms. At the same time, we object to legislation aimed merely at protecting people from themselves.
Randy Wright
WHAT DO YOU THINK?
Should government make a law requiring helmets on the Provo Parkway Trail for riders of longboards, bicycles and other self-propelled vehicles?
Send your comments to dhpolls@heraldextra.com or call 344-2942. Please leave your name, hometown and phone number with your comments. E-mail comments should not exceed 100 words; voice-mail comments should be no longer than 30 seconds. Anonymous and unverifiable responses will not be published.
Comments will be published Aug. 25.
<a href="http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/234454/3/">http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/234454/3/</a>;
What's Related