This letter responds to Eric Frana’s letter to the Daily of May 1, 1998. Mr. Frana wrote about the choice to not wear a motorcycle helmet.

I have two things to say. One is about rider’s choice. The second is about “our (American) freedom.”

Riders choice: It is well known that when a person survives a motorcycle accident and sustains a significant head injury, there is a very significant medical bill.

Whatever the population of motorcycle riders might comprise, the bottom line is that the public usually ends up paying the larger part of that bill.

To me, since the public usually foots much of the medical bill in a severe head injury, the public (the legislature) should have a say in requiring use of motorcycle helmets.

This opinion also speaks to Jeff Hughes’ letter when he says “let the people you are targeting decide.”

Since the public is so often targeted as a major payer of the medical bill, it most certainly should have a say in deciding about helmet use.

This does not appear to be a popular opinion. As Jeff says in his letter, one of the last iterations of the motorcycle helmet law to try to wind its way through the Iowa legislature “got dusted so bad” because it included provisions for mandatory medical insurance.

It never had a chance because, among other things, it was discriminatory to a group, the unhelmeted motorcycle rider.

Our (American) freedom: I hope that I have not been presumptuous in adding “American” to Eric Frana’s quote.

I am absolutely no historian, but when I think of freedom, I always think back to the time the thirteen colonies banded together to form a union.

In trying best to maximize their chances of insuring freedom, they, in effect, subjugated some of their individual rights as colonies for the greater good of the larger union.

I wince a little when I hear implied that this country’s freedom means we can do anything we want as an individual, even, possibly, when it treads on the freedom, the feelings or finances of others.

I revere the freedom we enjoy in this country, but tied to this privilege is the assumption that we subjugate some of our individual rights for the good of the whole.

It is this assumption that lies at the heart of many public health issues and regulations.

Public health regulations are a major reason that we are living longer than we ever have before.

Over the years we have told individual farmers how they must treat milk before they send it to market.

We have set speed limits for individuals on highways. We have specified minimum drinking ages for individual adolescents.

We have even required college students to have two measles shots before they come to school.

All of these regulations and laws are examples of giving up smaller individual rights for the good of the whole.

To our health!

---

Mark Blaedel MD

Interim Director

Student Health Center