Friday, March 25, 2005 | 3:07 a.m.
Susan Snyder's column appears Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursday and Sundays. Reach her at [email protected] or (702) 259-4082.
WEEKEND EDITION
March 26 - 27, 2005
Tracey Rueth was wearing a helmet when her Harley-Davidson crashed near Mountain Springs on Thursday morning.
The 48-year-old woman and her husband didn't have to wear helmets at home in Wisconsin, which has no law requiring them.
"But these people always wore them anyway," Nevada Highway Patrol Trooper Angie Chavera said just hours after the crash in which Tracey Rueth died after ramming into the rear of a tractor-trailer. Andrew Rueth, riding a separate bike, was not injured.
"Both of them were experienced riders. In addition to using turn signals they used hand signals. They weren't speeding," the trooper said. "It looks like she was looking around and looked away too long."
It was one of those freak tragedies that defy explanation. But helmets do work, more often than not. And that's important to remember as Nevada legislators debate the repeal of Nevada's mandatory motorcycle helmet law this session.
A recent study shows that in the 18 months after Florida's mandatory helmet law was repealed in 2000, 404 riders died in 8,215 crashes. In the 18 months before the repeal, 284 died in 7,077 crashes.
"Helmets do save lives," Chavera said. "With the motorcycle and bicycle accidents we see, most of (the riders) walk away or minimize their injuries if they do wear a helmet."
Eric Jaszcak, a Las Vegas motorcyclist, said he often wore one at home in Minnesota, even though no law required it. He had just driven past the scene of Rueth's crash and was stopped at the Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area's scenic overlook.
"If you want to splat your brains out there, it's up to you," he said. "But it ought to be your choice."
If a guy wants to risk dying on a motorcycle, that's up to him, helmet-law opponents say. But if he doesn't die and has no long-term disability and health insurance, taxpayers end up footing his bills, proponents say.
Highway safety people, silent on the issue in Nevada, are in favor of reducing traffic deaths and injuries by most any means. But how many artificial barriers does the government impose before all personal responsibility erodes?
"People should be more responsible for their actions instead of blaming someone else for them," Jaszcak said.
The 33-year-old has been riding motorcycles since he was 10. He said he takes precautions he considers necessary. A helmet isn't one, all the time. He would ride bare-headed to work, if Nevada allowed it.
"But if I'm going to go out and pound my bike in the dirt, I'm going to wear it all," Jaszcak added, meaning a helmet and a Kevlar suit. He recalled off-road crashes where he most certainly would have died without a helmet.
"But if you want to take the risk, I think it's up to you," he said.
Suppose we withhold publicly funded medical care from people who take the risk. What's next? Do we deny medical care to cancer patients who smoke or withdraw diabetes treatment from people who are obese?
Some answers raise more questions.
Florida riders who don't wear helmets must carry $10,000 of insurance, which can evaporate in the first hour of trauma care. But it's something.
"I don't have any (health) insurance," Jaszcak said. "But I've carried auto insurance for years and never had an accident."
archive
