Ironic Death of Anti-helmet Protestor

by Jason Giacchino

Media Field Day on Sensitive Subject

It is said that while humor brings insight and tolerance, irony brings a deeper and less friendly understanding.  Tragically, such is applicable in the bizarre case of Philip Contos, a 55-year-old Harley-Davidson rider, who while participating in an American Bikers Aimed for Education (ABATE) ride with close to 600 other participants, was himself fatally injured due to head trauma while protesting against being forced by law to wear a helmet.

While some naturally question the success of the protest in light of the tragic outcome, the raging debate as to whether helmet laws violate the most basic of human rights in decision making seems quite unaffected as a whole.

Not unlike laws that mandate the use of seatbelts in an automobile, detractors argue that it should be an individual’s decision to decide whether or not to protect themselves from the potential risks associated with traveling on public roads.

“And why shouldn’t (such laws) be enacted,” said Professor Miller Steinen of New York’s Traffic Study Division at TBT Laboratories.  “Most states require by law that your car has a windshield to protect occupants from many of the same dangers a motorcycle operator faces on the open road.  Just because the machine in question has fewer wheels, it’s hardly justification to do as one pleases.  Especially when statistically, traffic accidents put the lives of far more than just the victims involved in danger.”

State Senator Gary Forby (D-Benton, Illinois) views the issue from a slightly different perspective, saying, “This is the USA, isn’t it? We do have a freedom; we do have a choice don’t we?”

Many believe that it is difficult to draw the line of acceptability concerning such matters of a state’s influence when it comes to what boils down to “protecting us from ourselves.”  States, after all, can and do require auto drivers to wear seat belts and children to be properly secured in child safety seats. And logically, motorcycle helmet laws are essentially extensions of the same reasoning.

Some states seek compromise to the helmet law debate by requiring operators under the age of 18 to wear helmets, but then they are given the choice to do so afterwards.  The bad news is that even these compromises seem to be met with opposition by many anti-helmet activists as assaults on personal freedom.  Again the lines of debate become muddled when you stop to consider that these same states are often met with minimal resistance in restricting automobile driving privileges for drivers under the age of 18.

In general, we are advocates of the idea that less government intrusion in our lives is a good thing.  Once freedoms are taken, it is extremely difficult to get them back.  Hence, to the logic of many, resisting these concepts before they are put into the judicial system is far more effective than trying to undo the damage of an enforced law.

The sad news is that the irony surrounding the death of Philip Contos seems to be fueling a media frenzy, and providing additional fuel to the fires of those in favor of mandatory helmet laws.  ABATE of New York (the state in which the accident occurred) continues to encourage the voluntary use of helmets, gloves, sturdy footwear and protective garments by all adult motorcycle operators.  Perhaps the following statement can best summarize their take on the whole situation: Mandatory helmet laws do nothing to prevent accidents.