Study on Helmet Law

The UCLA study that claims that “the helmet law saved lives” (Nov. 16) has flaws in it. Looking at the accompanying graph, we see that the death rate had been going down for the two years prior to the helmet law. UCLA chose to assume that without helmet laws, the death rate would not have declined as much. This decline can be attributed to two factors: decreasing motorcycle ridership and the state motorcycle education program. These factors would have the same effect that they have had in prior years.

The actual death rate is still lower. The frequent el nino rains during the first few months of 1992 kept practically all motorcyclists off their bikes. In addition, some stopped riding because they felt that riding with a helmet was a nuisance. If these two factors are taken into account, we would expect the death rate to drop quite a bit in 1992.

PAUL D. BLUMSTEIN

Rancho Palos Verdes

Now that we have saved heads by putting helmets on motorcyclists, can they save our ears by putting mufflers on their tailpipes? Why can’t the vroom vroom become air pollution history?

LEE SPARKS

Hermosa Beach

That motorcycle helmets save lives there is no question. But does saving public money absolve the government’s “the end justifies the means” intrusion on an individual’s right to choose? If you accept this theory, then why not apply this reasoning to something more financially significant. Such as AIDS.

It would be easy to do. Using the motorcycle helmet law, just substitute the words “condom” and “sex” for “helmet” and “motorcycle.” Make sex without a condom against the law.

Ridiculous? Intrusive? Of course. But all we’ve done is change just two words in an already existing law.

Incidentally, only a complete fool would ride a motorcycle without a helmet.

TRENT D. SANDERS

La Canada