My latest Calgary Herald column looks at the debate over whether Alberta needs a law mandating helmet use for ATVs. I argue that we do not:
...The Alberta government has been promising for almost three years to introduce a law mandating helmet use, but such a bill remains nowhere in sight.
The province quite reasonably says it wants "effective and enforceable legislation", but the ongoing delays have proved even more embarrassing with the release new research on the scope and the cost of ATV injuries in Alberta.
Calgary trauma surgeon Dr. Richard Buckley describes a “disease of bad choices”, which has led to the majority of the 79 ATV-related deaths over the last ten years, specifically young men who ride ATVs helmetless and drunk.
Of course, one-half of that equation already is illegal: the criminal code prohibitions on impaired driving apply to all-terrain vehicles.
If criminal code sanction is not enough to deter foolish young men from consuming alcohol before riding, what makes us think that helmet laws will be any more effective?
For example, despite the fact that Nova Scotia has a mandatory helmet law, a 2002 study found that when it came to those suffering ATV-related injuries, only 16 per cent were wearing helmets.
Conversely, a 2007 study on ATV injuries found that for 2004-2005, B.C. had the second-lowest rate of ATV injury hospitalizations amongst all provinces. This was before B.C. implemented a helmet law.
Ontario had the lowest rate, and yes, Ontario has a mandatory helmet law. However, that didn’t stop Ontario’s ATV-related fatalities from doubling just two years later.
The issue is complex, but the mere fact that a province without a helmet law can enjoy low ATV injury rates while high injury rates can persist in provinces with helmet laws leads one to the inescapable conclusion that such a law is not nearly as effective or important as proponents claim.
There are also those who would look at this issue through the lens of cost, specifically the cost to the health care system – i.e. the taxpayer – from treating ATV injuries.
Dr. Buckley’s study puts the figure for a ten-year period at $65-million, or $6.5-million annually. Whether a helmet law would cut significantly into that is debatable, but any savings would certainly be offset by the costs of implementing and enforcing such a law.
But once we concede that government can and must criminalize behaviour that is likely to incur a cost of some sort to the public purse – behaviour that is not putting anyone else at risk – where does it all end?
Shall we calculate a price tag on the head injuries caused by falls or motor vehicle collisions? Are we really going to mandate helmets for climbing ladders or driving sedans?
How much further should we go? Heavy drinkers and heavy smokers and heavy eaters all exact a toll on the health care system. One remains free to eat, drink, and smoke to one’s content.
What about the cost of, say, treating STDs? Mandatory condom use becomes just as logical as mandatory helmet use when the rationale is based on the mere existence of universal health care.
If anything, one could make an argument that the public health system is part of the problem. Perhaps people might take more accountability for their own actions if they themselves were responsible for the costs incurred by their own stupidity.
Foolish people are always going to make foolish decisions, but the ones which pose a risk to others are the ones which law enforcement need to prioritize. That does not include someone riding an ATV around his property without a helmet. We end up creating the absurd situation in which the offender is both the criminal and the victim.
Protecting people from themselves is the essence of the nanny-state. Helmet laws are a giant step in that direction.
No comments:
Post a Comment