"The motorcyclist was critically injured. He was not
wearing a helmet at the time of the accident ... "
"The driver of the car was cited for operating a vehicle while intoxicated.
The motorcyclist was not wearing a helmet"
How many times have we seen news items like these reporting a motorcycle
accident? Perhaps a better question is, Why do we continue to see articles
like these? The answers to both questions are complicated and
perplexing.
Since the repeal of some mandatory helmet laws, more
and more articles imply that the lack of a helmet not only causes all injuries
a biker suffers, but also causes the accident itself. This line of thinking
is perpetuated by virtually all forms of mass media. From main to California,
from the small town weekly to the metropolitan daily, from cable access channels
to the nightly network news, it seems that whenever a biker crashes, the
first, and seemingly the only, question asked is, "Was he wearing a
helmet?"
A prime example of this phenomenon is the case in
which I was able to obtain a $2.9 million settlement for my injured client.
My client was struck head-on by a car traveling 55 mph whose driver lost
control while adjusting his seat. My client was critically injured, and by
all rights should have died, because his aorta ruptured. Although he was
not wearing a helmet, he suffered no head injuries and never lost consciousness
either during or after the accident. In fact, an accident reconstruction
expert reported that my client could have suffered a neck injury had he been
wearing a helmet. All the local paper had to say was, "One person was injured
in a car-motorcycle accident. The motorcyclist sustained internal trunk injuries.
He was wearing eye protection, but was not wearing a helmet." Why did the
paper describe it that way? Because stories about bikers without head injuries,
even if their injuries are life-threatening, do not sell newspapers.
Another example of this media distortion is the case
of one of my clients whose passenger was killed when a care turned into the
path of the motorcycle. Both driver and passenger were thrown from the motorcycle
and landed in the roadway. Another car following the motorcycle then ran
over the passenger. She died of massive internal injuries. The newspaper
account was slanted to imply that the driver of the motorcycle somehow caused
the accident, and that if the passenger had been wearing a helmet, it would
have magically prevented the trailing car from running over her. In fact,
the newspaper account of the accident failed to cause the true cause of her
death, but clearly stated that she was not wearing a helmet.
Let's examine how the "typical" non-riding newspaper
reader reacts to a "typical" newspaper article about a bike accident. The
first thing he sees is the headline: Local Man Killed. He thinks to
himself, while eating breakfast and drinking coffee, "I wonder what happened,"
so he reads on. He thinks, "Oh, that's terrible" as he reads about how the
biker died at the local hospital shortly after the accident. "Oh, that poor
man on the motorcycle" is his next thought, When he finds out the truck driver
who caused the accident was drunk ... again (three previous DUI convictions)
but when he gets to the last sentence of the article and reads that the
motorcyclist was not wearing a helmet, the newspaper reader thinks, "Oh well,
if he wasn't wearing a helmet then it was his fault."
What causes an otherwise intelligent, logical non-rider
to forget cause-and-effect and blame the victim? The answer is years of
conditioning from the mass media. How many times in magazines, books, television
and films have we seen motorcyclists portrayed as a gang of fat, ugly thugs
whose only purpose in life is to ride into your neighborhood solely to steal
your property, terrorize your family, kill your dog and generally victimize
you? Time for a reality check. The average biker (if there can be such a
thing) is a hardworking man or woman who pays his/her taxes, mows his/her
lawn, does not throw wild parties that last until 5 a.m. in the apartment
above you, and is probably a much more cautious driver than the majority
of motorists.
And yet the media bias against bikers continues. Let's
look at another newspaper article: "John Smith, age 44, died Tuesday of an
apparent heart attack. He is survived by his wife, Mary, and three children:
Billy, 12; Jane, 10; and John Jr., 4." The typical reader reaction to this
story will be different from his reaction to the article about the biker
killed in the accident. Why? Because the reader has been conditioned to respond
that way and he doesn't have all the facts. Funny how the newspaper article
failed to mention that John Smith smoked three packs a day, was 100 pounds
overweight, never exercised, and drank to excess. No one would argue that
these factor probably contributed heavily to the early demise of John Smith,
but why aren't they mentioned in the article? The typical answer would be
that it was John's right to live his life the way he wanted.
How is this different to the biker who chooses not
to wear a helmet? It is not. (Of course this is only applicable in those
states where the government has not already decided this for you. Currently,
25 states have universal helmet laws, while another 22 states have limited
laws, which generally apply to young or inexperienced riders.) And yet, I
have not seen one state legislature pass a bill that makes exercise and weight
loss mandatory. Could you imagine the enforcement of that law? The public
would be outraged. "Excuse me ma'am, but this hight/weight conversion chart
lists your maximum body weight at 145. You look much heavier than that, I'm
going to have to ask you to step onto my scale. If you come up over 145 I'll
have to take you in. Nothing personal ,you know, I'm just doing my job."
As preposterous as this seems, ridiculous scenarios
like it occur on a daily basis in every state in America. An example of this
is the case of one of my clients who was seriously injured when struck by
a pickup driven by a drunk driver. While his injuries were quite serious,
they were limited to his lower extremities. Why, then, did the police report,
hospital records, insurance statements and newspaper article all focus on
the fact that he was not wearing a helmet at the time of the accident? They
seem to suggest that wearing a helmet would not have miraculously prevented
the drunken pickup driver from running a stop sign and crashing broadside
into the bike. According to the mass media, wearing a helmet would have prevented
the biker's legs as well as prevented the bike from being totaled. This is
not only illogical, it serves to further the non-riding public's distorted
image of the biker.
This bias begins at the top of the media organization,
as evidenced by the March 15, 1988, San Francisco Chronicle editorial
in which the editor bashes the California State Senate's Transportation
Committee's failure to pass the mandatory helmet law. The editorial portrays
the Transportation Committee's failure to pass the mandatory helmet law as
the reason why "motorcyclists continue to die and suffer injuries." The editor
also claims that "most of the 4,000 people injured each year in California
as a result of motorcycle accidents were not using helmets. The result has
been California taxpayers had to foot a medical bill that averaged $17,704
per serious accident, or a total of more than $70 million each year."
According to the Chronicle's editor, the average
motorcyclist is not financially responsible, and there is a direct correlation
between the use of a helmet and being involved in an accident. Obviously
this line of thinking is preposterous, but editorials and comments such as
this continue.
Here in Wisconsin, during 1993, nearly one-third of
all motorcycle fatalities involved riders or passengers who were wearing
a helmet. You can bet that the media reports about these helmeted rider
fatalities failed to mention the helmet use.
When will this bias stop? Only when the general public
is educated enough to form opinions based on facts and not based on the image
of how the motorcyclist was portrayed/distorted by the media. There are some
things that you can do to help stop this bias:
If you or a friend are injured in an accident and
the media account automatically mentions the lack of a helmet, but fails
to specify whether there were head injuries involved, call the newspaper,
radio or TV station and question the editor. It could be that the reporter
simply includes this information "because that's the way we've always done
it." Point out to the reporter or editor that helmets are designed to reduce
head injuries; they are not some magical shield that guarantee the rider
will not be injured.
Work to improve the public perception. If asked by
co-workers or neighbors why you don't wear a helmet, tell them that it is
your right to choose whether to wear one, that helmets are only designed
to reduce some type of head injuries, and they also cause problems with
visibility and impair hearing (which is why helmet laws aren't enacted for
motorists, even though 90 percent of the injuries sustained in auto accidents
are head injuries).
Finally, let your peers see you as a reasonable,
responsible person - someone who doesn't "deserve" to be run down by a drunk
driver ... someone who enjoys exercising his right to decide, as much as
they enjoy their right to decide what food to eat, and in what amount, without
fear of bias.
- Michael F. Hupy
Attorney Michael F. Hupy is partner in the law offices
of Jacobson & Hupy, S.C. Jacobson & Hupy works extensively in
representing injured motorcyclists nationwide. Call (800) 800-5678 for more
information.
