Synthesis #1 Read or examine carefully the sources that follow; you should keep in mind the validity of the documents, as well as their relevance to the prompt. Then write a well-organized essay in which you include citations from at least four of the sources. You have extra time on this section to study the sources and organize your thoughts. Support, refute, or qualify the following statement:
This is a “synthesis question,” which asks you to generate an essay based on documents (like a DBQ.) Take a stand; use the evidence; get to clarity.
―A motorcycle rider who does not wear a helmet is a civic disaster: unpatriotic, uncivil, and obnoxious. I only regret that helmet laws do not carry prison sentences for violation. Imagine the wing of the prison where those people are housed. Half the inmates would be brain-injured droolers in wheelchairs, and the rest would be able-bodied but dumber.‖ ---James John Myerson Document 1
How Safe Is Motorcycling? note: on the AP Comp exam you will have an extra 15 minutes to read for the synthesis prompt. For this exercise, you will be given an extra 25 minutes for the reading phase.
Motorcycle accidents comprise a significant number of accident-related fatalities each year, approximately eight percent, even though motorcyclists represent a minority of drivers (a mere two percent) on the road. Because motorcycles lack the weight and bulk of automobiles, as well as certain safety features like a roof, airbags, and seatbelts, motorcyclists suffer from a higher rate of injury and fatality in accidents. If you or a loved one has suffered injury or death in a motorcycle accident, you may be eligible to seek compensation for your losses and suffering. A qualified attorney can help answer questions and determine the best course of action. A Few Facts Motorcycles provide little protection in a crash. As a result, approximately 80 percent of motorcycle accidents end in injury or death compared with 20 percent of automobile accidents. Furthermore, motorcycle accident fatality rates are on the rise with the most recent statistics showing a 55 percent increase in recent years. What Are The Causes Of Motorcycle Accidents? While the causes of motorcycle accidents are wide ranging, causes can include the following: · Limited visibility at intersections due to buildings, parked vehicles, shrubbery, etc. – 70 percent of all motorcycle accidents occur at intersections. · Road hazards such as potholes, oil slicks, puddles, debris, and uneven pavement. · Invisibility of motorcyclists – The motorcyclist is undetected by other drivers on the road. · Motorcycle defects, especially fuel system leaks, which present an increased risk of fire in the post-crash phase. · Weather – Rain, snow, hail, etc. can lead to decreased visibility and hazardous driving conditions. What Should I Do If I Have Been Injured In A Motorcycle Accident? In order to ensure that your rights are protected, it is important to gather and save all pertinent documentation including the contact information of everyone involved in the accident, insurance information, and a copy of the police report. You should also seek medical attention if necessary and keep a copy of your medical records. If you are considering filing a legal claim, it is important to keep in mind the statute of limitations, which will limit the amount of time you have to file your claim. Motorcycle accidents can, and often do, result in injury or death. If you or someone you love has been injured or killed in a motorcycle accident, you may wish to consult with an experienced attorney who can explain your legal rights. Please contact us to speak with a qualified and experienced motorcycle accident attorney FREE of charge. www.onlinelawyersource.com/personalinjury/
Document 2
Document 3
FIGURE 1— Florida motorcycle registrations, motorcycle rider deaths, and travel miles for all motor vehicles, 1994 to 2001. Source. Florida Fatality Analysis Reporting System and the Federal Highway Administration.
Document 4
Evaluation of the Repeal of the All-Rider Motorcycle Helmet Law in Florida August 2005 Robert G. Ulmer and Veronika Shabanova Northrup National Highway Traffic Safety Administration September 2002- February 2005 Abstract
Effective July 1, 2000, Florida eliminated the legal requirement that all motorcycle riders wear helmets. State law now requires helmet use only by riders under the age of 21, or older riders who do not carry at least $10,000 of medical insurance. Observational surveys and crash reports indicated that helmet use dropped substantially following the law change. Motorcyclist fatalities increased by 81 percent comparing 2001-2003 to 1997-1999, compared to +48 percent nationally. Non-fatal serious injuries began increasing in the first six months of 2000, increased by 32 percent in the first year following law repeal. There was a 40 percent increase in the number of injured motorcyclists who were admitted to hospitals. Admissions for head injuries increased by 82 percent. The average head injury treatment cost increased by almost $10,000, to $45,602. In 1998 and 1999, the acute care hospital charges for head-brain-skull principal injury cases per 10,000 registered motorcycles were $311,549 and $428,347 respectively. The comparable figures for 2001 and 2002 were $605,854 and $610,386, adjusted for inflation. Time series analysis showed a statistically significant increase in fatalities while controlling for changes in motorcycle registrations. Similar analyses also showed significant increases for Kentucky, Louisiana and Texas. Florida crash reports also indicated that helmet use declined markedly among riders under age 21, who were still covered by the law. Fatalities in this age group nearly tripled in the three years after the law change. Comparing the 30 months before and after the law change, there was an increase of 55 percent in the average annual number of motorcyclists killed (181 to 280, respectively). Registrations increased an average 33.7 percent in this time period. Some of the increases in fatalities and other injuries in Florida were probably due to this increased ridership. The expected number of motorcycle fatalities as a result of the increase in registrations was 242. The actual number who died in 2002 was 301, 56 (+24 percent) more motorcycle fatalities than expected as a result of increased registrations alone. Nationally in 2001 and 2002, motorcycle miles of travel declined compared to earlier years. Given the large registration increase in Florida, it is unlikely that this national pattern held in the State.
Document 5
Florida Statutes Annotated Title XXIII Motor Vehicles Chapter 316 State Uniform Traffic Control Section 1. Subsection (3) of section 316.211, Florida Statutes, is amended to read: 316.211. Equipment for motorcycle and moped riders (3) (a) This section does not apply to persons riding within an enclosed cab or to any person 16 years of age or older who is operating or riding upon a motorcycle powered by a motor with a displacement of 50 cubic centimeters or less or is rated not in excess of 2 brake horsepower and which is not capable of propelling such motorcycle at a speed greater than 30 miles per hour on level ground. (b) a person over 21 years of age may operate or ride upon a motorcycle without wearing protective headgear securely fastened upon his or her head if such person is covered by an insurance policy providing for at least $10,000 in medical benefits for injuries incurred as a result of a crash while operating or riding on a motorcycle. (4) No person under 16 years of age shall operate or ride upon a moped unless the person is properly wearing protective headgear securely fastened upon his or her head which complies with standards established by the department. Section 2. This act shall take effect July 1, 2000.
Document 6 Re: Are unhelmeted riders really costing us an arm and a leg? By James - 11/10/2006 Someone on a forum I participate in, while discussing helmet laws, brought up the frequent lament of those in favor of mandatory helmet laws. Insurance rates and taxes will go up as more unhelmeted bikers are a burden on the public healthcare system. I wondered how much the ―burden‖ was and wanted to put it into perspective, so I did a little research. Unhelmeted riders cost taxpayers $853 million last year. The United States spent $1.9 trillion on healthcare in 2004. Unhelmeted riders accounted for .00004% of the spending. For comparison, caring for smoking related health problems cost the government $12.9 billion or .007%. That is more than 150 times more costly. Here are some more numbers I found around the web: Obesity costs the government $7.7 billion in healthcare expenses Alcohol costs the government $12.2 billion in healthcare expenses Medicaid fraud costs the government $140 billion in healthcare expenses Now I am all for reducing waste, but the argument that unhelmeted riders are a burden on our healthcare system is a weak one. When it is put into perspective with other more costly activities it seems to be a pittance. Whether or not you are for or against helmet laws, I hope you find this data useful. American Riders blog
Document 7
United States Freedom Fighters/BOLT (Bikers of Lesser Tolerance) of California Regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #218 (FMVSS 218) By Steve Bianco Helmets Meeting Federal Standards Reduce Hearing Ability: Helmet designs which come down over the ears undeniably diminish a rider's hearing. When survival on the streets is contingent to the full capacity of all senses, the fact that FMVSS 218 does not prohibit a helmet from covering the ears, or diverting airflow or engine noise in such a way as to disrupt clear hearing, is yet another failure in the standard. For these first two reasons alone Canada has rejected the so-called safety benefits of full-face helmets is most situations. Helmet Weight Tires The Rider: The effect of the weight of a helmet on the ability of a rider to maintain a high level of movement to insure their safety with regard to other traffic is to make even that act more difficult. With nothing in the standard to support the contention, NHTSA claims in their literature that a helmet must weigh at least three pounds to meet their standard. The fact of the deterrent of such additional weight on the riders neck was acknowledged when California passed legislation to exempt government employees from helmet use in three-wheel vehicles. http://www.usff.com
Helmets Meeting FMVSS 218 Impair Peripheral Vision: The peripheral vision requirements of FMVSS 218 call for only 105 degrees per side (see Figure #1). This falls so short of the defensive driving needs of a motorcyclist that in 1974 the California Highway Patrol initiated an amendment action against the standard (in the absence of anything more than voluntary usage) arguing in favor of a greater 120 degrees per side requirement. NHTSA denied the request by the CHP virtually without consideration. As you look at Figure #1, notice that the angle of "minimum peripheral vision clearance" is measured from the center of the forehead -- which would apply only to those riders with three eyes, or to the mythical cyclops. No one we have ever met has one eye in the middle of their forehead. The actual amount of peripheral vision from the eyes themselves, then, is considerably less than the 105 degrees per side indicated in the drawing. It is not unreasonable to conclude from this drawing (and a little common sense) that the FMVSS 218 standard creates a sidevision impairment just slightly less then that of horse-blinders. Heat Build-up Inside A Helmet Endangers A Rider: In the warmer climates, the inability of the body to dissipate heat through the top of the head -- as is mother nature's plan -- can cause faint or dizzy spells which can result in loss of control over a motorcycle where nature's cooling system would not. Helmets Act As A Trap For Flying/Stinging Insects: One of the less frequent, but nonetheless reasonable, ways that helmets can actually cause an accident comes in the form of the manner in which flying insects are captured, aggravated, and held inside the helmet by its design. Even with fill face helmets; bees, wasps, and other stinging insects can be trapped by the helmet, even around the neck area of the riders, and deliver a fatally distracting sting. We have been able to confirm that the NTSA has never conducted any crash tests involving testing dummies (designed from human cadavers) to establish their standard. As near as we can tell, they adopted the testing procedures used by the Bell Helmet Company (their pet manufacturer) pretty much as they existed at the time the standard was made. The testing has to do with the use of a headform -- without the neck or body being considered -and seem to consist of protecting this headform without regard to the actual application of the helmet on a human head. Therefore, it is not unreasonable that their standard created products which kill motorcyclists in a myriad of ways that have to do with neck (and other) injury. Helmets Break Necks In At Least Three Ways: The Hangman's Noose Analogy -- A case report by the Naval Safety Center introduced this analogy in the early 1970's in a report entitled "The Cervicocranium and the Aviator's Protective Helmet." The report reads: "The inferior edge of the helmet, when visualized as part of the continuous circle completed by the nape strap and the chin strap, forms a loop that can be likened to a hangman's noose. The analogy might be further extended to include the lesions made about the neck by the straps or the edge of the helmet, paralleling the abrasions and contusions that might be associated with a rope having encircled the same structures. When situated at the side of the head, such a hangman's noose produces fractures of the base of the skull, tending to extend bitemporally through the basisphoenoid." One interesting and compelling aircraft accident investigated by the Naval Safety Center, Norfolk, Va., served to emphasize the practical application of their theoretical exercise. A Navy A-4 jet aircraft experienced difficulties in flight which caused the pilot to eject at an altitude, attitude, and air speed that were within the operating envelope of the ejection seat. Supported by a fully blossomed functioning parachute, however, the pilot reached the ground severely injured and died shortly after the accident, as a result of a transverse laceration of the cervical spinal cord." "The details of the investigation established that the energy responsible for the fatal lesion was transmitted through the helmet and its inferior edge, into the neck. A vertebral dislocation resulted, which in turn severed the spinal cord." This is undoubtedly what happened to McAfee. A blow to the side of the helmet, mild as it may have been, was just enough to have broken his neck and damaged his spinal cord sufficiently to have left him helplessly crippled. It is interesting to note that the very same type of impact was survived by Gary Bussy, who now claims that helmets save lives. It is interesting to consider that had Bussy been wearing a helmet when his head hit the curb, the combination of chin strap and helmet may have left him crippled for life, or even dead, rather than just mildly (relative to fatally) injured -- with only questionable brain damage as the end result.
2. The "Helmet Fulcrum" Scenario -- In this study, the principles of engineering are studied as opposed to NHTSA's obsession with "head count" figures -- figures that will ultimately say whatever NHTSA wants them to say. The "head count" method of evaluating helmet safety used primarily by NHTSA to support their standard has no place in the professional practice of safety engineering. There is no need for accidents to occur in order to establish foreseeability so that corrective action may be taken. The "helmet fulcrum" investigation was initiated by preparing an illustrative drawing (Figure 2). An average man was drawn showing extension of the articular assembly, which constitutes the head-neck assembly. It can be seen that even in normal extension the helmet has met the cervical column at the third and forth vertical vertebrae and acts as a fulcrum to resist or oppose the force of translation of the head relative to the thorax. This translation of the "helmet fulcrum" scenario means as force is applied to the front of the helmet and the head is forced back, the victim’s neck is either sheered severing the spinal cord and instantly killing the victim, or the spine is hyperextended and the chances of total paralysis and lingering death are certain in most instances. In general, helmet design emphasis has been placed on cranial impact protection together with product appearance and cost factors -- particularly in relation to the FMVSS 218 standard which we have already described as being formed virtually by the Bell Helmet Company, and merely adopted to suit their needs by NHTSA's engineers. No one we have contacted, especially Holt, has been able to confirm that this "helmet fulcrum" scenario has ever been considered, much less plausibly rejected, by the NHTSA safety engineers. 3. Damage To The Brain Stem From The Chin-bar On The Full-face Helmet -- This illustration (Figure 3) has been around for a while, almost long enough that one would think NHTSA would have seen it and done something about it by now -- if their concern were truly rider safety. As the figure indicates, a blow to the chin-bar translates into yet one more way to hyperextend the spinal cord and bring about instant paralysis or death. In most instances helmets used for sporting activities provide the use with cranial impact protection and have reduced injuries and associated deaths caused by these same helmets. A review of the maximum amplitude and velocity of movement of the head to thorax linkage for extension/hyperextension, as related to helmet design, revealed serious design deficiencies in helmets which readily comply with NHTSA's socalled safety standard. It is evident that protection should prevent injuries, not cause them, and protection of one part of the body at the expense of another is not an acceptable design philosophy. In other words, FMVSS 218 sucks! When asked, "Will you guarantee that a helmet meeting these standards will protect a rider in a collision?" NHTSA will answer something along the lines of, "A helmet which passes our performance standards is considered in compliance with the provisions of FMVSS 218, and therefore in compliance with the law." and nothing more. If the issue of whether or not motorcycle helmets are safe ever again comes before the California Legislature, the one person NHTSA does not want to testify on the issue will be Mike Holt. What better reason could there be for all riders interested in ridding themselves of this helmet law to remember the name and location of: Mike Holt, President, Riders for Justice, Loveland, Colorado.