Question

From "The Motorcycle Helmet Bill"

Testimony Before the Maryland Senate by Janice Gotec
I respectfully urge you to oppose any legislation that weakens Maryland’s current "all riders" motorcycle helmet law.
Motorcycle helmets save lives and reduce critical head injuries, and laws requiring helmet use have a dramatic life-saving effect. This has been proven in Maryland and every other state where all riders are required to wear helmets. In such states, death rates from head injuries are half what they are among cyclists in states with no helmet laws or laws which only apply to minors. Where helmet [laws] have been enacted, then repealed, death rates for motorcyclists rise in the absence of a helmet law.
This is hardly a fluke; the General Accounting Office, a non partisan research agency of the U.S. Government, reviewed 46 studies of motorcycle helmets and helmet laws, and reported that every study comparing helmeted with non-helmeted crash victims found that helmeted riders had lower fatality rates, ranging from 28 percent to 73 percent lower…
Helmet laws save taxpayers money, too. Studies in six states show that public funds pay up to 82 percent of the costs to treat orthopedic injuries sustained by motorcyclists. A Maryland study showed that acute care costs to non-helmeted riders averaged three times those of helmeted riders…
A partial law is almost as bad as no law at all. Statistically speaking, there is negligible difference in death and injury rates between states with no helmet law and states with partial laws. Because partial helmet laws are difficult for police to enforce, helmet-use rates for all riders remain low in states with restricted helmet laws.
Helmet law opponents love to talk about motorcyclists’ right to decide whether or not they will wear helmets, but some rights are not worth having… To weaken Maryland’s helmet law is to condemn 28 – or more – Maryland motorcyclists to death. That’s a right nobody should have.
Questions to answer:
1. Who is the speaker’s audience?
2. What is the speaker’s claim, or position?
3. Cite one reason that the speaker uses to prove her claim. Cite two pieces of evidence that support that reason.
4. Find another reason that the speaker uses to support her claim. What evidence supports this reason?
5. The speaker anticipates opponents’ arguments in the final two paragraphs. How does she counter these viewpoints?

Answer 1

Janice Gotec's testimony before the Maryland Senate argues against weakening the 'all riders' helmet law, using evidence on fatality rates and economic impact, and counters opponents by emphasizing public welfare over individual choice.

Step-by-step explanation:

Understanding the Motorcycle Helmet Bill Testimony

In Janice Gotec's testimony before the Maryland Senate regarding the Motorcycle Helmet Bill, the intended audience is the members of the Maryland Senate, as they are the decision-makers on legislative matters in the state. Gotec's position is clear: she strongly opposes any legislation that would weaken Maryland's current "all riders" motorcycle helmet law.

To support her claim, she presents the reason that motorcycle helmets are a critical factor in saving lives and reducing head injuries. The evidence she provides includes statistical findings that death rates from head injuries are half in states with mandatory helmet laws compared to those without. Additionally, she cites the General Accounting Office's review, which determined that helmeted riders had significantly lower fatality rates.

Another reason Gotec offers is the economic argument, explaining that helmet laws save taxpayers money because fewer public funds are used to treat injuries sustained by helmeted motorcyclists. This is supported by studies that show up to 82 percent of orthopedic injury treatment costs for motorcyclists are covered with public funds, while a Maryland study found that non-helmeted riders faced three times the acute care costs of helmeted riders.

Lastly, in countering the arguments of helmet law opponents, she suggests that some rights, such as the right to not wear a helmet, can lead to preventable deaths, which is not a right worth having. She emphasizes the projected increase in motorcyclist deaths if the law is weakened, appealing to the responsibility of the Senate to protect public welfare.