Abstract
Helmet laws are suggestive of a societal trend toward the increased formal control of risky behaviors. Applying Tittle's integrated model, this case study sees the intersection of federal cost recovery interests, social solidarity concerns, and views of motorcyclists as “social dynamite” as setting the stage for motorcycle safety issues to become constructed as social problems. A governmental bureaucracy has led numerous helmet law campaigns. Financial burden and public safety arguments are used to justify helmet restrictions. A countermovement argues that helmet laws could lead to a slippery slope of declining freedoms. Implications of the debates between opposing positions are raised.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
