Celebrities and Helmet Laws
Please don’t get me wrong–I feel sorry for Natasha Richardson’s husband, children and family. It is a horrible way to lose a loved one. Nobody deserves that. That such a seemingly small accident can lead to a person’s death is utterly shocking.
That being said, this situation brings to light two points:
1) why is it that when celebrities die, people get upset, governments spring to action. How many regular people die from head injuries every year? Not taking away the tragedy of her death of course, but is her death any more tragic than the death of your mother from cancer or the death of your child caused by a drunk driver? These things barely make the evening news, nor do they darken Broadway. “Our” deaths don’t get governments moving. It just seems that celebrities are somehow more important human beings than us regular folks.
2) this unfortunate situation brings up the immediate “Helmets should be mandated!” conversation. Quebec is jumping the gun on it, and no-doubt ban-happy McSquinty will follow suit (ban bare heads, I suppose). The helmet law, of course, is such an utterly useless piece of legislation: if you’re smart, you’ll be wearing a helmet regardless of the law, and if you’re dumb, or don’t want to mess up your hair, well, you don’t wear a helmet, and you risk cracking your head. This may sound crude, but that’s the way it is.
This reminds me of the (great) Jerry Seinfeld. You should know that I struggled with the fact whether I should include this bit or not, because it is funny, and people in general don’t want funny in a time of shock and mourning, and it may sound to some of you like I am making fun of the fact that Ms. Richardson died from a head injury: nothing could be further from the truth. This bit is about helmet laws, not people that die from head injuries:
“…The only thing dumber than the helmet is the helmet law, the point of which is to protect a brain that is functioning so poorly, it’s not even trying to stop the cracking of the head that it’s in…“
Copyright 2010 ERWIN GERRITS. All Rights Reserved.
4 COMMENTS
1 PhantomObserver
1. What made Ms. Richardson’s death tragic was the speed of her deterioration during the 24-hour news cycle; had it been a simple injury, her hospitalization in Montreal would never have gotten off the entertainment pages.
2. There was also no hint of behaviour that could be considered “scandalous,” as there was with Heath Ledger’s death (since prescription drugs were involved). For the Hollywood press, that sort of novelty prompts a move up on the news cycle.
3. The fact of the deterioration’s rapidity prompts the question “why?”, from both reporters, editors and readers. So it’s only natural that answers be sought from subject matter experts on head trauma — some of whom do, in fact, participate in a public agenda for mandatory helmeting. The average news reader can now be said to know a *bit* more about the need for instant examination of a serious head injury, than before Ms. Richardson’s death.
2 Reid
How much do you think we’ll hear about her own responsibility in her death? Apparently, had she sought out medical attention immediately, instead of waiting 4 hours between the accident and hospital addmition, she could have been saved.
http://tinyurl.com/d676ce
3 Erwin
@Reid & PhantomObserver
The problem with head injuries is that they are hidden–a person may feel perfectly fine after a fall, yet inside the brain there’s substantian damage… and a person will decline to go to a hospital if they feel fine. I think PhantomObserver’s comment speaks to that, that in the least this accident can educate people that head injuries are very serious–even if you feel fine–and should be checked out EVERY TIME.
4 Barbara
From the news coverage on Ms. Richardson’s death, I learned something that I didn’t know before – namely, that an apparently minor head injury can have catastrophic consequences, and that every head injury should receive prompt medical attention.
My condolences to Ms. Richardson’s family.
Leave a Reply