This month (March 2017), the North Dakota Senate passed , “A bill for an Act to create and enact… a brain injury advisory council.”  Introduced in a bipartisan manner by Rep. D. Anderson (R-06) and Sen. Mathern (D-11), the bill passed the Senate unanimously.

According to the bill, the Council to be created will be comprised of at least one survivor, one family member of a survivor and others, both in government and outside of it.  Beyond the bill’s aforementioned mission, though, the text of the bill says little of what the Council is to do.

However, the North Dakota Brain Injury Advisory Council can take a cue from similar Councils in other states.  For example, in 2007, Washington State enacted House Bill 2055, which created the Washington Traumatic Brain Injury Strategic Partnership Advisory Council, “to bring together expertise from the public and private sector to address the needs and gaps in survivors.”  In 2003, Montana created a council, “to advise and make recommendations to the Governor on ways to improve and develop services [to aid] people with brain injuries and their families.”

It is heartening to see that another state has recognized the importance of its brain injured constituents.  It is just as important to see that it was done in a bipartisan manner, as brain injury doesn’t follow party lines.

During her time in office, South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley said, “[South Carolina] ‘absolutely’ has a responsibility to protect vulnerable adults just as much as it does to protect children.”  In accordance to South Carolina law, in this statement Haley is referring to individuals with intellectual disabilities, autism, traumatic brain injury and head and spinal cord injury.  The comparison of intellectually disabled adults to children may be offensive and ignorant, though common, but during her time in office there was a bipartisan attempt to take responsibility.  For example, during the last legislative year, Senator John Scott (D-Richland) filed a bill that, if it had passed, would have put the South Carolina Department of Disabilities and Special Needs (SCDDSN) in the governor’s cabinet.  This year, just before Haley resigned from her governorship to assume the role of United States Ambassador to the United Nations, state legislators continued their push to support vulnerable adults.  With the bipartisan support of such legislators as Republican Senator Harvey Peeler, the chairman of the Senate Medical Affairs Committee, Scott prefiled a bill similar to that of last year.

The mission of SCDDSN is to, “assist people with disabilities and their families through choice in meeting needs, pursuing possibilities and achieving life goals; and minimize the occurrence and reduce the severity of disabilities through prevention.”  Begun in 1996, the SCDDSN is currently led by seven people, one from each of the state’s seven Congressional districts, who are appointed by the Governor.  The Department has no identified head and some have called it, “the worst-run agency in the state.”  Newspapers also note the allegations of abuse and neglect of the exact people it intends to service.

To some, Scott’s bill seems to be the best available option.  As SCDDSN Commissioner Vicki Thompson says, “Right now, the commission acts like more of an advisory board to the agency, and [I don’t] see a willingness to change on the part of agency officials.”  A director, appointed by the governor, on the other hand, would oversee the department, serving as essentially the CEO and controlling the agency staff.  The commission would then officially become an advisory board.  According to SCDDSN Chairman Bill Danielson, “There are benefits to both the cabinet model and the commission model.”  The question is now which model do those in the state legislature and the South Carolina acting governor Henry McMaster see as best, as making the SCDDSN a cabinet position would mean more visibility, but visibly without action isn’t worth that much.

On Wednesday, January 18, the Arizona House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee made a unanimous call against House Bill 2046, a “helmet law” proposed by Rep. Randall Friese.*  Specifically, the bi-partisan committee voted against a law that would require adults driving motorcycles, all-terrain vehicles or motor driven cycles to wear helmets or to pay a fee into a special trauma-injury fund.

Regarding this rejection, many of the bill’s critics said that what Arizonians need is simply better training.  Another critic, “Rep. Noel Campbell, R-Prescott, who chairs the [Committee], said he personally wears “every piece of equipment you can get on” when he rides his motorcycle. But he said a better legislative approach would be incentives for riders to protect their heads, rather than penalties for those who do not.”  I disagree, rewarding someone just because they are “safe cyclists” is not the answer.  (Should you really be rewarded for not hitting another vehicle?)  The idea proposed by other critics, better and more thorough training for cyclists, may be a better solution.

Note that this is not the first time that the Arizona House has rejected a helmet law, proposed by Friese.  “When [Friese] introduced this bill two years ago, the first thing [he] heard was, ‘It is my right to ride my bike without my helmet.”  However, in his view, “I don’t believe it’s a right. I believe it’s a privilege.”  Whatever it may be, a right or a privilege, riding unhelmeted is irresponsible.

* Rep. Randall Friese, D-Tucson, definitely has a different perspective than many members of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and of the State Assembly at large.  Friese is a trauma surgeon.  Presumptively, he has operated on head-injured motorcyclists.  He has seen first-hand what a severe motorcycle accident can do to the brain and to the person.  Having directly viewed the brain after such an incident definitely gives him a unique, and more cautious, perspective.

“Make sure you wear your helmet.”  Many people recall this statement from their parents when they said that they were going outside to ride their bicycle.  As an adult, the government plays the role of a parent about helmet safety issues.  While 3 states have no law about helmet use for motorcycle riders, “28 states require some riders to wear helmets; and 19 states and the District of Columbia require all motorcyclists to wear them.”  In April 2012, Michigan law changed from requiring all riders to wear helmets to merely some.  The purpose of the loosening of the helmet law was to increase tourism to the state.  Unfortunately, all it increased was the number of head injuries.

As the Michigan Secretary of State says, “Michigan law now allows motorcyclists to decide for themselves…”  Granted, there are certain legality conditions that must be met, but for most cyclists, helmets are optional.  Many may find it surprising and positive that some studies show that the revision of the Michigan helmet law has had no effect on, or even lessened the number of motorcycle-related fatalities. However, the law has resulted in a 14% increase in head injuries.  Specifically, reported mild concussions fell by 17%, “while the proportion [of injuries] due to skull fractures increas[ed] 38% during the same period.”

Ultimately, whether or not the government should be telling you to wear a helmet is debatable.  However, there can be no debate on the fact that any law that increases the chance of a head injury is negative.