helmet law

The Motorcycle Helmets, Educate not Legislate Choice or Law?

Freedom of choice" is not about the thrill of feeling the wind in our hair any more than a young man's choice to serve in the armed forces of this country during a time of war is about the thrill of being shot at. The issue is about returning personal responsibility to trained and experienced adult motorcyclists. It is about rejecting the proposition that the government should be allowed to impose upon the personal decisions of free men.

Helmets are not the universal remedy many claim them to be. Training riders and educating the motoring public to share the road while being aware of motorcycles are among the most effective ways to prevent accidents, injuries and deaths. The evidence for mandatory helmet use is more often narrow-minded than fact. People who have never ridden claim to know more about the pros and cons of helmet use than those of us who have been riding for decades.

The scare tactics, known as the "Public Burden Theory," have not proven to be the case in the 30 states allowing adults the right to make their own decisions. Had this legal decision cost those states the millions of dollars in public funds and the radical insurance premium increases our opponents criticize about, it is unlikely their laws would remain unchanged. The truth is that those severe predictions do not occur. Just as an increase in the national speed limit did not cause the carnage predicted, the modification of helmet laws to allow adults to exercise their personal responsibility has not led to a fulfillment of the doomsayers' prophecies.

The special interest groups to government forcing some bureaucrat's unenlightened vision of a safe and proper lifestyle, riding on public have attempted to misdirect the intent of modifying the helmet law by preaching in a way that suggests motorcyclists would no longer be allowed to wear a helmet. Legislators in opposition to the modification who ride proclaim they would never ride without a helmet as if the absence of a mandatory law could somehow affect their judgment.

"Why would a helmetless motorcyclist be more likely to inflict greater damage in an accident than a helmeted motorcyclist?" asked AMA Washington Representative Rob Dingman, after testifying in opposition to the bill. "There is absolutely no logical explanation for this legisla...

... middle of paper ...

...ation, State Legislative Fact Sheets; Motorcycle Helmet Use Law, January 2001.

Wilson DC. The Effectiveness of Motorcycle Helmets in Preventing Fatalities. (DOT HS 807 416). Washington DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, March 1989.

Evans L, Frick, MC. Helmet Effectiveness In Preventing Motorcycle Driver and Passenger Fatalities. Accid Anal Prev 1988 Dec;20(6):447-458.

Offner PJ, Rivara FP, Maier RV. The Impact of Motorcycle Helmet Use. J Trauma 1992 May; 32(5): 636-641.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Research Note: Further Analysis of Motorcycle Helmet Effectiveness Using CODES Linked Data. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, January 1998.

Preusser DF, Hedlund JH, Ulmer RG. Evaluation Of Motorcycle Helmet Law Repeal in Arkansas and Texas. (DOT HS 809 112) #DTNH22-97-05018, 2000.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Traffic Safety Facts 2000. (DOT HS 809 326). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, 2000.

Highway Safety Act of 1966, 23 USC Chapter 1, Section 153.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Notes: Evaluation of the Repeal of Motorcycle Helmet Laws. Ann Emerg Med 2001 Feb;37:229-230.