HELMET LAWS

January 26^th, 2005

Several weeks ago Phil and I engaged in a conversation about mandatory helmet laws at one of our staff meetings. The general tone of the discussion was that Phil agreed with helmet usage, but not mandatory helmet laws. I on the other hand didn't see anything wrong with the helmet law. Since the Biker eNews staff represents a "wide" diversity of backgrounds, riding approaches, and life philosophies, we generally agree to disagree so that we can celebrate what we have in common, riding. So, after a little give and take, Phil and I got back to the real issues at hand. Whose sandwich was better, where were we going after we finished eating.

A couple of weeks later, Phil wrote me an email saying that he had been thinking about our helmet conversation and asked me to go public with him in our conversation. He laid out some of his thoughts and asked me to respond. Not knowing what I was getting into, I agreed (after all he signs my paycheck, actually buys me a diet coke at the staff meetings).

Let me start out by staying that the opinions I express are my own and no way reflect on Biker eNews other than it does not believe in editorial control of the staff nor does it have a litmus test that requires "group think" to enjoy motorcycles. Secondly, I'm putting my thoughts out there to invite dialog, not verbal attacks. I can respect "arguments of excellence", but have no need to personally engage in verbal warfare. Third, this article is limited by my personal time and is meant to be a general overview of the topic. It is in no way a definitive article. I can only hope it will peak someone's interest enough to look into it and to seek out addition information. After all, the old saying about "Freedom isn't Free," is absolutely true. The value of our freedom is seen in the personal responsibility we (citizens) take in shaping and participating in our government. Let's begin.

Accepting Phil's offer, I decided that the best place start was by understanding why folks are against mandatory helmet laws. There is certainly no end to the number of websites you can find promoting repeal of helmet laws. It seems most of the motorcycle websites have an opinion on the subject. My observations lead me to believe that the overwhelming majority of those MC websites (that had a position) were in favor of repealing helmet laws. I chose a couple of sites that I thought would provide creditable information. These sites were Virginia Coalition of Motorcycles (www.vcomonline.org) and The Motorcycle Riders Foundation (www.mrf.org).

VCOM provides some good information on a board range of issues facing motorcyclist in Virginia and is worth reading to determine which of these you may (or may not) care about. It's a nice website and keeps its material short and to the point.

The MRF website provides a pretty comprehensive library of legislative issues facing motorcyclists. Looking into their archive of articles, I pulled out a few that looked the most promising. Anyone looking to dive deeper into this pool may want to use an article by Drew Avery that provides 15 pages of references for motorcycle articles, papers, and studies (A Bibliography of Helmet and Motorcycle Safety Studies-1995).

The first article I reviewed was The Next Era: A Helmet Law History, by Charlie Williams. While Mr. Williams' position on helmet law is no secret throughout the article, he does do a good job of tracing the initial wave of helmet laws from the 1966 Federal Highway Act that tied federal funding to passage of helmet laws. As expected, this resulted in increasing numbers of states passing helmet laws. The article follows a time line from 1966 up to 1995 discussing the states that passed laws, repealed laws, and some that reinstated helmet laws. I found the time line and the legislative history lesson a good read. What I found more interesting is the emotion behind the writer's (and many of the MC groups) facts. Phrases like, "federal blackmail threat," "totalitarian enactment," "reign of terror," "spineless Oregon state legislature turned the issue over to voters," and, "a major threat to the freedom of motorcyclists everywhere," paint a picture that equates pro-helmet law advocates as somehow on par with Nazi Germany and al Qaeda terrorists all rounded into one.

My response to this kind of emotionalism is that I believe that our government is acting the way our forefathers and representatives have designed it. The quality (good and bad) of our government is directly related to the level of participation that we CITIZENS have undertaken. For better or worst, our government is not a direct democracy. It is a representative democracy. Simply stated, we elect people to the executive branch (President, Governor, Mayor) and the legislative branch (House of Representatives, Senate, State House and Senate, City Council) to pass and enforce laws they believe to be in our best interest. Citizens have influence prior to legislative actions via citizens action groups (ABATE for example), or by direct lobbying of politicians (VCOM efforts). Citizens have redress through the courts system (state and federal).

In the management of the massive bureaucracies we have created, we have given certain agencies the right to make policies or regulations that impact our daily lives. Again, the redress for these regulations is through public hearings and legislative intervention. I am not implying (by any means) that all of these laws and regulations are morally right or even moderately right. The shear vastness of our society forces us to rely on our system of government. It is impossible for me to image a modern society where every decision of government had to be voted upon by the general public. It is hard enough to get things accomplished now. If a business had to get the approval of an entire town to change a zoning law, or everyone in the city had to decide where traffic signs would be placed, or a vote had to be taken to determine if the public school will close because of snow we would bring our society to a complete stand-still.

The general rant about government being bad (while being a good unifying rally cry) ignores the fact that we rely on our government in hundreds of ways each day. We live in neighborhoods and houses that have zoning laws and building codes that impact our daily quality of life and help to provide a certain expectation of safety. The traffic laws and road signs help to provide an expectation that driving to and from work will not be a survival of the fittest. We ride in elevators and eat in restaurants where we expect them to have met some level safety or sanitation inspection.

For me the discussion regarding helmet use is a discussion about a privilege, not a right. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are rights. The U.S. Constitution has tried to capture and articulate the core rights of all citizens throughout the development of our country. Citizen rights were thought to be so important that the Bill of Rights was added immediately and amendments have been added to allow all of our citizens the same guarantees.

Driving and driving related issues are a matter of privilege. Society through our government sets age limits, skill requirements, operational limits, and equipment standards. Again, I'm not implying that all of these regulations are correct, right, or value added. What I am saying is that the discussion of helmet laws must be placed in the proper context. To determine that helmet choice is a right is to place it on the same level as the discussion of abortion (a matter of when life begins, the definitions of life and death, and at what point the government has the right to intervene in that decision).

I regret the length of this article, but felt that before a rational discussion of helmet laws can be undertaken the context of the argument had to clarified. It is my hope that over the next couple of issues, Phil and I will invite and readers will engage on an open (and public) dialog on the merits and flaws associated with the helmet law debate.

Back to "Muse from the Rest Area"

Back to More from Gary