Helmet Laws II

February 11^th, 2005

In my previous article "HELMET LAWS", I highlighted what I thought was the proper context was for a discussion on mandatory helmet laws. It was (and still is) my contention that we are discussing a driving "privilege" and not a basic human right. As such, the Commonwealth has the authority on behalf of its citizens to pass laws to ensure public safety and welfare, otherwise stated as the "public good". In this article, I want to focus on the rational used by repeal advocates who believe that Virginia's helmet law does not serve the "public good".

1. There is no safety watchdog or consumer group monitoring helmet manufacturers.

I find it interesting that anti-helmet groups would complain about the lack of a safety watchdog when they want to eliminate the only law in Virginia that establishes a standard for helmets. Virginia Code 46.2-910 requires that motorcycle operators wear a helmet. This code requires helmets to meet one of three standards: the Snell Memorial Foundation standard; the American National Standards Institute, Inc. standard; or the federal Department of Transportation standard. The DOT standard is available on Biker eNews and the Snell standard is available at www.smf.org. While the Virginia code does not force manufacturers to produce helmets that meet the code, it does the next best thing. It requires the rider to buy and use only those helmets that have been certified.

Anti-helmet advocates complain, that a majority of helmets tested by DOT failed. The problem I have with that statement is that it implies that it is certified helmets that are failing. The fact is that helmets that fail the standard are not certified. The Snell Memorial Foundation testing has both an initial certification and a random sample test (RST) for showroom products. This means that once a helmet has received the Snell certification and begins to be sold to the public, Snell performs random sample test to ensure their standard is still being maintained. If a helmet line does not meet the RST, Snell works with the manufacturer to correct the problem. If that does not work, Snell recalls its certification and the effected helmets have to be pulled from the market.

An interesting element in the Virginia Code is that it makes it "unlawful to sell or offer for sale, for highway use in Virginia, any protective helmet that fails to meet or exceed any standard as provided in the foregoing provisions of this section." Now you know why bike shops list those other helmets as "Novelties". I've always enjoyed the line, "If you have a $5 head, buy a $5 helmet."

2. Higher insurance rates are a myth.

As I started to look into this statement, I didn't know how to go about examining this issue. When all else fails, I try to determine how this would affect me personally. So, I call up my insurance company told them I was thinking about moving and wanted to check insurance rates. I asked the company for the same coverage I have in Virginia, but for the rates in North Carolina (helmet state), South Carolina (no helmet above 20), and Kentucky (no helmet above 20). The first thing I noticed was that Virginia has the cheapest vehicle insurance rates. The other three states were between 32% and 94% higher to obtain the same coverage on my cars and motorcycle.

In comparing Virginia rates to South Carolina, the increase cost for my cars and my motorcycle were approximately equal (between 63-72%). Using a layman's explanation, I would say that the fact that SC does not have a helmet law did not appear to make the motorcycle insurance increase at a rate greater than the rate for cars.

In Kentucky the story is different. The rate increase for my cars was between 44-56%. However, the rate difference for my motorcycle was 168%. There does appear to be a relationship here.

As with any good study, North Carolina provided the outlier. As a helmet state, I expected the difference in insurance to be consistent between cars and motorcycles. To my surprise, while the rate increase for my cars was less than 2%, the rate increase for my motorcycle coverage was 109% (over twice as much). When I asked for an explanation of the higher costs, I was told that the company's "exposure" was higher due to increased accidents. It appears that there are a significantly higher number of NC bikers filing accident claims than Virginia bikers.

The additional piece of information I got from my insurance company is that they are not writing policies for new motorcycle riders and are thinking about terminating existing policies.

So what does this information imply? I cannot draw a direct relationship between helmet law and insurance rates based on my limited survey. However, I can certainly determine that my motorcycle coverage is higher than my automobile coverage. This is true in all four states (VA+$28; SC+$30; NC+$282; KY+$305). Between the higher costs and the possibility of losing my insurance, I'm in favor of anything that would lower the "exposure". It makes sense to me that if the "Insurance Institute For Highway Safety" (www.iihs.org) is advocating helmet laws, it is because they believe these laws will lower their claims and increase their profits.

3. Higher Social Costs or Social Burden is a myth.

This topic normally applies to the question of whether the costs for medical care of uninsured riders are greater for riders without helmets or the same. The repeal advocates say those motorcyclists are insured at the same rate as other drivers, and that we all pay into the public costs with our taxes and insurance pools. The helmet advocates dispute this claim and point to their studies that show how much of the uninsured medical costs are related to motorcyclists in general and those not wearing helmets in particular.

I tend to discount both of these arguments. I believe that the uninsured are with us regardless of whether they ride motorcycles or not. People are uninsured or under-insured for lots of reasons. They can't afford it. They don't care about it and don't want to pay the premium. They don't have a clue about the real costs of medical care in the United States and think their policy actually covers them. These folks will continue to engage in everyday life and some of those activities will be dangerous (skydiving, swimming alone, crossing the street against the light). However, if wearing a helmet can prevent or reduce the severity of injuries and the associated medical costs, than riders have no right to take money away from the public coffers which could be used to better support medical care for conditions that are not preventable (disaster relief, child health care subsidies, etc.)

4. Helmet laws lead to biker profiling and harassment.

While there may be some bikers who have been stopped because of "profiling", I find it hard to believe it was because they were wearing a helmet. If the complaint regards being ticketed for not having a "regulation" helmet after being stopped as a means of harassment, I have to ask what should the police do about "novelty" helmets? I agree that laws should be applied equally across the state, but that does not mean selective enforcement of only those laws that we agree with. The fact is that a Biker stopped because of a "profile" could not be harassed for an illegal helmet if he wasn't wearing an illegal helmet. Given the many shapes and designs on the market today, it is hard for me to imagine a biker not finding a suitable LEGAL helmet until they are successful in changing the law.

5. Helmets are not effective in preventing injuries.

This is the critical issue. Repeal advocates argue that pro-helmet studies do not discriminate between those fatalities that were caused by head injuries and those caused by other types of injuries not related to helmet usage (i.e., spinal injuries or puncture wounds). They also protest that many studies compare fatalities between helmet states and non-helmet states, but do not account for how many in the non-helmet state may have been wearing a helmet at the time of death. Additionally, some repeal advocates claim that helmets increase neck injuries do to additional head weight. You can get a better understanding of these positions by looking at Virginia Coalition of Motorcyclists (www.vcomonline.org), Motorcycle Riders Foundation (www.mrf.org), American Motorcycle Association (www.ama-cycle.org), or just do a Google search.

I cannot and do intent to review every study that is out there on helmets. I can only recommend that if you want to read what the pro-helmet folks are saying, you can find several studies by DOT / National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (www.nhtsa.dot.gov), the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety ( www.iihs.org), Snell Memorial Foundation (www.smf.org), Iowa State Government ( www.state.ia.us/government), or just do a Google search.

Some of the studies from the above agencies state:

• Head injuries are the leading cause of death in motorcycle crashes.
• Brain injury cases were more than twice as costly as non-brain injury cases.
• An unhelmeted motorcyclist is 40 percent more likely to incur a fatal head injury than a helmeted motorcyclist when involved in a crash.
• Motorcycle helmets are 67 percent effective in preventing brain injuries and that unhelmeted motorcyclists involved in crashes were more than three times more likely to suffer brain injury than those using helmets.
• In states that enacted helmet laws fatalities dropped: Louisiana-30%; Oregon-33%; Nebraska-32%; Washington-15%; California-37%; and Maryland-20%.
• Over the last five years, more than 85% of all persons killed while riding motorcycles in Iowa were not using helmets.
• Texas repealed its helmet law in 1977 and experienced a 35% increase in fatalities;
  Texas reinstated its helmet law in 1989 and experienced a 11% decrease in fatalities;
  Texas weakened it law to cover minors (<21) in 1998 and fatalities increased by 31%.
• Helmets reduce head injuries without an increase occurrence of spinal injuries in motorcycle trauma.
• Wearing helmets does not restrict the likelihood of seeing a vehicle in an adjacent lane or the ability to hear auditory signals.
• In states where only minors (<21) are required to wear helmets, fewer than 40% of the fatally injured minors were wearing helmets.

The simple fact is that if someone does not want to believe these studies, they won't. On the other hand, if someone is trying to trying to get past emotion and personal opinion, it is necessary to do the research from both sides on this discussion. From my perspective helmet laws serve the public good. However, if you disagree or are undecided, I hope that you feel that the Biker eNews articles have contributed to this discussion.

In closing, I come back to my original statement that we are talking about a driving privilege and not a basic human right. Courts all the way to the US Supreme Court have upheld the right of states to impose helmet laws. The courts have stated, "The public has an interest in minimizing the resources directly involved. From the moment of injury, society picks the person up off the highway; delivers him to a municipal hospital and municipal doctors; provides him with unemployment compensation if, after recovery, he cannot replace his lost job; and, if the injury causes permanent disability, may assume responsibility for his and his family's subsistence. We do not understand a state of mind that permits plaintiff to think that only he himself is concerned."

While we may agree or disagree with the helmet law, there is a wide variety of legislation that can impact motorcycle riding in Virginia. For a quick review, check out VCOM's legislation page.

Bottom-line: Get Involved or Accept What You Get.

Back to "Muse from the Rest Area"

Back to More from Gary