Take off your helmet,
pick up your social burden

     Over the years, we've seen a lot of bad ideas turned into legislative proposals.

     In one state, a lawmaker actually sponsored a bill to require someone to become an organ donor before getting a motorcycle license plate. In another, it was proposed that motorcyclists be required to waive their right to medical care. One state legislator even called his plan for motorcyclists the "Funeral Home Business Enhancement Act"!

     Frankly, we've lost count of the number of times staff members from the AMA's Government Relations Department have walked into committee hearings to testify against bills that would be dangerous to motorcyclists.

     But at least we've had this: In nearly every one of these cases, we've been able to identify the enemy. All these outrageous proposals, and many more, have been written and supported by people who believe the same thing.

     "Motorcyclists are irresponsible," they say. "They're always getting injured, and they don't pay their hospital bills."

     In short, they claim that motorcyclists are nothing more than a burden on society.

     The argument isn't new. It's come up so many times that we've even taken to calling it by its short name--the social-burden theory. But constant repetition doesn't make it true.

     The AMA and dozens of state motorcyclist-rights organizations have done an admirable job of countering the social-burden theory. Armed with studies from widely different parts of the country, we've shown repeatedly that the cost of treating the typical injured motorcyclist is no greater than the medical cost for a typical injured car driver. And we've demonstrated that motorcyclists are at least as likely as the population in general to pay the cost of their own medical care through private health insurance.

     We've accomplished this because motorcyclists have been willing to work together in a united front.

     Until now.

     Proponents of the social-burden theory have a new--and unlikely--ally: motorcyclists themselves. In one state after another, new and dangerous laws are being proposed not by safety fanatics, but by riders groups.

     It's already happened in Texas. It's happening in Florida and California. It almost happened in New Hampshire before cooler heads prevailed. And now there's Kentucky.

     "HB 106 passed today by a vote of 57-40 with three not voting. It does include a provision for health insurance with it. Whatever you do, do not succumb to a knee-jerk reaction thinking this is bad."

     That's the start of a message from Jay Huber, president of the Kentucky Motorcycle Association, regarding a dangerous tradeoff in the Bluegrass State.

     "I will explain my reasoning at a later date," Huber continued, "but for now, DO NOT call to oppose this amendment yet. I will not get into details. If you didn't get the message yet, let me say it one more time: DO NOT act on this amendment."

     The amendment in question did no less than turn the social-burden theory into law in Kentucky. It requires an entire group of motorcyclists there to purchase health insurance designed to "protect" society from them.

     Why would any group of motorcyclists accept such an amendment? Why would they buy into the flawed social-burden argument?

     One word: helmets.

     You see, the House Bill 106 Huber refers to, signed into law on March 3 by Gov. Paul Patton, was promoted as a way to end Kentucky's existing mandatory helmet law.

     In exchange for getting rid of that law, though, Huber's group has forced Kentucky motorcyclists to pay a high price. The new law mandates that any motorcyclist who chooses to ride without a helmet must show proof of health insurance when registering a motorcycle. A rider who complies can obtain a sticker that will enable him to legally ride without a helmet in the state. Should that riders health insurance lapse, his license would be suspended for 90 days, or until he can prove he's obtained suitable coverage.

     That's the tradeoff: Pick up your social burden, and you can take off your helmet. A strikingly similar bill was recently passed in Texas, with the support of some motorcyclist groups there. Others are being promoted in Florida and California.

     Proponents of these bills, commonly called helmet-law modification bills, claim that the tradeoff they're making is a good deal for riders who have faced mandatory helmet laws for years. They say the only important issue is modifying the helmet laws. The health-insurance requirements, they say, can be changed in the regulatory drafting process, or in the legislature's next term.

     For that matter, the groups say the new laws are vague and unenforceable. And because of that, they claim, the health-insurance requirement will be stripped out in court.

     That is, to say the least, an ill-informed strategy. And Texas motorcyclists are already finding out that it isn't working. There, one motorcyclist-rights organization that supported the insurance-for-helmet-repeal deal has already taken to distributing fliers that it says will educate police about the intricacies of the new, vague, presumably unenforceable law.

     "Dear Texas Peace Officer," The flier reads, "you have stopped me for not wearing a motorcycle helmet while operating a motorcycle legally on a public thoroughfare.

     "In the event you have not been versed on the particulars of the new law this note is intended for your enlightenment. I am not required to show proof of compliance, and in fact the law does not even state that an officer has the right to stop me and ask for proof."

     As you might have guessed, the authorities in Texas don't see it that way. Already, there have been many instances of unhelmeted riders being stopped and asked to produce their insurance papers.

     In spite of the obvious hazards of promoting special insurance requirements for motorcyclists, the groups supporting these bills have said that national organizations like the AMA shouldn't be concerned about their actions. They are merely making the best deal they can for motorcyclists in their state, they say, and other states wont be affected.

     But the AMA is concerned about 223,000 members nationwide, thousands of whom live in states affected by the bills already introduced, and thousands more in states that could be next on the list. Even states without helmet laws aren't safe from this type of legislation. In New Hampshire, for instance, a confused proposal was put on the legislative agenda that would have required motorcyclists there to buy insurance that isn't even available in the state in order to ride without a helmet.

     "I am 100-percent convinced that if they hadn't done what they did in Texas, we wouldn't have faced this bill," explained New Hampshire Rep. Sherman Packard (R-Rockingham), chairman of the House Transportation Committee and a longtime motorcyclist-rights activist.

     So why should you care if some groups of motorcyclists in a few isolated states are making these deals? After all, if they want to ride without helmets, why shouldn't they have to kick in a little something extra to cover themselves?

     The problem is deciding how much social burden you're willing to accept. Frankly, the evidence branding unhelmeted riders as a burden to society isn't any better, based on studies done so far, than the evidence concerning motorcyclists as a whole. Attribute it to whatever theory fits your personal preferences--that people who die outright don't accumulate much in the way of medical bills or that helmets don't work--but the fact remains that studies haven't shown a correlation between wearing a helmet and medical costs.

     So if were willing to declare helmetless riders a social burden without any proof, how can we argue that the rest of us are responsible individuals who shouldn't face special insurance requirements? In other words, if motorcyclists themselves are buying into the social-burden theory, can we really expect that legislators won't?

     Of course, the supporters of these bills tell us not to worry. The vagueness in these laws ultimately will be resolved by eliminating the health-insurance requirement, they say. But that's not the only option. From a legislative standpoint, wouldn't it be simpler to strike the word "unhelmeted" from the law and make the insurance requirement apply to all motorcyclists?

     "We told the supporters of the Texas bill that by conceding the social-burden argument, they would inevitably spawn similar legislation in other states where legislators are pursuing an anti-motorcycling agenda," says Robert Rasor, AMA vice president of government relations. "That has happened.

     "We told them that having embraced the social-burden label, they would have a difficult, time-consuming and expensive task before them in trying to modify these laws, either through the courts or the Legislature. So far, that has proven to be true as well.

     "But most importantly," says Rasor, "the supporters of these bills have opened the flood gates. Having declared that helmetless motorcyclists are a social burden and should be required to purchase health insurance, what's next?"

     This rapidly evolving situation has put the AMA in a difficult position. As an organization, we have always supported voluntary helmet use, while opposing mandatory helmet laws. We have supported state motorcyclist-rights groups, but we have consistently opposed efforts to label motorcyclists as a social burden.

     Because of the dangers of this legislative trend, the AMA Board of Trustees decided in late February to clearly state the Association's position in regard to these bills. That statement says:

     "The American Motorcyclist Association reaffirms its position in support of voluntary helmet use. The AMA opposes provisions conditioning rider choice on economic criteria such as, but not limited to, additional insurance coverage, which is based on the negative and incorrect view that motorcyclists are a social burden. The AMA believes that accepting such requirements is contrary to the long-term interests of motorcycling."

     To that, Rasor adds: "We have supported, and will continue to support, helmet-law repeal efforts that allow adult motorcyclists to evaluate safety issues for themselves. But the legislative actions in Kentucky and Texas did not repeal the mandatory helmet laws in those states. Instead, they enacted a new form of mandatory helmet law with even more insidious requirements.