Ever since the Safety Act of 1966, birthplace of many so-called safety initiatives for motor vehicles, the American public has been deludged with rhetoric about the safety aspects of motorcycle helmets. One of the main problems we as anti-helmet law advocates faced was the common sense theory, that being it stood to reason that any covering of the cranial surface would be better than no protection at all. Independent thinkers should know that common sense and science are at odds all the time.
Other theorems have been offered, such as the infamous "missle hazzard" theory, and the "public burden" theory. The key words here are theory. To date, no substancial evidence has ever been offered to show overwhelmingly that these theories hold any water at all. Sure, there are public costs associated with motorcycle related injuries, and perhaps a stone could be thrown up and cause a cyclist to lose control of his motorcycle, thereby endangering other highway users. In the same respect, a comet could fall from the heavens and cause mayhem on the roadways, so we should consider building covered arches spanning from shoulder to shoulder to protect all highway users.
After the defeating the federal government's plan to coerce mandatory helmet laws on the states, the repeal of existing helmet laws will be fought in the independent representative state's legislatures. The problems the motorcycle rights groups are facing are, among other things, a disention among cyclists themselves surrounding the utility of helmets, and the problem of being faced with compromising some of the "helmets hurt" arguments by allowing amended language to be added to repeal bills calling for helmets for a certain group, usually the under 21 years old riders.
In today's legislative arena, the biker's rights activists have learned to play the political game well. Maybe too well. In sharpening the skills needed to be effective, many leaders have lost focus over the years of what the helmet repeal was all about. In the beginning, it wasn't a safety issue, unless you recognize that many of us were concerned with our safety if we were forced to wear a helmet. It wasn't really even a choice issue, unless you realize that our choice, collectively, was we didn't want to wear one. Those who did probably already were wearing one.
Right from the beginning, we used the "helmets hurt" argument, bolstered by the very few reports we were able to find that backed this argument up. It wasn't because the statement was untrue, just that the powers that be (those backed by grant money or government agencies) spent all their resources reporting and documenting the positive aspects of helmets, never making public and negative findings. In fact, the very standards proposed to regulate the motorcycle helmet industry were and still are so weak and broad, they offer very little in the way of a real safety standard. If NHTSA was so concerned about the "missle hazzard" theory, then why not require the cycle manufacturer to install a windshield? Legislatures constantly looked to the manufacturer to provide safety devices, not place mandates on the consumer.
The public burden theory washes thin also when looked at from a distance. The much quoted Harborview Medical Center study states that injured motorcyclists relied on public funds for their care 63.4% of the time. That would seem to be a disproportionate use of public monies by injured riders until you examine what others cost society. It turns out that 67% of the general population relied on public funding for hospital bills over the same period of time.
This debate will probably go on forever. There is a wide range of thought even among motorcyclists themselves. Some riders believe the studies and data supporting helmet use. The American Motorcyclist Association (AMA), which represents more cyclists than any other organization, published a report entitled In Support of Voluntary Helmet Use. Other organizations have published articles and reports denouncing helmets as ineffective at speeds over 13mph. Herein lies our greatest problem. We disagree about the fundamental effectiveness of helmets. In order to maintain the path of least resistance, and defray in fighting or disagreement among the various organizations and groups, the battle cry over the years has become "Let Those Who Ride Decide". The dangers or inadequacies of helmets have been dismissed as an argument in place of the credo that all we want is a chance to choose whether or not to wear a helmet. As a casual observer, this would seem to solve the problem. If one believed in helmets, then buying one and wearing it would be a viable option. If there was distrust in the effectiveness, the freedom not to wear a helmet would be there also.
The problem arises when legislators are willing to submit a repeal bill but have problems with a total repeal. Often times, the natural compromise is to require helmets for those under 21 years of age. It seems like a small price to pay for freedom. But is it really that small a price? By allowing this type of compromise, what we are saying is that some of us believe helmets work, some believe that they are ineffective or dangerous in certain circumstances. But we will compromise and possibly only endanger a small segment of our riders, those under 21. Works fine if you're over 21, or under 21 and never in an accident. But what if you are under 21, forced to wear a helmet, and end up with a broken neck due to the helmet rotating and crushing your fourth cervicle vertibrae, and severing your spinal cord?
It is my firm belief that the freedom to choose whether or not to wear a helmet must be universally equal across the board. If choice is the issue, then give everybody a choice. To do less is ridiculous. It sends a message out that only some should be allowed to choose, or live. The federal government's own numbers indicate that people would possibly be better off not wearing a helmet. In 1992, more fatalities were attributed to riders wearing helmets than not. The same report showed that the lowest rate of fatalities per 100 accidents were in states without a mandatory helmet law.
In lieu of the recent victory over the oppressive tactics of the federal government, we should unite in a single voice stating End The Helmet Hoax!
Maybe, just maybe, if 20 years ago we would have stuck to our original purpose, the total defeat of mandatory helmet laws, and continued our concerns over the effectiveness of helmets we wouldn't be revisited by protectionist type legislators who believe it is in their realm to control our private lives. We relaxed our steadfast argument against helmets in order to accomodate the varied beliefs among our own members. That single decision could be the reason we may be arguing for our freedom from mandated helmet laws 20 years from now. We must not only tell legislators and others we want the right to choose, we must tell them why we want the right. The preservation of individual rights and freedoms is something most legislators are deaf to. Afterall, they take away rights and freedoms every day in the performance of their job. I believe in the Constitution and in individual rights. I also believe that is one of the weakest arguments we can put forward unless backed by other, more compelling argument. Legislators, as well as rights leaders need to be educated about the shortcomings and dangers of helmets. I hope common sense does not outweigh scientific fact when scrutinizing the utility of the motorcycle helmet (the prefix safety purposely omitted).
End.