Campbell: There is an innerconnectedness, a kind of a spiritual innerconnectedness, between Indians and bikers in that you're very close to nature. Indians, for instance, were great horsemen. The ones on the planes. The ones I came from.
We still raise horses . . . a few . . . and we still ride quite often. I get almost the same feeling on a horse out in the mountains as I do on a bike on a mountain road.
There's a sense of timing and rhythm when you're in stride on a horse . . . a loaping horse. There is a sense of rhythm with your body and sort of staying with the horse 'til you sort of become one.
When you ride a bike on these mountain roads, you develop the same sort of a rhythm . . . leaning into the curves as you move and speed and so on. I feel almost the same kind of a timing and rhythm sense whether it's on horse-back or on a bike.
I think that although it might be tough to articulate for people who never rode a horse and a bike both. There's some sense inside you might not be able to put into words. There's a feeling that develops when you do those things.
I like to think that maybe the bikers of today were the horseman, the free spirits -- whether they were the cowboys or the Indians -- of a hundred and fifty or two hundred years ago. There seems to be the same kind of a mentality, just in a different time.
On the subject of being pro-choice:
I was talking with a couple of ladies the other day who were very very pro-choice from the standpoint of birth. They were very pro-choice. And I said, "Listen, I'm very pro-choice too. I want to talk to you about the helmet law. Are you also pro-choice on that? If I support you are you going to support me?"
"Oh no," they said, "people would wear helmets because they may get injured and they become a debt on society" and so on.
So I said, "Wait a minute. How can you be pro-choice about your body, and you don't want to let me be pro-choice about my body?" They just could not seem to make that connection.
You can't have it both ways. You are either for individual choice, or you're not. That's all.
On the public burden theory:
The premise that the people use when they're supporting mandatory helmet laws is called the public burden theory, which is based, in my opinion, on absolute bullshit.
The public burden theory says if you are not insured, and you get injured, and therefore must be paid for through hospitals or something, I'll have to pay it -- as a person who does have a policy or who pays taxes -- if you can't.
But if you use that theory, then why can't you apply the same logic to cowboys? What if a cowboy gets hurt in a rodeo and doesn't have insurance?
What about skiers? A skier who makes a run down a mountain and runs into a tree. It happens all the time. He could become a public burden.
Kids on skateboards could become a public burden.
A person diving into a pool who doesn't know how to swim could become a public burden.
So you have to ask yourself, are we going to apply that same logic to everybody? We have to if we're going to be fair.
Therefore, we've got to make them cowboys wear helmets, make those kids swimming wear helmets, we gotta make skiers wear helmets, we gotta make them all wear helmets. Boy, let me tell ya, that's the beginning of the end of personal freedom in this country.
The public burden theory simply doesn't hold up, unless you apply it fairly to everybody, and it can't be applied fairly to everybody unless you want everybody to wear helmets all the time, no matter what they are doing, under the assumption that they may get injured at some time.
If we're gonna go under that assumption, that they may get injured at some time, we better put helmets on babies when they're born and keep them on their heads until they die of old age. It still ain't gonna save ya, but that's why the public burden theory is such a bunch of trash.
On Freedom:
The best way to recognize Freedom, I think, is to have it denied.
I guess being an Indian, I know a little bit about that . . . from what my grandparents have told me, and stories that have come down about having their Freedoms denied.
Freedoms that we sort of take for granted are beginning to slip. If we don't protect them, a lot of them are going to slip.
You talk to somebody in Bosnia. Talk to somebody in Somalia. Talk to somebody who went through the wars -- World War II or any of the wars in which they were actually on the ground being bombed or shot at. Talk to them about Freedom. They have a much different opinion about how you need to defend it compared to most Americans who have taken it for granted and assume that (since) it's always been there, it'll always be there, so we don't have to do anything.
You do have to do something, and that is think about it every day if you want to protect it. Ask yourself what are you doing to protect it? Are you just kind of going along not paying any attention, not even reading the papers. What's going on in Washington that might affect you?
The helmet issue, it's only one little part of a much bigger picture. It's how much do Americans want to have government controlling their lives?
I don't want them controlling my life.
(Our thanks to Easyriders for letting us use this interview. You can see the whole interview on Easyriders Video Magazine #18. Buy it today!)
COMMENTARY by "Crash" Cook
As long time freedom fighting mavericks twisting out here in the Wyoming winds, the members of Wyoming Central ABATE would like the HLDL freedom fighters know your efforts are not only being noticed but are most definitely noteworthy and as such, the WCA members voted to send HLDL $125 to keep the cut the the crap HLDL Report sent our way. Sure, we ride lid free in Wyoming (over age 19) but what happens in California Can happen in other states. Wyoming Central ABATE (A Brotherhood Against Totalitarian Enactments) has held the course since '78 to maintain the original intent and name of ABATE, and I chuckled at a recent article printed in a couple of ABATE newsletters from other states discussing the communication gap between various motorcyclists rights organizations over changes in message and style. It was interesting to note in this article that the more "progressive leaders" in the MRO movement changed the acronym of ABATE to"American Bikers Aimed Toward Education" and adopted the slogan "Educate, donıt legislate." Those that disagreed with this change are labeled the "conservative wing" of the rights movement. If you'll bare with me, let me tell you what galls my back side about the "progressive leaders" and I can sight many examples, but for space, I'll give you two.
The first one is taking place back east where a state ABATE is pushing for legislation to repeal their helmet law. Their newsletter is running about 50/50 on letters from members WHO DO NOT WANT THE REPEAL OF THEIR HELMET LAW!! Some of these letters threaten with dropping out of ABATE if a helmet law is repealed, because they joined ABATE for the safety issues and the riders ed aspect. Many of these members are perfectly happy to have the government tell them what to do and helmets save lives for petes sake. The second example of "progressive leadership" occurred in neighboring state where several WCA members, including myself, attended a bike show. One of the booths entering the door was sponsored by their state ABATE, who also administers their states riders ed program. Side by side, a state ABATE member handed out "Freedom of Choice" "Let Those who Ride decide" info while the riders ed rep handed out pamphlets saying "Use your head, wear a Helmet" proclaiming" Helmets save lives" and helmets were listed with the safety equipment one needs to ride.
From my perspective,and a few other WCA members, it appears to me the "conservative wing" of bikers rights are the only ones so far who know what the hell they are doing, which is staying focused on the job at hand of keeping Big Brother off our bikes and out of our business. For years WCA has fought against the type of propaganda that has subtly creeped into most of the mros around the country. This ideological indoctrination is just what the feds ordered to split the various mros and by pushing riders ed, and receiving federal grants to do so, the Motorcycle Safety Foundation is the puppet for NHSTA and DOT to make every damn one of us wear a helmet. We are being back doomed big time.
Wyoming is one of eight states without a riders ed program and yet Wyoming has ranked among the top ten states with the lowest fatality rates in '87 and again in '92, being among six of these ten with no adult helmet law. Don't get me wrong. I am for riders education, but not at the expense of the government coming in the back door thru the MSF to run the thing. We don't need some desk jockey telling experienced riders they HAVE TO WEAR A HELMET before completing their riders ed course. I've seen this coming over the years as I listen to MSF, NHTSA, DOT, and the insurance industry double speak at biker workshops and watch as some of the "progressive leaders" jot down every word as gospel. Yes, I've taken the hits from critics across the country who think I am too bold and outspoken and that WCA should perhaps "compromise." I do not see that happening as long as the veteran members pass on to new WCA members the real facts about helmets and how totalitarian laws destroy a lifestyle, not some Harley fad of the month. Until other mros wake up and look around how we are being divided and conquered within, then I say we deserve mandatory helmet laws and next up, mandatory riders ed.
It does this old reprobates' ticker good to see the likes of BOLT and HLDL coming forward to restore the passion of convictions held firmly by WRA in Wyoming and Riders For Justice from Colorado. Somehow those grass roots beginnings and the passion must be restored to other mros, as it appears to me we are caving in and becoming part of the "system" and as we do that, we start acting like the "system", criticizing the freedom fighters who say "Fuck this shit, weıre printing the real facts for you." We better start listening to these real facts. I know WCA and myself sure in the Hell are. Keep it up HLDL and BOLT. It's long overdue. Ride Easy, Stay Low, and may we return to the true spirit of brotherhood.
"Crash" Cook, Legislative/MRO Liasion
Wyoming Central ABATE ( A Brotherhood Against Totalitarian Enactments)
I hear ya, Crash. I only wish there were more like you in California.
You may not believe this, but you are exactly the kind of guy I though I was going to be working with when I got involved in this helmet law fight, but it hasn't worked out that way quite yet. I know they are here. I've met a few. But, for the life of me, I can't figure out where the rest are hiding, or why. Thanks for your support. Quig)
END THE HELMET HOAX by Tony "Pan" Sanfelipo
After 22 years of fighting against mandatory helmet laws, I have come to the realization that we may be our own worst enemy, given the fact that many of us readily buy into the hoax that helmets reduce injuries and save lives.
Since I am a founder of a state ABATE chapter, I want to embrace the issue from that perspective. To get the record straight, ABATE, at its inception, was anti-helmet. Not just anti-helmet law, not pro freedom of choice (concerning helmets); we were strictly anti-helmet. I can speak firsthand for Wisconsin is saying that we were totally against helmets, and argued against every claim that helmets were a "safety" device.
Upon defeat of the Wisconsin mandatory helmet law in 1978, a relaxation took place, and other enemies o our sport were sought out and dragged to the battlefield. With the renewed federal pressure, Wisconsin has once against joined in the battle to resist helmet laws. But the strategies and arguments have changed. I am very concerned with the ³choice² issue because I believe it is a substantially weak approach, unless backed with qualitative arguments. This should include studies, technical reports, liability cases, all pointing to the short comings of helmets. Yet, the response from MROs and rights leaders has been a request to refrain from saying anything negative about helmets.
The American public has been lied to about helmets for so many years that many leaders feel it would be too arduous a task to re-educate everyone -- politicians in particular -- as to the inherent dangers in helmet use. Some of our own people even buy into the premise that helmets are not dangerous. Of course, what I am talking about is the threat of cervical spine injury due to helmet use. J.B. Sevart and R. Lewis Hull addressed this topic in their report to the Journal of Products Liability, Vol.4, pp 95-101, Pergamon Press, entitled "The Foreseeability of Helmet Induced Neck Injuries." They stated that while it is widely recognized and accepted that neck injuries in football are helmet induced, this phenomenon is ignored or considered a myth when applied to motorcycle accidents. But Sebart and Hull found that "the maximum amplitude and velocity of movement of the head to thorax linkage for extension/hyperextension, as related to helmet design, revealed serious design deficiencies." They more succinctly stated, "Is is evident that protection should prevent injuries, not cause them, and protection of one part of the body at the expense of another is not an acceptable design philosophy."
There are many design flaws in helmets which could cause catastrophic injury or death. But rather than address these flaws, NHTSA established certain test standards and criteria which helmet manufacturers must meet, and at that point, NHTSA just worries about enforcement of those standards -- in case a helmet is being marketed which does not meet the federal standard -- FMVSS 218.
The problem here is the standards mean virtually nothing with respect to protecting a motorcyclist from injury. In cases of known paraplegia or death due to helmet design inadequacies, NHTSA has not moved against nor ordered recall of those particular "legitimate helmets" because they met the standards. Yet NHTSA is currently proceeding with a civil action for injunctive and Declaratory Relief, with Civil Penalties, against a helmet manufacturer whose helmet has never been known to cause injury, but which did not meet the federal standards . . . according to NHTSA. Those facts are being disputed, but the point is that NHTSA does not want the sanctity of FMVSS 218 impugned since they impart on the general public that the standard sets a basis by which to judge the safety applicability of helmets.
There are many problems with the way helmets are tested under standard 218. In "Biomechanics of Spinal Injuries," 244 REFS, the authors point out that it is imperative that crash dummies are used in the analysis of spinal injuries that could be caused by helmet use. Experimental values of force and energy are emphasized in tests using living animals (laboratory) and fresh human cadaver, to delineate the biomechanical mechanisms of spinal injury. Yet NHTSA sees fit to only use a head form to establish crash worthiness. The fact that the head form is not connected to a body, like in "real life", ignores the forces applied to other parts of the body, namely the cervical spine. To drop a weight on a helmeted head form to achieve a desired result (as with standard 218) belies the fact that very few bikers are injured while at a stopped position when some heavy object falls from the heavens and hits their head. I could cite multiple problems with the test procedures and inadequacies of 218. To put it simply, Harry Hurt, author of the Hurt Study -- the study that NHTSA cites as definitive confirmation of the validity of 218 -- was captured on Los Angeles television stating that no helmet will provide protection at or above normal driving speeds (residential roadway, not highway/freeway speeds).
In view of the above, it is essential that rights activists begin to point these things out to legislators when lobbying for relief from helmet mandates. To offer the argument that helmets save lives, reduce injury, etc., but we think it's a matter of choice, is ludicrous. That's like saying condoms will drastically reduce the chance of sexually transmitted disease, but we want the right to choose whether or not to wear one in casual sexual encounters. The lawmaker will (rightfully) look at you like you were crazy, or suicidal at best. Of course, choice is the issue. But we have to stress why we want to choose, and the only viable argument is the concern that the helmet just might cause the injury, or the accident. Enough of this MSF propaganda about helmets being a safety device. That's fuel for the CHP to refuse writing helmet tickets as equipment violation fix-it tickets. Who is in charge here? We should be, but we're playing by their game rules. It's time to challenge the false claims being made by NHTSA. Motorcycles Safety Foundation, California Highway Patrol, insurance companies and medical doctors. Hasn't Dick Floyd taught us anything but to challenge the facts we know are misrepresented or outright lies?
Consider that when forced to wear a helmet by law, you have to rel on the facts put forward by the manufacturer and NHTSA's "safety standards", that the helmet will protect you. The problem with this is, usually, the only way you find out is after a serious accident. The folly of this scenario is pointed out by well known personal injury attorney Mike Hupy. In an article written for Easyriders magazine in 1992, Hupy noted, "Even if a person is injured while wearing a helmet, he or she does not automatically have a viable lawsuit against the helmet manufacturer. The injured person still has the burden of showing that the helmet was defective and unreasonably dangerous for its purpose. The helmet manufacturers and the federal and state legislatures make no absolute guarantees that those who wear helmets will never be injured by them. This puts the rider in the unenviable position of having to give up the safety benefits of not wearing a helmet."
Do you want to be placed in that kink of jeopardy, without even offering a complaint or concern? I think it's time to stop playing games with our detractors and set the record straight. To do less is an injustice to our cause and the many bikers who do no feel safe wearing helmets. We should unite under one banner, anti-mandatory helmet laws, but we should also express the real dangers associated with helmet use and not ignore them. That should be the basis of our argument for choice, because when forced to wear an item considered safe, that item should provide the safety it was intended for. If not, liability actions should increase, and a degree of responsibility should be borne by those enacting such unwholesome legislation.
Editors note: Tony "Pan" Sanfelipo is one of the principle founders of ABATE of Wisconsin, National Director of BOLT, and an accident investigator for the law firm of Jacobson and Hupy. For years he has helped organize the largest helmet protest rallies in the United States -- the annual Freedom Rallies in Wisconsin (a state without a helmet law) -- yet he reamains a virtually untapped resourse by the California MROs in our fight against the helmet law?