Imagine, if you will, this scene at the so-called "Freedom Rally" in Sacramento on January 3, 1994.
Thom Bianco was working at one of the booths handing out copies of the REPORT and generally providing the latest information available from the Helmet Law Defense League.
Suddenly Bianco was faced with instructions from some character who represented himself to be the "Chairman" of the Southern Confederation of Clubs who was explaining to Bianco that he would immediately remove the BOLT emblem from his hat or it will be removed for him. "We took a vote, and BOLT is not allowed to exist in California." the Southern Confederation Chairman said.
As Bianco stood there in utter amazement the Chairman of the Northern Confederation asked, "Where are you from?"
"San Diego." responded Bianco.
At this point the Northern Confederation Chairman turns to the Southern Confederation Chairman and says, "He belongs to you."
The Southern Confederation Chairman turned again to Bianco and tells him that they have already forced "Red" (Steve Barron) to remove his BOLT belt buckle, and they are now going to require Bianco to do the same with the BOLT emblem on his hat.
Bianco, surrounded by this band of seemingly dedicated enforcers, decided to spare himself this particular "or else" experience at a so-called Freedom Rally and removed the emblem from his hat and put it away.
This is not fiction, folks. This actually happened. If it had not, this editorial would not have been necessary. But it did, and this is.
In late 1992, the Helmet Law Defense League came into being. We had a view of the weakness in the helmet law that no others seemed willing to pursue -- the vagueness issue.
Paul Lax, Director of ABATE of California, was emphatic (at the time) about the vagueness attack being the "wrong" approach, not to mention dedicated to convincing all that would pay attention that our (specifically my) approach of taking the battle to the streets and to the courts was all wrong. So emphatic was he about his "correctness" that, if memory serves me correctly, we have an appointment on the Capitol steps to engage in some rather odd ritual he proposed -- involving his lips and my ass -- if vagueness does in fact turn out to be the issue over which the helmet law finally drops . . . but I digress.
The Helmet Law Defense League was actually, formally, christened in May 1993 at the HLDL Summit held in North Hollywood. Steve Bianco, myself, and others also unable to obtain some support for a more active approach to fighting this terrible law through any of the existing MROs, decided to get together with as many like--minded people as possible to see if we could find support for what history has proven to be a more productive approach than romancing the Legislature for relief.
As we were sending out the invitations to the summit, we came across Tony "Pan" Sanfelipo. Sanfelipo was involved in the protest movement in Wisconsin which ultimately resulted in the repeal of their helmet law, and had been active in the battle for motorcyclists' rights for over two decades. We invited him to attend our summit, and he accepted -- at his own expense. This man has more knowledge about how to successfully defeat helmet laws than anyone else we have been able to find.
Next, we found Mike Holt, a Colorado engineer (and President of Riders for Justice) who had been effective in taking and keeping out Colorado's helmet law (see feature article). He also paid his own way out to California to see what he could do to add to our efforts, and is of equal value in helping rid California of this law.
In any case, the result of this summit was the formation of HLDL, setting a direction which had to do with gathering information for the greater motorcyclists' rights community, and establishing a network to distribute and apply our findings.
HLDL was not, and is not, membership driven. Therefore, when the other Freedom Fighters present began discussing funding for HLDL's efforts, it was concluded that these funds would have to come from concerned riders. It was decided, then, to take advantage of the fact that Sanfelipo had already established BOLT as a national rights organization, and to open a California association as a means of accomplishing two things: 1) to raise funds for HLDL and, 2) to gather like-minded bikers together under the BOLT banner -- those riders who have little or no faith in the romancing approach to ridding themselves of the helmet law.
Well, up jumped the Devil!
Apparently what happened was that Richard M. Lester, as he presided over a meeting of the Southern Confederation of Clubs, declared at their meeting that there were "enough MROs in California," indicating that BOLT was an either an unnecessary or unwanted addition to the helmet law fight.
Although Lester has since claimed (when he addresses the issue at all) that his declaration had nothing to do with the resulting "ban on BOLT" initiated by the Southern and Northern Confederations, that is a contention which we frankly do not buy.
What was Lester thinking? How could he possibly believe that such a statement, particularly is such a forum, would do any good for anyone? How could anyone think we have enough MROs in California? We have a helmet law, dammit!
Somehow, some way, California is short at least one of something! In fact, from my personal perspective, with Lester out there doing this type of stuff, what is clear is that we have at least one too many lawyers in California -- Richard Lester.
To our knowledge, BOLT is the only organization that the other motorcyclists' rights organizations have ever attempted to ban in California, and it's interesting to note that they are also the only organized "take it to them" protest group to so assemble -- at least in recent years. Motorcyclists in Wisconsin, for example, are bewildered by the fact that California bikers wear helmets to a helmet protest rally. They just don't get that move at all. We get the impression talking with bikers out-of-state that California is the only state to ever exhibit such strange behavior.
Look at BOLT's qualifications. The Founder of BOLT, Tony "Pan" Sanfelipo, is a long time bikers rights advocate who was, and is, involved in keeping the State of Wisconsin helmet law free, and effectively discouraging anti-biker bigotry in his home state.
In addition, he is at least partially responsible for bringing Wisconsin bikers together, by the tens of thousands, for annual helmet law protest demonstrations at the State Capitol. In fact, he is so dedicated to the fight for freedom that in an effort to let us, Steve and I, experience a real Freedom Rally, he arranged the funding necessary for us to fly back to Wisconsin and speak at their rally. What an experience. If any of you are ever present when 25,000 motorcycles roar into the State Capitol, you will perhaps begin to understand how we were moved by what we experienced. One thing is sure, Sanfelipo's is not the type of guidance that we believe is a good idea to disregard -- much less ban.
In any case, back to the problem.
Steve Bianco and I were not present at the so-called Freedom Rally in Sacramento. We were not invited, which is OK. Our reason for not attending, however, was that the people who put the rally together specifically excluded BOLT from having any part in organizing or participating in the event. From our view, that constituted a form of bizarre discrimination much like the type of fractioning, from within, which Floyd eluded to as he scoffed at the notion of motorcyclists ever ridding themselves of his law, and reflective of the very type of divisiveness which brought an end to the Native American/Indian Nations. We did not want any part of such discrimination.
Bianco and I felt that if we were to attend such an event, we could eventually be seen as endorsing some part of such division, and that was just not going to happen. Other than that, we were content to remain silent on the issue -- certainly in so much as telling the story here -- we wanted the REPORT to forever remain non-political.
However, the attacks on Red and Thom are not something either of us -- or anyone, for that matter -- should be willing to either accept or ignore.
So, now you not only get that much of the story, but the rest.
After the trouble first started, Red Barron attended a meeting of the Southern Confederation of Clubs to define BOLT, and to attempt to get those present to see the foolishness of their decision to forbid BOLT from existing in California. For his trouble, he was dismissed and otherwise threatened if he were to be seen by any of them wearing BOLT stuff. Say WHAT!?
Then, David Alcon, the new State Director of BOLT, went to a Northern Confederation meeting to speak to the same issues and ended up being "called outside" by the Chairman of the Southern Confederation, who had seemingly come to the Northern Confederation meeting to insure that no "acceptance" of BOLT would occur there, either.
This is nuts! None of this has anything to do with the main goal of either BOLT or HLDL, which is to take out the helmet law. Nor does it in any way support the stated goals of any of the other motorcyclist rights organizations in California.
Mostly what this is all about is some egomanicial little twit named Lester con-vinc-ing otherwise intelligent people into believing that BOLT is a threat to their future (and I assume, their freedom) and must be disbanded. (Isn't that the way the pro-helmet people feel about bikers?) In any case, Lester is doing what lawyers do: creating dissention where none is needed, and otherwise pissing in the stew . . . but again, I digress.
If what you want is freedom. If what you want is a way to stand-up, rather than suck-up, to the totalitarian bigotry that the helmet law reflects, then BOLT is for you.
If you believe that you can make a difference by what you know, and what you do with what you know. If you want to consider yourself, and want to be treated, as more than just another one of the sheep, by both the government and some so-called rights organizations, then take it upon yourself to get in touch with the nearest BOLT member and learn how to protect yourself.
BOLT may not be for everybody, but then what organization is? What matters is that BOLT will work to motivate the people that are stealing your rights to find some other group to offend. BOLT stands for Bikers Of Lesser Tolerance, and if you are one, it is probably about time that you did something about it.
If, on the other hand, you believe that the very same people that got you into this mess are the only ones that can get you out, just put this newsletter back where you found it, and good luck!
Quig
NHTSA'S SAFETY STANDARDS ARE SHOWN BE BE ANYTHING BUT SAFE
The Truth About "Safety" Helmets Reveals a Myriad Of Hazards -- Most Of Them Fatal
It was on a flawless spring morning, May 5, 1985, that Larry McAfee, a 29-year-old mechanical engineer, decided, on an impulse, to take his motorcycle for a ride with friends on the mountain roads north of his suburban Atlanta home. Hours later, traveling no more than 10 m.p.h., he hit a curve, fell, and as his head snapped back, the base of his helmet crushed his top two vertebrae (as in Figure #2).
"There was not another mark on him," says Larry's mother, Amelia.
Yet in that split second, the 6'6", 240-lb. McAfee, an avid outdoorsman, hunter and fledgling parachutist, had sustained what the medical profession calls a "complete injury," one that would leave him permanently paralyzed from the neck down -- unable to walk, eat or even breathe again unaided.
This introduction was taken from a People Magazine article describing the court victory of McAfee to obtain the legal right to terminate the application of the respirator which he relies on for every breath. As far as we know, McAfee is still not exercised that right; however, that is not the point of this particular article.
The point of this writing is to establish the need for a long hard look at the opinion expressed by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) indicating that the use of so-called motorcycle safety helmets -- built to pass their safety standard criteria, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #218 (FMVSS 218) -- notably protects a motorcyclist involved in a collision from death or other major injury.
Mike Holt, President of American Eagle Engineering, Ltd., and President of Riders for Justice, or Loveland, Colorado, has been at odds with NHTSA over this contention, and with their so-called safety standard, for well over a decade now. It is Holt's expert testimony on the subject of the dangers of helmet use which has been instrumental in either removing, or preventing passage of, helmet laws in Colorado (28 times), Wyoming, Utah, and other states.
Holt has reported on virtually every aspect of these dangers in a report entitled "Ineffectiveness of Helmets and Detrimental Effects of Helmet Use" which, to our knowledge, is the most comprehensive objective study on the subject in existence today.
The bulk of this article will be drawn from Holt's work. This and his various other collections of data constitute just a small portion of the types of information he presents when called on to testify against the helmet hoax.
The areas of the detrimental effects of helmet use will be presented by first covering the aspects of helmet use which attribute to, or are actually known to cause, motorcycle collisions; then we will turn to the aspects of helmets which actually cripple or kill the user at the time a collision occurs.
HELMETS CAUSE ACCIDENTS
Helmets Meeting Federal Standards Reduce Hearing Ability:
Again, except in the half-helmets that NHTSA has demonstrated a dedication to eliminating from the market, the other helmet designs which do come down over the ears undeniably diminish a rider's hearing.
When survival on the streets is contingent to the full capacity of all senses, the fact that FMVSS 218 does not prohibit a helmet from covering the ears, or diverting airflow or engine noise in such a way as to disrupt clear hearing, is yet another failure in the standard.
For these first two reasons alone Canada has rejected the so-called safety benefits of full-face helmets is most situations.
Helmet Weight Tires The Rider:
The effect of the weight of a helmet on the ability of a rider to maintain a high level of movement to insure their safety with regard to other traffic is to make even that act more difficult. With nothing in the standard to support the contention, NHTSA claims in their literature that a helmet must weigh at least three pounds to meet their standard. The fact of the deterrent of such additional weight on the riders neck was acknowledged when California passed legislation to exempt government employees from helmet use in three-wheel vehicles.
Helmets Meeting FMVSS 218 Impair Peripheral Vision:
The peripheral vision requirements of FMVSS 218 call for only 105 degrees per side (see Figure #1). This falls so short of the defensive driving needs of a motorcyclist that in 1974 the California Highway Patrol initiated an amendment action against the standard (in the absence of anything more than voluntary usage) arguing in favor of a greater 120 degrees per side requirement. NHTSA denied the request by the CHP virtually without consideration.
As you look at Figure #1, notice that the angle of "minimum peripheral vision clearance" is measured from the center of the forehead -- which would apply only to those riders with three eyes, or to the mythical cyclops. No one we have ever met has one eye in the middle of their forehead.
The actual amount of peripheral vision from the eyes themselves, then, is considerably less than the 105 degrees per side indicated in the drawing. It is not unreasonable to conclude from this drawing (and a little common sense) that the FMVSS 218 standard creates a side-vision impairment just slightly less then that of horse-blinders.
Heat Build-up Inside A Helmet Endangers A Rider:
In the warmer climates, the inability of the body to dissipate heat through the top of the head -- as is mother nature's plan -- can cause faint or dizzy spells which can result in loss of control over a motorcycle where nature's cooling system would not.
Helmets Act As A Trap For Flying/Stinging Insects:
One of the less frequent, but nonetheless reasonable, ways that helmets can actually cause an accident comes in the form of the manner in which flying insects are captured, aggravated, and held inside the helmet by its design. Even with fill face helmets; bees, wasps, and other stinging insects can be trapped by the helmet, even around the neck area of the riders, and deliver a fatally distracting sting.
THE WAYS HELMETS WHICH MEET FEDERAL STANDARDS ACTUALLY KILL RATHER THAN PROTECT RIDERS
Getting a straight answer from NHTSA as to how their standard was developed is much the same as a straight answer from them on any other subject -- good luck!
However, we have been able to ascertain that they have never conducted any crash tests involving testing dummies (designed from human cadaver) to establish their standard. As near as we can tell, they adopted the testing procedures used by the Bell Helmet Company (their pet manufacturer) pretty much as they existed at the time the standard was made. The testing has to do with the use of a headform -- without the neck or body being considered -- and seem to consist of protecting this headform without regard to the actual application of the helmet on a human head. Therefore, it is not unreasonable that their standard created products which kill motorcyclists in a myriad of ways that have to do with neck (and other) injury.
HELMETS OFTEN KILL RIDERS
Helmets Break Necks In At Least Three Ways:
The report reads: "The inferior edge of the helmet, when visualized as part of the continuous circle completed by the nape strap and the chin strap, forms a loop that can be likened to a hangman's noose. The analogy might be further extended to include the lesions made about the neck by the straps or the edge of the helmet, paralleling the abrasions and contusions that might be associated with a rope having encircled the same structures. When the know is situated at the side of the head, such a hangman's noose produces fractures of the base of the skull, tending to extend bitemporally through the basisphoenoid."
Referencing a specific case, they continued, "One interesting and compelling aircraft accident investigated by the Naval Safety Center, Norfolk, Va., served to emphasize the practical application of their theoretical exercise. A Navy A-4 jet aircraft experienced difficulties in flight which caused the pilot to eject at an altitude, attitude, and air speed that were within the operating envelope of the ejection seat. Supported by a fully blossomed functioning parachute, however, the pilot reached the ground severely injured and died shortly after the accident, as a result of a transverse laceration of the cervical spinal cord."
"The details of the investigation established that the energy responsible for the fatal lesion was transmitted through the helmet and its inferior edge, into the neck. A vertebral dislocation resulted, which in turn severed the spinal cord."
This is undoubtedly what happened to McAfee. A blow to the side of the helmet, mild as it may have been, was just enough to have broken his neck and damaged his spinal cord sufficiently to have left him helplessly crippled. It is interesting to note that the very same type of impact was survived by Gary Bussy, who now claims that helmets save lives. It is interesting to consider that had Bussy been wearing a helmet when his head hit the curb, the combination of chin strap and helmet may have left him crippled for life, or even dead, rather than just mildly (relative to fatally) injured -- with only questionable brain damage as the end result.
2. The "Helmet Fulcrum" Scenario -- This study is another in Holt's bag of helmet facts.
In this study, the principles of engineering are studied as opposed to NHTSA's obsession with "head count" figures -- figures that will ultimately say whatever NHTSA wants them to say.
The "head count" method of evaluating helmet safety used primarily by NHTSA to support their standard has no place in the professional practice of safety engineering. There is no need for accidents to occur in order to establish foreseeability so that corrective action may be taken.
The "helmet fulcrum" investigation was initiated by preparing an illustrative drawing (Figure 2). This translation of the "helmet fulcrum" scenario means as force is applied to the front of the helmet and the head is forced back, the victims neck is either sheered severing the spinal cord and instantly killing the victim, or the spine is hyperextended and the chances of total paralysis and lingering death are certain in most instances.
In general, helmet design emphasis has been placed on cranial impact protection together with product appearance and cost factors -- particularly in relation to the FMVSS 218 standard which we have already described as being formed virtually by the Bell Helmet Company, and merely adopted to suit their needs by NHTSA's engineers.
No one we have contacted, especially Holt, has been able to confirm that this "helmet fulcrum" scenario has ever been considered, much less plausibly rejected, by the NHTSA safety engineers.
3. Damage To The Brain Stem From The Chin-bar On The Full-face Helmet -- This illustration (Figure 3) As the figure indicates, a blow to the chin-bar translates into yet one more way to hyperextend the spinal cord and bring about instant paralysis or death.
An average man was drawn showing extension of the articular assembly, which constitutes the head-neck assembly. It can be seen that even in normal extension the helmet has met the cervical column at the third and forth vertical vertebrae and acts as a fulcrum to resist or oppose the force of translation of the head relative to the thorax.
has been around for a while, almost long enough that one would think NHTSA would have seen it and done something about it by now -- if their concern were truly rider safety.
In most instances helmets used for sporting activities provide the use with cranial impact protection and have reduced injuries and associated deaths caused by these same helmets. A review of 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 in helmets which readily comply with NHTSA's so-called safety standard. It 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. In other words, FMVSS 218 sucks!
When asked, "Will you guarantee that a helmet meeting these standards will protect a rider in a collision?" NHTSA will answer something along the lines of, "A helmet which passes our performance standards is considered in compliance with the provisions of FMVSS 218, and therefore in compliance with the law." and nothing more.
If the issue of whether or not motorcycle helmets are safe ever again comes before the California Legislature, the one person NHTSA does not want to testify on the issue will be Mike Holt.
What better reason could there be for all riders interested in ridding themselves of this helmet law to remember the name and location of: Mike Holt, President, Riders for Justice, Loveland, Colorado.
NHTSA ADOPTED THEIR DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL POLICY OVER 20 YEARS AGO
We have found a yet another player in the game, yet another federal agency involved in the issue of motorcycle safety -- the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB).
On August 9, 1973, the NTSB issued "Safety Recommendation H-73-30" which reads, in part, as follows:
"Data which have recently come to our attention raise a question whether motorcyclists who wear the present standard safety helmets which reduce severe or serious injuries to the head and face, may suffer some degree of counter balancing increase in fatal neck injuries . . . Whereas the finding is not conclusive, the implication is sufficiently strong that the Board believes the subject should be further investigated without delay."
"The study in question, made by Raeder and Negri of the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles in 1969, compared motorcycle accident and injury data for a years 1966 and 1967 in order to detect possible effects of the mandatory helmet law which became effective January 1, 1967. The study showed, first, a decrease of 39 percent in total number of accidents which were reported - - from 5184 to 3161." (This observation is, as usual, irrelevant in that nothing about the proported attributes of a helmet has ever been credited with reducing the likelihood of an accident; so, it must always be concluded that this type of decrease is unrelated to helmet performance.)
The report continues: "The distributions of severity in these cases were nearly identical. Thus far, the data shows no effect of the helmet; the proportion of fatality among all accidents is unchanged."
"However, . . . a comparison of the head and neck injuries among fatalities for the two years showed . . . that wearing a helmet is associated with greatly reduced fatal head injury (39%), but greatly increased fatal neck injury" -- an increase from just under 6% to close to 38% of all fatalities resulting from broken neck injuries. The report continued, "And the differences in percentages could be larger than appear here because, while nearly all of the cyclists in the 1967 figures wore helmets, some of those in 1966 also wore helmets before the law required it."
"The indication is very plausible in light of some physical characteristics of the helmet. A standard helmet weighs about two to three pounds. If the motorcyclists's body is suddenly stopped, this helmet weight adds appreciably to the momentum of the moving head and puts additional strain on the neck. Furthermore, the helmet is highly rigid. If the helmeted head strikes a barrier while the body continues in motion, the impact is transmitted almost entirely to the neck. Possible remedies would include a reduction in helmet weight and rigidity, if this can be done while still affording major protection to the head. The entire approach may need reexamination . . . ".
In conclusion, NTSB stated, " The net effect of the wearing of helmets needs to be reexamined in light of the New York analyses. The data from that study do show reduced fatal head injuries associated with helmet-wearing; but these benefits may have been offset by the increased incidence of fatal neck injuries. Further, the results of that study raise the question of net benefit from helmets shown in other studies, which did not analyze for fatal neck injuries in connection with helmet-wearing."
"The conclusion of the New York State report, favorable to helmet-wearing, does not mention the factor of fatal neck injuries; only careful study of the report brings the implication of the data to light."
"The Safety Board recommends that: NHTSA take immediate steps to confirm or disconfirm the implications of the New York State report that the wearing of helmets, as currently designed, increases the number of fatal neck injuries."
NHTSA's response to the inquiry/recommendation:
Apparently the NTSB keeps track of their recommendations, at least they kept track of this one.
According to their log report, on February 21, 1974, "NHTSA stated verbally that the NHTSA Research Institute has been requested to comply with this recommendation and that the necessary data collection from the States is underway. This recommendation will be complied with as soon as possible."
The next entry was dated August 1, 1994, and reads: "NHTSA letter responded by saying that, in an effort to determine the effect of motorcycle helmet usage on the incidence of neck injuries, seven relevant available data files have been analyzed. The results of the analyses in each case clearly showed a large reduction in fatalities due to head injury as a result of helmet use. However, the analyses were inconclusive with respect to neck injuries, and the implication of increased neck injuries by helmet users, expressed in the NTSB review of New York State data, can neither be refuted nor supported."
The last log entry reporting NHTSA's response to the NTSB inquiry was made on September 18, 1974, and reads: "NHTSA letter reports that it has completed a preliminary analysis of all available statistical data and their findings have been published in NHTSA Technical Report DOT HS-801-137, 'A Motorcycle Safety Helmet Study.' The study indicates that helmet usage does not adversely affect the neck to a significant extent during accidents, but it does not prove this true beyond all doubt. The NHTSA plans as soon as possible to initiate clinical research to resolve the question fully."
It appears that NHTSA has subscribed to the philosophy which says if you ignore a problem, it will just go away. It is now nearly 20 years since this report was sent to NHTSA, and as of this date, we have been unable to confirm any definitive action by NHTSA on the request from the National Transportation Safety Board.