Mandatory helmet laws: The next frontier

This summer, my brother Seth celebrated five years of life after coming quite close to losing his own in 2002 in a motorcycle on a road outside of Richmond, Virginia.

I wrote about how his survive-iversary is really a ritual of gratitude for all of us who love him and who were there with him from hospital to rehabilitation and back to school. And now that account is going to be published on CarePages, an amazing site for people facing injuries and illnesses of their own or, as in my case, of someone they can't imagine life without. I've been writing for CarePages for several months and I am honored that our family will share our story with readers who are trying to piece their lives back together following a brain injury.

As that story makes its way on to people's screens, it felt important to also make a space for Seth's position paper on how the motorcycle helmet law of the Commonwealth of Virginia helped save his life and why it is imperative that we pass mandatory helmet laws in every state.

Yes, this is a controversial issue. It is tied in so tightly with politics that, if you will read Seth's paper you will find, it is hard to yank free the motorcycle "freedom of choice" argument from other issues like gun control. Organizations who are against mandatory helmet laws have co-opted progressive language of the pro-choice movement to put forth their loud and monied message that it is wrong to require this implement of safety for this one niche of riders. Clearly, as the sister of a man who survived a simple yet devastating motorcycle accident by grace and because of his helmet, I wholeheartedly support mandatory helmet laws and I stand against the corporations who put dollars and votes on anti-law organizations and politicians.

Seth's paper was written in 2003. Some things have changed. And now that we are on the brink of a Presidential election that I pray will swing the pendulum back toward a democratic administration, we have the opportunity to make even more changes.

This article by the ever-articulate Anna Quindlen makes a rock-solid parallel between freedom of choice and the necessity of voting. When I vote in this election, I will have some very heavy issues to weigh before I cast my ballot -- reproductive justice, health care, global warming, ending the war and bringing home the troops. I will also be paying attention to where the candidates stand on helmet laws and how their states fare in requiring riders to participate in saving their own lives and in saving countless millions of dollars in hospital and healthcare and roadway expenses.

Consider this as you narrow your list of candidates as well. And if you'd like to read Seth's position paper, it is published after the jump (simply click "Continue reading" below).

I know that seemingly small steps can make a difference. We're trying to teach our son that helmets and bikes go together, period. When he sees a motorcyclist or bicyclist without a helmet, he almost always asks, "Mommy, why does that biker not want to be safe?" That's a very good question, isn't it?

If you or someone you love has a brain injury, please feel free to share your story in the comments. Thanks for stopping by.                     

                                                HELMET LAWS: A NO-BRAINER
                                                            by Seth Ashley
                                                                July 2003


On June 29th, 2002, my life was changed forever. I was riding my motorcycle along Old Gun Road in Richmond, Virginia, when, according to witnesses, I misjudged the curve and went right off the road. As a result of my head injury, I was in a coma for nine days, and I struggled through 4 months of brain-injury rehabilitation. I was wearing a helmet.

My road to recovery has been long and difficult but I am still alive today because of those witnesses, the emergency personnel that rushed to the scene, and the State of Virginia. Yes, the State of Virginia saved my life. If I had been in Illinois, where I am originally from, or Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas,
Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana or 19 other states, I would not have been required to wear a helmet, and thus, like 50% of other motorcyclists in those states, I probably wouldn’t have been wearing one (NHTSA). If Virginia did not have a law requiring
me and hundreds of other survivors to wear a helmet, I know, beyond a doubt, that I would not still be here today. I am forever indebted to the legislators of this state.

The State of Virginia is very progressive when it comes to safety, as evidenced by numerous other developed countries having helmet laws, and overwhelming public support, in spite of being one of only twenty states with a universal helmet law.

Emergency room nurses call them “donor-cycles,” because it is said that you should always carry an organ donor card when riding a motorcycle — you will eventually need it.

Motorcyclists have their own saying: there are two kinds of motorcyclists — those who have had an accident, and those who will have one. The point is that every motorcyclist has an accident at one time or another.

Motorcycle helmet law opponents claim that helmet laws don’t save lives, helmets cause neck injury, and that helmets cause accidents (Quigley). They claim that education is the answer, not helmet laws (“Mandatory”). They also claim that it is a violation of individual rights to force helmets on motorcyclists (Saxton, “Safety Info”). These claims are simply false.
Motorcycle helmets do save lives and don’t cause neck injury or accidents.

Education is not a substitute for helmets, and helmet laws do not infringe on individual rights any more than other laws we gladly accept.

“I think that most of us are agreed that working for safer roads is a laudable goal. However, most motorcyclists might disagree that mandating helmet use in any way helps to move society closer to that objective.”

These are the words of Frank Saxton, executive director of BikePAC of Oregon, an organization dedicated to the repeal of motorcycle helmet laws in every state, specifically Oregon. I adamantly disagree with Mr. Saxton (“Safety Info”).

Claim #1: Helmet laws don’t save lives.
I thought it was a no-brainer that helmet laws save lives, but there are those who dispute this claim. Opponents often quote statistics from 1993. In 1993, they claim, states that required helmet use had more fatalities per 100 accidents than those that didn’t. But the numbers are skewed. In Saxton’s assessment of the numbers, he lumps those states that require all
motorcyclists to wear helmets with those that require only minors, or the uninsured.

It was also a year of change for several states (Saxton, “Fact Sheet”).
October, 1993 was the cut-off for federal funds if states didn’t enact helmet laws according to the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, so several states changed helmet laws that year, either enacting or repealing. A better look at the statistics might reveal something completely different; perhaps a look outside the United States is warranted
(Jordan).

A study of injury rates in Taiwan published in the American Journal of Public Health looked at 8,795 cases of motorcycle-related head injuries from 56 hospitals in Taiwan, one year before and one year after enactment of the helmet law on June 1, 1997. The study found the number of head injuries dropped 33%, from 5,260 to 3,535. A decrease in the length of hospital
stays was also reported. The study concluded that the helmet law was an effective way to reduce the mortality and morbidity of motorcycle accidents (Chiu, 793).

There have been dozens of studies done in the U.S. that had the same conclusion, including Auman, Graham, Heilman, Hotz, Hurt, Kraus, Luna, McSwain, Prinzinger, the State of New York and others.

Claim #2: Helmets cause accidents and neck injury.
Claims have been made that helmets increase the risk of neck injuries. No credible evidence exists to support this argument.

In a study by Dr. Jonathon P. Goldstein, he admits that helmets reduce head injury “at the expense of increasing the severity of neck injuries.” This
study is often cited by helmet law opponents as evidence that helmets cause neck injuries, allegedly by adding to head mass in a crash.

More than a few studies have refuted Goldstein's findings. A study reported in the Annals of Emergency Medicine in 1994 analyzed 1,153 motorcycle crashes in four Midwestern states and determined that "helmets reduce head injuries without an increased occurrence of spinal injuries in motorcycle trauma" (Orsay, “Spinal”). A study done in Illinois found that the incidence of spinal injuries were actually reduced by helmets(Orsay, “Illinois”, 460).

It is also argued by opponents that helmets inhibit vision and hearing to dangerous levels, but, again, scientific data doesn’t support this conclusion. A 1994 study by James McKnight for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) analyzed the effects of motorcycle helmet use on seeing and hearing. The study found that wearing helmets “restricts
neither the ability to hear horn signals nor the likelihood of visually detecting a vehicle in an adjacent lane prior to initiating a lane change.”

To compensate for any restrictions in lateral vision, riders increased their head rotation prior to a lane change. Subjects in the hearing study
showed no differences in hearing thresholds under three helmet conditions: no helmet, partial coverage, and full coverage. The noise generated by a motorcycle is such that any reduction in hearing capability that may result from wearing a helmet is negligible (McKnight). Sound loud enough to be heard above the engine can be heard within a helmet, another NHTSA study
concluded (Hurt). Some studies indicate that helmets are useful in reducing wind noise and protecting hearing (McKnight).

Most of these studies, and opponents, are referring to full-face helmets. Certainly a half-helmet, one that covers neither the face nor the ears, would not have any impact on sight or hearing.

Claim #3: Education and experience save more lives than helmet laws.
Helmet law opponents argue that motorcycle rider training courses are the answer to safer roads. The argument is that it is better to prevent accidents than to take precautions for that eventuality.

Unfortunately, neither education nor experience helped Greg McQuide. The former Motorcyclist magazine associate editor died on June 24th, 2000 after laying down his motorcycle to avoid hitting a truck. Reports do not state whether he was wearing a helmet or the nature of his injuries, but the experienced competitive motorcycle racer from California was in North
Carolina for a bike rally.

I have found no research to corroborate or refute the claim that those
who undergo training are less likely to be involved in an accident. Mr. McQuide could do nothing about the truck nearly hitting him, despite his years of experience. Accidents do happen (“Motorcycle enthusiast”).

Claim #4: Helmet laws infringe on an individual rights.
The crux of the helmet law opponent’s argument is that it is a violation of personal freedom to have laws dictating helmet use (Saxton). It is no more a violation of personal freedom to have helmet laws than it is to have seat belt laws, drug laws, fireworks laws, smoking laws, traffic safety laws, suicide laws, or euthanasia laws—which are generally accepted as good laws. It is a
delicate balance between personal freedom and public interest.

In the United States, there are laws that infringe on an individuals rights to some extent that we obey and accept that they are in place for our common good.

• Seat-belt laws, which have been around since the early Eighties, are debated both publicly and privately. Seat-belts save lives; that fact is not debated. Seat-belt laws have been widely enacted and widely accepted.

• The government’s prohibition of narcotics is widely accepted as a good thing.

• Fireworks laws, while not necessarily accepted, are tolerated.
   

• Smoking is prohibited inside all California public buildings, and other states are beginning to follow suit with great public support. In 2000, onlyone state, Alabama, had no laws against smoking in public places (American Lung Association).
   

• All states require everyone to drive on the right side of the road and obey traffic signs and lights.

• 1997, the Supreme Court ruled that laws prohibiting assisted-suicide are constitutional and upheld the State of Washington’s right to enforce their law (Washington v. Glucksberg). Other states, Virginia included, have laws stipulating that life insurance benefits may be withheld if the deceased committed suicide, thus practically outlawing the practice. Other states have outlawed suicide altogether—it is possible to go to jail for attempting suicide. It has been established by the federal government, the courts, and many, many states, that individuals do not have the right to choose how to die.

 

All of these infringe on freedom of choice, but they also reduce harm to individuals, friends,families, and society as a whole. Why is going helmetless any different? Why should motorcyclists be allowed that choice if others are not?

“The history of this country is a history of the tension between majoritarian passions and the concept of the common good against the rights of the individual,” asserts Sheila Kennedy, professor of law at Indiana University-Purdue University in Indianapolis.

“It is a central question of our time….The classic libertarian construct is that I have a right to do what I wish until it causes harm to other people or their property. The problem is that what some people perceive as harm, others may not,” she added (qtd. in Porter, A1).

It is harmful to friends, and family when someone is hurt in an accident. It is even more hurtful when someone is killed. It really harms society, because we lose out on everything that person had to offer.

The courts have also weighed in on what “harm” is. In 1972, a federal court in Massachusetts said it best when it told a motorcyclist who objected to the helmet law:

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. Courts have repeatedly upheld motorcycle helmet laws under the U.S. Constitution. This federal court decision was affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court (Atwater v. Lago Vista).


The United States is behind its economic, technological, and democratic counterparts. In an editorial for the Los Angeles Times, Ronald Brownstein claims that Europeans are more willing to give up personal freedom for the common good.

“In direct extension, [Europeans] are now more willing than President Bush to accept limits on national sovereignty to create a more cohesive international community,” Browstein argues (12).

He uses this and the example of the European acceptance of the Kyoto treaty to support his claim. The Kyoto treaty limits the emission of the gasses associated with global warming, which encourages energy conservation and the use of more energy-efficient cars than Americans prefer. Brownstein also speaks of the welfare state that Europeans accept, which limits an individuals accumulation of wealth — through much higher tax rates for the wealthy—but provides a much wider safety net than in America, through universal healthcare and generous financial assistance for the unemployed
(12).

Therefore, it should come as no surprise that laws requiring motorcyclists to wear helmets are in effect in most countries in Europe and around the world. Among them are Australia, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand, and the United Kingdom (IIHS).

We are behind our counterparts in other countries, but it hasn’t always been like this. Scott C. Idleman, associate professor at Marquette Law School condemns what he refers to as the “excessive individualism and rights-demanding that have so defined the political and legal
landscape over the last several decades.”

Previous generations seemed to recognize the need for common good versus individual freedom, Idleman said.

“We will have to understand that, for the common good, we as individuals will not be able to do everything we want to do, whenever and wherever we like, under conditions that only we can dictate” (qtd. in Porter, A1).

Helmet law opponents try to dictate the conditions under which they get a choice, but at the same time dictate when others don’t get the same freedom.

The slogan for the website www.helmetlawssuck.com is “My brain, my choice.” For these helmet law opponents freedom of choice stops there. There is a gaping hole in helmet law opponents’ argument. Most helmet law opponents argue freedom of choice for motorcyclists, but not for women and reproductive rights.

The American Motorcycle Association (AMA) is perhaps the largest opponent to helmet laws in the U.S. Their website lists “Motorcycling’s friends in Congress.” They are “friends” of the AMA because they support a motorcyclists freedom of choice, but a startling number of them do not support a woman’s freedom of choice.

Of the 12 “friends” listed on the website, all but two of them are anti-choice with regards to abortion, one, the only woman, is pro-choice, and one has mixed opinions. Representative Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD), Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R-CO), Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID), Rep. Philip Crane (R-IL), Rep. Mark Green (R-WI), Rep. Donald Manzullo (R-IL), Rep. Bob
Ney (R-OH), Rep. Thomas Petri (R-WI), Rep. Nick Rahall (D-WV), and Rep. John Shimkus (RIL) are all anti-choice for women’s reproductive rights, but pro-choice for motorcyclists (Planned Parenthood). Apparently freedom of choice depends on what it can get the politician.

Political representatives are supposed to speak for their constituents, but that isn’t true with helmet laws.

In 2002 Albert Harberson, the National Policy Director of the Council of State Governments, said, “Most public safety legislation comes with great public support” (qtd. on Tough Call).

The public is behind helmet laws. The National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration’s 1995 Motor Vehicle Occupant Safety Survey found that public support for motorcycle helmet laws in the United States is strong: 82% of people age sixteen and older support universal helmet laws.

I find it disturbing to think that people actually choose to put themselves at risk. Despite avid use of leather jackets and pants, special leather gloves, and heavy leather boots by most motorcyclists, it has been shown repeatedly that if there is not a law, people don’t wear helmets, even if they know it is for their own safety. This is supported by the data from ten states.

It was found that after motorcycle helmet use laws were repealed, the helmet use rate dropped from 99% to 50%. When the universal law was reinstated, helmet use jumped to 95% (McSwain). Motorcyclists don’t wear helmets, even if they support helmet laws, and the majority does support universal laws.

The same NHTSA survey mentioned previously, from 1995, revealed
that 62 % of those motorcyclists who rode in the preceding year support helmet laws for all riders. Unfortunately, helmet laws are necessary, because people aren’t willing to take that extra step to cap off their safety.

Why don’t more states have helmet laws? In order to understand why more states don’t have helmet laws it is important to understand helmet law history.

Before 1967, only three states had motorcycle helmet laws.  In 1967, the federal government began requiring states to enact motorcycle helmet laws in order to be eligible for certain federal safety programs and highway construction funds. Thirty-seven states enacted helmet laws between 1967 and 1969. Because of the federal funding they received if laws were enacted, by 1975, all but three states required helmets for all motorcyclists
(Jordan).

In 1976, the Department of Transportation (DOT) was trying to levy greater financial penalties on states without helmet laws. At the same time, Congress responded to state pressure by revoking the DOT's authority to levy penalties for noncompliance. Between 1976 and 1978, 20 states diluted their helmet laws to apply only to young riders, usually those younger than age
18, and seven states repealed helmet use requirements for all motorcyclists (Jordan).

Then, in the 1980s and early 1990s, a number of states reinstated laws applying to all riders. Congress, in 1991, created financial motivation for states to enact helmet and seat-belt use laws. States with both laws were entitled to special safety funding, but states without them by October, 1993 had up to 3 % of their federal highway allowance redirected to highway safety programs (Jordan).

Four years after re-establishing the incentives, Congress reversed itself again. In the fall of 1995, Congress lifted federal sanctions against states without helmet laws, paving the way for state legislatures to repeal helmet laws. In 1997, helmet laws in Texas and Arkansas were weakened to apply only to younger riders; Kentucky weakened its law in 1998, Louisiana
weakened its law in 1999, and Florida weakened its law in 2000. Currently, twenty states and the District of Columbia have helmet laws covering all riders, and 27 states have laws covering some riders, mostly those younger than 18 or the uninsured. Colorado, Illinois, and Iowa don't require anyone to wear a helmet (Jordan).

This kind of flip-flopping by Congress has led to uncertainty as to the stance of the government on helmet laws. On the one hand, the NHTSA is fighting in favor of helmet laws, and on the other, Congress is removing any incentive to states for passing such laws. At the same time Congress is waffling on helmet laws, they are implementing financial incentives to
states passing seat-belt laws and states are responding by enacting them. There is no anti-belt law lobby comparable in size, strength or funding to that of the anti-helmet law lobby.

The NHTSA is one organization acting on the publics best interests while Congress is full of politicians acting on their own best interests, doing whatever is necessary to get re-elected.

Freedom of choice only applies to those with money. The American Motorcycle Association (AMA), the self-described “premier defender of
motorcyclists’ rights,” is one of the largest, strongest lobbyists against helmet law legislation in the United States. A quick view of their website reveals a lot of corporate sponsorship. Honda, Suzuki, BMW, Bridgestone/Firestone, Clymer Publications (the maker of most repair manuals), Ducati Motorcycles, Dunlop Tire, Exxon Mobile, Harley-Davidson, Indian Motorcycle Company, Kawasaki, Michelin, Triumph Motorcycles, and Yamaha are among the AMA’s listed corporate supporters.

The AMA isn’t doing the dirty work, however. Federal law limits the amount of money not-for-profit organizations can put toward lobbying efforts. The ubiquitous ABATE — American Bikers Advocating Training and Education—is probably the most often mentioned organization responsible for the repeal of helmet laws in the United States. There are chapters in every state fighting for a motorcyclists choice and they are always there when any legislature is debating a helmet law.

ABATE is funded by individuals, businesses — R.J. Merkel, Inc., Hooters, Cooter’s Pub, Sheetz, First Capitol, and numerous local tattoo shops — and the AMA. ABATE is bound by the same rules as the AMA.

The website for BikePAC of Virginia describes the situation well:
BikePAC of Virginia is a political action committee (PAC) established and controlled by ABATE of Virginia, Inc. BikePAC of VA was created to further the legislative goals of ABATE of VA while complying with ABATE’s designated tax status. This tax status does not allow ABATE to expend great amounts of its’ budget on lobbying activities, to make direct monetary donations to candidates, to write letters of endorsement for a candidate, etc. A political action committee is allowed to do these activities – therefore, BikePAC of Virginia has been formed.

It is obvious to me that big corporate money is being filtered through these organizations to fight helmet laws, because that is what their customers want.

BikePAC, ABATE and the AMA all support and sponsor rallies and events centered around fund-raising and political action, and most have corporate sponsorship, as well. Bikers have ridden on state capitals, held rallies on numerous memorial sites in Washington, D.C., and have tables and booths
set up at every motorcycle rally, including Sturgis, South Dakota and Bike Week in Daytona, Florida.

All of this in loud protest of helmet legislation. There is a strong lobby opposing helmet laws, which is vocal, proactive, well funded, and well organized.

Helmet law proponents are doctors, insurers, and survivors. We are not organized, vocal, or similarly funded by large, established corporations . The general public favors helmet laws, but people don’t think to ask candidates where they stand on helmets, because it is a low priority and rarely a deciding issue, except with opponents.

According to their website, “ABATE is a freedom of choice organization, dedicated to the premise that the individual is best suited to decide […] their own personal lifestyle” (“What is…”, 1).

That lifestyle is the whole reason opponents oppose helmet laws. The motorcycle industry is built on romance. It is romantic to ride across the country on a motorcycle and get gunned down for wanting to live free. I call it the Easy Rider syndrome.

In the 1969 movie, Easy Rider, the only person to wear a helmet is the character played by Jack Nicholson, and his character is portrayed as “un-cool.” It is romantic to ride a motorcycle and feel the wind in your hair. Wearing a helmet encumbers that romance. For most motorcyclists, a motorcycle is not just a mode of transportation. It is a statement. It
states a desire to be free with a touch of recklessness.

My friends and I bought into that lifestyle, but what the lifestyle doesn’t portray is being in a coma, going through rehabilitation, sorting out insurance and facing million-dollar hospital bills.

The Hell’s Angels are no longer just an outlaw motorcycle club, but a corporate entity active in promoting their idea of freedom of choice.
It has been firmly established that helmets reduce the severity of accidents when they happen, and they do happen.

The public is behind helmet laws, and the courts have affirmed them. Why don’t people go that extra inch, for their own protection?

I think Lawrence Grodsky said it well: “…it’s a stupid agency [NHTSA] which spends its entire motorcycle safety budget on pro-helmet and antialcohol
propaganda, thereby ensuring a thriving subculture of paranoiac anti-helmet, pro-alcohol motorcyclists” (26).

Why does the minority dictate public policy? Is it because the minority is loud, strong, and ripe with corporate cash? Why don’t more states work to protect motorcyclists as they do motorists?

Research has proven that helmet laws work to save lives and helmets don’t cause accidents or neck injury. Education and experience are not adequate substitutes for proper safety attire. Freedom of choice is not an adequate argument against helmet laws, when states routinely, respectfully, and appropriately take away that choice and motorcyclists often accept
and even applaud it. Most helmet law opponent organizations are well funded by corporate sponsors, and wealthy individuals. The “friends” of opponents are only supporters of choice when it helps them politically. It is not a hot-button issue, so most legislators go with the cash.

Scott Idleman said it best: “No American wants to live in a police state, but there are natural limits to individual liberty that we and our courts must be willing to observe. There is a real and perceptible common good on which we must ultimately base our choices and expectations as citizens” (qtd. in Porter, A1).

We rely on our court system and politicians to do for us what we cannot do for ourselves. I believe the general public accepts and understands
that we cannot do whatever we want. It is all in the name of the common good. Luckily, the Sate of Virginia respects the common good, has reviewed each side’s argument, and ultimately required me to wear a helmet and enabled me and hundreds of other survivors to be here today.


Works Cited
American Lung Association. <www.lungusa.org/tobacco/map_301.html>

American Motorcycle Association. <www.ama-cycle.org/index.asp>.

Auman, Kimberly M., Kufera, Joseph A., Ballesteros, Michael F., Smialek, John E., Dischinger, Patricia C. “Autopsy study of motorcycle fatalities: The effect of the 1992 Maryland motorcycle helmet use law.” Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 42.4 (April 2003): 423.

BikePac of Virginia. <www.abateofva.org/BikePAC.html>
Brownstein, Ronald. “A Clash of Personal Freedom and Common Good.” Los Angeles Times. 5 May, 2003, pt. 1:p. 12.

Chiu, Wen-Ta, Kuo, Chia-Ying, Hung, Ching-Chang, Chen, Marcelo. “The effect of the Taiwan motorcycle helmet use law on head injuries.” American Journal of Public Health. 90.5 (May 2000): 793-6.

Easy Rider. Dir. Dennis Hopper. Perf. Peter Fonda, Dennis Hopper, Jack Nicholson, Karen Black, and Phil Spector. 1969. DVD. Columbia TriStar ,1999

Goldstein, Jonathon P. The Effect of Motorcycle Helmet Use on the Probability of Fatality and the Severity of Head And Neck Injuries. 1986. Helmet Law Defense League. 09 June 2003.
<usff.com/hldl/goldstein/index.html>.

Graham, J. D., and Lee, Y. "Behavioral Response to Safety Regulation: The Case of Motorcycle Helmet-Wearing Legislation." Policy Sciences. 19 (1986): 253-273.

Grodsky, Lawrence. “Do helmets make you stupid?.” Rider Aug 2001: 25-26.

Heilman, D. R., Weisbuch, J. B., Blair, R. W., Graf, L. L. "Motorcycle-Related Trauma and Helmet Usage in North Dakota." Annals of Emergency Medicine. 11 (1982): 659-664.

Hotz, Gillian A., Cohn, Stephen M., Popkin, Charlie, Ekeh, Peter, Duncan, Robert, Johnson, E. William, Pernas, Frank, Selem, Joseph. “The impact of a repealed motorcycle helmet law in Miami-Dade County.” Journal of Trauma 52.3(Mar 2002): 469-74.

Hurt, H.H., Ouellet, J.V., Thom, D.R. “Motorcycle Accident Cause Factors and Identification Countermeasures.” (DOT HS 805 862). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (1981).

Insurance Institute For Highway Safety (IIHS). <www.hwysafety.org>.

Jordan, Lee. “Helmet Law History & Facts.” 30 March 1998. 21 June 2003.
<www.leemjordan.com/lawinfo/essay1.txt>

Kraus, J. F., Riggins, R. S., Franti, C. E. "Some Epidemiologic Features of Motorcycle Collision Injuries." American Journal of Epidemiology. 102 (1975): 99-109.

Luna, G. K., Copass, M. K., Oreskovich, M. R., Carrico, C. J. "The Role of Helmets in Reducing Head Injuries from Motorcycle Accidents: A Political or Medical Issue?" The Western Journal of Medicine.. 135 (1981): 89-92.
“Mandatory Motorcycle Rider Education.” American Motorcycle Association. 9 July 1997. <http://www.amadirectlink.com/legisltn/positions/ridered.asp>.

McCallister, Kim. “The Truth About Motorcycle Helmets.” Helmet Law Defense League. 09 June 2003. <http://usff.com/hldlhome.html>.

McKnight, J., and McKnight, A.S. (February 1994). “The Effects of Motorcycle Helmets Upon Seeing and Hearing.” (DOT HS 808 399). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

McSwain, N.E., and Wiley, B. Impact of the Re-enactment of the Motorcycle Helmet Law in Louisiana. (DOT HS 806 760). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation. (December 1984).

“Motorcycle enthusiast killed after near-miss.” Associated Press State & Local Wire. 25 June 2000. LexisNexis. 20 June 2003 <http://80-web.lexisnexis.
com.proxy.library.vcu.edu/universe/document?_m=8cdd014993691f5c625e9d233f
29abf9&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLbVlblSlAl&_md5=c9b56f7f86656794657e665667613e2a>.

Orsay, Elizabeth, Holden, J.A., Williams, J., Lumpkin, J.R. “Motorcycle trauma in the state of Illinois: Analysis of the Illinois department of public health trauma registry.” Annals of Emergency Medicine. 26.4 (1995). 455-460.

Orsay, Elizabeth, Muuelleman, Robert, Peterson, Timothy, Jurisic, Daniela, Kosasih, Judith, Levy, Paul. “Motorcycle Helmets and Spinal Injuries: Dispelling the Myth.” Annals of Emergency Medicine. 23.4 (1994).

Planned Parenthood. <www.plannedparenthoodvotes.org>

Porter, Don. “Year’s events put age-old questions in new light.” South Bend Tribune. 31 Dec. 2001: A1.

Quigley, Richard. “NHTSA’s safety standards are shown to be anything but safe.” Helmet Law Defense League Report. March 1994. <usff.com/hldl/report/3rdEditiona.html#R302>.

Prinzinger, J. M. "The Effect of the Repeal of Helmet Use Laws on Motorcycle Fatalities." Atlantic Economic Journal. 10 (1982): 36-39.

Saxton, Frank. “Helmet Safety Info.” 4 April 1997. 9 June 2003.
<home.europa.com/~frankie/helmet.htm>

Saxton, Frank. “Helmet Law Fact Sheet.” 19 Jan. 1999. 9 June 2003.
<home.europa.com/~frankie/fact_sheet.htm>

State of New York. Department of Motor Vehicles. An Evaluation of Motor Vehicle Accidents Involving Motorcycles - Severity, Characteristics, Effects of Safety Regulation. Research Report No. 1969-12. 1969.
State of California. Health and Safety Code. Sec. 118875-118915. 14 June 2003 <http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=34017621908+3+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve>

Tough Call: Freedom Versus Safety. Host Rhonda Schaffler. CNN. 3 July, 2002

United States. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Motor Vehicle Occupant Safety  Survey. (DOT HS 808 334). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, Sept. 1995.

United States. Supreme Court. Gail Atwater v. City of Lago Vista. No. 99-1408. FindLaw. 1 Nov 2000. 14 June 2003 <http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/briefs/99-1408/99- 1408fo8/text.html>

United States. Supreme Court. Washington v. Harold Glucksberg. No. 96-110. FindLaw. 26 June 1997. 27 June 2003.
<http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/52
1/702.html>.

“What is A.B.A.T.E. of Ohio?” ABATE of Ohio. 2001. 21 June 2003.
<www.abate.com/text%20docs/whatisabate.doc>

Comments

[LionAndMagicBoy]

When I was in jr. high a family moved in next door: a mom and two 20-ish children. The son had been in a coma for a year following a motorcycle accident. He wasn't wearing a helmet. I watched his slow and painstaking recovery as he learned to walk and talk again. The family eventually moved away but I don't think the son was ever able to live on his own.

[benjamin natali]

I am writing this from the St. Elizebeth Hoppital in Youngstown, Ohio. I am in the Surgical Intensive Care Unit waiting room, day #17.

My son fell from his motorcycle without his helmet. Benjamin was in an injury induced coma for 13 days. He has his eyes open for short periods of time and can move his fingers on his left hand. (left thalamus damage)

There were no broken bones and a little road rash. Benjamin did not have any hand damage due to the fact that he was using protection on them, gloves.

Bottom line: If Benjamin was using a helmet he would not have any injury other than the road rash.

I grew up riding motorcycles on and off the road. In Ohio at that time we had a helmet law. After a few accideents, which every motorcyclist can and probably will have I knew that my helmet saved my noggin from serious injury or death. The message that we send today with no helmet law is like our young people not making a decision to ware a helmet on hteir own. It is made for them through example and I resent that.

[benjamin natali]

I am writing this from the St. Elizebeth Hoppital in Youngstown, Ohio. I am in the Surgical Intensive Care Unit waiting room, day #17.

My son fell from his motorcycle without his helmet. Benjamin was in an injury induced coma for 13 days. He has his eyes open for short periods of time and can move his fingers on his left hand. (left thalamus damage)

There were no broken bones and a little road rash. Benjamin did not have any hand damage due to the fact that he was using protection on them, gloves.

Bottom line: If Benjamin was using a helmet he would not have any injury other than the road rash.

I grew up riding motorcycles on and off the road. In Ohio at that time we had a helmet law. After a few accideents, which every motorcyclist can and probably will have I knew that my helmet saved my noggin from serious injury or death. The message that we send today with no helmet law is like our young people not making a decision to ware a helmet on hteir own. It is made for them through example and I resent that.

[racklefratz]

I could care less what you think about wearing a helmet when you or anybody else rides a bike. All of us are free to have our own hallowed opinions - they're like belly-buttons - we've all got 'em. But,...and it's a BIG ***BUT***, YOU'VE got to respect my individual right to make such decisions for myself, within the law. It's not your business. It's **MY** business.

Full stop. End of debate. Simple as that.

Trot out all your statistics, your impassioned and well thought out arguments, your rationale, yada, yada, yada, in favor of wearing a motorcycle helmet, but, at the end of the day, I'll be the one to decide if I want to wear one or not, thank you very much. I'm well aware of what inattention can do on a bike. I'm aware that riding a bike is inherently dangerous. But your own personal story of how you came to grief riding a bike is proof that wearing a helmet is no silver bullet to keep you safe.

It's all a matter of risk tolerance and risk management. You want to ride a motorcycle? Then you willingly accept the risks involved. The choice not to wear a helmet is only the acceptance of an additional risk when riding, but certainly not the only one. The decision to ride at all, helmet or no helmet, is a huge risk. Wearing a helmet may (or may not) protect your head in a crash, but there's a lot of other things attached to your head that can be seriously injured. If you can't accept that risk, DON'T RIDE.

Save all the liberal-based, touchy-feeley "I just want what's best for your safety, I know what's best for you,.....all that mush, for somebody else. I'm responsible for my actions, my safety, and all the rest that goes with individual responsibility, and yes, my insurance is up to date if I ever need to use it. Don't give me the tired old argument that others' insurance rates will rise to pay for my head injuries. That just won't wash. Insurance is there to do what it does, and that argument applies every bit as much to other kinds of injuries as it does to those stemming from motorcycling. Stuff it.

You want to wear your helmet? Wonderful. Wear it. Just leave me alone. It's my choice, not yours, or anyone else's.

[Helen]

I'm originally from Australia, where strict helmet laws are enforced for all motorcycle and bicycle riders. Still, some people try to get away without wearing one. And some of those people end up where my Mum works – in the Acquired Brain Injury Unit. It's not like an ICU. It's where you go when they've tried everything, and figure out you'll never be going home because you can never look after yourself again. It's permanent. I already believed in helmet laws before I visited the Unit, but believe me, if I'd had any doubts they would have been dispelled by the wrecked bodies and lives I saw there.

If the laws weren't in place, you can guarantee there'd only be more lives and families needlessly destroyed that way.

I'm astonished more US states don't have helmet laws. I'm glad that Virginia's laws prevented another tragedy. And I'm baffled and appalled by belligerents like "racklefratz", who only become irrationally angered by the truth.

[Frank Jones]

You obviously have no concept concerning what life in a free country is all about. You also seem to have zero first hand knowledge or experience when it comes to motorcycle safety. This is not uncommon.. a large percentage of people who support mandatory helmet laws have never even been on a motorcycle.

Your "facts" and stated assumptions are also incorrect in some cases. You are certainly entitled to your opinions but please do not post unfounded opinions as facts. Also, if you are so keen to have wonderful Government telling you what to do, perhaps you'd be happier living in China?

So what you seem to be saying is that EVERY American needs to lose freedoms and rights based on ONE experience that happened to someone else. Interestingly (at least to me), once America is no longer a free country, you will of course no longer be able to spout off your opinion concerning anything. Helmet laws today. No freedom of speech tomorrow. I believe that Hitler used the claim of "protecting society" for his policies too. Your own wonderful President Bush is using your same mandatory helmet law justification to circumvent the US Bill of Rights in order to "fight terrorism". But then maybe you don't mind the Government reading your e-mail and listening to your phone conversations because you have nothing to hide, right? And you wouldn't mind if Police pulled you over several times a day to search your car because you have nothing to hide, right?

Here's some interesting facts concerning China, which apparently has a Government and a living environment more to your liking:

China has had a helmet law forever and yet motorcycle fatalities continue to rise. By a LOT. So, like most Commie Countries, they are looking at increased legislation, to "solve" this problem. Like you, they do not see training, education, motorist awareness and so on as worthy endeavors. Punish the victim always works well for so-called Liberals.

I am always amused when people from foreign (to the USA) countries spout off about how Americans should have more rights and freedoms taken away. I guess that's why people are leaving the USA in droves.

When Sonny Bono put his head through a tree the Liberals started clamoring for helmet laws for skiers. Personally, *I* think that everyone in America should be forced to wear a full face helmet 7x24, no matter where they are or what they are doing. I can site plenty of statistics showing that many lives will be saved by forcing people to do this. Including a very dear friend of mine who was hit in the head by a frisbee and killed while walking along the beach.

Good men died to give me the right to ride without a helmet. And those same good men died to give you the right to state your opinions, even as moronic as others may think they are. Respect the sacrifices of others and don't try to make America less free than it already is.

[Fed Up]

Federal powers aren't ashamed of using cash-power to coerce states into accepting helmet laws, why would you believe the scientific community to be any less corrupt? You know their funding has to come from somewhere, right?

I'll tell you what scares me: The fact that every day I ride to work I see several cars that have been in serious accidents. These people need to be off the roads permanently.

How about a 5-year revocation of auto license for anyone who is found at fault in an auto accident, but they're still allowed a motorcycle license. Dodging misguided cars should either teach them a lesson or they won't survive long enough to pilot a car again.

Dealing with a sea of irresponsible Cagers (with expensive insurance policies to smooth over their indiscretion) isn't any easier with a bucket on you head and anyone that says otherwise is full of it.

[Fed Up]

Federal powers aren't ashamed of using cash-power to coerce states into accepting helmet laws, why would you believe the scientific community to be any less corrupt? You know their funding has to come from somewhere, right?

I'll tell you what scares me: The fact that every day I ride to work I see several cars that have been in serious accidents. These people need to be off the roads permanently.

How about a 5-year revocation of auto license for anyone who is found at fault in an auto accident, but they're still allowed a motorcycle license. Dodging misguided cars should either teach them a lesson or they won't survive long enough to pilot a car again.

Dealing with a sea of irresponsible Cagers (with expensive insurance policies to smooth over their indiscretion) isn't any easier with a bucket on you head and anyone that says otherwise is full of it.