MO Motorcycle Helmet Update

First, a story from the dreadful News-Leader with a little background:

Published April 28, 2004

House seeks repeal of motorcycle helmet law


Crawford


News-Leader Staff and Wire Services

Jefferson City — Hours after scores of motorcycle riders rallied at the Capitol, the House gave first-round approval to a bill repealing Missouri's mandatory motorcycle helmet law for riders 21 and older.
"I look at this as a matter of personal freedom," sponsoring Rep. Larry Crawford, R-California, said after the passage Monday. "This is an issue that has well outlived its life."

Bikers cheered on the legislation Tuesday, saying the helmet requirement restricts individual liberties and diverts out-of-state road warriors — and their money — from Missouri.

"I think we've had enough of our rights taken away in this country," said Springfield biker Joe Morton, 42. He counted about a dozen friends who avoid Missouri because the state requires them to don helmets, which bikers say can restrict vision and cause discomfort.

"I think they're losing a lot of revenue," he said, noting that helmet-hating bikers would purchase gasoline, lodging and souvenirs.

The bill's opponents say the government should continue requiring helmets because the safety devices save lives and ultimately save taxpayers medical costs.

"I think it should be a law," said Kristy Barbee. The 25-year-old said she always wears a helmet when she rides.

"I think it's just the government trying to protect its people," she said. [The government belongs to the people, Kristy, not the other way around.]

In Jefferson City, Gov. Bob Holden, who would have to sign the bill before it became law, wouldn't say Tuesday what he would do. "I would look very carefully at that bill before I signed it," Holden said.

Two House Republicans who are also physicians took to the floor to plead for keeping the helmet law. They said personal freedom is important but predicted that injuries would increase and the state would pay more for accident victims' recovery.

Republican Rep. Roy Holand, an orthopedic surgeon from Springfield, also spoke against the bill.

"I think it's a public safety issue," Holand said.

"Every freedom has a responsibility side," said Republican Rep. Rob Schaaf, a family physician in St. Joseph. "You're increasing the risk that you're going to hurt the rest of us by forcing us to pay dollars for your health care." [No, you CHOOSE to treat them, Robbie.]

Said Springfield Police Lt. Scott Leven, a self-described "firm believer in giving responsible adults the right to choose": "It is your head, but unfortunately when your head gets damaged and I have to pay the bill, that's what upsets me."

The House tentatively approved the measure on a voice vote, but another vote is needed to send it to the Senate. A similar bill was vetoed in 1999 by then-Gov. Mel Carnahan, and other helmet proposals failed both before and after that.

Crawford said the federal government originally required states to pass motorcycle helmet laws in 1967. But Congress repealed that requirement in 1976, and most states no longer require bikers to wear helmets.

Among neighboring states, only Nebraska and Tennessee still has a helmet law. [I'm sorry to hear that they still 'has' a helmet law. It would be less distressing if the two states HAVE HELMET LAWS. Get a grammar editor.]

Earlier Monday, motorcyclists parked their vehicles on the Capitol sidewalks and congregated on the lawn for an annual rally. Many of them support abolishing the helmet law.

But legislative opponents claim dropping the requirement would result in more serious injuries, with the state often paying the medical bills.

"I believe in personal choice," said Rep. Vicky Riback Wilson, D-Columbia. "The question here is not a matter of personal choice. It is a matter of using public roadways and state resources in order to take care of the problems that result." [Do you suggest people driving cars be required to wear helmets as well? If "public roadways and state resources" is your argument, then it applies to automobiles, doesn't it?]

Said Leven: "I don't like the big thumb of government, but sometimes government has to step in and protect those people who just can't protect themselves." [Who "can't" put on a helmet? What a bunch of idiots we have in Jefferson City.]

Crawford, who rides motorcycles off-road and always wears a helmet, said he won't ride on public streets or roads because of the dangers involved. But if others want to ride in traffic and not wear a helmet, that should be their decision, he said.

"These are choices that all people make about what kind of activities they participate in," Crawford said.

If the law passes, attendance at Missouri biker rallies may improve, said 60-year-old Stan Brooks of Buffalo. Rally turn-out is only half that of other states, he said.

"The state of Missouri loses so much money because bikers will not come in this state," he said.

Now, an update:

Helmet legislation questioned


05/04/04
Scott Welton

Mike Cokenour of Sikeston is among the local motorcycle enthusiasts hoping to see House Bill 1109 passed.

SIKESTON — It’s an old argument with freedom of choice on one side and safety issues and health costs on the other.

Legislation passed by the state House of Representatives would make it legal for those age 21 and older to ride motorcycles without wearing a helmet. The bill now goes to the Missouri Senate for a vote.

Motorcyclists not wearing helmets under the current law in Missouri can be fined up to $25 with violations not counting as points on their license.

Jerry Helms of Sikeston, who had been riding since 1993, has been waiting a long time for this. “We’ve signed petitions and sent them to Jefferson City and everything,” he said.

Helms said he doesn’t see anything wrong with being able to hop on a bike and ride around town without having to strap a helmet on, but prefers to wear one at higher speeds. “On a trip I wear a helmet,” he said.

Many motorcycle riders, however, prefer to not wear them at all.

“Just yesterday, there was about 20 bikes and we all went to Illinois simply so we could ride without our helmets,” said Mike Cokenour of Sikeston, who has ridden motorcycles for about 15 years. “I’m definitely for the freedom of choice.”

Cokenour and others who would like to see the bill pass say it is more than just a personal freedom issue, however, as repealing the mandatory helmet law would mean more tourism dollars for Missouri.

“It will bring revenue back to the state. I know for a fact people avoid riding in this state just so they can take their helmet off,” Cokenour said. During their latest ride in Illinois, he and his wife spent $75 just on things like gas, soda, snacks - “just blowing money,” he recalled.

The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Larry Crawford, R-California, said 28 states permit adults to ride without helmets.

Rhonda Welch of Charleston said she personally prefers to wear a helmet, “especially riding on the back. I don’t plan on falling off or anything, but if I did? I just like wearing mine. I feel safe with it.”

But Welch said she also thinks the choice to wear one should be left up to her, not mandated by the government.

“The law doesn’t say you can’t wear a helmet,” Cokenour agreed. “Hey, if you want to wear a helmet wear a helmet, but it shouldn’t be anybody else’s choice to make for you.”

The bill’s opponents, on the other hand, say everybody will end up paying for that freedom though Medicaid or higher insurance rates with the increase in head trauma medical bills.

Rep. Margaret Donnelly, D-St. Louis, said the Missouri Head Injury Advisory Council figures show the cost of treating each head injury runs between $600,000 and $2.3 million. “I’m in favor of everybody wearing a helmet - anything you can do to protect the brain is good,” said Dr. Riyadh Tellow, neurologist at Missouri Delta Medical Center. “I don’t know why they want to allow people to not wear a helmet because it’s dangerous.”

Tellow said after working in a traumatic brain injury unit in Detroit, he has seen first hand the difference a helmet can make.

“A motorcycle accident can result in traumatic brain injury,” Tellow said. “A helmet can protect the brain so a major injury becomes a minor injury.”

According to national statistics distributed by the state council, motorcyclists not wearing helmets are three times more likely to suffer brain injuries than those wearing a helmet.

Tellow said he considers motorcycles to be dangerous, advising riders to be cautious “and use the most protection they can get including helmets.”

“I’ve seen the devastating consequences of accidents in general and motorcycle accidents in particular,” he said. “They take a devastating toll on the family and health care costs.”

In 1999, a similar bill was approved by both the House and Senate but was shot down by a gubernatorial veto.

Some information for this story was provided by the Associated Press.

--- Helmet bill is HB1109. On the Net: http://www.moga.state.mo.us