The Truth About Helmet Laws

A Report
Generated by Adam Fitzwater and Hadley Perry

Download the MS-WORD format of this document HERE

Table of
Contents:

Introduction
3

Helmet Hazards and Facts
3

Motorcycle Death Rates
7

Economic Impact of Riders
10

Freedom of Choice
13

Social Burden on Society
14

Rider Education
15

Conclusion
15

List of Graphs, Table and
Figures

Figure 1: Peripheral Vision – Top View Section Thru the Basic
Plane
4

Figure 2: Hyperextension - Helmet Fulcrum
Scenario                                                     5

Figure 3: Hyperextension - Full-Face Helmet
6

Table 1: Helmet Safety Standards Tests from 1980 – 1994
6

Table 2: Summary of 1993 State Motorcycle Accident
Statistics
8

Table 3: Summary of 1993 State Motorcycle Accident
Percentage
8

Table 4: Death Accident Ratio Before and After
Helmet Law in Maryland
9

Graph 1: Death to Accident Ration Before and After
Helmet Law in Maryland
9

Graph 2:
California Motorcycle
Registrations 1975 – 1995
10

Graph 3: Total
California Motor Vehicle
Registrations 1975 – 1995
11

Table 5: Tax Revenue Gained from Sturgis 2000 and
2001
12

Table 6: Current and Predicted Revenue in
North Carolina From Motorcycle

Registrations
13

Introduction:

In 1966, the US Department of Transportation threatened to withhold
millions of dollars in highway funds from states that chose not to implement
mandatory helmet laws.  As a result
of this, the United
States became a country of helmeted
riders.  Congress later revoked the
Department of Transportation’s authority to impose such sanctions against the
states in 1976, leaving every state the option of having a helmet law only if
they see fit.  Currently, 27 states
have a helmet law allowing riders to choose whether or not to wear a helmet if a
rider is of a certain age (some also have insurance requirements) and three
states have no mandatory helmet law whatsoever.    In other words, 30 states
feel that forcing its citizens who ride motorcycles to wear helmets is wrong and
thus have chosen to not to do so, allowing the riders to make the decision for
themselves.
North Carolina is not in
this majority, as it currently still requires all riders to have a helmet no
matter their age or the amount of insurance they carry.  Recently, overwhelming evidence shows
that there are many benefits to states that have only a voluntary helmet
law.  Some of these include more
revenue for the state, safer riders, and more educated riders, and these as well
as other benefits will be discussed (Weiss, A., “The effects of helmet use on
the severity of head injuries,” Journal
of the American Statistical Association).

Helmet Hazards and
Facts:

There are several safety hazards that increase the risk of motorcyclists
being involved in accidents if they are wearing a helmet.  These hazards include a reduction of
peripheral vision while wearing a helmet, the added weight and fatigue of the
helmet, improper fitting helmet, inadequate testing of helmets, and increased
risk of neck and spinal injury from wearing a helmet.  Obviously, if riders were not forced to
wear helmets, these risks would be avoided.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) claims that
the “correlation between the extent of head rotation and the time to complete
the visually
check was small and non-significant.”  The report goes on to illustrate that
“for 19 of the 23 riders, wearing helmets resulted in a greater head rotation
than riding without a helmet.”
The remaining four riders failed to compensate for the loss of the
lateral field of view caused by wearing a helmet.  Thus, 17.4% of riders tested experienced
vision impairment that was not corrected by the rider, while the rest of the
riders tested experienced the need for additional head rotation.    Although NHTSA attempts to
disprove the hazards of motorcyclists wearing a helmet, the evidence still
provides that all riders must correct the loss of the field of vision by turning
their heads an additional 18.1 degrees, while a significant amount of riders
were unable to compensate for the loss if vision.  IF all riders were not forced to wear
helmets, those motorcyclists who do not automatically adjust to the added
rotation needed while wearing a helmet could make the proper visual checks,
which would prevent some accidents from occurring (The Effects of Motorcycle Helmets Upon
Seeing and Hearing, NHTSA).

Serious neck injuries are an important issue regarding the
requirement of wearing a helmet when operating a motorcycle.   There are three ways that a helmet can
break the neck of a motorcyclist.
The first is the Hangman’s Noose Analogy.  The interior edge of a helmet can be
imagined as a complete circle including the chinstrap.  The helmet forms a loop around a
person’s neck that can be compared to that of a hangman’s noose.  A hangman’s noose may cause vertebral
dislocation, which in turn can severe the spinal cord, leaving a victim
paralyzed.

The “helmet-Fulcrum”
scenario is another way that a helmet may break the neck of a
motorcyclists.  The helmet
fulcrum investigation began with an illustration (Figure 2) of a man showing
extension of the head.  This
illustration shows that even in normal extension, the helmet meets the spinal
cord at the third and fourth vertebrae and “acts as a fulcrum to resist the
force of translation of the head relative to the thorax” (Holt, Mike, NHTSA’s Safety
Standards are Shown to be Anything But Safe).  In this scenario, the victim’s neck can
be sheered, damaging the spinal cord, as force is applied to the front of the
helmet.  This can result in instant
death if the spinal cord is severed, or the spine may become hyper-extended
where the chance of paralysis and slow death are very likely.

The third way in which a
motorcyclist’s neck may break as a result of wearing a helmet in an accident is
from damage to the brain stem from the chin-bar on a full-face
helmets.  (Figure 3).   A strong force to the chin may
hyper-extend the spinal cord and cause instant paralysis or death.

The American
College of Surgeons declared that
improper helmet removal from an injured person might cause paralysis
(1980).  Requiring all motorcyclist to wear helmets may put them at further risk in
injured in an accident by witnesses attempting to help the victim or medical
assistants improperly trained in appropriate helmet removal techniques.

According to a study done by Dr. Jonathan Goldstein on motorcycle helmet
use and injury, “It is concluded that … past a critical impact speed, helmets
increase the severity of neck injuries.”

The weight of a helmet becomes a factor in the severity of
injury caused by wearing a helmet in an accident.  The average helmet weighs four
pounds.  When traveling at a speed
of 50 miles per hour, four pounds becomes 200 pounds upon impact due to the law
of inertia. The added weight of a helmet upon a head can increase the rate of
impact; possibly causing more damage to the person than if he was not wearing a
helmet at all. (Goldstein, Jonathan.
The Effect of
Motorcycle Helmet Use on the Probability of Fatality and Neck
Injuries).

The weight of a helmet on a motorcyclist’s head can not only cause
greater severity of impact, but may also cause added fatigue to the driver.  The human head is designed to release
heat, cooling the body and maintaining a constant temperature.  A helmet traps the heat emitted from the
head, which may result in overheating leading to increased fatigue.     The added weight of a helmet, and fatigue
that wearing one may cause, could lead to more motorcycle accidents, since
fatigue is one of the leading causes of all motor vehicle accidents.  (Sanfelipo,
Tony Pan.  Understanding Head and
Neck Trauma).

Serious neck injuries, including paralysis have resulted from motorcycle
accidents in which the driver was wearing a helmet.  Many of these injuries were cited to be
a direct result of wearing a helmet.
There are literally thousands of different
motorcycle helmets produced each year.
The Department of Transportation cannot possible test each and every
brand and style.  The helmet
manufacturers certify their own helmets, which are then subject to random
testing by the NHTSA.  Therefore it
is impossible for the consumer to know if the helmet he/she is wearing was
actually tested by the NHTSA and if it was subjected to all four of the testing
conditions.  The following data
illustrates how many helmets passed and failed safety standards from 1980
through 1994 (Table 1) (McCallister, Kim.  “The Truth  About Motorcycle
Helmets”).

Table 1: Helmet Safety Standards
Tests from 1980 – 1994

Year
Tested
Passed
Failed

1980
162
99
63

1981
103
50
53

1982
Test results were not submitted

1983
Test results were not submitted

1984
32
11
21

1985
32
32
0

1986
30
30
0

1987
No helmets were tested

1988
No helmets were tested

1989
30
24
6

1990
30
26
4

1991
47
31
16

1992
30
23
7

1993
31
20
11

1994
167
39
128

Helmet manufacturers realize
that the NHTSA does not effectively test all helmets; placing warning labels on
the inside of helmets. An example of such a label reads: WARNING: No protective
headgear can protect the wearer against all foreseeable impacts.  This helmet is not designed to provide
neck or lower head protection.  This
helmet exceeds Federal Standard FMVSS218: Even so death or severe injury may
result from speeds as low as 15 mph while wearing this helmet.” (Label inside a new helmet 1992).

The state of North Carolina
cannot affirm that all helmets sold within the borders have been
satisfactorily tested by NHTSA, thus it is difficult to ensure
that a rider wearing a helmet will be adequately protected by that helmet even
though it was supposedly rigorously tested and approved.

It is impossible to regulate the sale of each helmet not only for the
purpose of proper testing done by NHTSA, but also to ensure that each helmet
bought and worn by a motorcyclist is correctly sized and fitted for that
person’s head.  “Incorrectly fitted
helmets can do more damage than no helmet at all”,
according to the Bell Helmet Dealers Guide (1986).  Many people do not know how to properly
fit themselves with a helmet and generally opt for helmets that are too loose
since they are more comfortable.

Another risk of wearing a helmet comes from the false sense of security
that a rider may feel when wearing a helmet. That false sense of security may
cause the motorcyclists to take excessive risks and participate in more
dangerous riding habits.  Therefore,
statistics on helmet wearers versus non-helmet wearers may be biased according
to the personality and personal risk taking of a non-helmeted rider.

Motorcycle Fatality
Rates

Common sense would seem to dictate that of riders did not wear helmets
then more riders would be killed, causing fatality rates to increase.  This, however, is not exactly true
according to recent evidence.
States with no helmet laws actually have a fatality rate lower than that
of states with mandatory helmet laws.
There are several reasons for this.
Firstly, states with voluntary helmet laws as a whole have better rider
education programs and better-prepared riders.  This education leads to better decisions
made by the riders that in turn, reduces accidents and
fatalities.  The second reason for
this fact is the increased number of registrations translated to more bikes on the road.
There are in fact more fatalities as a whole, but when compared to the
number of registrations, the fatalities per rider are actually less.

The following tables from the Motorcycle Industry Council
show that the states with voluntary helmet laws actually do have fewer
fatalities per accident, and fewer accidents per motorcycles registered in
1993.

Table 2: Summary of 1993 State Motorcycle
Accident Statistics

Registrations

Reported
Accidents

Fatalities

Accidents per 10,000
registrations

Fatalities per 100
accidents

Mandatory Helmet
Use

2,352,293

52,270

1,557

222.21

2.98

Voluntary Helmet
Use

1,497,923

29,062

844

194.02

2.90

Total

3,850,216

81,332

2,401

211.24

2.95

Table 3: Summary of 1993 State Motorcycle Accident Statistics
as a Percentage.

Registrations

Reported
Accidents

Fatalities

Mandatory Helmet
Use

61%

64%

65%

Voluntary Helmet
Use

39%

36%

35%

Total

100%

100%

100%

1994 Motorcycle Statistical Annual,
Motorcycle Industry Council

Table 4: Death Accident Ratio before and after Helmet Law in
Maryland

Year

Accidents

Deaths

DAR

Before Mandatory Helmet Law

1985

3,182

72

2.26%

1986

2,823

84

2.98%

1987

2,328

65

2.79%

1988

2,010

61

3.03%

1989

1,693

46

2.72%

1990

1,714

46

2.68%

1991

1,752

53

3.03%

Total Accidents

15,502

Total Deaths

427

Death Accident Ratio
Before Mandatory Helmet Law

2.75%

Year

Accidents

Deaths

DAR

After
Mandatory Helmet Law

(1992)

1992

1,417

55

3.88%

1993

985

43

4.37%

1994

1,083

30

2.77%

1995

989

27

2.73%

1996

889

28

3.15%

1997

898

27

3.01%

1998

966

34

3.52%

1999

1,070

46

4.30%

2000

727

52

7.15%

Total Accidents

9,
024

Total Deaths

342

Death Accident Ratio
After Mandatory Helmet Law

3.79%

In Maryland,
the death rate increased after the mandatory helmet law was introduced.

The Death to Accident Ration (DAR) increases significantly in
Maryland after the laws is passed,
which means that helmet laws cannot be credited as having the benefits that
helmet laws proponents claim.   The reason the number of accidents
is reduced is because after the mandatory helmet law was passed, fewer people
ride, and many of those who continue to ride, ride fewer miles resulting in a
decrease in accidents.

The following graph illustrates the same information from the
Maryland Department of Transportation. The death to accident ratio is higher
after the mandatory helmet law came into effect.  The average ratio increases by more than
one percent when comparing the seven years before the law to the nine years
after it passed.

Graph 1: Death to Accident Ratio before and after Helmet Law
in Maryland.

Before helmet Law ………After Helmet Law

Relative to the number of registered motorcycles, states with
mandatory helmet laws had 12.5% more accidents and 2.3% more fatalities than
free choice states for the 14 year period 1977-90  (Accident and Fatality
Statistics, analyzed by A.R. Mackenzie, M.D.)

The
national average of motorcycle fatalities per 100 accidents is 2.95.  However, states with rider education
and no helmet law show the lowest average of only 2.56 deaths, while states
with helmet laws but no training have significantly higher rate of 3.09.  (American motorcyclists Association,
1988)

There is no discernible difference in motorcycle accident or
fatality rates between states with mandatory helmet laws and those that allow
freedom of choice.  In fact,
states that support voluntary use routinely achieve accident and fatality
rates equal to or better than states with mandatory helmet laws for all
riders.   (American
Motorcycle Association, 1995)

There are no appreciable differences found relative to
fatality rate, severity of injury, hospital stay, and discharge status between
motorcycle accident victims who wore helmets and those who did not.  (Arizona’s Governor’s Office of
Highway Safety Study, 1990)

Economic Impact of
Riders

Statistically, helmets do not reduce injury as significantly
as helmet laws reduce motorcycle ownership and use.  This lack of ownership leads to a
reduction in taxes, and license and registration fees.  This can result in millions of dollars
per year that the state loses.  This
reduction in ownership can be seen in the following graphs. When
California instituted a mandatory
helmet law in 1991, the motorcycle registrations dropped significantly, and
continue to do so in the following years:

Graph 2:
California Motorcycle
Registrations 1975 – 1995 (Information received from CA DMV)

The above graph shows that
Total Motorcycle Registrations Decreased significantly during the Four Years
Following the Enactment of the Helmet Law

Graph 3: Total
California Motor Vehicle
Registrations 1975 to 1995

Similar data has been found for other states that have instituted
mandatory helmet laws.  After laws
were passed in Nebraska, the sales
of new motorcycles dropped 41%.
Similarly the sales dropped 36% on
Oregon and 20% in
Texas in the first year following
the enactment of these mandatory helmet laws.  (R.L. Polk and Co., 1991)

By losing sales, taxes, and registrations, a states economy is negatively
affected by enacting helmet laws.
Conversely, when states choose to repeal their helmet laws, it has been
shown to add revenue to the states that choose to do this.  For example, in July of 2000,
Florida repealed their mandatory
helmet law. The state of Florida
registered 40,000 new motorcycles in the year after their mandatory helmet law
was revoked.   ABATE (American
Bikers Aimed Towards Education) made the following
estimates of what this amended law has brought into the economy of
Florida:

40,000 new motorcycles at an average of $10,000 each:  $400,000,000

Sales tax on motorcycles at 6%: $24,000,000

Registration fees on motorcycles: $1,444,000

Change of titles fees: $1,190,000

Total: $426,634,000

“This total is almost one half a billion dollars in one year
that was put into the economy of the state of
Florida,” says James “Doc” Reichenbach, President and Lobbyist for ABATE of
Florida and Chairman of the board
for the National Coalition of Motorcyclists. “ Of this
amount, over 25 million dollars went directly into the state treasury for the
budget.  This also does not include
the tourist money that increased because of
Florida being a freedom of choice
state.   In 2001, over
300,000,000 dollars were spent in
Florida at Bike Week during a ten
day period.”

These motorcycle rallies are able to provide states with an incredible
amount of revenue, in a very short period of time.  However, the largest rallies in the
United States
are located in states without mandatory helmet laws, which
leaves North Carolina
out.  In fact,
North Carolina is losing money
every year due to the fact that existing rallies in the state are not able to
boast the attendance that would accompany a volunteer helmet law in the
state.

For example, Bike Week is held every year in Daytona
Beach, Florida.  The
Volusia
County tourism board estimates that
500,000 riders attend this event, and 260 million dollars is added to the
economy of the county.  In
Texas,
Austin hosts a rally that brings
50,000 people to the city and adds over twenty million dollars to the
economy.

Similar numbers can be seen throughout the country.  According to the Greater Milwaukee
Convention and Visitors Bureau, the four-day Harley-Davidson celebration in
Milwaukee and other
Wisconsin communities is estimated to provide an economic
boost of 132 million dollars to the states economy.

One of the largest motorcycle rallies in the country is held in
Sturgis, South
Dakota.  The
following statistics (Table 5) are for the rallies held in 2000 (The
60th Anniversary) and 2001:

Table 5:
Tax Revenue Gained from Sturgis 2000 and 2001.

Category

2001
(61st)

2000
(60th)

Attendance

410,000

500,000 – 633,000

Taxable Sales from
Temporary Vendors

$11,600,000

$14,300,000

South
Dakota
State Sales Tax Collected

$466,599

$573,000

Sturgis
City Sales Tax
Collected

$232,891

$286,000

South Dakota
Department of Tourism Tax Collected

$116,013

$143,000

Total

$12,415,503

$15,302,000

According to the North Carolina Department of
Transportation there are currently 125,718 motorcycles registered in the state
of North Carolina.  It has been proven that the density of
bikers is much lower instates that require helmet laws.  For example,
before Florida repealed their mandatory helmet law in 2000 they had more than
three times fewer registered riders than Iowa (based on population), a state
with no helmet law whatsoever.
Florida is considered one of
the most scenic and most enjoyable states to ride in, while Iowa id known for
having a long cold winter and less than optimal riding conditions. Yet,
Iowa is able to exceed
Florida in the number of riders
per population.  Overall, states
with no helmet laws had 2.6 motorcycle registrations per 100 citizens, which
is roughly twice as many bikers as states with
mandatory helmet laws, which have a density 1.3 registrations per 100
citizens.

This data suggests that if North
Carolina had no mandatory helmet law, the number of
registered motorcycles would be somewhere in the neighborhood of 250,000.  Currently North
Carolina charges a title fee of 35 dollars and a license
plate fee of 12 dollars.  (17 dollars in Wake, Durham, and
Orange
Counties).  The tax in
North Carolina is three percent of
the value of the motorcycle.

Below is an illustration (Table 6) is an illustration of the
current and predicted revenue in North
Carolina from motorcycle registrations should the
mandatory helmet law be repealed.

Table 6: Current and Predicted Revenue in
North Carolina From Motorcycle Registrations

Source of
Revenue

125,718 registered
bikes

250,000 registered
bikes

Difference

Title
Fees

$4,400,130

$8,750,000

$4,349,870

License
Fees*

$1,634,334

$3,250,000

$1,615,666

Taxes**

$45,258,480

$90,000,000

$44,741,520

Total

$51,292,944

$102,000,000

$50,707,056

* Taking the average license fee to be 13 dollars.

** Taking the average cost of a motorcycle to be $12,000

This data illustrates that North
Carolina currently brings in just over $51 million
dollars per year as a result of motorcycle taxes, titles and license fees.  If North
Carolina did not have a mandatory helmet law, and the
registrations increase to the levels of the national averages, the state would
be talking in over 100 million dollars per year.  This would increase the amount of
revenue the state takes in by 51 million dollars per year.  Again, this does not include the huge
amounts of money that higher attendance during rallies would bring in.

In addition, if the license and registration fees were to be raised by a
small amount, a rider safety course can be instituted in the state.  Classes such as these have been credited
for lowering fatality rates as well as accident rates in the states that these
classes are offered.

Freedom of
Choice

Imposing helmet laws on
motorcyclists takes away their freedom to make their own decision of whether or
not to wear a helmet.   Helmet
laws make assumptions that motorcyclists lack the wisdom to make their own
personal safety decisions and need the government to regulate their
behavior.  As a result of this, the
personal liberty of our citizens is reduced.

There are many sports and
activities that involve a degree of danger and thrill seeking, but there are few
laws regulating personal safety and impeding the freedom of choice for
participants for many of these activities. Motorcyclists are part of this
thrill-seeking group of adventurers.
So why should motorcyclists be the only ones discriminated against?  The American Motorcyclists Association
(AMA) believes that “a common principle should be applied when consideration is
given to mandating personal safety, whether it be for motorcycling or some other
risk-related activity” (AMA).

The role of government is not to
regulate every aspect of a persons’ life.
Adults are perfectly capable of making their own decisions regarding
personal safety.  An individual
should be able to decide whether or not to wear a helmet while riding a
motorcycle.  The most effective way
of preventing injuries is not to mandate the use of helmets, but rather to
educate riders on proper riding techniques to reduce the total number of
accidents occurring.

Social Burden
Theory

Many advocates of mandatory helmet laws claim that taking away the
freedom of motorcyclists to choose whether or not to wear a helmet is a small
cost compared to the social burden motorcyclists place on the rest of the
population.  The claim is that
motorcyclists injured in accidents in which they are not wearing helmets imposes a social burden on everyone else.  They assert that motorcyclists are
generally not insured and therefore must rely on public funds such as Medicare
and Medicaid to cover their health costs.

This is not true according to a study done by the
University of North
Carolina.
The University published a study titled: An Examination of Motorcyclists
Injuries and Cost Using North Carolina Motor Vehicle Crash and Trauma Registry
Data.  The study disproves the
claims made by mandatory helmet law advocates, revealing that:

Motorcyclists admitted to trauma centers for the treatment of
injuries related to a crash were just as likely as other road trauma cases to
be medically insured, and considerably better insured than non-road cases.

Motorcyclists had the highest insurance payment rate of any
group.

Motorcyclists relied on Medicare and Medicaid considerably
less than all other group.

Motorcyclists had a higher rate of self-pay than any other
group.

Motorcyclists average medical costs
were less than other road trauma cases.
(“Without Helmet Laws Who Pays?” article by Steve Zimmer)

The funds for public assistance programs such as Medicare and Medicaid
come from tax dollars. Working motorcyclists pay taxes just as all other working
people do.  If a motorcyclist is
uninsured at the time of injury, they should not be excluded from this money,
since in the majority of cases, this person has worked at one time or another
contributing to the funds.  Motorcyclists involved in accidents do
not raise insurance rates for all road uses.  Motorcyclists and automobile drivers
have separate insurance pools, therefore the rates of automobile insurance is
driven by the automobile drivers themselves, not all road users.

The study done by the UNC
Highway Safety
Research
Center showed that 49.5% of injured
motorcyclists had their medical costs covered by insurance.  This percentage is almost identical to
the 50.4% of all other road trauma victims that were insured.  Motorcyclists rely on public sources for
medical assistance comparable to every other motor vehicle operators, causing no
increased social burden on those who do not ride motorcycles.

Motorcyclists are just as likely to be insured as any other road user and
should not be blamed for increases in insurance or medical costs.  Motorcyclists participate in their own
insurance risk pools, as are automobile drivers.  Motorcyclists also pay to the public tax
insurance pools like all other road users and should have equal access to the
funds.  “Any financial burden for
injured motorcyclists is, as it should be, paid for by motorcyclists themselves”
(Zimmerman, AMA, 2003).

Rider Education

Requiring motorcyclists to wear helmets while riding will not prevent
accidents from happening, or even lower the percentages of accidents.  The most effective method of preventing
injuries and deaths from motorcycle accidents is to educate riders.  By having the necessary riding skills, a
rider is better able to avoid accidents compared to a rider with no formal
training.

Many other states that have repealed their law requiring riders to wear
helmets have also implemented a rider education program. According to the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), preventing a crash from
occurring in the first place “offers the greatest potential safety benefit for
motorcyclists.”  The most effective
way to prevent riders from causing accidents is to train them on how to properly
respond to potentially dangerous situations.    Requiring a ride to wear a helmet
alone will not prevent accidents or injuries.  Teaching riders how to effectively and
safely maneuver in various traffic situations can do much more for reducing
motorcycle injuries and costs of recovery than mandatory helmets use for
riders.

States such as Florida
require motorcyclists under the age of 21 to complete a mandatory education
program.  The course involves at
least eight hours of classroom training and ten hours of training on a
motorcycle.  The Motorcycle Safety
Foundation nationally certifies the instructors for the course.  This type of program with well educated
and certified trainers, paired with classroom and on-road training allows
motorcyclists to effectively prevent accidents from occurring, thus reducing the
risks to themselves and automobile drivers, we well as lowering the number of
injuries and deaths from motorcycle related activity.

The idea of increased rider education raises the question of where the
money will come from to support such a program.  Rider education programs can be easily
funded by the increase in revenue generated by more motorcycle sales due to the
helmet law repeal, as well as an additional fee on private motorcycle
registrations.

In North Carolina, a
fourteen-dollar-fee on passenger motorcycles can be implemented, as well as a
twenty-one dollar fee for motorcycles with additional transport devices.  The money raised from these fees will
help fund the rider education programs.
Any additional funding needed for the program may come from enrollment
fees to the students.

Conclusion

In the past two decades, our nation has seen a dramatic trend towards
giving motorcycle riders a choice in the issue of riding with helmets.   North
Carolina would benefit substantially if the state
followed this trend allowing voluntary helmet use.  Riders should be given the freedom to
choose whether or not to wear a helmet.
Voluntary helmet use would help the state in terms of economic impact,
especially in a time when the state is involved in a budget crisis.  Along with this, the liberty of the
citizens of the stats would be respected, giving them the ability to determine
what is best for them.
Motorcyclists take on the responsibility of their actions since they are
accountable for their own insurance, taking the social burden off those who do
not own motorcycles.  The best way
to reduce injuries and deaths from motorcycles is not to force riders to wear
helmets, but rather to train them more effectively on how to prevent accidents
from occurring in the first place.
The state of North Carolina
would greatly benefit in many aspects if the mandatory helmet law were
repealed.

Download the
MS-WORD format of this document HERE

========================================================================

Additional Information not provided by the
authors:

- Repealing North Carolina’s mandatory
helmet law will not require any rider to stop wearing a
helmet.

-
Sound attenuation from wearing helmets represents an impairment in the ability
of a rider to perceive or discriminate warning or other useful sounds that will
decrease the risk of being involved in an accident.

-
Helmets can increase perspiration in warm weather and lead to sweat effecting
vision.

- Our
government tells us that it is perfectly legal to kill a fetus, jump out of a
perfectly working airplane for fun, bungee jump, use tobacco (the #1 killer in
the United States today), use alcohol (the #2 killer), SCUBA dive, and hang
glide. However, it is illegal to ride a motorcycle without a helmet. Is this
hypocritical?

-
Human nature causes most people to inherently apply their personal opinion to
what they think should be public policy. If we all step back and take a more
humble approach, we see that our own opinion is a personal view and should not
necessarily become public policy. There are many differing opinions on this
subject. Repealing the mandatory helmet law will not require people to remove
their helmets. Riders would be free to choose for themselves. Erring on the side
of freedom of choice gives every citizen the ability to be happy (Life, Liberty
and the Pursuit of Happiness).

-
States without mandatory helmet laws get the bulk of the tourism dollars from
motorcyclists. All of the four major rallies, (Sturgis, Laconia, Bike Week, and
Biketoberfest) are held in free states. Our pro-choice sister state (SC) is the
host to Myrtle Beach Bike Week which attracts 400,000 riders. NOTHING in North
Carolina comes anywhere close to any of these rallies. It has been reported by
Myrtle Beach authorities that each rider spends approximately $1500 dollars
during Bike Week. At 400,000 riders, that's $600M infused into the SC economy
because of Myrtle Beach Bike Week. By allowing adult riders the right to decide,
North Carolina could host a large motorcycle rally and reap the financial
benefits. Considering the budget crisis that North Carolina currently faces,
this should seem attractive to everyone in North Carolina.

-
Doctors and nurses who advocate mandatory helmet laws try to do what they think
is best. They are appreciated very much by the motorcycle riding community.
However, they only see one side of the issue. They see the injuries. They don't
see the times when riders avoid accidents by having their hearing and sight
intact. They don't know about the instances when perspiration does NOT get in
someone's eyes. They only see one side of the issue, and their opinions are
based on a one-sided view of the circumstances.

-
Mandatory helmet law advocates say they care about our head injuries and deaths.
If that is so, what about all of the people who have head injuries and even
deaths resulting from accidents while driving automobiles? There are many more
head injuries caused by automobile accidents then there are by motorcycle
accidents. If helmet law advocates drove around in their automobiles for a few
days while wearing crash helmets, they would see how distracting wearing a
helmet can be. They would see how absurd it would be to have a law requiring
mandatory crash helmet usage.

- A
message from a non-riding citizen: "There are some good arguments on both sides
of the issue. Those who support mandatory helmet laws say helmets help protect
against head injuries — or at least lessen the impact to the head — if the
motorcyclist crashes or is otherwise thrown from the vehicle. That’s a pretty
logical conclusion. Any protection is better than no protection, one might
think. Wearing helmets could, and probably have, saved lives. Some who want to
rescind the mandatory law may admit that helmets offer protection for the head
when it is pounded into asphalt or another vehicle. But they’ll also tell you
that such helmets obstruct their vision, which could lead to the crashes
occurring in the first place, and increase the possibility of neck injuries.
Removing the restriction could lead to better peripheral vision, which could
lead to fewer wrecks, which would also save lives. Safety experts, motorcycle
enthusiasts and statisticians will argue until the cows come home which
probabilities are more likely to occur. And I certainly don’t have an opinion
from personal experience as I have never ridden a motorcycle. It seems to me
that such a decision should be made by the individual who’s riding on the
motorcycle, not by legislators in Raleigh who don't ride motorcycles. A bill
that has been introduced in the General Assembly would give motorcyclists who
are at least 21 years old that opportunity. And why not? After all, someone
who’s 21 can volunteer to do things that are much more dangerous than riding a
motorcycle. People of such age, and younger, are already in the military, many
of whom are in foreign lands fighting terrorism and protecting our freedom.
People who are 21 have the right to drink alcohol and smoke cigarettes. And we
hope they’ll have the wisdom to know that it’s dangerous to drive, a car, a
motorcycle or anything, after consuming too much alcohol. People who are 21 can
run for local office and actually vote in the North Carolina legislature to
repeal the helmet law. They can help make decisions about taxes, spending and an
array of other things that affect our daily lives. Some decisions should be left
to individuals. Whether to wear a helmet on a motorcycle should be one of them."

Download MS-WORD format of this additional
information HERE

===================================================================

BOTTOM
LINE:
It is not the government's job to
mandate personal safety and control individuals.
Again, it's not about
helmet USE. It's about governmental control by elected officials who do not ride
motorcycles.
Let Those Who Ride Decide!
HOME