Cycle News - Archive Issues - 1980's

AMA replies to Assemblyman Floyd's AB996 Dear Assemblyman Floyd: As Cycle News West suggests in its March 23 issue, California riders will probably remember your bill, AB996, which would make helmet use a matter of law. They'll remember it because they have, through their elected representatives at state and federal levels routinely re, h . ,JeCted helmet la~ eac brne o~e Free motorcycles! (See p. 48) --9-a Husqvarna 1980 1981 MODELS AVAILABLE SEE US .....-.-k.ot FOIIADEALI _ _. . We .......y - farold~tool T&OYamaha 2402D "-bon.,. Ave. lTo~.-J 24 LomIUl. CAI0717 213-&34-2311 has attempted to legislate safety. They II remember AB996 because it once again treats motorcyclists as a s~ial breed of road U5er, a group evJdentl~ not quite intelligmt enough to protect Itself. . I don't dispute or doubt your sincerity; you are certainly compassionate and seem to know the motorcycle from the saddle. Bu~ why is it that ~ compasUC?n ends J~t short of domg the real Job for highway safety, such as proposing a leat belt law? Is it because you know full well that it would be unpopular with a broad base of voters? Is that why j~ motorcyclists are the objectofyourmtere5t! . .. Granted, the morbidity st~tlStiCS are there. But don't falsely bnng Harry Hurt into the fray - Hurt says helmets work and that's all he says. We agree. The statis~cs you ~ fond o.f using ~ll other stones you don t mention,. stones that, born of the same ComPUlllon you have for fellow road users, would, or should, inspir~ y~';l to greater int.erests than you ~re bmltJ.ng yourself to m the sponsors!Up of this. smsl:e u;opopuiar law. Lets do some m~tlgatlon to see what these untold stones are: ~ Federal ~ent m January o! t~ year said. that 42,.541 people died m auto ac<:tdents, WIth ano~her 5,4~. motorcyclis~.l.ast year. Smce poIitl~ and stat1stlCJaDlJ tend ~ ~ bl(FSt bang for the buck, wouldn t It make sense to try to p~tect these tens of thousands of car driven, based simply on their ~~ !JUI11~? But then maybe biken JUSt l.nJUre therr ~ more and need the kind of pro· tectlon that helmet laws supposedly offer. . . Sorry. O~ federal statIStiCS show that unrestramed auto operators are fatally injured in the head-face-neck area at a rate of 71.6% compared t.o 55.3% for motorcycle operators. So if you used head injury rates ~ a yardstick, then helmet laws for car drivers seem to jump to the top of any priority list. Then it must be that old "social burden" theory at work, the idea that biker injuries are just too costly to justify half of them not using helmets. This is, of course, your "vegetable" theory in Cycle News West. What do statistics say about that argument? . The same institute that once studied the costs to unhelmeted motorcyclists in their hospital abo supplied AMA with information on car operators' costs. The Rocky Mountain Regional Spinal Injury Ceocer. Inc., says: "Spinal cord injuries and brain injuries OCCU! with ~uch greater f~- _. quency as a result of automobile accidents than anr other caU5e. In t gmeraItha our expenfen~ woul~ SUIgge5d h t t e cost 0 care ,or spma cor and brain injury is not significantly different becaU5e of the caU5e of injury." The Injury Center goes on that 51.9% of all spinal disabilities are related to transportation accidents, of. which 4.% of that 1979 total were caused by motorcycles or bicycles. So, the social burden dogma that you have to force people to care for them8elves when they start ea.ting society motleY just won't wash either. There are more carfol1r. on the public dole. Lots more. Then what about use rates? Don't most motorcyclists doff helmets when given the chance? No. Over 50% of the bikers in voluntary use states wear helmets withotJt laws. However, only a pitiful 11.9% of automobile drivers voluntarily use belts. In a one-shot experiment to teach riden about helmet U5e, voluntary U5e rates were temporarily bumped up to over 70%, fully 500% higher than seat belt use ratesl In any sense, it is not just the motorcyclist who chaa.es to put his safety at risk by not usil1ll' a helmet. It is a far greater number of auto drivers who cost society more money, die of face and head injuries more often, have lower voluntary protection rates, and are simply more numerous than motorcyclists. In any petSpective of highway safety, you ought to address this other group first, unlea instead there is a political expedient at work recommending attention to only motor'CyCIists. I commend your effort to separate rider education from the helmet law issue and address it elsewhere. It probably is more important than helmet laws, as you say. But if you desire to rationally address the problem of inexperience in accidents then attend to that bill only, ~ helmets and helmet laws don't reduce the number of accidents. Accident preventive measures do. You should also know that California has fatality rates (per unit accident and per unit registration) comparable to a few of the so-called safe-states with fully functioning helmet laws. Before I ask you to reconsider your stand and withdraw the bill, I want you to know that the history of helmet. laws implementation .aft~ the remov~ of the federal sanctlomng powers m 1976 ~ exactly 0%. Zi.p. That abo goes for retnstatett;lent t.nes aft~r ~epc;al. I'm only offenng t~ as an ,ndlca~,on that both state legislatures and bikeriding citizens a~ ~ne:weary. of tJ:1e issue and are rqe<;tlng It ou~ht JD case after c;ase, .b.III. after bill, state after state. You might keep this track record in the back of your mind, because no legislator wants to be closely associated with albatross billa. Because you ride, and because many, many bike-riding constituents will be quick to paint you with a broad brush that says, "Floyd must hate bikers," won't you reconsider sponsoring the bill? Emotional appeal may be on your side, but the statIStics aren't; the logic of priorities isn't; the social burden argument, or your "vegetable" argument isn't. And, believe me, bikers aren't on your side. Even your "lower insurance" argument is hopelessly false: After 'four years of our asking, >10 insurance company yet has admitted a schedule of lowering rates when helmet laws are introduced. To bring this to an end, we aren't going to make the arguments for voluntary helmet use you'd lilr.e us to you know, the easy ones: they break. necks, they restrict vision, they're heavy, they're hot. We aren't taking the easy "anti-helmet" path, Mr. Floyd; we're taking on the tougher philosophical isme of required use; we're taking the high road, arguing for cmsideratioo of IIlOtot'Cyclisa as rational and equal road users. I'd like to see you abandon the easy arguments, too. Skip the "social burden" nonsense, the "better insurance" drivel, and especially the harangue about unhelmeted biken becoming "vegetables." You take on the hard arguments, too, lilr.e why~ tors continue to patronize moton:yclists; why legislators won't squarely face the ire of auto drivers when faced with required seat belt U5e; and more subtly, why Iegislators don't as vigorously apply mo.e hackneyed "~ble" argUments to their auto-driver constituents. As you say in Cycle News West, there is change in the motorcycle market bringing many youthful and inexperienced riden into the picture. The increase in motorcyclist fatalities must be addressed by ~rative efforts between rider and legislator. But while fatality statistics are cold as can be, bear in mind that, lilr.e it or DOt, the helmet law issue will take precedence over any other accident countermeasure you may propose because it is a demomtrable threat to riden. Motorcyclists will devote extraordinary time and energy to see its ~t_ This has been the cue in every single such effort lIincr 1976. This is time and energy that could be spent on cooperative lobbying to provide training and prevent the logtcal precursor to neediftg a helmet. If you're into cost efficiency, realistic priority letting, and cooperative government, you'll abandon this endeavor before bikers abandon your offer to help on rider education. I assure you, they have long memories. GeryWinn Legislative Analyst Government Relations American Motorcyclist A80ciation WesterW1e,OH

• Cover