Cycle News - Archive Issues - 1980's

Motorcyclists in California will no longer have the option of riding without helmets if AB36 clears the state legislature. Helmet bill conjures up old arguments By Farren Williams LONG BEACH, CA, JAN 30 Pro-choice motorcyclists in California are gearing up for another battle with mandatory helmet law proponents. Assemblyman Richard Floyd (D-Gardena), recently introduced a bill in the state legislature which would require all riders and passengers to wear . .. . helmets whIle ndmg on publIc 2 highways. The bill is similar to several past measures that were shot down in flames in California's legislature. It inspires memories of the freedom-ofchoice/mandatory-helmet-Iaw debates which raged in the state capital during the early 1970s, when throngs of riders converged on Sacramento to gun their engines in protest. But the latest measure could be more difficult to defeat. Pro-choice opposition is nowhere near as solid as it was in the 1970s, and one-time helmet-law foes, such as the Motorcycle Industry Council and the California Motorcycle Dealers Association, have endorsed the bill. And the proposed law reportedIy has more support than ever among the state's legislators. Proponents are touting health-care studies which show that taxpayers are picking up most health-eare costs for injured riders. Supporters also are pointing to the success of the state's year-old seat-belt law which requires all drivers and passengers to buckle up. The mandatory helmet law controversy began 10 1966, when congress approved the National Highway Safety Acl. The law created 18 Highway Safety Standards, including a Motorcycle Safety Standard. The motorcycle standard mandated several technical/engineering requirements for street bikes, including things like buddy pegs for passengers, mirrors, and standardized lighting configurations. It also required all states to pass mandatory helmet laws. Those often unwanted, yet federally-imposed, helmet laws required all motorcyclists, regardless of personal inclination, to wear a safety helmet while operating a motorcycle on public streets and highways. State governments were reluctant to oppose the federal mandate because the Highway Safety Act gave the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) authority to withhold 10% of all federal highway construction funds from any state that refused to pass mandatory helmet legislation. While proponents offree choice screamed, "blackmail," 47 of 50 Slates, (48 if you include the District of Columbia). yielded to federal authority and approved helmet legislation. The holdouts were Cali-fornia, Illinois and UIah. In 1975, the American Motorcyclist Association and several small statesrights groups won a viClory for individual rights when the Cranstonl Helms Amendmem removed the federal blackmail power from the Highway Safety Acl. Since that time, 28 staleS have repealed federally mandated helmet laws, and only one state - Louisiana - has reinstinned helmet legislation similar to the original federal mandate. Floyd's latest bill, similar to a doomed measure he imroduced in 1980, has been compared to the slate's mandatory seat bell law. Afterrepeated attempts, the seat bell measure was finally passed in 1985 and weOl into ef£ect January I, 1986. IL has significamly reduced traffic-related injuries ,and fatalities, according to the California Highway Patrol. Proponems feel AB36 - riding on the coattails of successful seat belt legislation - will be law by June, alLhough Governor George Deukmej ian has not indicated whether he will sign or veto the measure. OppOneOls of the bill are fearfuJ that approval of a mandatory helmet law in California will mean the iOlraduction of similar measures in other states. The old cliche keeps echoing in their collective consciousness: "As goes California, so goes the nation." Floyd was convinced that he should introduce the bill a second time after being confronted by the mother of a teenager who died from head injuries suffered in a motorcycle accidem. "(Last year), a lady walked imo my office from the Rio Linda area, outside Sacramemo," said Floyd. "She was a lady with a crusade. "Three weeks before I met her, she had an 18-year-old son who had an accidem. He died two days later, without a mark on his body, except a head injury. I listened 10 the lady and told her that I was not imerested in throwing something as controversial as a helmet law on the books, unless I had some real support. "The lady organized a non:-profit corporation, 'Californians for Safe Motorcycling,' and wem about getting support from people like herself, wives and mothers of people who have suffered severe head injuries, or death. She also raised support from just about every trauma center in the state of California. They have convinced me that it is probably time for a mandatory helmet law." Floyd agreed to sponsor the legislation when he learned that motorcyclists, only five percem of California's licensed drivers, represem 16% of all traf£ic deaths. More than 800 motorcyclists were killed on the state's highways in 1986, according to Bob Terry, Floyd's traffic safety consultam, and the NHTSA reports that 4570 riders died nationwide in 1985. The assemblyman also was swayed by theargumem Chat head injuries to motorcYcI ists cost taxpayers millions of dollars each year. "In the past we have been told that (helmet legislation) is a terrific infringment on our rights, and that we can go out and damage ourselves in any way we waOl," he said. "Actually, it's been a major cost to taxpayers, a major"drain on medical services. "I don't have the figures with me, but it's tremendous," said Floyd. "It costs $17,000 before you get out of the emergency room, and you're talking about a quarter-million dollars for one head injury." A 1985 study done at the University of California, Davis Medical Cemer showed that motorcyclists averaged medical expenses of $17,704 each, but paid, on average, only $122. The remainder was picked up by private insurance companies and MediCal. Seventy percem of those costs were paid by taxpayers, according to Terry, who claimed that the enactment of a helmet law in California would reduce public expenditures by 40%. But those costs are insignificant when viewed in the overall health care picture, according to Robert Rasor, vice president of Governmem Relations for the AMA. "Motorcyclists are not the only ones who rely on the public trough for health care," Rasor said. "There are numerous other examples in society where state or federal dollars are paid OUl. About $400 billion is paid out annually on teenage pregnancy. Does that mean that the governmem should supply condoms to teenage boys? "It's importam to note what percentage of health care costs motorcycle accidems represenl. Granted, (governmem funds spem on injured motorcyclists) is a lot of money. but its a small representation of "actual health care costs in the U.S. "A helmet itself does absolutely nothing to deter an accident," said Rasor. "The motorcycle rider is the only person likely to be affected by his decision. He should be able to decide for himself whether or not he wams to assume that risk." Doesn't Assem bl yman Floyd resem being told by government that there is one more thing he has to do? "No sir," he said. "Somebody's been telling me one more thing since r was in reform school, the U.S. Army, in the legislature and in everything I've done since. Somebody is always ~oing to tell you one 'more thing, that's a nation of laws, that's a civilization. "If you wam to get out with the club and the rock, and nobody's going to tell you anything, and you can handle it, fine," Floyd said. "But somebody's always telling all of us to how to handle it, and if you don't think so just make out your tax forms. By God, they tell you what to do and you adhere to il. If you don't, you are not a civilized people. They tell you whalloeto for your own good plus for the good of society. "I do not like to strap on the seat belt," Floyd said. "I have some pretty good scars on my leg from fire. It scares the hell out of me to think about that seat bell. I have burned. It doesn't mean that I'm not going to burn again. But I put on the belt anyway, and so does everybody in my car. It's the law." Rasor dislikes any comparison of California's proposed helmet law with the state's apparemly successful seat bell legislation. "The passage of the seat belt law reflects a mentality in this country," Rasor said. "It started with the child safety law, and is reflected, somewhat, by the national speed limit and the 21-year-old drinking law. The seat-belt law is an extension of that, and the logical progression leads to a mandatory helmet law. We're a logical target for that mentality and the intrusion of that philosophy." The California helmet bill will go to the Assembly Transportation Committee sometime in late February or early March, according to Terry. Confidem of success, Terry expects Deukmejian to sign the measure imo law sometime in June. If approved, the bill would become law on January I, 1988. . Win or lose, Floydclaims this is his final shot at sponsoring mandatory helmet legislation in California, but he warns that the issue will not go away. "I'm not a zealot on the measure,"

• Cover