Up Front

UP FRONT

ON HELMETS, IMPENDING LEGISLATION, AND A MAJOR CONSEQUENCE

CURRENTLY, the federal government is putting a lot of pressure on the state of California to put a mandatory helmet law in force. The threat is a simple but convincing one. The feds will stop state safety funds if the law is not enacted, and that will effectively end a very innovative department’s activity in devising and promoting safety measures of all kinds.

Since California cannot afford to sacrifice an entire safety program affecting every citizen for a single point affecting only motorcyclists, we will probably see a mandatory helmet law in the near future. Moreover, if California goes, the other holdout states will go.

In light of this, I feel it is time for me to take a position on helmets. I know for a fact that helmets are beneficial because they offer enough protection to reduce the severity of head injury in most types of crashes. In other words, helmets increase the odds for survival, even though they do not make the head invincible as some individuals would like you to believe. Moreover, helmets aid hearing at speed, when you need to be aware of cars and trucks around you. (At rest you can hear more without a helmet. But at 55 mph, individuals who don’t wear helmets experience ear damaging wind noise in excess of 100 decibels. Because helmets are effective in the reduction of wind noise, those wearing them can hear better when their vehicle is in motion).

Knowing these facts, I personally wear a helmet, as does the entire staff of CYCLE WORLD magazine. If you ask any of us whether you should wear a helmet or not, we will say yes, and then we will attempt to show you why. We do this because consumer education is part of our obligation.

Education, however, is where I feel our obligation ends. I believe that the decision to wear or not wear a helmet should rest with each individual. I have two reasons.

First, mandatory helmet legislation may infringe upon an individual’s rights as guaranteed by the constitution. In

time, a court decision on Big Brother’s ability to enact laws like this (which includes the seat belt legislation for cars), will come, and we will have to abide by it. But until then, I think a push by the federal government is premature.

Second, if the purpose of a mandatory helmet law is to reduce death and injury, it should not be forced upon the public until sub-standard helmets are legislated out of existence or until someone figures out a way to make proper protective headgear clearly identifiable to those charged with enforcing the law.

Case in point: When a person is made aware of the facts and chooses to purchase a helmet, he will spend enough money to get a good design that offers the protection every rider needs.

If, on the other hand, that same person is forced by law to wear a helmet but doesn’t believe in them, he will more than likely buy the cheapest on the market.

Now, it may be a violation to wear a helmet on the street that will not pass certain safety standards, but that won’t stop a non-believer from purchasing one. You see, anyone can buy totally useless helmets as long as those helmets are labeled “Not for Highway Use.” Since substandard helmets look identical to good helmets on the outside, and since the qualifying label is on the inside, it is not an enforceable concept on the street. The only time a helmet violator runs any risk is if he is stopped for something else, and only then if the officer takes the time to study the inside of the helmet in question.

So, if there is to be a mandatory helmet law in California, or in any state for that matter, I think it should be postponed or repealed until a method of enforcement is developed that will allow the law to become an effective tool in the reduction of injury. And I don’t think law enforcement should bother until the question of constitutionality is answered once and for all.