• 2008 News
• 2007 Archives
• 2006 Archives
• 2005 Archives
• 2004 Archives
• 2003 Archives

• Find your District
• Find Your Legislator
• Call to Action
• How a Bill Becomes Law

• ABATE Speaks Out
• Editorials
• Talking Points

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin

In this column, Rudy Avizius and Tom Gordon, the legislative affairs coordinators for the ABATE of the Garden State will present you with information and editorials of interest to motorcyclists in New Jersey and across the nation.

Issue 3-1 - Why should I care?
Issue 2-1 - The real story behind the "social burden" theory
Issue 1-4 - Freedom of choice, this is still America isn't it?
Issue 1-3 - Doctors should get their own house in order and save 250,000 lives and $77 billion
Issue 1-2 - Logical and emotional perspectives on mandatory helmet laws
Issue 1-1 - Economic benefits of freedom of choice

Why Should I Care?

In North Carolina a new helmet law went into effect on Jan 1 that outlaws novelty helmets and requires riders to wear those heavy and bulky DOT approved helmets regardless of the drivers experience or driving record. Why should I care? North Carolina is far away and this law will not affect me.

Australia recently tightened their helmet laws so that if you are caught riding without a helmet, you get 6 points on your driving record despite the fact that it is simply an equipment violation, and not a moving violation. Why should I care? Australia is far away.

Florida has recently introduced a new bill that would confiscate your motorcycle, has mandatory jail time, and the loss of your driver’s for 10 years for popping a wheelie. Let me see, 10 years loss of license and jail time for doing a wheelie, but if an auto driver carelessly kills a biker, he or she gets a fine. Hardly seems proportionate to me! I personally find the confiscation of the motorcycle very troubling. It does not take much imagination to see the potential for abuse here. However, why should I care? Florida is far away and that could never happen here.

Australia recently passed and is now enforcing a law that allows the police to confiscate your motorcycle if you belong to a “motorcycle club”. Wow, is ABATE a motorcycle club? Could my motorcycle be confiscated for being a member? Are the HOG groups motorcycle clubs? Are the Patriot Guard members in a motorcycle club? Where will a prosecutor draw the line? Have any prosecutors ever abused their positions in the past? Well, why should I care? Australia is far away and it could never happen here.

Well it COULD happen here and it IS happening here. There are over 200 federal forfeiture laws are attached to non-drug related crimes and in America today, anyone can become a victim of a police confiscation raid. Every state police department — and most local ones — are now confiscating property, often without even charging the person for a crime. Financially strapped states and municipalities are now making next year's planned confiscations a growing item in their budgets. As state and local government budgets are squeezed, they rely more and more on direct confiscation of property for revenue. Incredible as it sounds, civil asset forfeiture laws allow the government to seize property without charging anyone with a crime.

The NJ Senate is now considering Bill S3024 which advocates confiscation of ATVs and Dirt Bikes if caught riding on public land. This new focus on confiscation is a very dangerous trend that needs to be stopped in its tracks before it becomes law. Once a bill becomes law it is very difficult to repeal it. The time to act is now BEFORE it becomes law. Why should I care? I ride a motorcycle not an ATV.

Remember this famous saying:
When the Nazis came for the communists, I remained silent; I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats I remained silent; I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists, I did not speak out; I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews, I did not speak out; I was not a Jew.
When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out.
by Frederick Gustav Martin Niemöller

Right now bikers in other areas are under attack. ATV riders in New Jersey are under attack. Do not wait until we are under attack. Once far away places pass laws against bikers, they serve as models of what can be done in other areas. Once confiscation laws are passed against ATV’s in NJ, who will be next? I know I would not want to see laws like these even considered to be passed here.

So who is out there working to protect your freedoms when it comes to motorcycling? In the last year ABATE has been successful in getting a bill passed declaring May as Motorcycle Awareness Month. We have been successful in getting bills introduced to significantly  increase penalties for tailgating a motorcycle (Senator McCollough of Mays Landing), establish a task force to study the feasibility of legal lane splitting for motorcycles caught in traffic congestion Bill A-3701,  and Bill S-1004 which establishes additional penalties for motor vehicle right away violations. We have established a working relationship with legislators from both political parties. ABATE of the Garden State doubled its membership 2 years ago, and doubled it again last year. If we can continue to grow at this rate we will have considerable success in advancing our agenda. We need YOU to make this happen.

Margaret Mead once said, 'Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.' We need to be that committed group. 
So, what can you do?

Contact http://ga3.org/njohva/notice-description.tcl?newsletter_id=19431121&r and fill out the form to send an email to your New Jersey representatives about your thoughts on confiscation of personal private property. This is a direct threat to all bikers.

• When riding through North Carolina and Virginia, do not stop for gas, food or lodging. Do not contribute money to a state that does not respect your right to make your informed decision. Try to spend your money in states that do respect your rights and let the merchants know why you are spending your money there. The merchants will realize that they are losing money because of nuisance laws and will eventually join the bikers to press the legislators to get rid of these laws. 
• VOTE! Our strongest leverage is our ability to influence elections. Imagine, there are 150,000 registered motorcycles in the state of NJ and if you count friends, spouses, and family, you can at least double that number. With today’s close elections, if we vote as a block, we can decide many of the winners and losers.
• Be aware! Read the papers, scour the Internet, visit the ABATE website (http://www.gardenstateabate.org) and keep up on the news regarding your freedom to enjoy biking. Remember, This is your RIGHT, our constitution has a clause about the "pursuit of happiness"
• If you are not already a member, join a motorcycle rights organization (MRO) such as ABATE. ABATE works hard to protect and defend your rights at the state level. The Motorcycle Riders Foundation (MRF) protects your rights and freedoms on the federal level. It deserves your support. (http://www.mrf.org/join.php)
• If you are already a member of ABATE, become more involved. Attend meetings, participate in a committee, help plan events, talk about the organization to your friends urging them to join. If every member and new member brings in just 2 new people, we can continue to grow and increase our effectiveness. You do not have to be a biker to join and help the cause.
  
  

  Rudy Avizius
  ABATE of the Garden State

  

Posted January 15, 2007
Issue 2-1 - The real story behind the "social burden" theory
One of the main arguments that non riders use to justify mandatory helmet laws for all motorcyclists, is that if they are not wearing helmets and have an accident, they become a “social burden” and therefore the majority is justified in taking away a freedom from a much smaller minority. In this issue I will explore a key source for this disinformation and shed some light on their less than altruistic reasons for limiting our freedom to choose.

It appears that there is another player you may not have been aware of when it comes to our battle to be able make our own informed adult decision as to whether to wear a helmet or not. This organization is known as Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety. (http://www.saferoads.org). This organization recently released “report cards” to all states on auto and highway safety.

In their website they describe themselves this way:
“Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety is an alliance of consumer, health and safety groups and insurance companies and agents working together to make America's roads safer. Advocates encourages the adoption of federal and state laws, policies and programs that save lives and reduce injuries. By joining its resources with others, Advocates helps build coalitions to increase participation of a wide array of groups in public policy initiatives which advance highway and auto safety.”

This organization has “graded” every state for things such as not having a primary enforcement of seatbelt laws, lack of mandatory helmet laws for all motorcyclists regardless of their driving experience, and not having red light cameras at intersections among other things. The media has also dutifully reported on these grades so that the general public and politicans accept them as "truth". While on the surface this may sound like these are people who are unselfishly looking to protect the general population from itself, let’s examine this organization and its possible motives a little more closely.

One general group that is part of this “alliance” is the insurance industry. Now what could the insurance industry possibly have to gain if the agenda of this organization was fulfilled? Think about this! Realistically, which of the groups in this “alliance” do you really think is funding this organization? I visited their website and it conveniently does not even list which specific organizations are part of the “alliance” making this organization suspect. Where does Advocates get the right to “grade” any state? Now the insurance industry has “built coalitions” with other groups to give it the cover it needs to try to limit your freedoms all in the name of protecting its bloated profits. It could never have accomplished this overtly, so it uses these other groups to hide its true agenda and provide it with the appearance of legitimacy.

This is the same insurance industry that lobbied hard for “tort reform”, which is really the severe limiting of your right to sue and hold people accountable for their negligence and wrongdoing. This is from an industry that posted a record industry-wide profit of more than $40 billion in 2005, increasing their surplus to more than $427 billion. .According to the Insurance Information Institute, after-tax profits of the property and casualty insurance industry were $44.9 billion for the first nine months of 2006. This will be their best year in 20 years. This also does not take into account the profits from their other significant investments. You just have to look at any major city’s skyline and you will see that many of the tallest and largest buildings are owned by insurance companies.

So, where are they getting all this money? Simply, from you! So the next time you hear the lame argument that the lack of a mandatory motorcycle helmet law is costing you money, realize that it is not really the truth. This disinformation has been repeated by the media so many times, that the general public believes it to be true. Using the questionable figures that the Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety provide, $13.2 billion was saved from 1984 through 1999 because of motorcycle helmet use and an additional $11.1 billion could have been saved if every state had mandatory universal helmet laws. That works out to $1.5 billion per year could have been saved if every state had a mandatory universal helmet law and this figure is most likely on the high side. This industry would be most glad to further erode your already declining freedoms to maximize its profits. Remember this the next time someone uses the “social burden” argument about not wearing a helmet. In fact motorcyclists are more likely to be insured than most drivers because they can afford to buy a second discretionary vehicle. Remember that most of these accidents involved bikers who had insurance and would therefore not have been a “social burden” in the amount above. The truth of the matter is that we are burden on the bloated insurance companies, and not on the general public, and hence we now have the reason for the existence of the Advocates for Auto and Highway Safety. These greedy insurance companies couldn’t care less about any “social burden”, but they care deeply about their bloated profits and CEO salaries. Some examples include:

In 2005 William McGuire, CEO of United Health Group made the following: salary $2.2 million, bonuses $5.8 million, stock options $48.9 million, Long Term Invesment Payouts $1.9 million, and other at $692,442 for a total compensation of $59.6 million, give or take a few hundred thousand.

In 2005 Edward M. Liddy, chief executive officer for Allstate raked in $11,137,865 in total compensation including stock options. From previous years' stock option grants, the Allstate Corporation executive cashed out $14,352,431 in stock option exercises. And Edward M. Liddy has another $35,061,310 in unexercised stock options from previous years.

In 2005 Stephen L. Way, the Chief Executive Officer of HCC Insurance Holdings Inc. raked in $16,142,746 in total compensation including stock option grants from HCC Insurance Holdings Inc. From previous years' stock option grants, the HCC Insurance Holdings Inc. executive cashed out $8,085,342 in stock option exercises. And Stephen L. Way has another $2,280,000 in unexercised stock options from previous years.

In 2005 Stanley R. Zax, Chief Executive Officer of Zenith National Insurance Corp. raked in $3,821,958 in total compensation including stock option grants from Zenith National Insurance Corp. From previous years' stock option grants, the Zenith National Insurance Corp. executive cashed out $23,792,366 in stock option exercises.

Remember, these are the same companies that were denying legitimate benefits to Hurricane Katrina victims in an attempt to further bloat their surpluses. Who are these guys kidding? These CEO’s are making more money in 1 day, than most of us will make in 1 year and the above figures only examined CEO salaries. There are plenty of other “upper managers” making well into 6 digit salaries as well.

If all of this were not enough, these same greedy companies try to float the idea that if motorcyclists would only wear helmets, then the insurance rates would drop. Well in 1989, Nebraska passed a mandatory helmet law using that argument and since then the rates have not fallen. In fact, Iowa which is next door and has no helmet law at all has lower rates than Nebraska.

So the insurance companies with a surplus of well over $450 billion and paying out the kind of compensation packages above are crying over $1.5 billion (again this probably a high figure) and would like to take away another freedom from Americans to further bloat their surplus?  Has American freedom been reduced to the freedom of the rich to accumulate even more wealth at the expense of our freedoms? You better believe that these insurance companies will work very hard to “buy” the politicians to pass mandatory helmet laws. They will also create fronts like the Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety to further advance their greedy agenda and give them the appearance of legitimacy. The organized motorcycle rights groups cannot hope to compete monetarily against such financial power.

However, we do have one ace up our sleeve that no insurance company can come close to matching. According to the Federal Election Commission, 91% of motorcyclists are registered voters compared to 75% of the general population. Bikers are passionate about being American. For that reason bikers are passionate about the freedom that being an American means. For that reason bikers are passionate about their free lifestyle. And for that reason bikers are passionate about their bikes. When a politician votes to take away a freedom from a biker, that biker WILL vote against them. Many politicians understand that no one will vote FOR them for voting for a mandatory helmet law, but there are plenty of bikers who will vote AGAINST them if they do.

Just imagine, in NJ we have over 150,000 registered motorcycles and many thousands more with motorcycle endorsements on their license, and you can probably at least double that figure again when you count family members and friends. If we vote as a block, with today’s close elections we can defeat any candidate for any office regardless of how much money the insurance companies “donate” to them. Nation wide there are almost 6 million registered motorcycles.

Now that is power! And that is why 30 states do not have universal mandatory helmet laws!

Rudy Avizius
ABATE of the Garden State

As I see what looks like a rising tide of people who have never ridden a motorcycle supporting taking away our freedom of choice by supporting mandatory helmet laws, I thought that perhaps if their freedoms were are risk, AND they have open minds, they might reconsider. Many people say it is “common sense” to wear a helmet, however, let’s not confuse “common sense” with “conventional wisdom”. In actuality, a helmet never prevented a single accident and has probably caused some due to hearing impairment, peripheral vision reduction, heat fatigue, and angry stinging insects being caught between your ear and the helmet. (That happened to me more than once and almost caused an accident each time.) Basic physical laws make a 4 pound helmet on your head become a 200 pound weight on your neck when you impact at high speeds, merely transferring the damage from the skull to the neck. Helmet testing services such as Snell have shown that helmets offer limited protection in any impact above 15 miles per hour. Who is driving at 15 miles per hour?

However, our argument is that that this is not a safety issue, but a freedom issue. One of the main counter arguments is about the “social burden” to society. Two sayings have emerged from this debate, “let those who ride decide”, and “if I pay, I have a say”. This article will examine these two sayings in more detail.

Let’s examine some causes of death in the US in more detail:

The number of motorcycle fatalities is dwarfed by other causes, so why are we focusing on such a small minority of deaths by taking away freedom of choice for a minority?

Should we take away freedom of choice to smoke?
Tobacco kills more people than all of the other categories combined, but our nation is built on freedom and correctly allows us to make an informed adult decision on this issue. Do you really want the government to take away our freedom of choice?

Should we take away the freedom of choice to eat what we wish?
The actual figures are in dispute, but the CDC estimates that between 100,000 to 400,000 people die from obesity related complications every year. The costs to society are enormous, but should we take away our right to informed adult freedom of choice? Should we be fined for every pound we are overweight? I doubt that many of you would support having the government involved in these decisions, yet we all "pay and should have a say".

Should we take away freedom of choice to consume alcohol?
Oh yes, we did try this once. It was called Prohibition and freedom loving people resented having this choice taken away from them and fought to have the law repealed. Does this sound familiar to the struggle to repeal mandatory helmet laws? Here you also have freedom of choice taken away from a small minority, and freedom loving people are fighting to repeal these mandatory laws. Alcohol abuse has profound affects on families and health care costs, but it would be un-American to take away our informed adult freedom of choice on this issue.

Should we outlaw sunbathing or mandate suncreen?
Once you start down the path of legislating the risk out of life, you are on a very slippery slope. The problem becomes where do you draw the line? Often times the line is drawn where it only affects small groups rather than where large numbers are affected. Do you think you are capable of making this decision for yourself or should government make it for you?

Should all swimmers be required to wear lifejackets?
Of course this would be very uncomfortable, but it would save even more lives than motorcycle helmets considering the fact that the NHTSA has estimated that helmets would only save approximately 1/3 of the fatalities. Oh, this is a legitimate argument when presented for the masses, but when the same argument is used by bikers it is brushed aside. Would you be willing to support mandatory lifejackets for all swimmers? Or do you believe that an informed adult decision is the appropriate way to handle this issue?

If I pay, I have a say!
Now let's examine further this saying, “if I pay, I have a say”. In a time of tight budgets, there is some logic to this belief. However, if you take that saying to its logical conclusion, all of the above behaviors would not have freedom of choice since their associated costs are so much greater than those of motorcycle fatalities. If you have an open mind and view the debate from this perspective, you see that mandatory motorcycle helmets are not a safety issue, but one of fundamental freedom. Many people lament the “social burden” that motorcycle accidents place on the taxpayers. The answer to this is simple: motorcyclists are MORE likely to be insured than the average automobile driver because they have the disposable income to be able to afford the cost of the “second discretionary vehicle” and therefore much more likely to have the financial means to have the appropriate insurance.

Almost 2 out of 3 auto-motorcycle accidents are the fault of the automobile driver. Would it not make more sense to increase driver awareness and education to lower the fatality rate? In fact the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has itself said that education programs are the most effective means of decreasing the fatality rate. As a result of the rider education programs that were started in California, motorcycle injuries dropped 34% and fatalities dropped 36%. Since these programs were rider financed, this remarkable reduction was done at no cost to the taxpayer or our freedoms. What we need is safer driving, not safer crashing! Remember, that Roethlisberger was driving his motorcycle without a valid motorcycle license or any formal safety training. When Pennsylvania repealed its mandatory helmet law, there was a provision for significantly improved rider and driver education and their fatality rate stayed the same despite the significant increase in automobile and motorcycle registrations. Since most accidents are the automobile’s fault, consider the fact that mandating helmet use is actually punishing the victim, not the perpetrator. Isn’t this blatantly unfair?

There are also those who say that they have to wear a seat belt, so we should have to wear a helmet and that freedoms are a trade off. However, there is no comparison between the personal intrusion of a helmet to that of having to put on a seat belt. I have a suggestion to the people who advocate mandatory helmet laws: beg, borrow, buy, or steal one of those nifty full faced helmets, put it on and try backing out of your driveway. You may now have a new sense of the peripheral vision and hearing loss experienced by motorcyclists. I then suggest that you try wearing one of those helmets on a 95 degree day with 90 percent humidity and the sun beating down on you while you are stuck in rush hour traffic. You will experience all of this without having the heat of the motorcycle engine rising up at you. At least some of you will realize the personal level of intrusion does not even closely compare to that of seatbelts and you may change your minds about how wonderful mandatory helmet laws are.

In the end, this is not a safety issue, but an issue of fundamental freedom. I have no problems when someone SUGGESTS that we wear a helmet, but I do mind when someone TELLS us that we have to. When I recently vacationed in Pennsylvania, I wore my helmet about 1/2 of the time. This was MY decision, not the government's. Do we really wish to have the government legislate the risk out of life by taking away our freedoms? It is very easy to take away the freedoms of a small minority when it does not affect you. Who will be there to protect your freedoms when the government takes away YOUR freedom of choice on: swimming, tobacco, alcohol, what you choose to eat, mountain climbing, sunbathing, skate boarding, hockey, golf, or helmets in cars? I say, "let those who ride, decide". This is still America isn't it?

Rudy Avizius

Some of the most vocal of these organizations are in the medical profession. Among these medical organizations, the most active ones include the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP), and the American Medical Association. Both of these organizations actively call for legislation to force mandatory wearing of helmets for all motorcycle riders regardless of their experience or driving records. These organizations lament the fact that our freedom to choose was not legislated away from us on the federal level by passage of the Lautenberg amendment. Their justification for this position is that it could save as many 444 additional lives (in 2001), and $11.1 billion dollars if helmets were mandatory in all states. Their website often references the NHTSA figures which are suspect from the beginning, but let’s assume that these figures are correct.

There organizations are very willing to surrender OUR freedoms for the “greater good”. Would they be so willing to surrender THEIR freedoms the same way if even MORE lives and money could be saved? They say that they have to wear seatbelts, so we should have to wear helmets. The level of personal intrusion of having to wear a helmet is far greater that of having to wear a seatbelt.

FACT: Doctors are the third leading cause of death in the US, causing 250,000 deaths every year.
Most of these 250,000 deaths per year are from iatrogenic causes!!

Just look up IATROGENIC in a Google search and you will have reading for the next month on the staggering number of errors that take place in our hospitals.

FACT: Hospital-acquired infections is the second leading cause of death in the US.

In 2000, 2001, and 2002, an average of 195,000 DIED due to potentially preventable errors made in hospitals. This is according to a study of 37 million patient records by HealthGrades, a healthcare quality company.

A different analysis showed that between 4% and 18% of consecutive patients experience negative effects in outpatient settings. This included: 116 million extra physician visits, 77 million extra prescriptions, 17 million emergency department visits,
8 million hospitalizations, 3 million long-term admissions, and 199,000 additional deaths.

The costs of these “errors” for the public was $77 billion in extra costs, beyond our normal health care costs.

My argument here is that these doctors advocating the taking away of OUR freedoms to save 444 lives, should get their own house in order and save 250,000 lives and $77 billion, before meddling in our recreational activities and telling us we should give up our rights.

The American Obesity Association commissioned a study in 1999 and established the direct health care costs of obesity at $102.2 billion in 1999. This figure would be significantly higher today in both number of people affected and in dollars. This is by far a more compelling reason to take away our freedom of choice to eat what we wish than the small amount that motorcycle accidents costs. Would these same doctors advocate taking away our freedom to eat the foods we wish?
Is taking away our freedoms the American Way?

Even the NHTSA has confirmed that the vast majority of motorcycle/auto accidents are the fault of the automobile. Isn’t forcing motorcyclists to wear a helmet the same as punishing the victim rather than the perpetrator? This is patently un-American. The NHTSA has also admitted that education is the most effective method of reducing motorcycle fatalities. Wouldn’t it make far more sense to require auto drivers to be educated in motorcycle awareness?

I have a suggestion. Since 80% of all fatal auto accidents are head injuries, we could save far more lives by mandating helmets for all auto drivers. The ACEP and AMA should logically support this position since it will save even more money and lives than simply mandating helmets for a small fraction of al motor vehicles. Would these same doctors be willing to support legislation for mandatory helmets for all auto drivers and give up THEIR freedoms?

There are those who say that they have to wear a seat belt, so we should have to wear a helmet. I have a suggestion to those people: beg, borrow, or steal one of those nifty full faced helmets, put it on and try backing out of your driveway. You may now have a new sense of the peripheral vision and hearing loss experienced by motorcyclists. I then suggest that you try wearing one of those helmets on a 95 degree day with 90 percent humidity and the sun beating down on you while you are stuck in rush hour traffic. At least some of you will change your minds about how wonderful mandatory helmet laws are. There is no comparison between the personal intrusion of a helmet to that of having to put on a seat belt.

In the end, this is not a safety issue, but an issue of fundamental freedom. I have no problems when someone SUGGESTS that we wear a helmet, but I do mind when someone TELLS us that we have to. Do we really wish to have the government legislate the risk out of life by taking away our freedoms? It is very easy to take away the freedoms of a small minority when it does not affect you. Who will be there to protect your freedoms when the government legislates on: mountain climbing, skate boarding, hockey, golf, or helmets in cars? This is still America isn’t it?

Rudy Avizius

I will start with presenting a logical perspective on this viewpoint and if logic doesn’t work to persuade, then this article will move to an emotional perspective.

The Logical Perspective
Point 1: Almost 2 out of 3 auto-motorcycle accidents are the fault of the automobile driver. Would it not make more sense to increase driver awareness and education to lower the fatality rate? In fact the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has itself said that education programs are the most effective means of decreasing the fatality rate. Evidence that these educational programs work comes from the fact that in California, their award winning safety program accounted for a 43% decrease in fatalities and a 40% decrease in injuries from 1986 through 1991. When Pennsylvania repealed its mandatory helmet law, there was a provision for significantly improved rider and driver education and their fatality rate stayed the same despite the increase in automobile and motorcycle registrations. Since most accidents are the automobile’s fault, consider the fact that mandating helmet use is actually punishing the victim, not the perpetrator. Isn’t this blatantly unfair?

Point 2: These editorials point to the fact that motorcycle fatalities have increased in states where a universal mandatory law was repealed. That may be true in raw numbers, but let’s look at this more closely. As a result of the repeal, the percentage increase in the number of motorcycle registrations often surpassed that of the increase in the fatality rate. However, in some states, the fatality rate was still higher than the increase in registrations. Have you considered the fact that motorcyclists are riding more miles than before because it is far more pleasurable now that helmets are not mandated? Have you also considered the fact that the number of cars has also increased? Remember, 3 out 4 accidents are the automobile’s fault! In California, There was a 26% drop in new motorcycle sales in 1992-1993 after passage of their mandatory helmet law. Ridership was down an estimated 18%. Motorcycle fatalities decreased, however this number was less than decreased number of riders. One side factor to consider is that when motorcycles are driven less, vehicles that use more fuel are driven more raising our total collective consumption of fuel. We should be encouraging motorcycle use, not discouraging it, especially now in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina and its disruption of our fuel supplies.

Point 3: These editorials lament the “social burden” that motorcycle accidents place on the taxpayers. The answer to this is simple: motorcyclists are MORE likely to be insured than the average automobile driver because they have the disposable income to be able to afford the cost of the “second discretionary vehicle” and therefore much more likely to have the financial means to have the appropriate insurance. Another fact to consider is that motorcycle accidents account for less than 1/10 of 1% of all health care costs in the nation.
Helmet laws can also COST states significant amounts of money. After passage of the mandatory helmet law in California, in 1992-93 there was a 26% drop in new motorcycle sales and ridership dropped by 18%. This cost the state over $1 million in gasoline tax, $15 million in lost sales and payroll taxes, and $1 million in lost registration fees. There is of course no way to estimate how much was lost by the hotels, motels, gas stations, and restaurants across the state as bikers visited helmet free states for their vacations and day trips. After Florida repealed its mandatory helmet law, new motorcycle registrations in Florida spiked from 219,000 in 2000 to 417,000 last year.

The amount of money that motorcyclists spend in free states is not insignificant, Did you know that:
Daytona Beach takes in $650 million in one week during bike week? Daytona Beach actually takes in more money from its motorcycle rallies, than by the NASCAR events held there.
Myrtle Beach has significantly increased attendance and takes in $350 million in 1 week during their Myrtle Beach Bike Week.
Johnstown, Pennsylvania's Thunder in the Valley had their attendance jump from 70,000 to over 100,000 the year after mandatory helmets were eliminated.
Sturgis, South Dakota attendance had grown 850,000 bikers last year during the Sturgis Rally.
Laconia, New Hampshire had a record year last year and over 400,000 bikers attended last year's Laconia Motorcycle Week.

The one thing all of these states have in common is that they are states that allow motorcyclists freedom of choice when it comes to wearing a helmet. These biker rallies are not insignificant sources of income for these communities. Every dollar that is spent locally creates an additional $3 of economic ripple effect. These figures do not take into account the hundreds of thousands of motorcyclists who will visit these states for day trips, weekend stays, and longer vacations. In the end, mandatory helmet laws end up costing states far more money than motorcycle accident will cost.

When considering the above figures, consider that the economic impact of the closing of Ft. Monmouth in New Jersey has been calculated between $900 million and 1.2 billion statewide. http://www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050514/NEWS/505140453
This should give you some perspective on the economic impact bikers can have on an economy.

Point 4: Many of these editorials state that it is just common sense to wear a helmet. Most of these editorials were written by people who do not ride. In actuality, a helmet never prevented a single accident and has probably caused some due to hearing impairment, peripheral vision reduction, heat fatigue, and angry stinging insects being caught between your ear and the helmet. (That happened to me more than once and almost caused an accident each time.) Basic physical laws make a 4 pound helmet on your head become a 200 pound weight on your neck when you impact at high speeds, merely transferring the damage from the skull to the neck. Helmet testing services such as Snell have shown that helmets offer limited protection in any impact above 15 miles per hour. Who is driving at 15 miles per hour?

The Emotional Perspective

Most of the editorials stated that saving lives was more important than fundamental freedom. Of course the people that write these editorials supporting mandatory helmets are not motorcycle riders themselves. You say that you are inconvenienced and have to wear a seat belt and therefore we should be inconvenienced and have to wear helmets. These helmets are well worth the minor inconvenience they present to bikers. This is very easy to say when it is a minority that will have to forgo their freedoms. Let’s explore this issue of forcing a minority to forgo their rights for the “greater good”.

If “saving lives” is the primary motivation, I have some proposals that will save far more lives. Since automobiles far outnumber motorcycles on the road and since 80% of all fatal automobile accidents involve head trauma, we could save far more lives by mandating helmets for all drivers and passengers in automobiles. Now that means you will have to go out and purchase a $200 helmet for every member of your family and they must wear it EVERY time they enter your automobile. To better simulate our experience, you cannot turn on the air conditioner since we don’t have them either, but you can leave your windows open. Of course you will not have the heat from the engine rising up at you when you are caught in stop and go traffic in the direct hot sun with 95 degree temperatures and 90 percent humidity. I bet you will find the helmet a little more than an inconvenience. Perhaps the inconvenience is only “worth it” when it is others who are inconvenienced and not yourself. I’ll also bet your wife will love your support of these mandatory helmet laws when it messes up her hair. Also, when you stop somewhere, you will have to carry the helmets with you to prevent their theft or make some provision to secure them. Remember, we do not have a locking passenger compartment on our bikes.

I also suggest that you put on one of those nifty full face helmets and try backing your car out of your driveway. Then you will gain an appreciation for the loss of peripheral vision and hearing. This may also help sway your blind support for how "safe" there helmsts actually are.

Now all of these are perfectly reasonable objections when made by a citizen, but when they are made by motorcyclists, they are brushed aside. Motorcyclists are a minority, and it’s easy to pick on a minority.

Mandating helmets in all vehicles including automobiles will save far more lives than mandating it for a small minority of vehicles and therefore you should “accept” the majority view since it is for your own good.

Now that we are on to “saving lives”, and you feel that you have the right to intrude on my personal activities, I should have the same right to intrude on yours. I wish to have a say in your dietary habits. Health costs associated with poor dietary habits cost our nation far more lives and money than all motor vehicle accidents (auto and motorcycles) combined. By allowing me to have a say in your diet, the nation will save far more lives and money than with mandatory helmets for motorcyclists. Somehow after looking at the costs of bad dietary habits in our society, the cost of motorcycle freedom of choice is miniscule. Should we ban cigarettes? Should we ban alcohol? That would also save more lives than all motor vechicle fatalities combined. I don't think so, it would infringe on Americans making an informed adult choice.

Is this the direction we wish go in our country? Can we really legislate the risk out of our lives? Should we begin regulating sunbathing?mountain climbing? golfing? hockey? Who will be there to protect YOUR rights when they come after YOUR recreational activities?

What this finally comes down to is that this is an issue of fundamental freedom, the freedom to choose whether to wear a helmet or not. Do we really want our government to act as our nanny protecting us from everything? It is simply wrong for government to intrude into our personal lives and dictate to its citizens on an issue of personal choice. This is still Amrica, isn't it?

Rudy Avizius

You may now be asking yourself, “What is ABATE of the Garden State?” The New Jersey Motorcyclists' Alliance (ABATE of the Garden State) was formed as a means for motorcyclists in New Jersey to speak with a UNITED voice on issues concerning the motorcyclists' community. At the time of its formation ABATE was disbanding which left New Jersey with no groups, individuals, or organizations providing representation in Trenton for the over 200,000 motorcyclists in this state. The collective interests of the motorcyclists' community needed to be heard and Legislators need to respond to OUR needs, to protect OUR hobbies and OUR lifestyles.

ABATE of the Garden State acts as an umbrella organization of many affiliates and supporting riding clubs. Each of these affiliated motorcyclists' rights organizations and supporting clubs are completely independent, but being associated with ABATE of the Garden State provides them with political clout and the means to work together!

Our organization worked closely and supported ABATE of PA during their helmet law battle, and look forward to ABATE of PA support when a New Jersey bill comes up. ABATE of the Garden State has also supported Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland, Tennessee, Missouri, and now Michigan in its current fight to modify the helmet law.

In this column we will be asking you to become involved in the fight to protect your rights. There is pending legislation on the federal and state levels that threatens freedoms that you now take for granted. We will inform you of these threats and provide you with the information you need to fight them effectively. COLLECTIVELY WE REALLY CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE! We recently sent out a questionnaire/survey to all New Jersey legislators. Several have replied and have expressed a willingness to work with us on making addressing issues that are important to motorcyclists in our state. They have said yes to a Freedom of Choice for Adult Riders. WE CAN ONLY MAKE THIS HAPPEN WITH YOUR SUPPORT.

With the hundreds of thousands of registered motorcycles in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, we have tremendous collective economic clout that the politicians cannot ignore. Consider these facts:

Bikers contribute more to the economy of Daytona Beach than NASCAR

Daytona Beach Takes in $650 million in one week during bike week.

Myrtle Beach has significantly increased attendance and takes in $350 million in 1 week during their Myrtle Beach Bike Week.

Johnstown, Pennsylvania's Thunder in the Valley had their attendance jump from 70,000 to over 100,000 the year after mandatory helmets were eliminated.

Sturgis, South Dakota attendance had grown 850,000 bikers last year during the Sturgis Rally.

Laconia, New Hampshire had a record year last year and over 400,000 bikers attended last year's Laconia Motorcycle Week.

These biker rallies are not insignificant sources of income for these communities. Every dollar that is spent locally creates an additional $3 of economic ripple effect. These figures do not take into account the hundreds of thousands of motorcyclists who will visit these states for day trips, weekend stays, and longer vacations.

The one thing all of these states have in common is that they are states that allow motorcyclists freedom of choice when it comes to wearing a helmet.

We invite you to visit the ABATE of the Garden State website http://www.gardenstateabate.org for more details and information on issues related to motorcycle rights and look for this column in future issues of East Penn Biker Magazine.

Tom Gordon and Rudy Avizius