Posted April 2, 2005
Mandatory Helmet Laws Cost States Tourist Dollars

I have been away on vacation for the last week visiting Cancun, Mexico. This is a wonderful tropical paradise, the people were friendly and all aspects of the vacation were truly excellent. During my time there, I came across an ad that said I could rent a Harley-Davidson and enjoy riding and exploring the roads in Mexico.

I seriously considered this, but was made aware that I would have to wear a helmet while riding in Mexico. Since the days were quite hot and because I would not be able feel the wind in my hair, I decided that it simply was not worth it spend my hard earned dollars for this activity. I instead chose to just lay on the beach for the whole day and partake of the amenities offered by my all-inclusive resort. I was able to return home with much more money in my pocket than if I had rented the motorcycle for several days.

This anectode is a small example of how tourism dollars are being lost by states that mandate helmets for all riders. With 8.8 million registered motorcylcles in the United States, I wonder how many times this scenario is repeated across the country.

How many riders from Ohio resist visiting Michigan because of its mandatory helmet law? How many riders from Michigan choose to leave their state to visit free states?

When given a choice, will riders from Maryland (with a mandatory helmet law) choose to stay in their own state or visit Pennsylvania which is a free state? (I visited the Thunder in the Valley Rally in Pennsylvania last year specifically because I had a choice as to whether to wear a helmet or not)

These states are hurting their merchants because these riders are spending their money in other states to buy fuel, food, lodging, entertainment and other services. 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?

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 recoed 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.

I have listed a few additional articles below that illustrate just how much money states are losing.

Rudy Avizius
ABATE of the Garden State

Posted July 7, 2005
THE CALIFORNIA EXPERIENCE AFTER THE MANDATORY HELMET LAW

California is proving the consistent trend that states with mandatory helmet laws have higher death rates than those which repealed the law. Instead of seeing a dramatic decrease in fatalities as proponents predicted, the truth is California's death rate is 2% higher than the year before the helmet law went into effect. This falls in line with the experience of other states with mandatory helmet laws. In 1992, the states with the lowest fatality rates were Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, North Dakota and Wisconsin none of which have full helmet laws. Coincidentally, those states with the best overall safety also have comprehensive rider education courses in place. This is the impetus for Senator Campbell's S.234, which would exempt states from federal penalties for non-compliance with helmet mandates, if there were safety programs available. More evidence to the value of safety programs 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, before the helmet law was in effect. The decrease in injuries alone amounted to 12,258, compared to 5,829 which the California Highway Patrol attributes to the helmet law between 1992 and 1993. Did the helmet law in California cause a drop in fatalities? While death's did go down, the number of riders decreased at even a greater number. That coupled with a national trend of continued fatality decreases, it's hard to credit the helmet law with anything more than causing a financial disaster in California.

There was a 26% drop in new motorcycle sales in 1992-1993. Ridership was down an estimated 18%. How does that compute to dollars lost to California? Over $1 million less was received in gasoline tax, over $15 million in sales taxes, payroll taxes and in state income taxes. The state lost $950,000 in registration fees. California used to account for 1/5 of all motorcycles in the United States. They are now experiencing the lowest totals since 1969. With the increase in court challenges to the law, at a great cost to the state, there is no way to estimate the total cost. But it was all unnecessary.

ABATE of California puts this problem into perspective. Today's violent society calls for an increased law enforcement presence at all levels. The primary and most important duty of those whom we elect to public office, and their enforcement arm, the police, is to protect the citizens of California from that which they cannot protect themselves. There has been a recent tendency to enact motor vehicle safety legislation which is designed to socially engineer our individual behavior after the image of those who have the political power to pass laws which regulate and control us. California's motorcycle helmet law is a prime example of this. This law was enacted after years of controversy and little popular support, in spite of declining fatality and injury rates because of California's motorcycle safety and training program. The law has been strictly and rigidly enforced from the day it became effective. Unreasonable and uncharacteristically heavy handed police activity has created an adversarial situation between otherwise law abiding citizens and the very law enforcement personnel they. rely on to protect them.

It's time to repeal California's mandatory motorcycle helmet law for adults, and this is why.

First. The helmet law has not delivered the safety benefit which was promised to justify its passage. The rate of fatalities per accident in the second year of helmet law enforcement was higher than it was in 1991, the last year before the helmet law went into effect.

Second. The helmet law costs California money in two ways. It has severely depressed the motorcycle business in California with a resulting loss of jobs and tax revenue. In addition, zealous, but ill-advised enforcement of the law has cost the state valuable law enforcement, judicial and prosecutorial resources on citations which are, for the most part, dismissed when contested.

Third. Freedom of Choice! The main and most important reason to modify the existing law to exempt adult riders from mandatory helmet use, is that it is simply wrong for the government to dictate to individuals on an issue of personal choice.

If a message was intended by the election results from November of 1994, it was that Californians and Americans want less government. The mandatory helmet law for adults represents a dramatic and largely unprecedented intrusion into the arena of individual rights.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

We thank ABATE of Maryland for this information.

http://www.abate-of-maryland.org/xcaexprc.htm

Claim: Injured motorcyclists are uninsured and disproportionately rely upon the public to pay for their injuries.
Fact: Motorcyclists are just as likely to be privately insured as any other road user. A study done by the University of North Carolina's Highway Safety Research Center reported that 49.5 percent of injured motorcyclists had their medical costs covered by insurance, while 50.4 percent of the other road trauma victims were similarly insured. The study also showed that motorcyclists were responsible for about $2 million a year in public cost for the entire United States as compared to $32 million a year for motor vehicle operators.

Claim: In the five states (Kentucky, Texas, Florida, Arkansas, Louisiana) that have weakened their helmet laws, motorcycle fatalities have increased.
Fact: In the states where helmet laws have been modified to allow adult choice, ridership has increased as much as 75 percent in the past five years. This significant increase in riders may account for the increase in fatalities. It should not be assumed that the increase in fatalities is a result of the modified law. For example, after Florida's helmet law was modified, the promoters of Daytona Bike Week reported an increase in attendance while local officials reported a decrease in accidents and fatalities over the prior year.

Claim: Weakening the helmet law will increase everyone's insurance rates and taxes.
Fact: There is absolutely no truth to this. No actual figures have been reported by any of the 30 states that allow adult motorcyclists the option to use a helmet to substantiate the claim that the modification of Pennsylvania's law will cost the commonwealth millions of dollars.
In fact, the costs associated with the treatment of motorcyclists' injuries account for less than 0.1 percent of total U.S. health care costs, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. One of the primary arguments put forth in California for enacting a mandatory helmet law was that it would cause insurance rates to go down. It didn't happen. But revenue from registering motorcycles did go down.

Claim: Riders who do not wear helmets are at a much greater risk of being injured, maimed or killed.
Fact: According to The American Spectator an individual is more at risk of injury or death in a hospital than he is riding a motorcycle without a helmet. One out of every 100 patients admitted to a hospital is either hurt or dies from medical mistakes.
In addition, in 2002, 3,276 motorcyclists lost their lives because of accidents. In that same year: smoking caused an estimated 434,000 deaths; alcohol, 105,000 deaths; AIDS, 31,000 deaths; and fires, 4,000 deaths.

Claim: Motorcycle safety courses are not effective in decreasing fatalities.
Fact: According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, motorcycle safety courses are the No. 1 reason for the decline in motorcycle fatalities and injuries. Also, Pennsylvania has been recognized as having one of the best motorcycle safety programs in the United States.

Claim: Most motorcyclists are irresponsible.
Fact: The demographics of the modern day motorcyclist may surprise you. They are: 92 percent are male, age 35, two-thirds are married, most have a high school and some college education, an income range around $40,000, 95 percent work in professional management and labor careers and 91 percent are registered to vote.
People must know the facts regarding motorcycle safety. There's a lot of rhetoric on this issue. Know the facts. The best way for a motorcyclist to avoid injury is to prevent accidents. Helmets and helmet laws do not prevent accidents. Motorcyclists do. The fact remains that the best way to avoid an accident is through sound rider education safety and motorcycle awareness programs.

John N. Wozniak is a Democratic Pennsylvania state senator representing Cambria, Centre, Clearfield, Clinton and Somerset counties. He is the minority chair of the Senate Finance Committee.

Furthermore, only 2.53 percent of all registered motorcycles were reportedly involved in accidents in 1990, and only 3.06 percent of those resulted in fatalities.

At a total of 2,900 for 1990, motorcyclist fatalities comprised 6 percent of the total vehicular fatalities, and ranked well behind passenger cars (25,700), trucks and buses (8,200), and even pedestrians (7,400).

Remember when people used to say that you shouldn't be afraid to fly in an airplane because you where more likely to die in an automobile accident then in a plane crash?

Applying this logic, more people should be ditching their cars in favor of the relative safety of a motorcycle. Your chances of having an accident in an automobile are 110 times more than on a motorcycle and - you are 10 times, more likely to die of a head injury in an automobile.
Better trade in those boats, too, because nearly twice as many people drowned last year as died in motorcycle crashes. And forget about walking, because well over two times as many pedestrians were killed in accidents as motorcyclists.

Besides, if you're on your feet, you are also more than four times as likely to trip and die in a fall.

Combining the already low number of fatalities (which is at its lowest point in 20 years) with the fact that motorcycling's safety record is improving faster than any other vehicle group, it is ironic that motorcyclists are being singled out as a legislative priority. Why are motorcyclists being targeted when they are the smallest group of traffic users, have the lowest rate of accident involvement, are the lowest category for fatalities and have the most improved safety record of all vehicles?

Why not write your local, state and federal lawmakers and ask them why?

-Bill Bish
National Coalition of Motorcyclists

A coalition of various motorcycle rights groups from across New Jersey, ABATE of the Garden State is gaining support across the spectrum of riding clubs. The Blue Knights, Gold Wing Riders, Hog Clubs, Vietnam Vets, Rolling Thunder and dozens of other clubs across the state have signed on to support the ABATE of the Garden State’s attempt to provide a united voice and communication network through its website (www.ABATE of the Garden State.info) on issues affecting the New Jersey motorcycle community.

As ABATE of the Garden State sets its focus on helmet reform in New Jersey, separating myth from reality is paramount as the public debate heats up. Here is an overview of the pertinent issues.

Myth: Without mandatory helmet laws, fatalities will increase.
Fact: According to a 1995 report of the American Motorcycle Association, there is no
discernible difference in motorcycle accident or fatality rates between states with mandatory helmet laws and those which allow for freedom of choice. In fact, states which support voluntary use routinely achieve accident and fatality rates equal to or better than states with mandatory helmet laws for all riders.

Myth: Mandatory helmet laws help prevent injuries.
Fact: Helmets are minimally effective in preventing most injuries. (National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration report to Congress, the CODES Study, 1995) After adopting a mandatory helmet law, the New York Department of Transportation found an increase in broken necks from helmet use. A four pound helmet becomes a 200 pound weight on a rider’s neck when struck at 50 mph. Interestingly, the U.S. Department of Transportation only requires that motorcycle helmets withstand direct impacts up to 13 mph without shattering.

Myth: The public will pay for injured motorcyclists.
Fact: Motorcyclists are as likely to be insured as any other motor vehicle accident victims.
A University of North Carolina study found the percentage of injured motorcyclists whose medical costs were covered by insurance was the same as other road trauma victims.

Myth: Without a mandatory helmet law, everyone’s taxes and insurance will increase.
Fact: 30 states have adult choice helmet laws and none have reported any increase in cost to the public. According to the National Center for Health, motorcyclist’s injuries account for less than 0.1 percent of the total U.S. health costs.

Myth: Motorcycle riders are irresponsible citizens.
Fact: There are over 200,000 registered motorcycles in New Jersey and over 200
organized riding clubs which regularly raise funds for charitable purposes. The average motorcycle owner in the U.S. is a 35 year old male, married with a high school degree and some college education, working in corporate management or a labor career with an annual income of approximately $40,000. And over 90% are registered to vote.

Myth: Motorcycle safety courses are ineffective at preventing accidents.
Fact: The U.S. Department of Transportation reports motorcycle safety courses as the
no. 1 reason for the decrease in motorcycle injuries and fatalities.

Motorcycle safety is an issue of accident prevention, not injury prevention. Experience shows that automobile driver awareness and rider education prevents accidents and injuries, not helmets. As ABATE of the Garden State presses forward on the helmet issue, it is important that your friends and neighbors, as well as your riding buddies, can separate the facts from the rhetoric.
An adult choice helmet law in combination with mandatory rider education and an increase in automobile driver awareness programs is a sensible alternative to New Jersey’s antiquated mandatory helmet scheme.

By: Jerry Friedman, Esq.
1-800-law- 4-hogs
ABATE of the Garden State Legal Advisor