November 07, 2009
What's Inside:
Nixon vetoes helmet repeal
Governor cites lives, cost in explaining decision
Governor cites lives, cost in explaining decision
Rick Shaginaw puts on his helmet before taking off on his motorcycle Thursday afternoon. Mr. Shaginaw has been riding since 1974 and says he will always wear his helmet. He totaled a bike a few years ago. ‘I’m glad I had that helmet on,’ he said.
Gov. Jay Nixon vetoed a measure to repeal portions of Missouri’s mandatory motorcycle helmet law Thursday.
“In terms of lives and of dollars, the cost of repealing Missouri’s helmet law simply would have been too high,” Mr. Nixon said in a news release. “Keeping our helmet law in place was the safe and cost-effective choice for Missouri.”
The governor vetoed legislation that would have allowed people 21 and older to ride without helmets on all roads except interstate highways.
Federal requirements would have made the repeal confusing, said Rob Eidmann, owner of St. Joe Honda.
“It’s almost as if he had to, because of the way the bill was written,” Mr. Eidmann said.
Driving on Pear Street, for example, would have required a helmet because it’s part of an interstate business route. Technically, someone could have been pulled over on Frederick Avenue, but on almost any other street it would have been legal not to have a helmet, Mr. Eidmann said.
“It all boils down to a matter of personal choice,” he said.
Two local motorcycle riders think that a helmet is the only way to go.
“I have a helmet and I wear my helmet, even in Colorado and Wyoming, where they don’t require it,” said Bill Hanlan.
A veteran motorcycle rider, Mr. Hanlan said he didn’t care what others decided, but he’d been in a wreck and wearing a helmet made good sense.
The head of the St. Joseph Police Department’s traffic unit, Sgt. Bill McCammon, said he was glad the governor issued the veto.
“There was a good chance we would have seen a 50 percent increase in motorcycle fatalities,” Mr. McCammon said.
According to data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the economic consequences of repealing such a law are clear. The safety administration recorded a sharp increase in Florida motorcycle fatalities for the 30 months after the helmet law there was repealed. The cost to treat patients diagnosed with head injuries as a result of motorcycle accidents doubled, reaching a total of $44 million.
One local motorcycle rider said he didn’t care if the law was repealed.
“I think everybody should wear them,” said Delmar Wehr. “I was going to anyway.”
Mr. Wehr also thinks the law should be improved to include moped riders, who he’s seen traveling at 45 mph — without a helmet.
Marshall White can be reached
at marshall@npgco.com.
This story has 11 comments. Click here to join in on the discussion.
Story Tools
Hyperlink Legend
E-mail story
Print friendly version
iPod friendly version
Today's Top Headlines
Jobless rate hits ‘sobering’ levels
Stories of courage, heroics emerge after deadly rampage
Guard group arrives home
County budget situation improves
No one injured in Ag Processing explosion
JOB SEARCH
RECENTLY DISCUSSED
A resounding yes on school levy
(180 comments)
Your letters, Nov. 7, 2009
(8 comments)
Same sex marriage loses in Maine
(65 comments)
Fewer voters turn out 2nd time
(40 comments)
More Popular Discussions
(180 comments)
Your letters, Nov. 7, 2009
(8 comments)
Same sex marriage loses in Maine
(65 comments)
Fewer voters turn out 2nd time
(40 comments)
I think people that insist on running should wear elbow and knee pads. The helmet law is a joke to allow mopeds riders to go without them is insane when part of the argument for helmet laws is that most head injuries are below 35 mph. This just shows the ignorance of the people that decide what we can and cant do. Watch out Missouri, helmets in cars could be next just check out the statistics on head injuries in auto wrecks.
Well said.
Confucius say..."He who have most clout and bucks, always win!" All you fat folks get ready. They are gonna ban you from fast food. I use to laugh about that. Now I don't.
Everyone who goes swimming needs a flotation device or they should be fined.
Everyone that eats fast food has to run home.
Government is not supposed to govern us. It's the other way around.
Stop your whining and crying! For cripes sakes, just effin deal with it! If you want to ride your bikes without a helmet, just do it! If you get a head injury from an accident, don't you DARE ask me to pay a dime for it because of your own stupid choices.
My problem with a no helmet law is this....how can a state with a seat belt law, say you don't have to wear your helmet? If you are going to let them ride without a helmet, then let me drive without a seat belt. If I have to wear a seat belt, then they have to wear a helmet. Its all about safety and injuries that happen in the mechanics of an accident.
Stop your crying! If you want it changed and you say its about the almighty dollar and "everyone" wants it changed, then what is the problem? Put your money where your mouth is and get it changed!
Oh yeah, one more thing I forgot about....I won't disagree with you on the moped deal either! If motorcyclists have to wear them, then the scooter and moped riders should have to wear them too. Most of the people running these things are the young, inexperienced drivers. Who knows what they are going to hit.
I don't really see much whining or crying in the post above. I'm not quite sure what got your knickers in such a "effin" twist.
Once again, it's about your right to choose. They (the Teddy care group of idiots)have introduced a new freedom to choose bill that will fine you a $1000.00 big ones if you choose not to have insurance. Stay tuned. There's more to come.
well said. ???? What???? i dont wear one when the law says i dont have to. i do when the law says i do. i always wear a seatbelt. doesent bother me at all. if mo. changes it to not to have to i wont. i think it a stupid law to have to. you can see and hear better without one. it hurts a lot more without one if you get into an accident. you figure out what i just said, make,s no sence to me either.
Just my own opinion,
Yes, wearing a seatbelt and wearing a helmet, certainly, a good idea. The issue to me is with the Government dictating such things. This is too much power over individual rights. At 18 we can be shipped off to war, but we can’t make our own decisions here? The insurance company, considering they have to pay the claim, should have a say in the benefits paid depending upon the circumstances, but not the government! Now, laws are needed to protect minors and those not mentally capable to make intelligent decisions. If it only involves our own safety, these decisions need to be made by the individual.
Democracy can be, at times too extreme. Where should (voting) popular opinion stop and individual rights begin? Where is that line? How far is it going to go before it is too far? Banning smoking, certain foods, maybe no more bungee jumping or skydiving? A camera on every corner will help deter many crimes, but at a price. Others have explained more eloquently, novels written and movies created. Few however, seem to take it seriously.
Typical Democrat tell the voter one thing then do the opposite. But since I wear my DOT approved helmet when I ride I expect all you tax payers out there to chip in for my hospital bills when I have that inevitable accident. I'll have the State of Missouri on my medical records as the financially responsible party from now on.
99% of fatalities in automobile accidents are due to head trauma. So everyone in an automobile should be required to wear a DOT approved helmet. Bungee jumping, parachuting, roller coasters and any other moving ride, rock climbing crossing the street, mowing a lawn etc. etc. etc. should all be outlawed as too dangerous. If there is even the remotest chance of death or injury it should be illegal. It only costs the state a bunch of money if the person had no insurance or insufficient insurance and doesn't die as a result of the injuries and only then if they are in a vegetative state or permanently disabled. If they die then no problem. If you are dead or a vegetable you don't pay taxes any more and we can't have that. Cameras don't deter crime. Otherwise Youtube.com and break.com wouldn't have as many videos to offer. Police don't deter crime. They show up after it is all over and tell you "yep, you got robbed. Dont' expect to get your stuff back because we aren't likely going to find who did it." Armed citizens deter crime. When law abiding citizens start holding the criminals at gun point till the police arrive then you will see crime deterred.
If you can see and hear better without a helmet then why are so many motorcycle accidents caused by automobile drivers? They aren't wearing a helmet they can see and hear better. What is the problem?