The bill to repeal Missouri's motorcycle helmet law lays on Gov. Jay Nixon's desk, having passed both legislative chambers. There's no word yet if Mr. Nixon will sign the bill into law or veto it.
I ride a motorcycle. I also wear a helmet, even in states that don't require one. It's my personal choice.
Let me repeat that: It's my personal choice.
For years, Missouri has debated whether or not to repeal the helmet requirement. Every year, it seems our state senators and representatives debate helmets. In 1999, the legislature passed a similar measure but it was vetoed by then-Gov. Mel Carnahan.
It's time for this measure to pass, and not because the state is missing out on lucrative bike rallies or that bikers will go across the borders into Kansas, Iowa and Illinois to ride and the state is missing out on tax revenue. This has nothing to do with economics. It has to do with personal freedom.
Missouri should repeal its mandatory helmet law because the main argument against it is not valid.
Those who argue in favor of helmets do so because they say helmets will prevent traumatic head injuries. A biker who crashes and sustains a serious head injury will ring up millions in medical bills and require extensive after-care and rehabilitation. It will be a burden to taxpayers, they say.
But not all motorcyclists crash. In fact, the vast majority of bikers I know have not had a serious wreck. Helmet advocates would have you believe that riding a motorcycle is the most dangerous activity, that eventually all motorcyclists will crash and suffer extensive injuries. And that just isn't true.
Plus, there are so many other activities that can cause traumatic head injury and ruin a person's quality of life. Horseback riding, for instance. Skiing is another one. How about ATVs? You could be on a bike that you pedal, cruise down the Parkway and have someone run you off the road.
Even the safest people have accidents. Some of them are serious.
Tell you what, Gov. Nixon, I'll make you a deal. If you're so concerned about me having an accident, racking up millions in medical bills and living my life with brain damage, then I promise I will cut your risk. I promise I will never ride a horse, ski, sled, ride an ATV or parachute out of an airplane. That ought to cut my injury risks considerably.
And here's a bit of free advice. If you want to prevent serious motorcycle accidents, there's a better way.
Pass a law that prevents all drivers from talking on their cell phones while operating any kind of motorcycle vehicle. The other day, I was riding (with my helmet) down Ashland Avenue, and a woman in a decade-old Dodge Caravan approached from a side street. She looked right, then left, then pulled out in front of me anyway. I swerved to the middle of the street to avoid her. She actually smiled at me before she pulled away and, sure enough, she had a cell phone stuck to her ear.
How many bikers have you seen chatting on a cell phone while riding? I think it's physically impossible. So, ask yourself, who is a greater danger to others and themselves: cell phone chatters or bikers?
Let's hope Gov. Nixon signs the repeal of the motorcycle helmet law. Bikers will still have to wear their helmets while traveling on interstate highways, but not while they're tooling around town or riding along Missouri's back roads.
That makes sense to me, and most bikers can live with that.
Steve Booher's column runs on Monday. He can be reached at steveb@npgco.com.
Share Your Thoughts
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. We do not review every post or respond to every removal suggestion. Comments that threaten someone or degrade them on the basis of gender, race, class, national origin, religion or disability will be removed. Comments containing abusive, vulgar or sexually-oriented language will be removed. Comments that spread rumors or lies will be removed. Please discuss only what has been factually proven. Comments posted in all caps will be removed. Stay on topic! Brief quotes are okay as long as the source is given. Blatant cutting and pasting is not acceptable. Comments must be kept under 250 words or less. Stjoenews.net moderators also reserve the right to remove comments for any reason they deem worthy. Click here for our full user agreement.
Luigi says...
if you want to ride without a helmet that's fine with me but please sign your organ donor card first.
May 11, 2009 at 10:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Spartan_117 says...
Amen. I just commented on the other helmet story before I read yours. This is pretty much my feelings exactly. You should have the right to make your own call. I too will always wear my helmet mainly because there are too many people pre-occupied with their phone or other gadgets. Main reason is because I don't want to end up regretting NOT wearing my helmet...
May 11, 2009 at 10:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ksmith says...
This makes no sense. Bikers have to wear helmets on the interstates but not in town? How do they figure this will help get bike rallys and such into Missouri? How do they think they are going to get here?
May 11, 2009 at 7:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
grannytuff says...
Excellent article Steve. You are spot on! My entire family rides, have always worn helmets, and will continue to do so because our heads/brains are pretty important to us and that is our preference. We have seen first-hand how dangerous inattentive cars/truck drivers can be towards motorcycles.
May 12, 2009 at 8:23 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BCotter says...
Another great article!
May 12, 2009 at 8:41 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Mookie625 says...
I agree it should be a personal choice but i think it should be manadatory for under a certain age limit.some people just don't have any common sense at all and will think "oh i'm just taking junior round the block for a quick ride it'll be allright if he dosen't wear his helmet this one time" well thats asking for trouble or tempting fate. ethier way i think a helmet law should exist for a certain age limit like under 18 or 21. Same thing for seat belt law. i got a ticket for a passenger that was over 60 not wearing her seat belt.
May 13, 2009 at 11:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
10377586 says...
Heck, why not copy New Hampshire where they aren't even required to have car insurance? I have ridden for almost years and will continue to wear my helmet everywhere, saved my bacon in 75. If people don't want to wear one then they shouldn't have to. I understand the interstate deal, I was told it has to do with federal highway funding, since Missouri had a helmet law we can't totally repeal it without financial ramifications. Don't know if that's true or not but it made sense to me.
May 14, 2009 at 4:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
WhoisJohnGalt says...
If we dump the helmet law, we need to dump the seat belt law too. They are a direct apple to apple comparison.
May 14, 2009 at 4:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
gladimgone says...
Most safety-related laws are enacted to protect people from their own stupidities. Simple facts (and common sense) show that a motorcyclist involved in a moderate (and maybe even is a low) speed collision and not wearing a helmet is going to be fornicated-up at best. The insurance companies are right to not want to spend millions (i.e. your premiums) on someone who splatters their brains without reasonable protection.
May 14, 2009 at 5:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
Here's an idea....
If you don't want to wear a helmet, say so, and choose to pay high risk premiums on your insurance. Otherwise, sign a document that says you WILL wear the helmet, and receive lower premiums. If you have an accident and you are NOT wearing a helmet, and you said you WOULD....no insurance pay-out. I've already made it clear that if someone is stupid enough to not wear a helmet, the taxpayers shouldn't have to foot the bill.
May 14, 2009 at 5:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
heritage_sarahhochschwender says...
i don't know about the comparison on the seat belt vs helmet being a direct comparison. if you are talking about the cost to the taxpayers, perhaps yes. however, if i am in a car with someone who is not belted in and there is an accident, the person who is not belted is defined as a projectile. i wouldn't drive around with a brick in the rear window because if i slam on the brakes it will fly up and kill me.......
i do believe in leaving personal choice alone as much as possible. the darn government is getting in my life far too much as it is.
May 14, 2009 at 5:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
runningman says...
Sarah,
Do you put your purse in the trunk or on the seat next to you?
Do you have an ice scraper tucked under the seat or in the back seat?
Where is your cell phone while you are driving?
I don't know anybody who carries bricks in the passenger compartment but anything in the passenger compartment is a potential projectile, even a ball point pen or coins in the cup holder.
May 15, 2009 at 12:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
runningman says...
Why did you get the seatbelt ticket instead of the 60 year old passenger? I could understand you getting the ticket if the passenger was a child.
May 15, 2009 at 12:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
runningman says...
Logic will not get the Governor to sign that bill.
You have to appeal to him on a purely economic level. What financially is in it for Missouri?
Well, the answer is gasoline taxes, sales taxes, traffic fines, hotel taxes,etc. That is a lot of money when you are talking about millions of bikers riding to and through the state. Bikers travel roughly 150 miles between fill ups. While gassing up they buy a sandwich and drink or some other snack. While at the register they may buy that awesome cigarette lighter and a few lottery tickets. As they travel on down the highway they get pulled over for going six miles over the speed limit and are issued a citation with a fine to pay. Further down the road he hits a piece of debris that ruins his tire so he limps into the nearest town and buys a replacement. Or if he can't limp it in he calls AAA and a local wrecker company gets to make a little money for the tow. Finally after several stops for gas he arrives at the rally and checks into his hotel, eats three or four meals a day, buys copious quantities of alcohol, which impairs his resistance to the impulse to buy that new piece of chrome for his bike and that new high dollar leather jacket. All tole he has spent hundreds of dollars in Missouri's economy and then spends more traveling through Missouri to get back home. That is just for the average motorcycle rider. If the biker is a Harley rider then you get into the big bucks with added breakdowns and repairs along our highways just because it is a Harley.
Now that is a real good reason to sign that bill into law.
May 15, 2009 at 1:35 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Mookie625 says...
Runningman
Thats what i asked too. I was told it was the law. The lady i got the ticket for also told him that she is a grown woman. I agree that with a child it would have been different. Thats why i think passengers over a certain age limit should get thier own ticket. by the way she did pay for the fine.
May 15, 2009 at 8:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
On the other hand, ninja_man, what many don't understand is that if you CRASH without a helmet, you're worse than an idiot....you're dead, in most cases.
May 15, 2009 at 1:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
runningman says...
Pops,
Your dead with a helmet on quite often too. If you are dead without a helmet on then how is that going to cost taxpayers? The argument against the bill becoming law is that helmet less accidents leave taxpayers footing the bill for long term vegetation. They could care less if you die. They just don't want to have to hoe the garden.
May 16, 2009 at 11:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
SafeRider says...
I have owned over 30 motorcycles in my life. I am an experienced rider. Your helmet can help in extreme situations, but YOUR SENSES prevent accidents. Helmets obscure your vision and hearing drastically. In low to moderate speed situations, experienced riders know that they hear and see better without a helmet. Some ADULTS would wear them anyway, but that should be their choice. I hear and see traffic, children playing, dogs, deer, vehicles approaching from behind or obscure alleys BETTER without my helmet on. Responding to traffic situations PREVENTS accidents. Your helmet does nothing to prevent, and in fact increases your likelihood of having an accident! Why are proponents of mandatory helmet law not admitting this fact? Most of them don't ride anyway. I have lived in four states that allow ADULT RIDERS to choose, and chose to wear my helmet most of the time, but in neighborhoods and suburbs at low and moderate speeds, a helmet can cause actually contribute to causing an accident. Be responsible, use your ears, your eyes, and when the situation calls for it, your helmet! Governor Nixon- Missouri needs to join the 30 other states that allow ADULTS to make this decision. All this talk about more organ donors and overstating higher insurance risk is vacuous inflammatory rhetoric. -Responsible Rider
May 26, 2009 at 12:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )