Marketplace
![[SeMissourian.com]](http://www.semissourian.com/images/nameplate.gif)
|
|
Partly Cloudy ~ River stage: 33.99 Rising Saturday, November 21, 2009 |
RSS
 Print
 Email link
 Respond to editor
 Read comments (38)
 Share link
Nixon vetoes easing of motorcycle helmet law, citing safetyFriday, July 3, 2009Unlike their counterparts in Illinois, Kentucky and Arkansas, Missouri motorcyclists won't be allowed to feel the wind in their hair anytime soon. Gov. Jay Nixon on Thursday vetoed a bill that would have allowed motorcycle riders older than 21 to ride without a helmet on all roads except interstates. It was the second time the measure has reached the governor's desk in the 24-year effort to repeal the requirement and the second time it has been vetoed. "I think that the bottom line is that we need to have safety out there on the roads," Nixon said. "It is a very difficult decision on safety and also the costs." Nixon spoke about his decision during a stop in Cape Girardeau at the Missouri Veterans Home. The bill, which would have repealed a requirement in place since 1967, was passed with strong Senate support but with substantial opposition in the Missouri House. Despite the odds, supporters said they would seek to override Nixon's veto. Greg Mullanix, legislative coordinator for the motorcycle rights group Freedom of Road Riders, also said the veto would spark a political fight that he intends to take right up to the 2012 election. "He's already gotten my response," Mullanix said. "We will not be backing him for governor, and we will do everything possible to remove him as our governor because he broke an agreement he had with us. We take a man's word as the truth until proven otherwise." The agreement, Mullanix said, was that Nixon would neither sign nor veto a repeal bill, allowing it to become law. The bill had drawn opposition from highway safety advocates, including Pete Rahn, director of the Missouri Department of Transportation. In a news release announcing his decision, Nixon cited statistics on the death of motorcyclists in states that have repealed their helmet law. Missouri is one of 20 states with a full restriction. Four are like Illinois, with no helmet requirements, while the rest have requirements based either on age, motorcycle experience, the road being used or insurance. Using Florida as an example, Nixon's statement said fatalities per 10,000 motorcycle riders increased 21 percent after its helmet law was repealed, compared to a 13 percent increase nationwide. And he cited National Highway Traffic Safety Administration figures to say that motorcycle helmets reduce the likelihood of a fatal accident by 37 percent. "I met with a lot of folks about it and talked about it out there," Nixon said in Cape Girardeau. "I don't think it is time for us to have additional insurance costs or take a step back when it came to safety concerns." Nixon spokesman Scott Holste said the veto is intended to save lives and reduce health-care costs. "He made the veto based on those concerns, and it is certainly not a matter of looking at this as a political issue," Holste said. 388-3642 Pertinent address: 2400 Veterans Memorial Drive, Cape Girardeau, MO
Comments  Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please Login or Create an account first, and then you will be able to flag a comment as objectionable. Please also note that those who post comments on semissourian.com may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
|
Map of pertinent addresses
More stories
Enter your email address to subscribe to our mailing lists:
|
del.icio.us
Digg
StumbleUpon
Technorati
Newsvine
Facebook
Furl
Reddit
Google
First thing he's done that I agree with.
There ya go Jay, make sure you keep the nanny state intact at every possible level. God forbid an adult have the right to make his own choices. Our Federal and State Constitutions forbids such heinous ideas, and puts bureaucrats like you in charge of our lives to SAVE US! SAVE US from all those horrible things we might do like NOT WEARING OUR SEATBELTS!! OMG. The tragedy. No Helmet?!?! No Seat Belt??!? That takes control away from the government; can't have that!!!
Once again the government is stepping in to be a a parent to us all and tell us what we can and can not do. I own my bike, I pay my insurance and license fees but, big brother is telling me how I can ride. It should be up to those who ride. With or without let the rider choose..
Emergency room personnel call people that ride motorcycles without helments organ donors.
Typical big brother liberal. What part of "NO" do you not understand?
You can kiss my vote goodbye along with several thousand other motorcycle ridres.
I just took 5 minutes and e-mailed the Governors office. I let him know how I felt about this issue. I would encourage all of you to do the same if you are against his veto.
governor.mo.gov will get you there.
Uh Uh Uh, I may be blind but my sense of smell is excellent, it looks like Governor Nixon stepped in it again baby...Hello!
Yankeestation: Here is a study that backs that up.
https://www.msu.edu/~telder/donorcycles6-10-09.pdf
"Combining these results with estimates of the effect of helmet laws on motorcycle fatalities, our preferred point estimates suggest that every death prevented by motorcycle helmet laws results in 0.124 fewer organ donors."
"According to OPTN data, 2.7 organs are successfully transplanted per cadaveric donor, on average. Under the upper-bound assumption that each of these organs saves one life, the pooled Wald estimate implies that every motorcyclist death due to the lack of a helmet law saves the lives of 0.33 (0.124 × 2.7) individuals on organ transplant waiting lists."
One thing that might help repeal helmet laws would be to add an addition to the bill making the assumption that anyone riding a motocycle without a helmet is giving their implied consent for organ donation. That way immediately after any fatal accident involving a helmetless rider doctors can start automatically parceling out any viable organs without waiting around for proof of consent or waste time trying to contact survivaling relatives. Adding that to the bill would make it a win-win situation.
my helmet saved me from being a "veggie" i olny ended up with a paralyzed arm. the helmet "SAVED" me
This is just big brother telling us again what they think we should do. For me it is all about personal choice. I'm an adult, I've served my counrty and community, I pay all my bills and have insurance. I should be able to have the personal choice to go with or with out a helment. When is enough going to be enough when it comes to the government telling us what we can and can't do. Dont eat red meat, dont smoke (we wont outlaw it, just tax it), dont drink whole milk, no sugar, no salt, no popcorn popped in butter. Enough already...
When you can GUARANTEE ME that I won't have to pay(via my taxes, or my increased insurance premiums, or my increased hospital fees) for YOUR no-helmet-wearing-knuckle-dragging-no-insurance-coverage-arse, when you split your melon wide open after an accident, then I'll support a "NO HELMET LAW."
Until then, keep it on.
It's like at my job. There are stupid policies that are in place because SOME idiot has done that dumb thing before.
It's a law, because SOME idiots go without helmets, and die.
On behalf of the government, I will apologize for the government keeping ignorant people alive.
Instead, we should kill off all dumb people.
Oh for crying out loud. All of you screaming about "Big Brother". Get over it, we live in a Republic where we elect people to be our "Big Brother or Big Sister". If we did not have government to look out for us.....Oh my, what a mess it would be out there. Yes, even a bigger mess than we have gotten it. Big Brother tells us to drive no faster than 15 MPH in a School Zone and no faster than 70 MPH on an Interstate highway. Big Brother tells me it is wrong to horse whip my wife or shoot my neighbor for fun. Just take the time to thank the Good Lord that we can live in a country where we can vote to place someone in office and vote them out. Oh, and when you pray, if you are riding a motorcycle, be sure you pray with your helmet on your head!!!
I knew he'd cave! Looks like I'll continue to spend my dollars in less restrictive states like IL, KY, AR, OK, KS, IA, etc.
If helmets are such a safety device, why aren't the scooter riders required to wear them like motorcycle riders are?
I have to say, Both as a avid motorcycle rider and as a firefighter/emt that I agree with this law. There has been to many times that a motorcycle wreck has occured and if it wasnt for the helmet that rider would be dead! I support the helmet law and will continue to wear mine even if it is repealed!
Those of you who disagree with the no helmet law have that right just as I have a right to disagree.The legislators voted on this issue and it PASSED! The Governor will now play "King of Missouri" and veto their decision!! It certainly bothers me that there are so many people here who Have no problem with the Government telling, NO FORCING us to do as it says. This is a personal choice and because of big corporate insurance companies that already run this Country the Governor has caved in! Out with you and any like you Mr.Nixon! I have a natural right to my own destiny and you work for ME not the other way around. If this will save so many lives than lets see ALL insurance rates drop considerably. They have not dropped because of seatbelt laws and they have not dropped because of all the other regulations concerning vehicles. They have done nothing but increase every year! Frankly speaking I just returned from a long ride to Florida and becuase its MY CHOICE I wear a helmet and always do however, I am against Big Brother forcing me to wear one simply because it infringes upon MY civil liberties
I too am a rider and health care worker that agrees with the law! Riders without helmets are indeed organ donors. As far as being over 21 and having the right to make the choice: fine as long as you also pay for your hospital, rehab and longterm care expenses. Remember not to ask for Medicaid or Social Security disability claims when you are a lifetime gomer! I should not have to pay for your foolishness.
GREYWOLF QUOTE....."The Governor will now play 'King of Missouri' and veto their decision!!...I have a natural right to my own destiny and you work for ME not the other way around." Greywolf let us consider all this. The Governor is elected by the people. One of his many jobs for the people is to approve or veto any bill passed by both the house and senate in Jeff City. It is his JOB, not just for you but for all the Missouri People. Also, Mr Graywolf, do you know how many times you used the two words "I" & "Me" in your comment? You proved that in your mind it is all about ME and I could not care less about YOU. Try thinking about others for a change!!!
PS to Greywolf...There will be another election down the road for Governor of Missouri. I will expect to see you out working for His opponent!
As a longtime cycle rider I'll wear the helmet either way (no hair left for the wind to blow through!) also to old to "look cool".
Growing up in Illinois I had a bad head injury years ago which would of been prevented by a helmet.
While I think it should be a personal choice , have to go along with Nil , if you choose to ride helmetless it would automatically be assumed you were consenting to having your organs harvested for waiting patients in need of said organs.... my opinion
I have to wonder if Greywolf thinks these things up while he is running from the police canines?
So you label me an "organ Donor". So what. I signed my license to agree to be one should and when I die. Doesn't everyone? I also have a living will and a no resuscitate order. All by my own choice. So why can't I make wearing a helmet "my choice"? I have everything in place so that IF some idiot in a car who doesn't see me on my bike cracks open my melon, I won't be a burden to you poor taxpayers...
In a way, this is bitter sweet. Bitter that another law telling how to live our lives has been imposed, sweet in that I'm still hacked off over manditory seatbelts. If the helmet law would have been remanded, then I would have DEMANDED that seatbelt laws should be remanded also.
Bummer. I wish their were less people on the road and in my way. Repealing the helmet law would have been a step in that direction.
mo-ky-fellow,
do you know how many times you spelled my name wrong? I will do my part in helping elect a new Governor when that time comes! He caved in and frankly I have a right to my opine! I don't honestly care if you disagree.
Oh and TravisSheppard, I don't run from your canines, wolves are not afraid of house pets!
Nor are they afraid of police officers who have too much power! Looks like the government has both of you brainwashed and there is NO cure for that Im afraid.
By the way, I am well into my fifties and I have never been arrested, but I have been harrased by several police officers over the years!!
In those decades I have watched my civil liberties errode due to Demopublican politicians who forget once in office where they came from.
Politicians are NOT on the same level as we the people! They have benefits that go far beyond what we the people enjoy! Its time for real change
in the way our Government operates or soon we will all wither on the vine.
Rockman,
I get it, you want to return one civil liberty to take away another. Organ donating is a choice as should be wearing a helmet and seat belts. As for those who thinks that my being on medicaid or disability if I am injured because of not wearing a helmet need to remember that I have paid dearly over the years for those benefits and I am still seeing a huge amount being deducted from my pay check each week just like every other hard working American. You won't be giving me a thing
Sallypal, I pay into the system just like most of you! Don't blame helmets or this issue on a broke healthcare system which is controled by insurance companies and certainly don't blame me for the out of control taxes the Government has imposed over the last Century!
Greywolf, There is always Russia!
I have to say if you dont like the way it is, you can always run for office or move to Russia!
"...if you choose to ride helmetless it would automatically be assumed you were consenting to having your organs harvested for waiting patients in need of said organs.... my opinion
-- Posted by rockman54 on Fri, Jul 3, 2009, at 12:23 PM"
Quite the flawed opinion. If that were the case, you should also include those people who CHOOSE not to wear their seatbelt and as a result die in a car crash, that they are "automatically consenting to having their organs harvested".
I'll file your "opinion" under "Dumbest Things I've Ever Heard"...
Travis,
It may be best you just be still. Frankly I see it differently than you. It seems you would rather be in the "Soviet Union" as it is you who has no problem with watching your civil liberties go down the tube. I will stay here and speak my mind as always. I have no quarrel with you however, I disagree with you on the issue of civil liberties.
Ol'homeboy, your absolutely right.
While were at it lets make sure that everyone who smokes and everyone who eats fast food and everyone that is over weight and those who drive convertables are forced to give up their organs upon death! Some folks just don't get it, and there are several here. I have said all I have to say, have a great Fourth everyone.
If Mr. Nixon is so worried about money why did he take tax money away from the MoDot budget that Pete Rahn spent to lobby him instead of Mr Rahn suffering.
The tax payers get screwed again just like the suvey's that the M.S.H.P. recently distributed targeting innocent individuals in Mo.
Higher insurance for rider's without helmet's could be a compromise, but to call this a safty issue only would justify taking more personal freedom's away in the future like drinking, smoking, gun's, and even your right to assemble because of traffic congestion and crowd control.
No more large church function's or sporting event's because of safty issue's and cost to the taxpayer's.
It's not about the safty, it's about the cost of freedom. The very thing's are constitution guarantee's and all of our son's and daughter's fought and died to protect.
Dork, I think you are on the right track. If it was a issue that effected everyone I think a lot of people would change their minds about the Gov. acting like our parent. What if the Gov. outlawed overweight people instead of the topic being helments. The argument that it is for the greater good (lower insurance/medicaid) could also be made for overweight people. heart problems,high blood pressure,diabeties. All bad and all cost money to treat. Or how about the Gov. outlawing privatley owned gas motors. Would that get people in a uproar. Enough all ready with personal rights being chip away.
If helmets are such a safety device, why aren't the scooter riders required to wear them like motorcycle riders are?
Yeah, what he said!
They can be hit by a car too.
I hope people that support this law because it saves lives aren't hypocritical with their stance on abortion.
For all of those worried about costs, I have a question for you:
Which costs more:
A helmeted motorcyclist who survives a crash, but spends the next 6 months in ICU with broken bones, bruised innards, and severe road rash (which likely got infected at some point)....
...or an unhelmeted rider who died at the scene?
If someone wants to be stupid and ride without proper gear, that's their choice. If/when they crash, they get to live or die with the consequences of their choices. I don't know how many time I've seen someone riding a motorcycle in shorts, tank top, flip flops, and a helmet. I guarantee the hospital bill for them should they crash will be greater than if they had no helmet at all....but they were wearing it to comply with your stupid law.
Personally, I value my life and I won't get on my motorcycle without ALL of my gear...helmet, jacket, gloves, pants, and boots. This is my CHOICE to do so...and I don't need government telling me what to wear in order to make that decision.
I am also NOT an organ donor. Any law requiring me to donate my organs in order to exercise my freedom to pursue happiness WILL be fought on Constitutional grounds, as the government does NOT have the power to take any part of me without my permission and without due process. For some, it is a religious matter, guaranteeing that the law would be shot down quickly. For me, however, it is just a personal choice.
First of all there are no viable studies to show that helmets save anything. Most of the personal testimonies are guesses at best. The Florida numbers that everyone likes to quote cover a time period several years ago where motorcycle sales and riders grew two-fold. The numbers are meaningless. The rest is warm and fuzzy bleeding heart crapola that makes no sense at all. When a car runs over a motorcyle a helmet is going to do very little saving. I think they are certified for protection somewhere around sixteen miles per hour. Motorcycle head injuries don't even scratch the surface of the number of head injuries occuring each year. Using that logic, EVERYONE should have to wear a helmet at all times. Of course the lawyers wouldn't like that. None of the people quoted in the story or who have posted have the foggiest idea of what they are talking about. A 'health care worker' and a MoDOT bureaucrat have no better information on the subject than the man in the moon. This is politics, pure and simple. Follow the money. Governor Nixon, your word isn't worth a hill of beans, and there is a large portion of grass roots Missouri that isn't going to speak real kindly of you during the next election. As ye reap.....
Greywolf, I used to think you were kinda smart. You have shown your true colors. 84 percent of Missourians are in favor of a helmet law. The unsilent majority (FORR) are the ones making all the noise about the repeal of the law, making smarter Missourians believe that there are more of them out there wanting "free choice." I ride in Illinois, Kentucky and many other states that don't have helmet laws and I still "choose" to wear my helmet. I do so because I want to protect my head in the event some moron that doesn't see me decides to pull out in front of me. I would rather have my pumkin protected than let it hit the ground, or another vehicle at 40 miles per hour.
I also "choose" to only pay my own medical bills. I "choose" not to subsidize some other non-helmeted moron's medical bills because he or she "chose" not to wear their helmet and now they are transformed into a vegetable on the government dime.
Why do I do this? Not because the government tells me I have to, but because I have a wife and children that love me and would like to see me come home from my motorcycle ride.
I am a staunch Republican, but I applaud Governor Nixon for making a smart, calculated decision to protect citizens that ride motorcycles in Missouri.
Road_King,
sorry I let you down. Frankly, if you had read my post you would see that I also CHOOSE to wear a helmet. My arguement is about freedom of choice and civil liberties! I also pay MY OWN insurance
premiums without anyone elses help. So, if I get hurt it hasn't cost you a thing. I can't help it if there are millions without health insurance that drive vehicles. Like it or not Roadking,
all of us who have insurance have to pay for those who don't whether they ride a bike or not.
If that concerns you, perhaps you should be writing your Demopuplican representative and gripe at he or she. As for your statement, "Why do I do this? Not because the government tells me I have to, but because I have a wife and children that love me and would like to see me come home from my motorcycle ride" I agree, thats WHY I have reamined firm in my belief that you can't legislate common sense!! So, I guess by reading that statement, we in fact agree on this issue.