Motorcycle helmets no longer required in certain circumstances

SIKESTON, Mo. -- Motorcyclists may get five years to prove they should be free to ride without head protection.

On March 12, the Missouri Senate voted to allow people at least 21 years old to ride a motorcycle without wearing a helmet when not traveling on an interstate highway.

As previous attempts at repealing the state's requirement for motorcyclists to wear a helmet were passed by the Missouri House of Representatives and defeated in the Senate, it appears to many as if the change may happen this time, albeit for a limited time: The helmet provision has a sunset clause by which the law expires in five years.

Some attribute the bill's success in the Senate to the helmet provisions having been attached to a larger bill related to motorcycle insurance. This bill, if approved, would ban insurance companies from assigning fault to a motorcyclist based only on his or her use of a motorcycle.

Mark Chapman, Kansas City, Mo., central committee chairman for the Freedom of Road Riders, a Missouri motorcyclist rights organization, is in favor of the bill passing.

"We're in favor of freedom of choice for adults," Chapman said.

He said that "if it does end up being allowed, I hope people ride responsibly."

Safer drivers

"Riding a motorcycle nowadays is not as it used to be," Chapman said. "There's more vehicles on the road, people wrapped in their little cocoon of attention, driving down the road talking on their cell phone [and] not paying attention for whatever reason."

Because of safer vehicles with features such as air bags, drivers "believe they're safe no matter what the speed," he said.

Chapman said he would like to see the focus return to driver education.

"We need to concentrate on safer driving and avoiding accidents rather than safer crashing," Chapman said. "Safer crashing makes no sense at all."

On the other side of the argument are people such as Neil Meyer, Motorcycle Safety Program coordinator for the state of Missouri, and many of those working in the medical professions.

Meyer said he has presented his concerns to the Missouri Legislature.

"I testified against changing the law," he said. "I would just hate to see it change. It is a proven fact: Helmets save lives."

Other states that have repealed the helmet laws have seen regrettable statistics, according to Meyer. "When Louisiana repealed their helmet law, their fatalities doubled in just a matter of years," he said.

Of the proposed helmet law repeal, "I just don't think it's a really good idea," said Brian Wilcox, an emergency room nurse at Missouri Delta Medical Center in Sikeston and a paramedic. "To me it doesn't make a whole lot of sense."

Wilcox said there are more safety requirements being added for motorists in cars, "and now they are going to take away the only protection a person on a motorcycle has?"

Survival odds

Wilcox said statistics show one quarter of trauma-related deaths are related to head injuries, and of those, a significant number are motorcyclists.

"The only legitimate argument against helmet laws is the freedom of choice," Meyer said. But, he added, "all traffic laws are designed to control behavior on the roads."

While those in favor of helmets agree that wearing a helmet is not a guarantee against a head injury, helmets do significantly improve odds of surviving.

"Statistically, the people who were using the safety equipment came out far better than the people who weren't using the safety equipment," Wilcox said.

Sullenger and others have also questioned the logic behind the provision that requires helmets be worn on interstates but not other roads.

"Most crashes happen at intersections anyway," he said. "On interstates you are traveling at highway speeds and there are just not as many crashes as in cities."

"It's going to put a financial burden on the taxpayers," Wilcox said. Costs to treat those with head injuries are about $83 billion nationwide, he said, citing an article published in the Journal of National Medical Association.

"It's one thing for somebody to hurt themselves, but when somebody has a brain injury and the state has to take care of them, that's a burden on the taxpayers as well," Sullenger said.

A personal decision

Ellen Brandom, state representative for 160th District, said she would prefer to hear the bill discussed in the House before taking a side on the proposal. It hasn t been on the House floor yet.

"We will be discussing it, but I don't know that it is on the calendar yet. I do think we will hear this bill," Brandom said. "I have found that my constituents are very sensitive about their personal lives. ... Many folks consider this a personal decision and when the government starts dictating, it's more Big Brother."

Another area legislator said he does have an opinion, however, based on the experiences of people he knows.

"I am a strong proponent of primary seat-belt law -- it's about safety, trying to save lives. That means a lot to me," said Steve Hodges, the 161st District's state representative. "I feel like I'm going down two different paths if I don't support helmets. To me it's all a matter of concern for the welfare of the people. I am going to have to oppose the bill."