Write letters. Here is some info:

Educate, Not Legislate - Lesson #1

One of the most common statements I hear from our legislative supporters is that "The government should not make laws against doing stupid things, like riding a motorcycle without a helmet". We should not let this train of thought persist. When you hear this, you should tell them the facts, and show the credible documentation of what you say. If you don't show the documentation, you stand no chance of convincing anyone. Here is how you should respond:

There is no significant difference in your probability to survive an accident if you have a helmet on or not.

Quote from CHP:
"A comparison in accident statistics was made in order to assess the effectiveness of California's law, 1987 through 1991, were compared to the first five years after the law became effective, 1992 through 1996. The average motorcyclist fatality rate for California for the last five was 2.524. The average for the five years after the law, 1992 through 1996, was 2.398." - Statement by Commissioner of CHP, D.O. Helmick August 19, 1999.

The numbers he is referencing are fatalities per 100 accidents. So, the helmet law changed the fatality per accident rate from 2.524% to 2.398%, which is not significant.

The reasons that there is no significant difference in the fatality per accident rates is that helmets only reduce the impact by 15 MPH and the strap around a rider's neck along with the added weight of a helmet causes fatalities from neck injuries.

Statements like, “In 1992, the first year of California’s law, fatalities were reduced 36 percent and injuries declined 27 percent.”, are claiming that the helmet law saves lives. This type of statement is relevant in some situations, but not in others. I will draw an analogy to show how this type of statement is meaningless when used with the helmet law issue.

Suppose there are two cities, A & B, in which 100,000 people would be expected to die in each city every year. City A makes a law to prohibit people from eating hamburgers. City B does not make this law. Then half of the people in city A move to city B. After a year goes by, the headlines in one newspaper in city A reads, “Study shows 50,000 lives saved due to hamburger prohibition” and another newspaper headline in city A reads, “Study shows 50% decrease in fatality rate attributed to hamburger prohibition”. While these headlines are absolutely true and clearly show that eating hamburgers is extremely dangerous, it should be noted that eating hamburgers actually had no effect on the fatality rate. The only change was that half of the people in city A moved to city B.

This is directly related to the misleading figures that are used to prove that the helmet law is effective, since a large portion of the motorcycle riders quit riding, and many of the ones who continue to ride, ride much less when required to wear a helmet.

Excerpt from AB-1412 California Transportation Assembly Committee analysis 04/11/1997.
Decline in Registration : Since 1985, motorcycle registrations have declined in California from a high in of just over 700,000 in 1986 to the current level of about 500,000. According to the CMSP annual report, this long-term trend may be attributable to an aging population, changing attitudes and other factors.

ABATE of CA

You can ride without a helmet if you're over 21.
Fine is now $20 - $100.
The law goes into effect July 15, 2000

Keep up the great work and remember the fight is never over ever!!!

Jay Huber
KMA/KBA President
1-800-68-CYCLE

I've got an estimate from a lawyer who is willing to fight the Mississippi helmet law in court. This case would be based on the grounds that the law requires a standard other than the Federal Standard for helmets, which is in violation of Federal Law and the fact that no helmets are approved or inspected by the AAMVA (American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators) as required by the Mississippi State law.

The estimate is 3 years and $50,000

Please let me (Lee) know if you would be willing to commit any money to this case.

Here is info for a court case that could also apply to some other states, if you want to give it at try.

Federal Code - Traffic and Vehicle Safety Act Title 15, chapter 1392

Supremacy of Federal Standards; allowable higher standards for vehicles used by federal or state governments
(d) Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard standard established under this subchapter is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the Federal Government or the government of any State or political subdivision therof from establishing a safety requirement applicable to motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment precured for its own use if such requirement imposes a higher standard of performance than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable Federal standard.

"Under National traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, states play a role in enforcement of federal regulatory scheme created by Act, but states may enforce no standards which are not identical to federal standards."

The above excerpt is from Juvenile Products v. Edmisten, citing the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, Section 103(d), as amended, 15 U.S.C.A. Section 1392(d).
Mississippi has declared by statute that the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators "inspects and approves helmets" which is not "identical to federal standards" and therefore not lawful. More on this decision is at Preventing Helmet Disasters Web Site.

In addition, the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators has never and does not inspect or approve helmets.

With this info, if the court will rule with the law, (I have become skeptical) we can defeat this helmet law in court.

This bill will make helmets optional for riders over 21 who have either been licensed for at least two years or have completed a training course.  The bill is now [June 14th] in the Law and Public Safety committee.  From there it will move to the Assembly.


STATE OF NEW JERSEY

209th LEGISLATURE

PRE-FILED FOR INTRODUCTION IN THE 2000 SESSION

Sponsored by: Senator LOUIS F. KOSCO

District 38 (Bergen)

Senator RAYMOND J. ZANE

District 3 (Salem, Cumberland and Gloucester)

SYNOPSIS

Exempts certain motorcycle operators from helmet law.

CURRENT VERSION OF TEXT

Introduced Pending Technical Review by Legislative Counsel.

An Act concerning traffic safety and amending P.L.1967, c.237.

Be It Enacted by the Senate and General Assembly of the State of New
Jersey:

1. Section 6 of P.L.1967, c.237 (C.39:3-76.7) is amended to read as
follows:

6. a. No person shall operate or ride upon a motorcycle unless he wears a securely fitted protective helmet of a size proper for that person and of a type approved by the director. Such a helmet must be equipped with either a neck or chin strap and be reflectorized on both sides thereof.
The director is authorized and empowered to adopt rules and regulations covering the types of helmets and the specifications therefor and to establish and maintain a list of approved helmets which meet the specifications as established hereunder. For the purposes of this section, motorcycle shall not include any three-wheeled motor vehicle equipped with a single cab with glazing enclosing the occupant, seats similar to those of a passenger vehicle or truck, seat belts and automotive steering.

The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to a person 21 years of age or older who: (1) has been licensed to operate a motorcycle for at least two years, or (2) has completed a motorcycle rider safety course approved by the director.

b. The director shall not assess motor vehicle points for the failure of a motorcycle operator or rider to wear a protective helmet.

(cf: P.L.1992, c.153, s.1)

2. (New section) a. During the first 18 months following the enactment of P.L. , c. (C. ) (now pending before the Legislature as this bill), the director, in consultation with the Attorney General, shall conduct a study to determine the overall impact of this act. The study shall consider public safety issues including, but not limited to accidents, fatalities, injuries and such other health and safety issues as the director deems appropriate to evaluate fully the effect of P.L. , c. on the State.

b. A report of the study's findings and recommendations shall be submitted to the Governor, President of the Senate and Speaker of the General Assembly no later than 21 months after the enactment of P.L. , c. .

c. The director shall implement the recommendations contained in the report 60 days following the report's submission to the Governor and Legislature unless the recommendations, either all or in part, are disapproved each by the Senate and the General Assembly by passage of a concurrent resolution stating, in substance, that the Legislature does not favor the recommendations. If the recommendations are disapproved in part by concurrent resolution, the director shall implement those recommendations that are not disapproved.

3. This act shall take effect immediately.


STATEMENT

This bill exempts persons 21 years of age or older from the requirement that they wear a helmet when operating or riding a motorcycle if they have 1) been licensed to operate the motorcycle for at least two years or 2) completed a motorcycle rider safety course.

The bill also requires the director, in consultation with the Attorney General, to conduct a study during the first 18 months following enactment of the bill to determine its impact. The study is to consider public safety issues, including accidents, fatalities and injuries. A report of the study's findings and recommendations must be submitted to the Governor, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the General Assembly no later than 21 months after the bill is enacted. The director is required to implement the report's recommendations within 60 days of its submission, provided the recommendations are not disapproved in a concurrent resolution by the Senate and the General Assembly. ABATE of New Jersey

- We were fortunate enough to get a Helmet Law Amendment introduced, into the House & Senate in 1999. Both bills; HB 1203 and SB 1125, titled "Motorcycle Safety Act", were introduced in April.
HB 1203 was assigned to the Highway Safety Committee; placed on the agenda 4-21-99, passed on a 4-2 vote. HB 1203 now goes to the Finance Committee. We are working hard to make sure our bill is placed on the agenda of the Finance committee, when they reconvene May 8, 2000. Representatives Rex Baker and Dewey Hill are the Primary Sponsors of the house bill. Rep. Jane Mosley (deceased) signed-on as a co-sponsor. SB 1125 was assigned to the Judiciary 1 (J-1) Committee. Sen. Roy Cooper is the chairman of the Senate J-1 Committee and would not put our bill on the committee's agenda. He told us that he personally did not like our bill. (Roy Cooper filed to run for N.C. Attorney General in the Nov. election)
We still have a chance at keeping our Senate bill alive; due to the provision of a tax increase, because this is a budget session. We have to go through Cooper, so I'm doing everything I can to educate motorcyclists about the situation.

Our proposed helmet law amendment has 2 parts: if a person is 21 yrs. of age, or older and has at least 1 yr. licensed riding experience (a motorcycle endorsement for at least one year), then you would be eligible for voluntary helmet use.

Also, motorcycle registrations would increase by $2.00; with the monies being ear-marked for the Rider Education Programs taught at the community colleges.

Ride safe, Joy Barbour, State Legislative Dir. for Concerned Bikers Assoc./A.B.A.T.E. of North Carolina.