Proposed Helmet Law for Cycle Riders Killed for Year

An Assembly-passed bill that would require every motorcyclist in California to wear a safety helmet was killed for the year by a Senate committee Tuesday to the joyous whoops of riders who have torpedoed such legislation for at least 20 years.

The heavily lobbied bill received only four favorable votes from the 13-member Transportation Committee, three short of a majority. Two votes were cast against it, while other members abstained.

Cheers From Bikers

Bikers in the jam-packed committee room, many wearing leather garb, headbands and tattoos, erupted in shouts of victory when the vote was announced after a 2 1/2-hour hearing on the bill.

The bill’s author, Assemblyman Richard E. Floyd (D-Hawthorne), requested that the legislation be given a second chance at passage. Committee Chairman Wadie P. Deddeh (D-Chula Vista) agreed to put the issue of reconsideration to a vote next week but said that even if Floyd gets a second chance, another hearing would not be held until next January at the earliest.

For at least two decades, repeated attempts to enact mandatory motorcycle helmet legislation have been defeated by various motorcyclist organizations, largely on the argument that such laws infringe on a rider’s “right of choice” and such equipment actually impairs a cyclist’s vision and hearing.

Floyd, whose bill just squeaked out of the Assembly earlier in June, asserted that the measure would spare motorcycle crash victims traumatic head injuries and even death.

Supporting witnesses included a man in a wheelchair, Steve Lambert, who was injured in a 1981 motorcycle crash. He said his medical and hospital bills for one year totaled $1.6 million and were paid by private insurance. He said he now receives government Medi-Cal coverage at an annual cost of $100,000 to the taxpayers.

Costly Choice

Sen. Gary Hart (D-Santa Barbara) told opponents of the bill that he was sympathetic to their appeals for “right of choice” but noted that their choice might be costly to taxpayers who end up financing their medical treatment.

“If the taxpayers’ ” money is involved, then someone else’s freedom of choice is involved,” Hart said.