The Case for Helmets

Traveling the freeways these days, we’ve seen hair, long and short, tousled and buffeted by the stiff winds that a good fast drive to the beach on a motorcycle will stir. It has occurred to us that all this hair really should be tucked under helmets. The question is: Why isn’t it?

How, for example, does Sacramento justify the contradiction of requiring buckled-up seat belts in automobiles and flouting common sense by tossing caution, and hair, to the winds when it comes to helmets for motorcyclists, unless the motorcyclists are younger than 16? The answer is that there is no answer except that the Legislature has for years caved in to emotional arguments from cyclists that they should be free to choose their own fate. California’s seat-belt law was hustled through the statehouse by the anti-airbag auto industry. The lack of any similar pressure from the motorcycle industry, and the absence of federal threats to withdraw highway funds, creates a vacuum that politics and emotion rush to fill. But while legislators and bikers clash over civil liberties, the financial burden of claims from helmetless accidents mounts--and infringes on everyone’s freedom.

One explanation for the contradiction is that helmet proponents and opponents alike say that no single study conclusively supports or undermines the use of helmets. In an attempt to ferret out the facts, the Senate Transportation Committee has authorized an interim investigative hearing that, it is hoped, will produce concrete evidence on the merits and drawbacks of cycle helmets. It stands to reason that a cyclist in an accident is better off with a helmet than without. Whatever the committee’s conclusions, California will once and for all objectively confront the helmet controversy.

According to the Highway Patrol, motorcycles represent only 3.6% of all vehicles, but account for 16% of highway fatalities. And, according to a study released by UC Davis, 82% of medical care for cycle-accident victims is handled through tax-based or state-run medical facilities. Figures from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety report that more than 500 excess deaths occurred in states that repealed or weakened helmet laws. And those accidents generated costs of $180 million nationwide. When Louisiana reinstated its helmet law in 1981, fatalities dropped from 38 to 29 per thousand, and accident costs dropped 43%.

California should safeguard its motorcycle riders in the same way it protects its auto enthusiasts. We expect that, done right, the Transportation Committee study will make the case for AB 36, a helmet bill proposed by Assemblyman Richard E. Floyd (D-Hawthorne). A detached appeal to reason, not a reaffirmation of the right to kill oneself, is needed in the Capitol. With a helmet law in place, all Californians would be well protected.