Motorcyclist Helmet Bill Approved by State Senate

The state Senate overrode more than two decades of opposition from bikers Thursday, narrowly passing legislation to require motorcyclists and their passengers to wear protective crash helmets on California streets and highways.

The action represents a major victory for medical, hospital and law enforcement organizations and a stinging defeat for cyclists who have fought relentlessly for the freedom to ride without headgear.

The Assembly-passed bill cleared the Senate on a 23-12 vote, only two more than the required simple majority of the 40-member house, and was returned to the lower house for concurrence in minor amendments. Its author, Assemblyman Richard E. Floyd (D-Hawthorne), predicted that there will be “no problem” getting it to Gov. George Deukmejian’s desk.

The bill is the first such measure to clear either house of the Legislature. Its predecessors fell victim to heavy opposition of some cyclists, stretching back to 1967 when members of the Hells Angels first flexed their muscles as lobbyists.

As recently as last year, about 150 Hells Angels circled the Capitol on their powerful machines and held an orderly rally with other bikers on the lawn outside to protest the Floyd bill. However, on the same day, the bill emerged from a committee, the first time such a proposal had cleared a legislative committee in California.

The governor’s office said he has taken no position on the legislation. And, despite declarations to the contrary by supporters of the bill, the California Highway Patrol said it, too, has no position.

Under the bill, which would take effect next Jan. 1, motorcycle drivers and their passengers would be required to wear Highway Patrol-approved safety helmets on any street or highway. First time offenders would be subject to a fine up to $100, and subsequent violations would result in progressively stiffer fines.

For years, opponents of motorcycle helmets have argued, among other things, that they have a constitutional “freedom of choice” to wear such headgear or not. If they kill or severely hurt themselves, they have maintained, it is their own business and not the business of government.

But Sen. Art Torres (D-Los Angeles), Senate floor manager of the Floyd bill, insisted that “personal freedom” encroaches on the rights of the public when medical costs incurred by uninsured cyclists are passed along to the taxpayer. He said taxpayers “pay at least $65 million a year for motorcyclists’ medical costs.”

Torres cited a recent study by the UC Medical School at Davis which, he said, concluded that seriously injured cyclists ran up hospital bills averaging $17,704 each.

Taxpayers Foot Bill

“In the great majority of these cases, the taxpayers had to pay nearly all of the biker’s medical and hospital costs,” he said. “This is because most of the hospitalized had not only rejected the safety precaution of a helmet, but had no accident insurance.”

He agreed with opponents of the bill that the basic issue “comes down to one of personal choice. But at what point does government intervene to protect the majority of a society in terms of our fiscal responsibility?”

Sen. Wadie P. Deddeh (D-Chula Vista), who voted against the bill, noted that more than 700,000 Californians are licensed to operate motorcycles, and that enacting a helmet law would take from them “their constitutional rights as Americans to do as they please, provided they are doing it within the law.”

Deddeh called for intensified motorcycle education programs, such as one created by the Legislature three years ago. Since the program went into operation, he said, the Highway Patrol reports that motorcycle traffic deaths dropped from 851 in 1986 to 741 last year, a reduction of 13%. Injuries fell 12%, he said.

Familiar Argument

But Sen. Quentin L. Kopp (I-San Francisco), an attorney, asserted that the U.S. Constitution grants no special rights to bikers not wearing helmets. He noted that in 1986 California enacted a law requiring motorists to wear seat belts and the same “freedom of choice” arguments were aimed against that legislation.

A Republican, Sen. Don Rogers of Bakersfield, asked rhetorically, “How far is government supposed to go in intruding upon the lives of people?” He suggested that the “next step” would require automobile drivers to also wear helmets.

The federal government first demanded that states enact helmet laws in 1966 and threatened to withhold a state’s federal highway funds if it refused to do so. California and several other states defied the edict and in 1976 the federal government abandoned the withholding of funds.

Although the Hells Angels successfully blocked the first California attempt to require motorcycle helmets with a swaggering show of force that overwhelmed lawmakers, efforts to kill subsequent bills have involved more refined techniques.

Sophisticated Lobbyists

For example, some opponents have hired sophisticated lobbyists to spearhead their cause. Many opponents have testified that the safety value of helmets is unproven and may, in fact, pose an even greater danger to a biker’s safety.

They have claimed that helmets restrict peripheral vision, impair hearing and cause the cyclist to tire quickly because of heat build-up and the weight of the headgear.