Helmets Make Sense

California law requires all drivers to wear seat belts when they are driving--not just the young drivers, bad drivers, drunken drivers, left-handed drivers or people driving during hazardous weather conditions. In adopting the seat-belt rule the Legislature and the governor acknowledged, in effect, that there are some motorists who may never be in a situation in which the belt is needed to prevent injury or death but that the overwhelming safety advantages of belts make it prudent for everyone to wear them.

No such rational conclusion came to Gov. George Deukmejian, however, when he signed into law on Monday a bill requiring all riders of off-road vehicles to wear helmets when riding over public lands. Then the governor turned right around and vetoed a bill sponsored by Assemblyman Richard E. Floyd (D-Hawthorne) to require all motorcycle riders to wear safety helmets.

Legislative supporters of the motorcycle-helmet law have battled for more than 20 years to even get the measure out of committee. They rightly argued that helmets so reduce the severity of head injuries, and deaths from head injuries, that the requirement overcomes the cyclist’s desire to have the freedom of roaring down the highway with head unprotected.

In his veto message the governor said studies indicate that most motorcycle accidents involve young and inexperienced drivers who often have been drinking. Therefore, the governor said, it would be unfair to require helmets of all motorcycle operators--including the more sober, mature, experienced ones who have a better accident rate. This of course ignores the fact that even the most experienced motorcycle rider can be killed or injured because of circumstances beyond his control. Consider for instance the rider whose cycle gets clipped by an errant motorist.

And if Deukmejian’s motorcycle-helmet decision makes any sense, how does he justify reaching an opposite conclusion on off-road vehicles on public lands on the very same day? There is always the chance that a driver of an all-terrain vehicle, if not wearing a seat belt, will be tossed into the soft earth where the danger of severe head injury is not as extreme as for a motorcycle rider splitting the line between autos on a busy freeway pavement at 65 m.p.h. And some all-terrain vehicles afford the protection of roll bars, which are not found on motorcycles.

The governor said that he would sign a bill requiring helmets for motorcycle riders under the age of 21. But if a helmet makes sense for a 20-year-old rider, it makes sense for a 30-year-old rider or a 60-year-old rider. Floyd should start a new bill through the Legislature, and perhaps by the time it reaches Deukmejian’s desk the governor can be persuaded of the overwhelming benefits of helmets for all.