Butting Heads Over Helmets : Motorcycles: Although the former governor opposed a mandatory use law, Gov. Pete Wilson says he will sign measure.

Roy Brokaw loves the feel of a brisk wind whipping his hair and howling in his ears as he tools his Harley-Davidson along the mountain roads that ring the San Fernando Valley.

But Brokaw says the state’s proposed mandatory helmet law is like a cold slap in the face.

“It’s a violation of your constitutional rights,” Brokaw said Sunday amid a sea of motorcycle chrome parked outside the longtime biker hangout, the Rock Store, in the mountains near Agoura Hills. “If you want to risk your life, that’s your business.”

Laszlo Stumpf, who has ridden motorcycles for 27 years, agreed. “It just isn’t right,” he said.

The talk is familiar among motorcycle enthusiasts.

Three times since 1989, legislators have passed almost identical bills to require motorcyclists to wear helmets in an effort to reduce injuries. Twice the proposed laws were vetoed by former Gov. George Deukmejian.

But now it appears almost certain that all 846,000 of California’s registered motorcycle riders will be required to don helmets, perhaps as early as January. Gov. Pete Wilson has said he will sign such a law if it passes the California Senate as expected. It passed the Assembly last week.

But the prospect of a mandatory helmet law troubles motorcyclists around the state and especially in the Valley, which has a high concentration of registered motorcycle owners. Riders say lawmakers are poking their noses into an area where they do not belong, threatening the sense of freedom and adventure that attracts the riders to motorcycling.

Even though most riders would not make even a short trip to the corner grocery store without a helmet, they object to being required to wear them.

“It’s no longer a safety issue, but a freedom of choice issue and a political issue,” said Bill Stermer, editorial director of Rider magazine in Agoura Hills.

Stermer and others argue that lawmakers would do better to improve safety by tightening licensing procedures and requiring safety courses for novice riders. Police say most serious accidents involve inexperienced and unlicensed riders.

More than 75% of motorcyclists already wear helmets while riding, according to a survey by the Motorcycle Industry Council. Those riders agree that helmets increase their chances of escaping serious injury in a fall.

“Helmets are designed to protect your brain,” said Bill Bernel, who teaches motorcycle safety classes in Reseda. “If you don’t have a brain, you don’t wear a helmet.”

Those who shun helmets say they do so because it goes against the open-air spirit of motorcycling. Riders such as Brokaw and Stumpf also say helmets limit their peripheral vision and inhibit their hearing--points the police and other helmet advocates say are not true.

Some riders who buy $15,000 motorcycles, in part for the status of being seen, also object to being masked by a helmet. “Once you put a helmet on, nobody knows it’s you,” Bernel said.

Opponents of mandatory helmet laws often point to a study by the national Centers for Disease Control, showing the rate of serious injury for horseback riders is higher than for motorcyclists and auto racers.

The study prompted no cries demanding equestrians wear helmets, helmet law opponents argue.

The reason, Bernel said, is “horseback riding is socially acceptable. Motorcycle riding is not.”

Motorcycle riders are often thought of as tattooed outlaws or shirtless daredevils passing between long lines of cars on a gridlocked freeway. The present vogue of motorcycle riding among rich urban bikers--called RUBs--has changed that image, with the average age and income level of riders rising steadily since 1980.

A survey by the Motorcycle Industry Council revealed that the typical biker in 1990 was 32, married, college-educated and earned about $33,200 annually.

But despite their growing middle-class profile, bikers have not organized a major fight against the legislation.

“Basically, there is no one issue that will gather all the forces together and shove apathy aside,” said Rick Campbell, publisher of Motorcycle Industry magazine in Agoura Hills.

Legislators supporting the proposed law say helmets will significantly reduce the number of motorcycle deaths each year.

More than 70% of fatalities are caused by head and neck injuries, Los Angeles Police Sgt. Dennis Zine said. Motorcycle riders are 19 times more likely to die in a crash than people who drive cars, he said.

Supporters also say requiring helmets would reduce the public costs of treating motorcycle crash victims. Assemblyman Richard E. Floyd (D-Carson)--who is sponsoring helmet legislation for the third time--said it costs California taxpayers $65 million to $100 million annually to treat riders injured in motorcycle accidents.

“The reality is people are dying at an increasing rate because they’re not wearing helmets,” Zine said. “This cost is being borne by society.”

Motorcycle lobbying groups point out, however, that hundreds of other patients also rely on public funds to pay their medical bills. “If we outlawed smoking, we’d save a lot of money,” Stermer said.

Motorcycle riders say helmets will not end motorcycle fatalities. Hundreds of riders die each year from injuries that could not be prevented by wearing a helmet.

Some opponents argue that instead of increasing safety, a helmet can sometimes be dangerous because it encourages a false sense of security, tempting a rider to push the limits of his skill.

“Regardless of whether we have a helmet law or not, you don’t make a motorcycle rider smart by putting a helmet on him,” Bernel said. “Training is the only answer.”

In the end, though, most riders acknowledge that they soon will be wearing helmets, whether they like it or not. “The only choice now is what color,” Brokaw said before tooling up the road, his hair fluttering in the wind.