Bonneville America Forums Forums Rider Safety Forums Legislation Connecticut's freedom of choice under fire again

Motorcyclist's Lobby Against Helmet Requirment
(Hartford-WTNH, Feb. 7, 2005 9:10 PM) _ Lawmakers are again looking at legislation that would require bikers to wear protective headgear, such as helmets.

On Monday, motorcyclists decked in Harley Davidson gear showed up today at the state Capitol to oppose a measure that would require them to wear helmets.

With the horses running underneath their seat, and the wind through their hair, a motorcycle becomes freedom for Glenn Boglisch and Tom Miller. It's a freedom you can feel, a freedom you can ride, but the problem is, both feel their freedom is in question when it comes to a proposal to bring back the helmet law at the State Capitol.

"I wear a helmet 95 percent of the time and it's a choice issue. I choose to wear a helmet, but just because I choose to wear a helmet should mean I should restrict your right on your decision of wearing a helmet or not wearing a helmet," Boglisch said, sitting on his bike.

In a room full of leather at the Legislative Office Building in Hartford, the concerns about bringing back the law were as loud as a Harley-Davidson.

"The legislature governs on the consent of the governed. In the case of the seatbelt law, the public at large did not object, but with the helmet law, the riders do object, and that's the different," said Rich Paukner with the Connecticut Motorcycle Riders Association.

But opponents say the statistics speak for themselves. Helmets save lives.

"I'll have less business if we have motorcycle helmets in Connecticut. I'll be happier to have less business, I don't need that kind of business," said Dr. Phil Brewer, formerly the president of the Connecticut College of Emergency Physicians.

For Glenn and Tom, it's about freedom of choice. A freedom that might be exercised if the law is passed.

"I might move, believe it or not," said Tom Miller, who kick-starts his bike to get back on the open road. "There's 27 states that don't have it (the law), it's worth it to me to have the freedom."

The original law was repealed in 1975.

mert,
I'm surprised no one has responded to this post yet.
I know we have flogged the helmet issue to death on these boards, but what a lot of people don't realize is that this isn't about wearing or not wearing a helmet, this is about having a choice or losing yet another right...
The safety nazis and other groups who think they know what is best for everyone can cite all the fabricated and spun statistics to promote their agenda. This helmet thing is just a beginning. If we don't oppose these types of legislation, it won't be long before the only legal bikes will be water cooled, fuel injected, horsepower limited, sewing machine sounding one size fits all machines. I hope we can prevent that for a while yet. Support AMA and ABATE, they are our voices against the loonies.....

I saw this subject on the AMA website, but since I'm not a resident of CT, didn't feel the need to reply. And additionally, regardless my motorcycling history or life experience, my response would not be well received.
I would say those who feel strongly about it should stay informed and participate, and the mechanism for participating in government is primarily the vote and communicating with elected officials. It is a right that embarrassingly few take advantage of.
For those who care but need a conduit, the AMA has made it easy. You don't have to be a member to go to the website:
http://www.ama-cycle.org/index.asp
and click on 'AMA Rapid Response' find your state, and find out what's going on. The AMA has canned letters available, all you have to do is plug in your info and hit the send button. How much easier could it be?

I support freedom of choice but would propose to have a strong educational program as to why DOT approved helmets save lives and the risks, of not wearing one, to you, your family and society.

Education is an overpowering principle that can make laws obsolete.

ImOk

Continue your quest! As it is now, Vermont is the only New England state with a manditory helmet law. (I had heard that Mass had repealed it, please correct me if I am wrong) We are still trying to repeal this law as well. With our former Governor, and past Democratic Presidentail Hopefull, Howard Dean. As a physician, he would veto the bill every time. I believe that United Motorcyclist of VT has proposed this VT legislation.
As a rider, My husband and our friends spend a great deal of time riding in New Hampshire, due to the helmet laws.
Good luck Connecticut
cindy

Cindy,

Mass does also have a mandatory helmet law. There has been talk of repeal but it hasn't happened yet. I'm not sure it ever will.

I live in CT, and wear a helmet all the time. I also think that we should have the right to chose if we want to wear one or not. Grump has it right if they tell us what to put on our heads can it be long before they tell us what to ride. this is a good example of why we(all bikers) have to stick together, and stop putting others down because of the brand of bike he or she rides. I'ts the old saying united we stand, divided they kick us in the crotch
Mark

Sweetpea,
If New York is still considered part of New England then we also have a mandatory helmet law.
I'm all for freedom of choice too. I chose to wear my helmet all the time even if not required. I like my brains where they are thank you. Just preference though, others are free to do as they wish.

Thanks for the info about Mass. I have been reading about it in AMA, but have not had extra money to rejoin AMA as of yet. I thought that they had repealed the helmet law there.
I knew that NY has a helmet law, (Although not part of New England state, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Mass, Conn) When I last lived there, NY helmet law was very specific, Reflectors on three sides of it. is this still true? I lived in Syracuse NY for many years.

I do not mean disrespect to anyone. I just prefer the option to wear my helmet or not, and my key word is OPTION. I wear my helmet more then I do not!
Keep smiling, Cindy

Cindy, you don't have to be an AMA member to use the Rapid Response feature of their website. They've made it available to everyone. It's a fast/easy way to make your views known to your elected representatives. Vote, and keep in touch with them, even if they're not the ones you voted for. Whoever is in, represents you... make them earn it!

We just did not renew our membership to AMA yet. But we intend to renew, as we have been members for 5 years now. I would read the "American Motorcyclist" and keep updated on the legislation. That magaizne was the first time I read about the TBA,

Hi Mert,
I've worn a helmet under mandatory law a long time. During my time in California, it was not required. I wore mine anyway, most of the time. When on a road that was open and no traffic was around, I'd stop and strap it to my rack or backrest. I've never ridden without eye protection. The helmet is used on my bike most all the time.
Like I said, if the countryside is open (no blind spots) and there is no traffic I'd love to let the wind blow through what hair I still have.
Now, if you want to pass a law, howabout restricting hondabagos and sport bikes to the terrain I described with no traffic. Look at websites for motorcycle junkyards, nine out of ten bikes there are crotch rockets and 75% of the others are couch rockets.
Ya'll Be Careful,
Dennis

Helmet laws are universally backed by insurance companies, but not for the reason you might think. Here are the main factors involved:

1. Most, nearly all, car/motorcycle collisions are the fault of the driver.
2. Running over a motorcycle because you can't be bothered to pay attention can be very expensive to your insurance company.
3. The enactment of a helmet law has, in the US, always resulted in a dramatic reduction in the number of motorcycles registered in the state and the number of miles the remaining motorcycles are ridden.

So, the insurance companies are all for helmet laws simply because it deprives their idiot customers of targets, geatly reducing the amount they have to pay out. Naturally, because insurance companies have a lot of money and can afford lobbiests and "campaign contributions", the politicians will find ways to justify such laws. For an example, the CHP reported an 18% reduction in motorcycle related deaths the first year of the CA helmet law. What they didn't tell anyone was that the number of miles ridden was down by some 42 - 48% (depending on which report you read) and the number of deaths *per accident* had increased.

I have a problem with licensing fees. I have a problem with all of the fees and taxes and fines and legislation that is enacted by the rich and powerful to make them more rich and powerful. I have a problem with gasoline heading towards $3 a gallon and 54% of that price is taxes. I have a problem with the EPA looking to mandate restrictive laws on cars and motorcycles while giving industry all the loopholes they need to continue being the major polluters. I have a problem with being told what to do and when to do it by people who wouldn't soil the tires on their limos on my street unless they wanted my vote so they could fee/tax/license my money away from me all over again....
I don't have a problem wearing a helmet. I always wear a helmet. But I have a problem with some bean-counting bureaucrat telling me what to do so his shareholders maximize their profits because of the actions of a few evolutionally challenged people.... You can't child-proof the world unless you cater to the mentality of the smallest child. Helmet laws are b.s., just another twist of the statistics to make money.
End of rant....

Good "rant" Grump...very clear picture painted!

Personally, I have no problem with helmet laws anymore so than seatbelt laws. Using the argument that Helmet laws are the first step to eliminating motorcycles, or telling us what kind to ride, I could apply that same argument to seatbelts. By now (since seatbelt laws are well over a decade old), I should be forced to drive a 3 cylinder 65mpg econobox with all of the burning hot soul of an electric kitchen knife. But I am not! I can go out and by a 11mpg Suburban, 200mph Lambo, or 40 year old emissions spewing antique, so long as I have a seatbelt. I still don't have GPS on my car coupled with a transmitter so that big brother can watch my every move, nor, must I register with the local precinct when moving or traveling. Sorry, if the state I'm in starts mandating helmets (I wear one by choice currently, and would anyway), I am not going to sell my bike, or move to another state. I'm just going to keep riding my bike with my helmet on, just as I did before the law was passed. Start passing outrageously high property taxes aimed at making it impossibly expensive to motorcycle, or laws that restrict what/when or where I can ride, then we're talking about infringements that I would have to reconsider. But, sorry, I just don't buy the slippery-slope argument, that helmet laws are just the first step in a move to grab our bikes. There are 27 states that are helmet-law free, but there are 23 states remaining that have had helmet laws for years, and they haven't taken their bikes away yet. Yes, it should be a choice, but I'm not giving up riding if they pass a law, any more than I give up driving my car because our state chooses to tax me a couple hundred bucks every year on my car and makes me put my kids in car seats or where a seatbelt.

Grump, the EPA and CAFE have been trying to mandate restrictive laws on cars since 1973, and look where we're at now. We still are free to drive whatever kind of car we want, whether gas-guzzling SUV, or Hybrid Honda (even if they are idiotic, and we should be looking toward diesels if we really were interested in fuel economy and the environment) But, due to a very strong auto industry lobby, the EPA will always be pretty much a paper tiger, since Congress knows all too well which side their bread is buttered on. They have had some victories (catalytic converters), but were the EPA and CAFE really as powerful as is portrayed, it wouldn't even be possible to buy a Chevy Suburban that gets 11mpg, or to have them reclassified so that they don't hurt the corporate fuel economy ratings of FORD, GM, or Chrysler.

What we should be focusing on are more important things, like pushing car companies to domestically source more components, instead of simply looking for the cheapest sources, or forcing domestic suppliers to accept mandatory 5% pay decreases yearly (eventually forcing suppliers to move to overseas manufacturing locations anyhow) Currently, American automotive manufacturers (and Harley Davidson) are forcing domestic suppliers to outsource manufacturing to third world countries to keep up with cost pressures from the Big 3 at an ever-increasing rate. I can foresee the very real possibility that in 3 years my plant (with 1500 people) will be closed, not because the quality is poor, but because we cannot compete with Mexicans or Chinese, which is basically what we MUST do, in order to keep our plant here. THIS is the fight we need to be fighting, because if we don't start fighting it, none of us will be able to afford the helmets that the goverment might be mandating, because we will have had to sell our bikes just to feed our families. And this isn't something the Japanese have done to us, in fact, ironically, our Japanese customers seem more interested in keeping the manufacturing of their suppliers here in the states than do our domestic customers. We are under cost pressure from Toyota, Nissan, and the others, but that is not their overriding consideration, quality is. When we talk of going to Mexico because of cost considerations we get a lot of pushback from the Japanese transplants, the big 3 hardly blink an eye and could care less. Why is it that the Japanese car companies care more about American jobs, than American companies? That is where our focus needs to be, we are selling our country out from under ourselves.

Helmet laws gets everyone as reved up as oil threads. I'd be more in favour of repealing mandatory seatbelt laws personally. My only thought on this is that if you take notice of racers. Be it bike or car racer's, they always seem to wear helmets. I dont think they wear them for insurance reasons.

Greg,
I agree with you on the outsourcing situation.
But I don't agree on the EPA being a "paper tiger" when it comes to motorcycles. The motorcycle industry does not have near the clout that the automakers have.
I could care less about the helmet issue on face value. Wear one or don't. The same goes for seatbelts.
But, the helmet issue is a wedge. It pries the door open just a little. Next it will be mandated that you wear a certain amount of reflective material when riding. Then it will be increased enforcement of noise limits. Then it will be individual towns, boroughs, townships trying to ban motorcycles entirely. Then there will be horsepower restrictions, time of day restrictions, and any number of other legislations at the local, state, and federal level.
Some of these are already being discussed. The main culprits are the HD's with the wide open pipes and the crotch rockets doing wheelies on the highway at 70 mph. But when the new rules are put in place, they cover us all.
I never hear any squawks about corporate and private planes, giant RV's, pleasure boats, NASCAR, or other auto races as far as pending restrictive legislation.
But motorcycles are an easy target because the non-riding public still perceives us drunken, drug-crazed, anti-social louts. I only fit 2 of those descriptions.....
Don't do drugs...

Grump, I'm not so worried for a couple reasons. One, Cats have been out for several years now (thanks to BMW), so it would have been very easy for the EPA to slap requirements on motorcycles, as is the case in Germany. Even if that does become the case, and it will eventually no matter how hard any of us fight it, along with fuel injection, and enforced noise restrictions, I will still ride. Europeans and Asians have been living with these restrictions for years, and still enjoy the heck out of riding (just ask our Brit brethren). Europe has all of this stuff we are fighting, but the motorcycle market is as strong as ever there. Not to mention taxes and gas prices that we as Americans, are totally clueless about. To my knowledge there is a push to restrict pleasure craft (boats, jetskis) because as they become more popular and more prevalent, the problem of noise also becomes a problem. And as far as aircraft go, that is an ongoing daily battle that pretty much all airports are having to deal with, and why more and more airports are being moved further and further out into the country (and of course, as soon as they build further out, land developers and county boards allow people to build right next to those same new airports, and the whole cycle of complaining about the noise begins anew!!)

Oh, I wouldn't throw too many stones at the HD crowd, how many of us here have Bub's, Sceptres, and Thunderbike pipes, not exactly what I would call "stealth" technology,eh?


But in the end, what you said is true of all laws, they are created because of the actions of a few bad apples, and the majority of society who are more respectful of others are left to deal with the consequences of those new laws.

I think it is fine to continue the fight for as long as possible, but in the end believe it is delaying the inevitable. As health care costs continue to rise, the insurance industry (who probably has the most powerful lobby in congress) will seek to enforce more and more safety legislation on those groups seen as high risks, i.e., us! And if it comes to a decision about who our representatives will listen to, to us or to the Industry, guess who will lose.(the new Bankruptcy legislation is a clear sign of how much power industry has over Congress, in that case the credit card industry, but a lobbyist is a lobbyist is a lobbyist...)

Hey, I'm an occasional Allegra user, so I guess I fit all 3 stereotypes, huh?

OK, first off, there have been a lot of studies run by the MMA, ABATE, and other groups that have little or no political ambitions that show that the use or unuse of helmets make very little difference in the overall body count. Sure, in individual cases, a helmet will save someones head. BUT, they just as often cause death or permanent disability. What good does it do to try and save a broken head if it means a broken neck? Or bleeding to death due to a severed leg that wouldn't have happened except for the distraction, heat induced fatigue or reduced visibility caused by a helmet? The money involved in passing laws requiring helmet use would be better and more effectively spent on education programs teaching people to ride and drive safely, and trying to get existing laws enforced that make it safer to drive. It is really stupid that the governments of the civilised world have given up trying to make it safer to drive and have started concentrating on making it safer to crash.

Moving right along, seatbelt use does make a positive difference. They not only keep people from crashing into bits of their cars in a wreck, they make it inconvenient to reach over and pick up items that fall on the passenger side floor, so a few more people don't stop driving whilst their car is still moving. BUT, there are a tremenduous number of *head* injuries in car crashes. A lot more than in motorcycle accidents. Yet, no politician would ever think of requiring drivers and passengers to wear helmets in cars.

Though I've never heard of anyone running a study on it, I suspect a lot of uninsured drivers would have insurance if they could afford it. When you are just getting by, another several hundred out of the pocket for what is, most of the time, nothing is unthinkable. Now, the insurance companies cry and moan about being so poor, but they seem to have plenty of money to invest in other businesses such as savings and loans and buy politicians, lawyers and judges. I suspect that if mandatory insurance laws were repealed and their major competitor was "No thanks, it pays me well to do without", insurance rates would drop to the point that more couls and would buy it than do now.

Sorry, but if a person can't afford insurance, then he/she shouldn't be in a vehicle. Insurance is part of the package. Yeah, the guy who didn't have insurance when he hit me didn't think he'd need it either, as he had cancelled it 4 days before, because he was pulling the car off of the road to work on it for a while. But, he decided that he could get by without it for one last ride I guess, and plowed into me! Guess who had to pay for his decision, me, and my insurance. Yeah, they are going to TRY to subrogate him, and recover the money, but I've seen where he lives and what he drives (a 84 Gremlin and a 96 Explorer), so guess what... Now, had I had only liability, guess who'd be paying all of the medical bills and the almost $5000 it cost to rebuild my bike, ME. Oh, of course, I could have sued, and he could repay me $50 a month for the next 30 years, but why should I suffer because he didn't think anything would happen. Things usually happen when you think they won't, not when you plan for them. Yeah, I hate shelling out a couple bills each month for insurance, but after the accident, I don't mind so much anymore. It's called responsibility. It's not always fun, but it's what is right. And personally, I'll take my chances with a helmet, I've bounced my noggin on the asphalt once, and I'm darn glad that my $80 helmet took the hit for me, instead of my face! Never had much of a problem with being distracted, having heat fatigue, or lack of vision either, and South Carolina isn't exactly cold in August. Have had a problem with a big fat horsefly, a hornet or 2 and god-knows-what-else hitting my visor at 60 on the other hand. Yeah, it won't protect you from a broken neck, but it'll do wonders for sliding face first down the asphalt!! I'm ugly enough thanks, don't need a nice case of road rash of the face!

Sorry, but if a person can't afford insurance, then he/she shouldn't be in a vehicle. Insurance is part of the package. Yeah, the guy who didn't have insurance when he hit me didn't think he'd need it either, as he had cancelled it 4 days before, because he was pulling the car off of the road to work on it for a while. But, he decided that he could get by without it for one last ride I guess, and plowed into me! Guess who had to pay for his decision, me, and my insurance. Yeah, they are going to TRY to subrogate him, and recover the money, but I've seen where he lives and what he drives (a 84 Gremlin and a 96 Explorer), so guess what... Now, had I had only liability, guess who'd be paying all of the medical bills and the almost $5000 it cost to rebuild my bike, ME. Oh, of course, I could have sued, and he could repay me $50 a month for the next 30 years, but why should I suffer because he didn't think anything would happen. Things usually happen when you think they won't, not when you plan for them. Yeah, I hate shelling out a couple bills each month for insurance, but after the accident, I don't mind so much anymore. It's called responsibility. It's not always fun, but it's what is right. And personally, I'll take my chances with a helmet, I've bounced my noggin on the asphalt once, and I'm darn glad that my $80 helmet took the hit for me, instead of my face! Never had much of a problem with being distracted, having heat fatigue, or lack of vision either, and South Carolina isn't exactly cold in August. Have had a problem with a big fat horsefly, a hornet or 2 and god-knows-what-else hitting my visor at 60 on the other hand. Yeah, it won't protect you from a broken neck, but it'll do wonders for sliding face first down the asphalt!! I'm ugly enough thanks, don't need a nice case of road rash of the face! I will agree with you though, that it would be nice if more education was mandatory for drivers, but even in countries where that is the case (Germany has one of the best driver education programs in the world), helmets are still mandatory.

blah blah blah yadda yadda yadda blah blah blah relax and ride guys, okay?

typical back-sass I'd expect from a little Sis!!!! GIRLS!!!!!

nyuck nyuck. i do believe the proper term is brat.

Mert, who would I be to disagree with an expert on being a brat!! HA!

Just like a woman..
Get the boys fighting among themselves and then shut them up.

I think I'll just shut up and ride, if the sun ever comes out again..

The choice to wear a helmet or not to wear one should be a riders choice. I agree that seat belts should be a choice also. We have to many laws designed to "protect us" HUMMM... Maybe we could get along with out a few stupid laws because we are just to stupid to think for ourselves. When given the option, my helmet sits on the sissy bar. I enjoy New Hampshire and the feeling of freedom.

HI Brother's
we've in Germany an ordinance decree :ece 22/05 , 06...
When it's going on insurance, we are looks as KNIGHT 's
armor !! I remember at my first ride with a 50 ccm machine
called Puch Jet in 1978,we got no helmet-law .
So the accident statistic's increase strong ,in the mount
also our Politicals said :you must have...
We got much more Laws as your country
some laws
many ordains
too many unknown politicals
Fu## in helmet Law's
Ride Free
Peter