Bonneville America Forums Forums Rider Safety Forums Legislation Oregon's helmet law

It may be a losing battle (again), but Oregon's helmet law is up for debate. I wont ride without one, but I completely believe a person should have the right to decide to wear one or not.

Here is the article I found from The Salem Register-Guard....

Quote:

---

Motorcyclists turn onto familiar route in helmet law debate

SALEM - They may have grayed a bit since they first started fighting Oregon's helmet law.

An 18-year losing streak can have that effect.

But hundreds of Oregon motorcycle riders plan to demonstrate this week that they're as passionate as ever in their quest to repeal the mandatory helmet law that has been on the books since 1987.


Like the fight over Oregon's ban on self-serve gas, the push to legalize industrial hemp and the campaign to cut Oregon's minimum wage, the helmet law debate is the centerpiece of an every-session ritual.


Do the hundreds of bikers who make the journey to Salem every session ever get discouraged by defeat, at the hands either of the Legislature or the governor?


"I'll be honest. Sometimes you do," conceded Rick Maish, a long-time Harley-Davidson motorcycle rider and a veteran of Oregon's Motorcycle Helmet Wars. "But you just never give up the fight for this. It's a fundamental freedom."


Maish, 60 and retired, said he "most definitely" will be at the Capitol this week to renew the campaign for a partial repeal of the motorcycle law. House Bill 2488, which would apply the mandate only to motorcyclists younger than 21, is scheduled for a hearing Tuesday morning and again Thursday evening in the House General Government Committee.


If the hearings go anything like they did in each of the past sessions since the law passed, here's how things will play out:


Bikers will converge on the Capitol to make their case for freedom. In this case, it's the freedom to choose for yourself whether to encase your head in a helmet that, while protective, can make riding more dangerous by making it harder to hear traffic and limiting peripheral vision.


Paramedics and other health care professionals will show up with statistics-enriched warnings that the common good is best served when safety laws prevent one motorcycle rider's crash from becoming everybody's burden - the burden of higher medical insurance and social service costs that come with caring for a brain-injured motorcyclist who insisted on riding without a helmet.


The House committee's chairwoman, Rep. Vicki Berger, R-Salem, said she would wait until the hearings have concluded to decide, or at least state publicly, where she comes down on the issue, but she said she was definitely in favor of having the debate. Again.


HELMET WARS


The Legislature's perennial debate over Oregon's 1987 motorcycle helmet law resumes this week. House Bill 2488, which would repeal the mandate for riders 21 and older, is set for hearings before the House General Government Committee:


• Tuesday, 8:30 a.m., Oregon Capitol, Hearing Room B.


• Thursday, 7 p.m., Oregon Capitol, Hearing Room B.

---

You know, I think it's a shame that if motorcyclists would exercise thier right to vote as a block, they could out-vote anyone on motorcycle related issues. I mean what kind of voting block would, as a group, vote about something as unrelated to the general population as helmet wearing? The medical community might rise up, but I just don't think, as a group, they would be as passionate. Seems it's more that as a group, motorcyclists would rather loudly complain about rights being taken away than do something as difficult as go to the ballot box and spend 45 seconds to vote.

Of course that's just my opinion, and you know what they say about those.

Politicians will do all they can to skew the vote to match their agenda. The attempt to split the San Fernando Valley off from L.A. is a great example. Our illustrious mayor arranged for all cities in the county to vote on the issue in order to block it when he realised that empty promises wouldn't work. Now, the valley is still part of L.A, we still get minimal services and still pay out a fortune in taxes.

jj,

The problem is, we rarely get to decide these issues by a general population vote. We have to lobby our elected officials. Before the Nov. 2004 elections, ABATE sent out a list of bike-friendly candidates who were up for re-election.(here in PA.) One of them was a real screwball who was only in it as a career... and he lost the election after winning several times prior to this vote. The people (me included) were ready for a change.
My point is.... if motorcyclists are really passionate about these issues, they need to let their elected representatives know how they feel with emails and letters and through organizations like the AMA and ABATE.

Know what you mean. I made it sound overly simplistic and it's just not that easy. Personally, there aren't many politicians I'd trust and without a zillion bucks it's near impossible for an honest joe to get elected to anything (even a school board nowdays). But they are swayed by numbers, and it almost seems the only way to be counted other than voting is to write. Every time I've written to my reps (and I write a lot) I always get a response, even a canned one. At least someone is reading down to the return address.

Speaking as an Oregonian...I'd rather see these people put their efforts towards something productive rather than waste my tax dollars rehashing the issue. Oregon has a multitude of problems and helmet laws are among the least of them.

I always wear a helmet but I still think riders should make their own choice. Isn't that what living in a "free" society is all about?

-PES

One of the really bad things about helmet laws is that they don't take into account any variables, just wear it or else. There are conditions that one encounters that make helmets more of a problem than they are good.