Now, we’re not saying anything is wrong with public transportation. Both rail systems and busses have their place, and they provide economical means of travel for many Americans. Not quite as many as some might like, but enough to be worthwhile and viable.

What we do question is whether it makes any sense to add fees for motorcycle riders and apply that money to public transportation like trains and buses. Yet that’s exactly what is being done in Oregon. The program is directly linked to finds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and it uses part of the fees from Oregon Motorcycle license plate charges to fund inter-city rail travel.

Again, there’s nothing wrong with the government funding some of these kinds of programs. But, if the money is coming from motorcycle permits and licenses, doesn’t it make sense that the money should be invested in programs aimed at motorcyclists?

We suppose the general idea behind these programs is to get more people using mass transit, which uses less fuel overall than cars. But, motorcycles are also a low fuel option. While it’s true that nobody is going to carpool to work on a Harley, it’s also true that if we all rode motorcycles, we would use less gas.

That’s not to say everyone needs a motorcycle, either. Let everyone drive or ride what they want to. But, if you’re going to raise funds for your mass transit systems, doesn’t it make sense to garner the fees from those who benefit from the programs, like perhaps those who ride the trains and buses?

Photo via ReneS

But wearing a helmet has a number of benefits. Most are fairly obvious. Laws often require it, it can save your life in an accident, and it can save you money on motorcycle insurance.

The laws on motorcycle helmets have changed over the years. The issue first became an issue of national importance in the 1970s. At one point, 47 states required riders to wear helmets. Some of those states, under pressure from riders’ rights groups, have backed off on helmet laws, but many states do still require riders to wear a helmet.

Still, whether or not the law requires us to wear a helmet should be the least of our reasons for donning a skull cap. Studies have repeatedly shown that wearing a motorcycle helmet dramatically improves our chances of surviving an accident. Of course, you’ll save money on your motorcycle insurance, too, if you always wear a helmet.

Some bikers will vehemently argue that wearing a helmet reduces the rider’s visibility and hearing, and can actually cause an accident. Still, there are plenty of modern helmet designs that account for any alleged sensory loss. Even if there weren’t, the minute differences in visibility and hearing don’t even come close to countering the improved chances of surviving an accident. Everywhere, the percentage of motorcycle accidents that end in death can be linked directly to the percentage of riders not wearing helmets.

Of course, most states require you to wear a helmet, so the choice is taken out of your hands. Unless you want to pay out of your nose in fines and tickets, you’ll put them on.

Even where it’s not required by law, be smart enough to protect your head and the God given brains inside it. If you ride long enough, you’re bound to eventually know or hear of someone who suffered a head injury while riding a motorcycle. Helmets might not prevent every injury, or even every death, but they do give us a better chance of walking away from an accident with our brain cells intact.

Photo via guiguibu91

One of the other issues that often plagues the motorcycle community is the issue of noise. Everywhere you look, there is someone raising a storm about bike noise. Most recently, some residents of Maine have been complaining about the noise generated by motorcycles and how they say that it’s impacting their quality of life.

In Maine, Democratic Senator Nancy Sullivan of Biddeford proposed a bill, which is supposed to be for the purpose of reducing “Noise Caused by Motorcycles to Improve Public Health.” This bill was passed and signed into law by Governor John Baldacci in April. The bill requires every motorcyclist in the state of Maine, an estimated 50,000 bikers, to have their bikers inspected by 2012 for noise.

At best, this is annoying. At worst, it’s a dangerous step. It singles out bikers, for example. Anyone who has a neighbor that likes to mow their lawn on a Sunday afternoon when you’re trying to nap knows that the 20 seconds it takes for a bike to pass by is nothing.

What’s especially interesting is the idea that this will somehow improve public health. There is very little data to suggest that the noise from motorcycles damages anyone’s health. There is some evidence that riding a loud motorcycle might damage the hearing of the rider, but here again we’re looking at a situation where lawmakers are trying to protect bikers from themselves.

Whether or not this kind of legislation spreads to other states isn’t certain. What is certain is that this law is inconsistent, at best, in that it doesn’t focus on noise of all types but just those of a minority of the population.

Photo via aka Kath

A recent decision by the Ohio Supreme Court has made it OK for police officers to pull you over on your motorcycle or in your passenger vehicle and give you a speeding ticket whether or not they have technological proof that you were exceeding the speed limit.

Now, at first blush, this doesn’t seem like such a big deal. After all, before the invention of the radar gun, police were able to issue citations based entirely on their perception of whether you were speeding or not. On the surface, many motorists probably won’t object to the decision based on this alone.

However, this decision is, for many people, a step backwards. The technology exists today to independently verify exactly how fast you’re traveling. If the technology exists, why would it be necessary for police to simply estimate your speed, unless they were trying to meet some sort of quota?

Of course, there are situations in which visually estimating a vehicle’s speed can and should be put into place. For example, if a vehicle is driving through a downtown area that has a speed limit of 25 and they’re cruising along at a dangerous, breakneck pace, it’s a problem.

But someone who’s on the Interstate doing 75 or 80 is much less of a threat than someone doing twice the speed limit through town. In the vast majority of cases, it’s important to let the technology do its job.

Unless someone is visibly driving in a dangerous fashion and thereby putting herself, her passengers and others in vehicles nearby at risk, her speed should be checked and verified with technology.

What implications this decision winds up having remains to be seen. Whether states will begin to create laws allowing police to visually guess at speed or not, chances are pretty good this isn’t the last we’ve heard of this issue.

Photo via woodleywonderworks

Governor opposed

The governor of Michigan, Jennifer Granholm, has threatened to veto the bill if it passes the senate. This would not be the first time that Granholm has stood in the way of this kind of legislation, having used her gubernatorial veto twice in her term of office to keep similar laws from being passed. She cites safety concerns as well as a potential rise in the cost of motorcycle insurance if the current mandatory helmet law is repealed.

The argument over mandatory helmet laws isn’t a new one, and the reasoning given by each side are pretty much the same as they have always been.

Born to ride free

For the anti-helmet law side, the argument is more about freedom. They liken mandatory helmet laws to other draconian measures, such as gun control. The motorcycle advocacy group, ABATE, regularly cites the constitution in its arguments against mandatory helmet laws. In many cases, it’s not that these riders don’t want to wear helmets or don’t think people should wear helmets. It’s about the state forcing riders to wear helmets.

Safety and public health care cost concerns

Those for helmet laws argue that helmets save lives. The truth is that death rates from motorcycle accidents are much higher for those not wearing a helmet. They also suggest that there is a public cost – the cost of increased health care that comes because motorcycle insurance doesn’t cover the entire cost of medical bills when a motorcyclist is injured or killed.

Today, Michigan remains one of only 20 states plus the District of Columbia that require all riders to wear helmets. The point in Michigan may soon be moot, as a federal agency recently recommended that Congress pass a federal law that requires riders to wear helmets.

Photo via aj_1328

I am the law

On the one hand is the question of legality: whether or not you should be required to wear a motorcycle helmet by the force of law. Those that believe it should be required by law to wear a motorcycle helmet usually cite issues like public health costs and increased costs for medical insurance, motorcycle insurance and hospital care. They advocate for legislation to make it illegal to ride without a helmet, and many states have such laws on the books. Penalties for not wearing a helmet are usually not too severe, but are significant enough to act as a deterrent.

Opponents of motorcycle laws argue that it ought to be their decision whether or not to wear a helmet. They argue that it is their responsibility, not the government’s, to make sure they’re safe and healthy. They don’t always argue that wearing a helmet is a bad idea. They argue that it should be up to them, however.

Is it safe?

Almost no one in the motorcycle helmet debate will suggest that riding without a helmet is more safe than riding with a helmet. Those who support helmet laws cite statistic after statistic about how much safer it is to ride with a helmet than without.

In many cases, however, they miss the point entirely. Opponents of helmet laws don’t argue that wearing a helmet is less safe than not. They argue, again, that it should be up to them to choose.

Personal choice and social responsibility

The real core of the motorcycle helmet debate is a question of how much individuals should be compelled by the force of law to be socially responsible. We have laws every day that make such requirements. Carrying auto insurance or motorcycle insurance are some examples.

However, the impact of the personal choice not to wear a helmet doesn’t necessarily extend as far as some would suggest. The ultimate risk is to the individual. While there is some overall impact on society, the fact remains that it’s no more or less than the risks involved in many other activities.

The helmet issue isn’t going away anytime soon, but perhaps if the sides can listen more closely to one another they can come to an understanding, and focus on getting the word out about the dangers of riding without a helmet rather than trying to force behavior based on laws.

Photo via ~MVI~

Don’t misunderstand me. I’m not suggesting for a minute that motorcyclists ought to be forced, by the threat of law, to wear a helmet. In fact, I’m all for living in a world where you make your own choices and where you are responsible for the consequences of your actions.

Let’s forget the legal question for a little while. After all, life is about more than politics. Life is about driving down the road on your beloved bike, and about enjoying your free time with friends and other loved ones.

A question of life

Helmets are the most important piece of protective gear that a motorcyclist can wear. A helmet exponentially reduces the amount of damaged caused to the head in a traffic accident. In fact, a biker who’s not wearing a helmet is three times as likely to have an injury to the brain during an accident as a motorcyclist that is wearing a helmet. Many of those brain injuries lead to death or permanent and severe disability.

Motorcycle helmet laws muddy the issue

When states pass helmet laws, it clouds the issue. The theory behind these laws is that, by passing these laws, there will be fewer brain injuries as a result of motorcycle accidents, fewer dead citizens, and fewer severe injuries that must be cared for at the expense of the public. Proponents argue that these kinds of injuries drive up the cost of hospital care and other health care. They also argue that it has a negative effect on motorcycle insurance rates.

Opponents argue that the laws impede their freedom. They argue that helmet laws unfairly single out bikers. In some cases, they even oppose these laws on constitutional grounds.

A more effective way to save lives

I’d suggest that there’s a better way.

Rather than work to have government force its will (or your will) upon motorcyclists, there are more effective ways to save lives. For example, just getting the word out about how dangerous riding without a helmet can be will save lives. Be as graphic as you need to be. In the same way that pictures of a cancerous lung can be an impediment to smoking, head injury pictures can help convince a biker to wear a helmet.

Laws don’t change hearts and minds. Truly effective, long-term change is harder to accomplish than just getting a law passed.

Photo via Jeremy Burgin

Police Weigh In

“As a police officer, I’m pro-helmet,” said Columbus Police Captain, Todd Thalken. He used to be a motorcycle owner who rode lid-less before the 20-year-old state helmet requirement went into effect and has also ridden with a helmet. “I can see both sides of the issue.”

Platte County Sheriff, Jon Zavadil, also sees the benefits of helmets.

“I’d think that motorcycle riders would want any advantage they could get (in the event of an accident),” Zavadil said. Riders don’t have much chance without a helmet of escaping injury in the case of an accident, especially on the highway or the interstate, he said.

Zavadil also mentioned that when Texas recently repealed its helmet law, it saw a corresponding increase in injuries.

Other Amendments

Other amendments conspired to have the bill be unsuccessful. This included requiring motorcycle riders to have long term care insurance in case they sustained serious injuries.

Some elements of the bill may gather support such as requiring that only riders who are 21 or older could go helmet free, requiring riders to wear eye protection and relook at the helmet law repeal in five years.

Since 1997, six states have repealed a mandatory helmet law. If passed, Nebraska would be the seventh.

Photo via superde1uxe

When it comes to motorcycles, there are plenty of groups that put bikers in their sights. There are helmet advocates. There are those that advocate for reform in the motorcycle insurance industry, at least in some states.

There are even people who get together to bitch about how loud a motorcycle can be.

In Maine, for example, there are lawmakers that are proposing a way to deal with motorcycle noise. The law would set standards for the entire state, giving police officers a specific set of guidelines on how and when to enforce the rules.

The law is still being worked on. Those that are pushing the law are aiming for two things:

1. They want to use the EPA’s noise compliance system in order to let police give tickets to bikers that have bikes with noncompliant exhaust.
2. They want bikers to have to display a sticker showing that the bike has been checked for illegal systems.

The good news is that there are plenty of motorcyclists that are trying to stand up for their rights. Recently, several opponents of the legislation attended a legislative hearing and voiced their concerns.

One of the concerns raised was that motorcycles are being unfairly singled out. They point out that plenty of other vehicles can create noise problems, from Semi trucks to loud stereos in cars.

Nearby New Hampshire recently had similar legislation lined up to try to address the issue of motorcycle noise. That law, as well as a law that went with it that would require motorcyclists to wear helmets, never made it out of committee.

Photo via Matalyn

The first bill would require that all motorcyclists in the state would be required to wear helmets. New Hampshire, along with 30 other states, currently allows motorcyclists to ride without helmets if they wish.

The second bill was designed to require that motorcycles built in the past 30 years have noise emission systems labels on them.

The bills were sponsored by North Hampton State Representative, Judith Day. Day believes that the measures would help riders to be responsible while riding on public roads.

Day based her argument for the helmet law on the idea that head injuries actually raise the cost to everyone through things like increased hospital and rehab costs, as well as the loss of employment. She argued that it also contributes to higher medical insurance costs and higher motorcycle insurance costs, as well.

The emissions sticker requirement would make it so that motorcycles would have to meet federal noise standards. Day based this legislation on complaints that she was hearing from the residents she represents in Hampton.

Unfortunately for Day, the New Hampshire legislature didn’t seem to agree with her. The House Transportation Committee dismissed the bills after they decided that they were “too inexpedient to legislate.”

Opponents of the bill celebrated the victory. Many motorcyclists petitioned their state legislatures on these bills, and some attended hearings at the Statehouse. Approximately 150 opponents of the legislation attended the hearing on the day the bills were dismissed.

Motorcyclists in the North Hampton area that Day represents may well be up in arms about the proposed laws, even though they didn’t pass. Around two thirds of customers who buy bikes in that area do so intending to ride them without helmets.

Still, these efforts will come back around. They always do. Day has stated that, if she chooses to seek re-election this year, she’ll bring the legislation up again.

This isn’t the first time that Day has introduced this kind of motorcycle legislation, either. Last year, she put forth a bill that would have specifically targeted the decibel level that comes from motorcycle exhaust pipes. That one didn’t pass, mainly, because of the sheer logistics of trying to measure the noise coming from exhaust pipes while going down the road.

Photo via Allerina & Glen MacLarty