Mandatory helmet laws bring up same old arguments

Folks in the know expect a dustup sooner or later. Call it the battle between those Born to be Wild and those Born to be Mild.

That prediction comes in the wake of a recommendation this week by a federal agency that all states should pass mandatory helmet laws for motorcyclists.

The recommendation by the National Transportation Safety Board comes a year after 4,810 motorcyclists died in crashes, accounting for more than 10 percent of all motor vehicle fatalities in the United States.

The data is a little moldy in Colorado. But from 1994 to 2005, motorcycle fatalities have gone from 49 to 87. About three-quarters of those killed were not wearing helmets, according to the Colorado State Patrol.

The agency recommendation comes just months after Colorado passed a law requiring motorcycle riders and passengers under the age of 18 to wear a brain bucket.

Only 20 states and the District of Columbia require that all riders wear a helmet, according to the federal agency. Only three states have no helmet laws.

If Colorado moves to pass a helmet law for adults, expect the same tired arguments from both sides to be trotted out.

For a certain segment of motorcyclists, mostly the Harley/cruiser crowd, mandatory helmets are akin to gun control.

It’s all about the freedom, baby.

“I’m a firm believer in freedom of choice when it comes to anything,” said Terry Howard, state coordinator for the motorcycle advocacy group ABATE, A Brotherhood Active Toward Education. “We believe in the Constitution. We don’t feel the government needs to be putting laws on our bodies.”

Howard said her group encourages helmets for riders under 18 but doesn’t believe a nanny state should mandate it.

Rep. Michael Merrifield, D-Colorado Springs, a local co-sponsor of the bill requiring that minors wear helmets, said he would support a mandatory helmet law for adults should one be proposed.

“The facts are, (motorcyclists’) insurance doesn’t cover 100 percent of medical bills when they are brain injured or killed,” he said. “We foot the bill in increased health costs.”

That’s an old argument in the helmet debate, but one that’s hard to pin down.

Rep. Don Marostica, a first-year Republican from Loveland who opposed the helmet law for minors, said such legislation is simply “feelgood law.”

The lifelong rider, who chooses to wear a helmet, said most motorcyclists have medical insurance. Why pick on them, he asked, when the same objections aren’t raised about the far greater number of people who get brain injuries in car crashes?

Besides, he said, the reality is that when traveling faster than 38 mph, according to some studies, it’s simply a matter of luck whether a motorcyclist survives a crash — with or without a helmet.

What do local riders think? E-mail Getting There and share your thoughts.

Tell me your commuter tales: 636-0197 or bill.mckeown@gazette.com.