I got the obligatory newspaper clipping from my mother the other day. You know, the one that talks about how motorcycle deaths are up at the same time that some states are relaxing their helmet laws.

Let’s face it, moms are just being moms when they send these things. They would rather you didn’t ride at all because “it’s too dangerous” but if you’re going to ride “you’d better wear your helmet every time.” They also tend to believe strongly that all states should mandate wearing helmets all the time.

I disagree. I do wear my helmets (I have several) a lot of the time. But there are times when I do not, and I would argue that I know more about the risk I am taking than someone who has never been on a motorcycle in their lives. I’m also a registered Libertarian, so obviously I believe the government has no business telling me I have to wear a helmet.

So let’s look at the information this particular article presents. It came from the Gannett News Service so presumably it appeared in a number of papers, maybe yours.

I’ll give them credit, it talks about deaths rising on the basis of per 1,000 riders. So many such articles say simply that deaths are up, but fail to mention that the number of riders is up as well. And if deaths per thousand riders are increasing then that is definitely of concern to us.

My issue is with the interpretations that people put on the statistics. They’re much too simplistic. Helmets are not some miracle cure for motorcycle fatalities. For example, the article states that “About 42 percent of riders killed were not wearing helmets.” What that means then is that 58 percent were wearing helmets — and they were killed anyway. It also implies that some percentage of those helmetless riders who were killed would have been killed even if they had been wearing a helmet. To me that says the cause of the accident should be more the focus than the gear the rider was wearing.

Another factor noted is the increase in the age of the average rider. Decreasing physical dexterity and slower reaction times are listed as the suspects.

Then it goes on to say that “Half of motorcyclists killed between 2002 and 2006 lost control and crashed without colliding with another vehicle.” This is what I’m talking about above. How did these accidents occur? Surely some involved other vehicles that may well have been the cause but were not involved in any contact. But in other cases, what we are talking about is rider error. This calls for better training but, again, has nothing to do with the gear the rider is wearing.

The article goes on to say that southern states have higher death rates, and they attribute that to the longer riding season. More time on the road equals more opportunity for accidents. That makes sense.

Then it talks about how the National Transportation Safety Board has taken the unprecedented action of unanimously recommending that all states mandate helmets at all times. Their justification for this is that “Medical and other costs for unhelmeted riders involved in crashes are staggering.” OK, then how about this: Let’s require all drivers and passengers in cars to wear helmets. There are a heck of a lot more of them getting into accidents and surely the costs are mega-staggering. Race car drivers wear helmets. Why shouldn’t mom and pop and the kiddies? Of course I’m sure they intend to imply that motorcyclists who do wear helmets and get in accidents cost the system nothing. That is what they’re saying, isn’t it?

And then finally, at the very bottom of this 51-inch article, they mention that, oh by the way, the two states with no helmet laws of any kind, Iowa and New Hampshire, have death rates of 3.5 and 3.0 per 1,000 respectively. Meanwhile, for example, Mississippi and Maryland, which require all riders to wear helmets all the time, have death rates of 20 and 12 per 1,000 respectively. Of course these numbers are discounted, and are explained away saying that in New Hampshire the riding season is short and in Iowa the ground is flat and visibility is good.

So thanks for caring Mom, I love you, too. But I’ll continue to make my own decisions and I’ll continue to belong to the American Motorcyclist Association and support their efforts to protect our right to decide.

Biker Quote for Today

Gray-haired riders don’t get that way from pure luck.

I mentioned before that I emailed Sen. Ken Gordon to ask about a news report where an ABATE rep said they expect to see a new helmet bill next legislative session. Now I have the response. Ken Gordon said:

The answer is no. I am not planning to do that and I have talked to the people that were involved with this year’s bill and they aren’t either. The rumor is probably the paranoid rumination of someone who imagines something that they don’t like and then assumes that it will happen.

That’s good. Thanks Ken for not getting carried away.

I sent an email to Ken Gordon, my state senator, today. I want to know if he really is planning to introduce a helmet law bill to require adults to wear them. He succeeded this past session in passing a law requiring minors to do so. Here’s the text of my message to him:

Ken–
Hello. I am one of your constituents and I ride motorcycles. I have a question for you.

In an article on July 5 in the Rocky Mountain News about the new helmet law for minors, they quoted Terry Howard of ABATE saying “It’s been rumored that they are going to try and introduce a helmet bill for adults next session. . . . (We fully expect our opponents) to introduce an adult helmet law.”

My question: Is this true? Are you planning to introduce a more comprehensive law? I would very much appreciate a direct answer. I don’t want to assume that Terry Howard is right, I would rather hear directly from you about it.

I’ll tell you right now that I would oppose any such law. I wear my helmet at times when I feel it is wise and at other times I do not. I prefer to be the judge of this.

To your argument that bikers hurt while not wearing helmets add to health costs for all I would simply respond, people who eat poorly and eat junk and become overweight incur health costs that drive up the costs for the rest of us. Do you plan to outlaw eating junk food? I mean, seriously: what is the difference? There are a lot more people eating that second donut and getting fat than there are bikers getting hurt not wearing helmets. The health costs are much higher.

I will really, truly appreciate hearing from you on this issue. Thanks.

So now let’s see how he responds. I’ll be sure to post it here. Stay tuned.

Contrary to what I said here before, it appears that the Colorado Legislature did indeed pass a helmet law this past session. If you are under 18 you are required to wear a helmet, either as a rider or passenger.

I have a bit of a beef with the Rocky Mountain News on this, because I read the newspaper every single day and they had stories about this as it was under consideration, but I never saw anything about it passing. So after awhile I assumed that like so many bills that get introduced, this one had just died a quiet death. Wrong.

Now, I’m not going to get all upset about this particular law. As ABATE’s Terry Howard said, because it was about kids, it was hard to oppose. The problem, as Howard also says, is what comes next. According to the story in the Rocky, Howard and ABATE fully expect Sen. Ken Gordon, this bill’s sponsor, to come back with a helmet bill for adults.

I’m sorry to say that Ken Gordon is my senator. I didn’t vote for him–and I did vote, for the Libertarian candidate–but Gordon is my senator. I’ve never had any real negative feelings toward Gordon but that could change if he tries this. I developed a strong animosity toward then-Rep. Bill Owens, back when the now-former Colorado governor was a state rep and introduced helmet bills in every session. But Owens finally gave up. What’s it going to take for Gordon to give up?

Of course, this may be a matter of jumping the gun. He may have no such intentions. Still, I intend to contact Ken Gordon and ask him flat out if that is his intent. And I will make it clear that if he tries it he will have a fight on his hands. It won’t be so easy next time.

Gordon says it’s all about the health of the people and lowering medical costs for us all. Stop right there Ken! Would it not be a safe statement that overweight people incur much higher health care costs–running costs up for us all–than non-overweight people? Overweight people such as, say, Sen. Ken Gordon? Let’s pass a law against eating junk food, or gaining too much weight, or some other measure to stop people from endangering themselves in this manner. It’s only fair!

Common sense prevailed in the Colorado Legislature this season. Attempts to pass a helmet law and allow police to stop and ticket you for not wearing a seat belt were both defeated.

Make no mistake, the two are connected. The nannies who think government has some right to poke its nose into private matters were behind these bills. I won’t argue with people who say not wearing a seat belt is stupidity. It’s just that stupidity is not illegal. The same with helmets. The job of government is to protect us from foreign invaders and polluters poisoning the common air we breathe or water we drink, those sorts of things. Helmets and seat belts don’t fall into that category.

Congratulations to the Colorado Legislature for showing some sense.

I keep saying this but it’s important for it to be clear up front: I am not and have never been a Republican. I used to be Democrat, but I’m not any more.

That said, I want to say a couple words on behalf of a couple Republican Colorado legislators, Don Marostica of Loveland and Greg Brophy of Wray.

Last week Marostica wore a helmet to the debate on requiring motorcycle riders under 18 to wear helmets. Asked to remove the helmet, he said, as quoted in the Rocky Mountain News:

That’s why I wore my helmet down here. I didn’t want to trip. I’m going to wear it on the way back to my desk.

His point was that people have a greater risk of dying or suffering a brain injury from tripping and falling than they do from motorcycle accidents.

As for Brophy, he is one of the leaders in the fight against allowing police to stop a driver solely for not wearing a seat belt. Right now, you can only be cited if the police stop you for another reason and you’re not wearing your belt.

Said Brophy, once again as quoted in the Rocky Mountain News:

I don’t believe you should be able to pull over someone in this country basically at will. It is another way government will be able to harass citizens.

Kudos, too, to Ron Tupa, Democratic senator from Boulder, who was the lone Democrat voting against the measure.

OK, I guess I spoke too quickly last time. Turns out there is an attempt in the Colorado Legislature to pass a helmet bill. As usual, it is the nanny-government Democrats at work again.

Let me restate this: I’m not a Republican. I am anti-government-sticking-its-nose-in-where-it-doesn’t-belong. I’m a Libertarian.

The proposed legislation would require all riders under age 18 to wear helmets. Simple enough, and maybe not a bad idea. Lord knows kids don’t have the sense to watch out for themselves. I know what I was like when I was a kid, and even more, I know what our kids were like just a few years ago.

If I could trust that this was all it was and that would be the end of it I might go along with this bill. But history shows me that that is not the case.

About 15-20 years ago the legislature passed a bill requiring seat belts to be worn, but they made the offense such that you could not be stopped for it, they could only cite you if they stopped you for something else. Then recently, guess what? They want to change the law so the police can stop you just for failure to wear a seatbelt. There is no doubt in mind that once they get this helmet law passed for kids they’ll be back later to extend that requirement to adults.

The legislators fighting this bill are Republicans. Now, I have no more use for Republicans than I do for Democrats. One wants to tell you how to think and the other wants to control everything you do. That’s why I changed my party affiliation from Democrat to Libertarian awhile back.

That’s also why I believe in divided government. As long as one party controls the executive branch, the other the legislative, they checkmate each other. They govern down the middle. I guess I’ll be working for the Republicans to take back some power in the next election.

I’ve mentioned here before the danger inherent in the push to make failure to wear a seat-belt an offense the cops can stop you for. Right now in Colorado they can’t do that, but if they stop you for another reason and you’re not wearing one you can get a ticket. The Legislatue is now working to change that.

What concerns me is that any group of legislators that would make that change is likely to want to mandate wearing motorcycle helmets at all times.

Let’s get this clear right now: I understand that helmets and seat belts frequently save lives. I also know that in less frequent situations they do more hard than good. I just don’t think it’s government’s business to tell me which odds to play. Don’t make that old argument about being a burden on society. I have insurance. Not only that, I often wear a helmet. But sometimes I don’t, and that’s my decision to make. As for seat-belts, I was out one night with a bunch of legislators just after they passed the original seat-belt law and I told them then that they could shove it, that I would continue not to wear one. That was almost 20 years ago. I finally got ticketed for not wearing my seat-belt just two weeks ago. I was speeding, but so was everyone else. And the patrolman only cited me for the belt, not speeding. While I appreciated not getting a speeding ticket I have to suspect he really stopped me for the belt, and speed was just his excuse.

Anyway, none of that matters now because just last week I got a new car and it’s one of these that has a system to totally annoy you if you don’t wear a belt so I’ve finally been beaten. I now wear my seat-belt every time I drive.

But let’s get back to helmets. I hadn’t heard anything about helmets in connection to this proposed seat-belt law, but I know the connection. Well, in this morning’s Rocky Mountain News, Mark Wolf ran five quotes from the forum they run. All five of them said the same thing I”m saying, that it’s no one’s business but mine. One person did say not wearing a belt gives kids the idea of not wearing a belt, but other than that he said it’s nobody’s business. And three of them said the same about helmets.

I was afraid of this when the Democrats took the Legislature and governorship. I firmly believe divided government is best; it provides the best checks and balances. I used to be a Democrat but I changed my affiliation to Libertarian a number of years ago for exactly this sort of reason. I may have to vote Republican two years from now to help break this imbalance.