Response TO an Editorial titled: Go helmet-less? You might as well go headless.
 

It is obvious the writer of this editorial is totally unfamiliar with his subject and the failure to adequately research it serves only to perpetuate the half- truths associated with the issue.

"Freedom of choice" is not about the thrill of feeling the wind in our hair any more than a young man's choice to serve in the armed forces of this country during a time of war is about the thrill of being shot at.

The issue is about returning personal responsibility to trained and experienced adult motorcyclists. It is about rejecting the proposition that the government should be allowed to impose upon the personal decisions of free men.

The proponents of government forcing some bureaucrat's unenlightened vision of a safe and proper lifestyle on the riding public have attempted to misdirect the intent of modifying the helmet law by pontificating in a way that suggests motorcyclists would no longer be allowed to wear a helmet. Legislators in opposition to the modification who ride proclaim they would never ride without a helmet as if the absence of a mandatory law could somehow affect their judgment.

In their protestations, they talk about a risk to children and young adults while ignoring the restrictions that would maintain mandatory helmet use for those under 21. They rail on about the risk to new riders on unfamiliar machines while ignoring the fact that the modified law would require a minimum of two years riding experience or the successful completion of a motorcycle safety course. Not one has ever acknowledged the government statistic that indicates 90% of the motorcyclists involved in accidents have never had formal training.

Helmets are not the panacea many claim them to be. Training riders and educating the motoring public to share the road while being aware of motorcycles are among the most effective ways to prevent accidents, injuries and deaths.

At the Capitol, as your editorial pointed out so clearly, the evidence for mandatory helmet use is more often anecdotal than fact. People who have never ridden purport to know more about the pros and cons of helmet use than those of us who have been riding for decades.

The scare tactics, known as the "Public Burden Theory," have not proven to be the case in the 30 states allowing adults the right to make their own decisions. Had this legal option cost those states the millions of dollars in public funds and the radical insurance premium increases our opponents rant about, it is unlikely their laws would remain unchanged. The truth is that those dire predictions do not occur. Just as an increase in the national speed limit did not cause the carnage predicted, the modification of helmet laws to allow adults to exercise their personal responsibility has not led to a fulfillment of the doomsayers' prophecies.

If the safety of motorcyclists was truly of concern to our legislators, they would be passing laws to install safer road barriers and prohibit the use of tar and chip paving. They would insist on proper signage to alert riders to road hazards and require motorcycle awareness training as part of the driver licensing process. They would also be demanding the full prosecution of the motorists who, according to Penn DOT figures, are responsible for over 65% of motorcycle fatalities and an even higher percentage of injuries.

A.B.A.T.E. of PA is not opposed to helmet use; we simply reject the government having a role in mandating them. There is credible evidence from more than one source that helmets, while protecting the head in many instances, may also have been responsible for crippling injuries.

We believe responsible adults should be permitted to weigh the potential risks of helmet use and make their own determinations.

Benjamin Franklin stated the case quite eloquently when he said, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

In a society founded on the principles of personal liberty, an editorial ridiculing those who seek to wrest control of their lives from government mandate is inappropriate.

Sincerely,
Joe Dickey
State Coordinator
A.B.A.T.E. of Pennsylvania, Inc.