FOR THE RECORD, no one is saying helmets don't provide safety benefits. They do. But, there is also evidence that there are safety risks. Unlike seat belts, there is little data on the effects of a helmeted body in motion from a bike crash.

Officials often state that helmet laws reduce accidents. A helmet cannot stop an accident. But... a helmet law does reduce riding. Per the DMV, California has 40% less bikes registered today then in 1992 when the state enacted its helmet law! And of those that continue to ride... they ride less often. The math: less bikers riding less often = less targets for cars to hit, which therefore = less accidents.

Instead of confusing the public with gross accident statistics that have no relation to the ability of a helmet to provide enough safety to even think about a mandate, many Officials don't quote, or even know, whether helmets have had an effect on the ratio of the number of deaths from head injury as related to the number of accidents. That is the stat you want to know!

Recently, a number of states have modified helmet laws to permit motorcyclists to ride without a helmet if they carry specific health insurance coverage or pass a rider training course. Other "partial" helmet-use laws, such as those requiring only certain age groups to use helmets, have unknown effectiveness because of enforcement issues. These approaches dilute the original reasons for the law and may raise confusion about the usefulness and role of helmets.

So why all the disinformation? Follow the money trail. The life insurance industry can't control their car drivers from hitting us, but they can control the number of targets their drivers can hit by backing helmet laws that reduce riding. This all dovetails nicely with the prejudice and propoganda against motorcycling.

We're seen as anti-social, public burdens, scofflaws, "scary", etc. instead of energy and road space efficient travelers that contribute millions of dollars to the economy and charities of every type. Take a recent Maryland "study", for example, that refers to beanie helmets as "**** style". WOW! Then there's the ever present public mindset; since football players, astronauts and racers wear them, we're crazy not to. If only it were that simple.

Call ANY helmet manufacturer and see if you can get a straight answer whether their helmets cause neck injury or protect your head at speeds over 15 MPH. Try it...

Officials don't tell you how many neck injuries are caused by helmets. When air bags were found to hurt and kill children, NHTSA aggressively studied the situation and determined that they are, in fact, safe "if" used correctly, but that they can kill if not. As a result, air bags are not mandatory and can be disconnected legally. This begs the question, since there are cases where riders have sustained neck injury from their helmet, why isn't this being studied so that we can once and for all, ALL know the pros and cons of helmets. Like air bags, helmets should be a matter of freedom of choice.

The next time someone is in your face about helmets, quote Snell to them:

"A helmet that can take one of our headforms through these 2 impacts unscathed could probably handle a single impact somewhat greater than 17.3 MPH, but certainly no more than 23 MPH." - Snell

The best way to protect yourself is take an approved motorcycle safety course, maintain your bike, wear leathers, wear eyewear, ride responsibly and above all:

Don't Drink, Drug and Ride...

reduce accidents