Md. bill would make helmets optional for most motorcyclists

Editor

somd.com Editor
Staff member
PREMO Member
Patron
Graphic available here: http://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/yO95o/2/

By Jeff Barnes

ANNAPOLIS — Helmets would no longer be mandatory for most motorcycle riders in Maryland under a bill expected to be heard in a state Senate committee Tuesday.

Senate bill 237 would make motorcyclists and their passengers exempt from wearing a helmet if the motorcycle operator is 21 or older, has at least two years of riding experience and has completed an approved safety course.

The legislation, in its current language, has been introduced in each session of the General Assembly since 2016 but has failed to advance out of committee each session. Last session, the bill failed to advance out of the Senate's Judicial Proceedings committee.

The bill's lead sponsor, Sen. Michael Hough, R-Frederick and Carroll counties, told Capital News Service before the hearing that he is hopeful the bill can advance to a vote on the Senate floor. Hough noted the bill is also supported by the chair of the Judicial Proceedings Committee, Sen. William "Will" Smith Jr., D-Montgomery.

Although he said he doesn't ride a motorcycle, Hough said he agrees with supporters of the legislation who argue that it should be the rider's choice to wear a helmet, and that helmets do not prevent motorcycle crashes.

"It's not the role of government to protect you from yourself. The role of government is to protect you from doing harm to others," Hough said. "As an adult in this country, you should have the freedom to make decisions like this if you want."

In the past, the legislation has been opposed by AAA Mid-Atlantic, the Maryland Trauma Center Network, the Maryland Institute for Emergency Medical Services Systems and the Maryland Association of County Health Officers, among others.

The American Motorcycle Association, the country's largest motorcycle rights advocacy group, supports voluntary use of helmets.

"Some view the helmet solely as a mechanical safety device, similar to a seat belt," according to a position statement on the group's website. "Many motorcyclists view the helmet as an accessory of personal apparel, and its use or non-use is connected with a chosen lifestyle and their right as adults to make their own decisions."

Bob Spanburgh, executive director at ABATE of Maryland — the state's largest motorcycle advocacy group — told Capital News Service before the hearing that his organization isn't taking a position on wearing a helmet, but he said motorcyclists should get to choose for themselves.

"It's our guiding principle," Spanburgh said. "We don't advocate for not wearing helmets, we advocate for the ability to choose whether we want to wear them or not."

Spanburgh said his group has also advocated for other motorcycle-related legislation, including bills that would have allowed lane-splitting and would have prohibited residents from blowing yard waste into the street — creating potentially dangerous conditions for riders.

Spanurgh said sometimes motorcyclists' rights can become an afterthought for some people.

"I don't think it's intentional," he said. "If you don't ride, I don't think you really think about it."

In a statement to Capital News Service, AAA Mid-Atlantic indicated it would once again oppose the legislation, citing state motorcycle crash statistics.

According to data released in April by the state's Motor Vehicle Administration Highway Safety Office, the state has averaged 1,466 motorcycle-involved crashes a year over the last five years with an average of 69 fatal crashes per year.

"Because serious head injury is common among fatally injured motorcyclists, helmet use is essential," wrote Ragina C. Ali, public and government affairs manager at AAA Mid-Atlantic, in a statement Monday. "We oppose repealing the helmet law, as it weakens existing traffic safety laws and puts motorcyclists at a greater risk of injury or a traffic fatality."

Maryland's current motorcycle helmet requirement — which requires all riders and passengers to wear the protective headgear — became law on Oct. 1, 1992.

According to a legislative analysis of the bill, as of December, 19 states and Washington, D.C., require all motorcyclists to wear helmets, while 28 states require only certain riders to wear helmets.

Michigan, Pennsylvania and Texas have exemptions for riders similar to those proposed in the Maryland legislation, according to the analysis.

If the legislation passes, Spanburgh said, he thinks about half of the state's riders will continue to wear helmets. Spanburgh, who said he has been riding on the streets since 1983, probably won't be one of them.

"Honestly, I would more frequently not wear one than wear one," he said.
 

PeoplesElbow

Well-Known Member
I have a friend in PA that was riding without a helmet, a rock came rolling off a mountain, hit him in the head and caused him to crash, messed up his pelvis pretty good, got road rash and a pretty good infection from it. He says a helmet would have prevented his wreck and now wears one.

The rock was softball size, I think he still probably would have had the wreck, but the rock to the head wouldn't have hurt as much.
 

officeguy

Well-Known Member
That
I'll be okay if they require extra insurance coverage so we dont end up paying for stupid vegetables.

Yup. If we make Medicaid and SSI-DI optional for the no-helmet and no-seatbelt crowd, I am a-ok with this. Once you exhaust your own insurance, you are on your own.
 

BOP

Well-Known Member
I'll be okay if they require extra insurance coverage so we dont end up paying for stupid vegetables.
Which is weird, because insurance companies were THE driving force behind helmet laws, back in the day. Do you suppose those corporations had true altruistic motivations?
 

Barabbas

Active Member
Senate bill 237 would make motorcyclists and their passengers exempt from wearing a helmet if the motorcycle operator is 21 or older, has at least two years of riding experience and has completed an approved safety course.

"It's not the role of government to protect you from yourself. The role of government is to protect you from doing harm to others," Hough said. "As an adult in this country, you should have the freedom to make decisions like this if you want."
Is it just me, or are these two paragraphs in direct opposition to one another? If "you should have the freedom to make the decisions like this if you want", then why do you have to have two years riding experience and complete an approved safety course and meet an age restriction above 18 to do so?

The quote is accurate, the law is still not.

What IS right is living up to the quote, and then continuing to do so by ensuring insurers have the right to not cover you if you are not wearing a helmet, or charge you more for insurance to do so. You know, free market kind of thing.
 

BernieP

Resident PIA
I'll be okay if they require extra insurance coverage so we dont end up paying for stupid vegetables.
Exactly, 21 with a brain injury means they will receive disability, i.e. social security for the rest of their life.
Plus medical
Nothing is free, someone, the taxpayer, has to foot the bill.
The problem is they can't sign a waiver to decline those benefits either, hospitals are going to treat them and they want to be paid.
 

BernieP

Resident PIA
Which is weird, because insurance companies were THE driving force behind helmet laws, back in the day. Do you suppose those corporations had true altruistic motivations?
Hell no, it was to reduce their payout. There is no question money is the issue.
Take a look at the modern automobile. When they get into a collision they look like hell, but in a lot of cases people walk away with minor injuries due to the safety features, including the seat belt and airbags. Manufacturers didn't add those features to vehicles because they would lower the cost or just because they save lives and reduce the risk of serious injury. No, they were getting sued and insurance companies were pushing for the change.
I don't think there are too many bikers who don't know the hazards and what good protective gear can do to reduce the effects of going down.
People generally don't want to see another human in a vegetative state. It's not just the cost, but cost is the primary motivator why insurance companies put up the money to lobby for the laws.
Anyone who would deny that money was a prime motivator is naive, money is the BIG motivator.
Saving lives, saving the quality of life, is important
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
Hell no, it was to reduce their payout. There is no question money is the issue.
Take a look at the modern automobile. When they get into a collision they look like hell, but in a lot of cases people walk away with minor injuries due to the safety features, including the seat belt and airbags. Manufacturers didn't add those features to vehicles because they would lower the cost or just because they save lives and reduce the risk of serious injury. No, they were getting sued and insurance companies were pushing for the change.
I don't think there are too many bikers who don't know the hazards and what good protective gear can do to reduce the effects of going down.
People generally don't want to see another human in a vegetative state. It's not just the cost, but cost is the primary motivator why insurance companies put up the money to lobby for the laws.
Anyone who would deny that money was a prime motivator is naive, money is the BIG motivator.
Saving lives, saving the quality of life, is important

So the helmet saves his life but his neck is broken and he is a paraplegic..
You still pay the rest of his life.
Helmets are fine I wear one they make you look nice for your funeral from Blunt Force Trauma.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BOP

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
I wouldn't worry about it, It's not going to pass anyway nor will we ever get rid of seat belts.

We might not like the Government telling us what we have to wear but Johnny Do-Goods will always win.
 

Barabbas

Active Member
My exact thought. I'm fine with you risking your life as long as I don't have to pay for it.
This is really true for all things like it. Fell working on your deck and now you're a paraplegic? Dove into the pool when the water was too shallow? Clearing the back 40 and a tree fell on you?

We either pay for everyone stupid, or no one stupid. I'm of the mind you are making a great case to eliminate disability, and I am 100% on your side. Instead of taxpayer funds going to it, entice charitable organizations by increasing tax deductions for charitable donations to private welfare-like non-profits.
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
Many things are dangerous, many even more dangerous than motorcycles.
Drug use is more dangerous, we happily supply Narcan at no cost.
Of course some don't get the chance at the Narcan, they die.
Horseback riding, skiing, Bungy jumping.dunk driving.--dangerous for the drunk and anyone else.
Walking the streets in Detroit,Philadelphia, Baltimore.especially if you are white.
 

WingsOfGold

Well-Known Member
I haven't rode for years but I still carry a MC license on my DL. Brain buckets never bothered me, I I ever ride again (Anybody got a old Bonney or Commando cheap) I'll wear one still
 

BOP

Well-Known Member
I haven't rode for years but I still carry a MC license on my DL. Brain buckets never bothered me, I I ever ride again (Anybody got a old Bonney or Commando cheap) I'll wear one still
I'm still riding at 63, even though I gotta tell you, it's not the same as it used to be. Too many distracted drivers in a hurry to get to the next stop light, for one thing. I rode for years in California, Oklahoma, and Texas where there weren't any helmet laws at the time. I joined ABATE in the fight against helmet laws in Oklahoma, which was ultimately a losing battle. The insurance companies have deep pockets and are able to enlist useful idiots like Drunk Moms Against Anyone Having Any Sort of Fun (or something) to do their Carrie Nation axe-wielding for them.
 

BOP

Well-Known Member
Also, shipmate, check these out. I think they're all in MD. https://tinyurl.com/srl7k25 Edit: it's Marketplace on FB, so you might have to have an account, I'm not sure.

My cousin bought a new Triumph a few years ago; he and the better half love it. I had a '69 Bonneville once upon a time, like, 40 years ago. Remember their old saying "nothing handles like a Triumph"? That, and "Electrics by Lucas, the company that invented darkness." Okay, not their official motto.

She was a great bike. I even rode it in the snow. Well, snow on the ground, not on the road. Of course, I was in my 20s back then. Still in the Reserves and the economy was pretty depressed, so ya gotta do what ya gotta do.

Plus, a guy at work rode up with one of these, and I'm really diggin' the look. I'm not sure I'd get rid of my Harley for her, but I think they'd look good together. Harley has a new "bobber," but I don't think they captured the cool vibe the way Triumph did. I have more pictures of the guy at work's bike, if you want to see them.
 

Attachments

  • MY18-Bobber-road-sideview-LB.jpg
    MY18-Bobber-road-sideview-LB.jpg
    332.8 KB · Views: 132
Top