No-helmet bill veto countdown: 15 days and counting
Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon did something a little weird last Thursday: He vetoed $33,000 from the Department of Transportation’s budget to punish MoDOT for commissioning a poll on Missourians’ attitudes about the Legislature’s decision to lift the state law requiring motorcyclists to wear helmets.
We’ve had our differences with MoDOT’s director, Pete Rahn, but we think an agency whose job includes keeping the highways safe was perfectly within its rights to find out what the state’s citizens think about an important issue of highway safety.
Last month Mr. Rahn said a telephone survey of 2,050 residents showed 84 percent of them support the current law requiring motorcyclists of all ages to wear helmets. He said that National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that in 2007, the helmet law saved 42 lives in Missouri.
“By a 9-to-1 ratio, Missourians know this simple fact: Motorcycle helmets save lives,” Mr. Rahn said. He added, “This makes as much sense as going out and ripping out median guard cables on our interstates. It will have the same effect: More people will die on our roads.”
Some state lawmakers and “helmet freedom” advocates said the poll — and Mr. Rahn’s advocacy — was an improper attempt to influence Mr. Nixon’s decision about whether to veto the helmet law the Legislature enacted in April. Lawmakers decided that motorcycle riders 21 and older could ditch their helmets unless they are traveling on interstate highways.
Mr. Nixon agreed, whacking $33,000 from MoDOT’s budget (the amount the poll cost), saying it was an inappropriate use of tax dollars to influence a public official, i.e., him.
On Friday, a spokesman for the governor said that decision doesn’t mean that Mr. Nixon has decided to sign the helmet-law repeal. The governor has until July 14 to sign or veto the measure or take no action, thereby allowing it to become law on Aug. 28.
The Missouri Highway Patrol says that some motorcycle riders, unaware of the fine points of legislative procedure, already have removed their helmets. The patrol’s public affairs office told the Associated Press last week that troopers are reporting a large number of motorcyclists riding bare-headed.
If the riders are confused now, just wait until their heads bounce off the pavement a couple of times.
Newspapers around the state — including this editorial page — have opposed lifting the helmet law and have urged Mr. Nixon to veto it. The public knows that in addition to adding to the death toll, the costs of caring for traumatic brain injury are huge. In most cases, those costs will passed onto the general public.
If society bears the cost, society makes the decision. And that decision, as we’ve said before, is a no brainer — veto it. And give back MoDOT’s 33 grand.
Nice pic. I’m sure a helmet would have saved that cat’s life. Maybe the car occupants need to be wearing special gear to protect them.
And again I say, If your mission is to reduce your welfare-healthcare cost, a dead biker is more in line with your objectives - and the helmet is an increased load.
Again I say, maybe somebody else won’t approve of your loading the welfare-healthcare down with your poor diet, lack of exercise, too much sun, too many kids, too few kids, being too old, your drinking…
……..I agree with Governor Nixon’s action of removing the $33,000 from MoDOT’s budget. MoDot’s shameful action was nothing more than a shabby end-run intended to subvert Missouri’s constitutional legislative process. I think Governor Nixon should have gone even further and fired Mr. Rahn for approving the attempt.
PS, the shock-value picture you have attached is ridiculous. Was it supplied by MoDOT?
One wonders if this editor would be so anxious to pass laws against freedom of adult motorcyclists to choose if this issue had anything to do with freedom of the press. Tell me something Editor person, are you the same one that wrote against concealed carry freedom and inferred it would cause more gun violence? We all know how that turned out but we also know you aren’t a bit embarrassed but instead, probably angry because people didn’t go out and start shooting each other. In fact, quite the opposite. Why don’t you give your flaming sword of politically correct prejudice a rest. If MoDot would’ve spent that poll money to see what people thought about keeping newspapers from writing about their ridiculous mistakes that cost people their lives and tax dollars, you would’ve whistled a different tune.
Its too bad folks dont get this up in arms when money for motorcycle safety, awareness and training is cut out of the budget. Really, what good is a helmet if you dont know how to ride a motorcycle properly. Just further proof that 84% of the general public do not really understand motorcycles or they would be yelling for more training and awareness programs.
The logic that the medical burden falls to society just doesnt wash either. By that same logic, we should have laws preventing people from poor eating habits, laws requiring people to exercise, laws against drinking too much, smoking should be illegal and it should also be illegal to grow old.
Most motorcycle riders have private insurance. All those on Medicaid do not. The total medical cost of treating smoking and obesity, and related diseases like diabetes, far exceeds that of treating the small number of motorcycle related injuries. So how about publishing an editorial supporting a federal requirement that all Medicaid recipients cease smoking and stop purchasing (with food stamps) soda, snack cakes, and other prepared foods?
Oh, and by the way, I’m a former motorcyclist who quit riding after more than a decade because I decided it was too unsafe for my taste. And, I always wore a full-face helmet.
The editorial staff that wrote this article are idiots. This is another media outlet that thinks they are the elite and trying to manipulate public views.NHTSA has NO clue how many lives helmets have saved. Did they get the detailed accident reports? Doctors reports? You have a helmet law. Any deaths had helmets on.
You media people need to report the news and the facts as they are and leave YOUR opinions out of the equation.
I agree with Nick Kasoff. Most riders have their own insurance, so the burden to the public is minimal. Why don’t you have stories about the real burden on society. The government assistance lifers that know how to manipulate the system. But NOOOOOOOOOOOOO that would be against your left-wing agenda.
The photo is obviously some kid on a crotch rocket who plowed into thet car going very fast. Too bad there was a car involved.
That’s one type of bike accident that drives up fatality stats. We’ll still have those without helmets, as a helmet won’t save you when you’re going way too fast. A helmet also won’t save you when you’re an idiot on an overpowered death machine.
The other type is the middle-aged guy who can finally afford a Harley, but hasn’t ridden a bike in years. These wallowing Harley plowhorses are not at all nimble, and require a degree of skill and caution in the corners. It’s not at all uncommon to see single-bike accidents involving Harleys that overshoot corners, etc. Many of these guys seem to wear those useless non-DOT helmets. They need a little more riding experience, and better head protection.
Helmets are great on the interstate. Why you need a helmet on back roads and in subdivisions where any capable motorcyclist would be able to outmaneuver any car and avoid accidents is a good question. The Legislature has the right idea.
Gov. Nixon, you want to accomplish something, lift the helmet law, but ban non-DOT helmets. But leave the crotch rockets alone - that’s just Darwinism at work.
You mean to tell me that a helmet saved that riders life in that photo? Please forward brand of helmet so I can go buy one! Medical costs are higher when unhelmeted riders are involved in motorcycle accidents (as compared to helmeted)? Where are those stats? Who did the study? Not the medical industry, who kill over a 100,000 a year (and seldom go to jail). What was it that caused the death of Dale Earnhart? Google University of North Carolina (unbiased..not like this reporter) medical study on motorcycle accidents. Virtually no difference in medical costs between helmeted and unhelmeted. What REALLY saves lives? Motorcycle training and public service announcements. If helmets really saved lifes, then car drivers should be wearing them as well…why? More auto drivers have head injuries than motorcycle riders. Plus it is the slamming of the brain against the inside the skull that cause death, not the crushing of a skull. I have some photos of that as well..should I post those? Get your facts straight
Nick
I may be in the 80% group. Usually I agree with you but removing the helmet law concerns me. I do believe in personal freedom so it is a tough call. I have similar concerns about the seat belt law.
Don’t we end up paying for many of these people that are injured?