From a letter to the Nevada State Legislature from the AMA


This issue is first and foremost about the freedom of adults to make
personal safety decisions for themselves.  While the AMA encourages
motorcyclists to wear appropriate protective gear and ride responsibly, we
strongly believe that adults should have the right to voluntarily decide
when to wear a helmet.
 
Motorcyclists are not a social burden.  Less than ½ of 1% of the vehicles
involved in crashes nationwide are motorcycles.  Numerous studies have found
motorcyclists are just as likely to be privately insured as any other road
user.  The University of North Carolina, in a study of the association of
helmet use with the outcome of motorcycle crash injury, found no significant
difference in resource utilization or hospital charges between helmeted and
non-helmeted patients.
 
There are less intrusive methods to improve motorcycle safety.  A recent
study of California's Motorcyclist Safety Program found that the accident
frequency of novice riders attending training was half that of those not
attending training.  In contrast to mandatory helmet laws, rider education
programs enjoy wide support from the motorcycling community.

Inappropriate comparisons:
 
Construction workers wear hard hats to protect them. "Safety conscious" motorcyclists should do so also.
Say a construction worker falls from a height of 200 feet.  Simple physics tells us he will hit the ground at approximately 109.5 feet per second. That translates to 74.65 miles per hour. How much good is the hard hat going to do?  About as much good as a plastic motorcycle helmet at highway speeds--no good whatsoever.

"We have a seat belt law, we need a helmet law".
There is no comparison. Seat belts help protect the entire body from impact with objects inside the car. Helmets cover only the head and do a poor job of protecting that small part. 
Seat belts fit all sizes. Different people must carry/buy different sized helmets.
Seat belts do not adversely affect hearing.
Seat belts are not heat inducing, contibuting to fatique.
Seat belts do not add stress/strain to the neck, contributing to fatigue.
Nobody has ever had to buy a seatbelt and carry it with them to be able to give someone else a lift.
How many times have you ever heard of a seatbelt being stolen?
How many times have you seen someone carry a seatbelt into a restuarant to keep it safe?
How many times have you had to spend an extra $200+ for a seatbelt when buying a car?
Seat belts withstand highway speeds. Helmets break at 15 miles per hour.



From ABATE of California:

The California motorcycle fatality rate per 100 accidents was 3.22 in 1991 (the last year before the helmet law) and was 4.64 per 100 accidents in 2007.  Duane Helmick, Commissioner of the California Highway Patrol stated those figures are "not statistically significant."  If there is no statistical significance in the impact of a helmet law, why does it exist?

From Maryland Department of Transportation:

Average death per 100 accidents from 1985 thru 1991 was 2.75 percent After passing a helmet law, the average deaths per 100 accidents in Maryland for the years 1992 thru 2000 has increased to 3.79 percent. 

Statistics from the National Highway Transportation Safety Agency (NHTSA)

In 2008, 59.7% of motorcyclists killed in the United States were wearing helmets at the time of their accident.

General Observations

California's motorcycle fatality totals dropped with passage of helmet law, due to the over 28 percent drop in motorcycle registrations. Fewer people riding means fewer accidents and fatalities--not due to the 'safety benefit' of helmets. 

No helmet manufactured today can withstand a direct impact sustained at anything over 25 miles per hour (Dr. Harry Hurt, UCLA)

DOT standards require a helmet to withstand an impact sustained by being dropped from a height of 72 inches--which reaches a terminal velocity of 13.4318 miles per hour.

The Truth About Motorcycle Helmets
By Kim McCallister

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has conducted a number of compliance tests of motorcycle helmets over the years to determine if the helmets were in compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218 (FVMSS218). In the last 15 years, there have only been 2 years that more helmets have passed than failed.

In trying to help Teri gather information to give to our legislators, we came across a fact sheet from CMT/ABATE of Tennessee that had test report figures on how many helmets had passed and failed from 1980 to 1986. Teri asked me to get the current figures, so that we could put them all together. So I called NHTSA, and requested a list of how many helmets were tested, how many passed and how many failed for the years 1985 to present. What I received from them astounded me.

First of all, they couldn't print a report with only the information I requested. So they sent me a complete report for each year, listing all information for each helmet tested, including failure codes, and the Non-Compliance Investigation number, if any. Now all this was about a 6 to 8 inch stack of paper, for which they charged us around $54, copying charge. The information I wanted, a list of how many helmets were tested, how many passed, and how many failed, is listed below (1980-1993)Year  # Tested       Failed         Passed

1980             162            99             63

1981             103            50             53

1982             Test results were not submitted

1983             Test results were not submitted

1984             32             11            21

1985             32             32             0

1986             30             30             0

1987             No Helmets were tested

1988             No Helmets were tested

1989             30             24             6

1990             30             26             4

1991             47             31             16

1992             30             23             7

1993             31             20             11

1994             167            128            39

1995             No testing conducted so far this year

1994 was an interesting year. There were a total of 167 helmets tested. From the information I have, 128 failed, and 39 passed. What is so interesting about this year is that in FMVSS218, it calls for helmets to be conditioned in 4 different ways. These are:

(a) Ambient conditions - Expose to a temperature of 70 degrees Fahrenheit (21 degrees Celsius) and a relative humidity of 50 percent for 12 hours
(b) Low temperature - Expose to a temperature of 14 degrees Fahrenheit (-10 degrees Celsius) for 12 hours
(c) High temperature - Expose to a temperature of 122 degrees Fahrenheit (50 degrees Celsius) for 12 hours
(d) Water immersion - Immerse in water at a temperature of 77 degrees Fahrenheit (25 degrees Celsius) for 12 hours

 

Each model helmet must pass the tests under all 4 conditions. So the testing facility obtains 4 helmets of each model to be tested, and conditions one of each model in each of the 4 ways listed. (The description of the conditioning was taken directly from FVMSS218). In the years from 1985-1993, each model did indeed have 4 helmets of each model tested. But in 1994, only 18 helmets had 4 of each model tested; of those 18 only 4 passed. There were 2 helmets that had 2 of each model tested; neither of those 2 passed. Of the remaining 128, only 1 helmet of each model was tested; only 35 of those 128 passed.

What bothers me about those 128 helmets that only had one of each model tested is that there is no indication of which conditions they were tested under. Or did they just take one helmet, test it under the first conditions, then submit it to the next set of conditions, and so on? There is no way to tell from what they sent to me. And why did they deviate from FVMSS218, that says they have to pass under all 4 conditions?

It doesn't make much sense to me that we have a federal government that makes these standards; tells all states that they have to have a helmet law or have highway construction funds redirected to safety programs; then can't even seem to follow their own standards. It doesn't make me feel safer with a helmet on my head that may or may not pass the standard, yet has a DOT sticker saying that the manufacturer certifies that it passes FVMSS218. It is obvious to me from their own data on helmet testing that just because it has a DOT sticker, doesn't mean a hill of beans. And this information that I got is not readily obtainable to the consumer. I had to make several long distance calls, get sent to different divisions, get put on hold several times, and pay $54 for the copies. It is not an ordeal that I would want to go through every time I wanted to purchase a helmet.

The problem is that NHTSA or the DOT do not certify helmets. Helmet manufacturers self certify their own helmets, and then NHTSA does the testing randomly, then if the helmet does not pass the tests, they open a non-compliance investigation. That might be fine, except that if you notice the table to the left, from 1982 through 1993, the most helmets tested in one year was 47. I am quite positive that in those 11 years, they did not test each model helmet available in this country that carries the DOT sticker. So how am I, as a consumer, to know if the helmet I purchased is actually going to protect me in an accident? If the government can't prove to me, absolutely and positively, that the helmet I am wearing is going to save my life, why should they tell me that I have to wear a helmet. Let that be my choice.

If we are going to go that far, let's outlaw fast food. Studies have proved that a reduced fat intake will prevent heart disease, so let's outlaw fat, and all food that has fat in it. Oat bran has been proven to help reduce fatty deposits already in the blood, and also prevents heart disease. So let's make it a law that everyone has to have a daily ration of oat bran, even if we have to mandate that all foods contain a certain amount of oat bran. Does that make sense?

Makes perfect sense to me.

We need to remind our lawmakers that when they take office, they swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States, not try to find ways around it. Mandating that states pass certain laws and suffer penalties if they don't, is a violation of the 10th Amendment. The federal governments role is very clearly defined in the Constitution, and we would be much better off if they would stick to what they are supposed to do. What if one session of Congress was solely devoted to repealing stupid, outdated laws? What a concept, get rid of what we don't need, and enforce what is already there, instead of passing a new law to deal with every little problem that comes along.

Thomas Jefferson said on September 28, 1820 - "I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion."