On April 29, 2009, the Missouri House of Representatives voted 93-65 to pass Senate Bill 202, which would make significant changes to the state's mandatory helmet law. SB 202 passed the Senate in March with a 23-6 vote.
On April 29, 2009, the Missouri House of Representatives voted 93-65 to pass Senate Bill 202, which would make significant changes to the state's mandatory helmet law. SB 202 passed the Senate in March with a 23-6 vote. Under the current law, all motorcycle passengers and riders must wear state-approved helmets on all of the state's roadways. The new legislation, however, makes an exception for riders 21 years and older:
[A]ny person who is twenty-one years of age or older may operate or ride
as a passenger on any motorcycle or motortricycle without protective
headgear upon any highway of this state, except for an interstate
highway…
The law would impose up to a $25 fine on those who choose to violate the new law and ride or operate a motorcycle on an interstate without a helmet.
The bill also includes a provision prohibiting insurance companies from automatically attributing fault to motorcycle owners who are involved in an accident just because they were riding a motorcycle, regardless of whether or not they were at fault for the accident. Legislators felt the state's current insurance law is prejudiced against motorcycle riders and does not afford them the legal protection they deserve.
The bill presently is awaiting signature by Governor Jay Nixon. It has been speculated that the governor will sign the bill into law, although similar attempts to change Missouri's helmet laws in the past 10 years have been unsuccessful.
Currently, 20 states and the District of Columbia require all motorcycle riders and passengers to wear helmets on all roadways; 27 states require only some to wear helmets (usually minors); and 3 states — Illinois, Iowa and New Hampshire —have no helmet laws.
Arguments in Favor of Changing the Helmet Law
There has been considerable debate, both at the state and national level, over helmet laws. Both sides are passionate about the reasons for and against helmet use. Proponents of SB 202 listed several reasons for changing Missouri's law, including:
Protecting civil liberties: the current helmet law represents an unjust interference by the government into the lives of private citizens who can decide for themselves whether to wear a helmet
Retaining state revenue: the state is losing money as motorcycle riders move to other states with more favorable helmet laws
National trend: most states, including all but two of the states bordering Missouri, do not require riders to wear helmets on all roadways
Groups supporting decreased state regulation, like the Freedom of Road Riders of Missouri, also argue that educating riders and drivers about road safety is more important than passing laws mandating helmet use. Further, they argue wearing helmets does not prevent accidents from happening and only driver and rider education can do this.
Arguments Against Changing the Helmet Law
On the opposite side, opponents of the bill argue changing the law would be a grave disservice to the public and provided the following reasons for keeping Missouri's current helmet law:
Helmets save lives: repealing the law will lead to an increase in injuries and deaths on state roadways
State medical costs will increase: an increase in injuries also will lead to an increase in the state's medical expenses
The strongest argument made by those who support state-mandated helmet laws is that helmets do decrease the number of deaths in motorcycle accidents. According to the most current statistics by the National Highway Safety Administration, helmets saved nearly 1800 lives nationally in 2007. Additionally, a study conducted jointly by the University of Missouri-Columbia and the University of Tennessee-Knoxville found that the motorcycle death rates increased an average of 12.2% in states that have repealed their helmet laws.
Regarding state medical expenses, some national studies place the number of motorcycle drivers without health insurance at around 50%, meaning the state, and in turn the taxpayer, are left picking up the bill for their injuries.
Conclusion
The debate over mandatory helmet laws really comes down to a question of whether the state should intervene to protect members of the public from a potentially dangerous activity or whether the individual should be allowed the autonomy to determine for himself or herself the risks and benefits of wearing a helmet. It is unlikely this debate will be settled in Missouri any time soon, regardless of whether Governor Nixon decides to sign the bill into law. Even if SB 202 becomes state law, it is set to expire in August of 2014, at which time the legislature will have to weigh the arguments for and against helmet laws again before renewing the law or introducing new helmet regulations.
