It is spring again, time when motorcycles return to our county roads and highways. So now is a good time to once again appeal for a law requiring all motorcycle operators and passengers to wear helmets. The issue comes up periodically in the Legislature, but Maine clings to its weak law that lets nearly all motorcyclists ride without helmets.

The result is a continuing series of accidents in which motorcyclists have been severely hurt or killed. Many, though not all, of the injuries would have been minimized and the deaths would have been prevented if the victims had been wearing government-approved helmets.

Maine had 437 motorcycle crashes last year including 11 fatalities. So far this year, there have been 25 crashes and no fatalities. These figures came from Lt. Brian P. Scott of the State Police Highway Safety Unit. The official figures will soon change with the death last Friday of an Orono man in a motorcycle crash on I-95. He was not wearing a helmet.

A 2005 editorial was an appeal for passage of a legislative bill, An Act Requiring Protective Headgear for All Operators and Passengers on Motorcycles, Motor-driven Cycles and Mopeds. Both houses rejected it overwhelmingly.

The chief sponsor, Rep. Walter A. Wheeler Sr., D-Kittery, since termed out of the Legislature, says he spoke with Rep. Paulette G. Beaudoin, D-Biddeford, about a much milder bill that she introduced last year. It would merely have required a motorcyclist who had held a license for less than 10 years to wear a helmet. It too failed soundly.

Current Maine law requires only those under 18, those with learners permits and first-year license holders to wear helmets. It wasn’t always that way.

In the early 1970s, most states including Maine had bowed to a federal rule that would have withheld highway construction funds if they didn’t enact universal motorcycle helmet laws. A motorcycle industry lobby won an end to that threat.

Maine relaxed its law in 1977. Now only 20 states require all motorcyclists to wear a helmet. New Hampshire, Illinois and Iowa have no motorcycle helmet law.

What’s to dislike about a universal motorcycle helmet law? Partly, it’s the love of wind in the hair. Partly, too, it’s a perceived industry loss of business if helmets were required. Beyond all that, it’s the popular idea that freedom is good and regulation is bad.

Maine’s Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe, a motorcyclist herself, was a leader in the campaign to halt federal penalties for states that refused to require helmets. She said through her spokesman: “Government is interfering in what states should decide themselves.”

Against all that is the fact that motorcycles are an especially dangerous form of transportation compared to cars, in which seat belts are required by law. Statistics make the case.

The National Highway Safety Administration has found that motorcycle helmets saved 1,829 motorcyclists’ lives in 2008. It estimates that helmets reduce the risk of death in a motorcycle crash by about one-third overall and the risk of fatal head injury by 40 percent. Another finding is that piecemeal helmet laws such as Maine’s are harder to enforce than universal laws that apply to all riders.

Nationally, people generally support mandatory helmet use. The federal highway safety agency, in a 2000 motor vehicle occupant survey, found that 81 percent said they favored mandatory helmet use laws for motorcyclists. More recently, the agency found that 45 percent of motorcyclists said they favored universal helmet laws.

It is time for the Maine Legislature to enact a universal helmet law. Seat belts are mandatory and drivers buckle up by habit. Why not address a greater danger and require helmets on motorcycle riders? It’s too late for this session, so in the meantime cyclists should voluntarily put on helmets.

Join the Conversation

58 Comments

  1. I have ridden motorcycles since 1976 and would not even consider swinging onto a bike without leathers and a helmet for my head. That however, is my choice. The choice of others who choose to ride without head protection is as valid to them as mine is to me. The risks assumed by those who choose not to use a helmet are theirs to judge, and NOT ours to regulate. While true that their choice might affect health costs, so do the choices of those who remain overweight, continue to smoke, engage in un-protected sex, or participate in any form of high risk leisure activities. The role of a democratic government is not to protect us against ourselves. Ken

    1. Well said, kfogelman. I wear a helmet 99 percent of the time, but there are those dog days of  summer when everyone’s at camp and few on the road, when a 45-mile-an-hour cruise on the back roads sans helmet is truly a part of freedom. How many injuries to motorcyclists have been and will be caused by distracted drivers? You should not be allowed to use “didn’t see him” as an excuse for lazy, careless and selfish driving habits. These are not accidents. Accidents are a result of chance, not carelessness and stupidity. Let those who ride decide.

    2. Down with the Nanny State!

      Thanks for illustrating that this is a matter of personal choice not government regulation. competent and responsible riders will often chose to wear a helmet and thats great.

      We also are a republican form of government. democracy is majority/mob rule. We have a republican system like this so the rights of the individual are held in a higher regard then the right of the majority/many/mob. 

      1. I used “Democratic” form because many are not aware. When making a point you need to be relevant to as many as possible. Ken

        1.  Yes you seemed knowledgeable and figured you probably knew but whenever the chance presents itself I like to remind people that we are a constitutional republic bound by the rule of law not mob whim.

  2. Does a motorcyclist who fails to wear a helmet represent a bigger threat to other drivers than the motorcyclist who does wear a helmet? 

    I commend the editorial board, for the comparison between seatbelt laws and their proposed helmet law is an apt analogy.  They did, however, neglect to mention that the seatbelt law was little more than a give away to the insurance lobby.  Is this the ALEC style legislation that our liberal friends so oppose?

    1.  When they do not have insurance and the public has to pay for there care yes. My trucking businesses all started many years ago with me driving wreckers outside of DC in Southern Md. I have seen all manner of wrecks. From this experience I can tell you without a doubt seat belts save lives as well as helmets.  As the right wing pro people person I am I have to go with it should be up to the driver to decide. The fact is that for all the bs the states go through with seat belts and helmets it is a revenue stream more then it is safety. The easy was to tell is look at the bus that takes your kid to school no seat belts in them. If it was truly a safety issue they would have been the first to require them. However today when a driver can be pulled over for not wearing one they still are not required on buses the reason cost!

      1.  Bravo.  Took the words right out of my head.   It all is a revenue generator for the local, state, & Federal Gov’ts.   The States need to wake up quickly and learn the U. S. Constitution before there is nothing left of it.

        The School bus comparison is the best one.  Thank you for typing it first.

        1. As a bike rider myself i must defend the lack of seat belts on school bus. I worked for a school department both as a mechanic and a bus driver.The rule is if they are in the bus they must be worn.This puts the enforcement onto the driver, now saying that, most school bus’s carry 60 or 70 children of various sizes . It would take your children spending a lot of time adjusting those belts and with little kids the driver would have to help them which is going to take time,there goes more wasteing of tax money. We removed them after several years of headache.

          1.  As a parent and grandparent I don’t care if it takes a few minutes to insure the safety of my kids/ grand kids. I guess working in the garage you did not meet the kids but I assure you they can work a computer and they can adjust a seat belt np.. My 2yo grandson can take his 4 point seat belt in his car seat off ( can not put it on yet ) and my 4 yo grandson can pout his seat belt on just fine all by himself.

  3. Another sure sign of Spring…the annual helmet debate.  This is a tough one – I understand the desire to feel the wind, and to express individual desires.  But….I also remember the night many years ago that I slid down the hottop behind my Sportster….my own fault, star gazing, and drifted into the lose gravel.  I also remember what my leather and helmet (not to mention the bike) looked like.  All could be fixed, or as in the case of the helmet, replaced.  I have to wonder though, had the four inch crack in the helmet been in my head – could that have been fixed?  So, even if you are not a star gazer – accidents can still happen…if you have someone you love or someone that loves you, please think about your helmet a second time before you get on the bike and ride away.  And not to start another debate or anything…but loud pipes really do save lives! 

    1. Similar situation as yours in that mine was my fault also. I wore a hole the size of a quarter in the top of a brand new Bell 500 helmet. The bike was easily fixed and the only thing I have to show is an enlarged knuckle on my right thumb.

    2. I have ridden a bike for as long as i can remember .I own a helmet, but wear it only in the city where most accidents occur. I believe thats my choice not someone elses . The government has way to much control as it is lets not give them more. Let us who ride decide. I only worry about my health and don’t give a dam about yours.

  4. If you insist on not wearing a helmet, please make an organ donor card out and wear a bracelet.

  5. You want to cut down on Bike accidents than have the police do there job an start taking people to court that cause the bike accidents an not let them go 

  6. “Not an organ donor,” because I wore my helmet–twice!

    No excuses, I do not want to pay for your long-term hospital and rehab care because you want  your “freedom to ride.”   

    Just like other “rides” you may take (that I also do not want to pay the consequences of…) ride with protection, always.

    You ride, you are responsible.

      1. “…mind your own business….”

        That is the point, YOUR business becomes MY business when your catastrophic brain injuries means surgeries and decades in medical institutions, on the state’s checkbook when your funds dry up after the first two weeks, all because you want to feel the “wind in your hair.’

        Get a blowdryer.

          1. “…Only if they are on medicare/mainecare…”  

            Which you quickly end up on after your third brain surgery….

          2. not if they have the proper insurance coverage for the motor cycle. Also if the accident is not the riders “fault” and another motorist/rider is involved their insurance will cover the cost. Also many work places offer long term disability insurance for things like that. Motorcycles are seasonal quasi-luxury transportation in maine. I know they are great on gas and what not but you can only use them 4/5 months out of the year TOPS. So if you are broke, uninsured, and/or relying on public assitance/insurance to live then a motorcycle probably isnt a wise choice.

            If you want to legislate healthcare because it “costs you money” how about teen pregancy? how about drug rehab? how about alcohol and tobacco use?

            Lets neuter teens from low socio economic areas. Might as well just provide druggies with free junk because it is FAR cheaper then running rehab centers or even methadone clinics. Lets have prohibition on alcohol because it has been proven that people will stop drinking once we enact a law forbidding it.

            Lets put seat belts on motorcycles too! Lets make the streets out of bouncy houses so that when we dump we just happily bounce to a stop!

          3. I never wrote “do not ride” your motorcycle.

            But I do say, ride smart and wear a helmet. 

            If something is preventable, and easily so, why not do it?  Wear the helmet, wear the seat belts, teach teens sex ed, and give out some free condoms, methadone is cheaper than junk (probably, I never really checked…) but it is certainly cheaper than prolonging a bad habit with free junk.   

            We know prohibition on alcohol does not work (does not work on cannabis either, we should legalize it, regulate it, tax it).  But strong DUI laws do work.   Lose thousands of dolars in fines, and in work days, you might begin to think.  Lose your license for longer and longer periods you will most definitely think.  An acquaintance went to jail 90 days because she did not understand “license suspended, do not drive.”  I think she finally got it.

            We should have seat belts in school buses, and insist on their use–that is just stupid on so many levels, including what it teaches kids.  But no, seat belts on motorcycles do not make sense, you do not want to be attached to a large hunk of hot metal skidding down the road, filled with gasoline!

            By the way, I think we should have single-payer health insurance, yep socialism, just like my mammy gets: Social Security and Medicare.  She worked long and hard for it, and I am glad I don’t have to pay out of my pocket (not that I could…) for her heart condition.  Some of which she inherited from her family, but some is in her control.

            But I would be pissed if she ate as badly as she used to–no more greasy hams, ice cream floats, etc.  Now, she is going to outlive me, darn it!

            So, if someone knows there is a cheap (under $100), easy way to protect their noggin with a helmet and they don’t do it, I don’t have a lot of sympathy for them and am not particularly interested paying in their big (talking millions here) medical bills.   Just to keep alive what might unpolitely be called “vegetable soup” inside their skulls.  

            Tom Brown III,  and I, and all those reading this KNOW that lots of people do not carry proper insurance coverage.  The state minimums are a joke.  They might cover the ambulance and the road clean up.  

            Do what you can do, and do it well…

          4.  I was being facetious but thanks for trying to make a logic retort of clearly illogical musings.

            If you want to live in a communist/socialist/marxist society move to canada lol.

            We need to reinforce personal responsibility and accountability. Action reaction. Choice and outcome.

            If you chose to ride a motorcycle with out a helmet without any kind of insurance to cover it then you dump @ 65pmh and you can’t afford millions of dollars of surgery bummer your a corpse.

            The state “minimums on insurance” are just fine. I almost rather have 0 insurance minimums, I would still choose to insure my cars and bike to protect myself and family I don’t like that it is mandatory.

        1. You say its your business than why don’t you get  after  police to do there job that would cut don’t on  motorcycle accidents an that’s you business.

    1. You can tell me how to live my life when I can tell you how to live yours, I do not drink, so there for I do not want to pay for your liver transplant, or what other problems you man get due to drinking.  I bet you support the right to choose to get an 
      Abortion, well the right to choose does not stop at the abortion door.

  7. Oh what a big surprise the editors at the BDN want a law to take away even more freedom.  I’m kinda wondering where these new staff people got their newspaper experience Pravda?

    …and to those of you who feel you have the right to regulate because you may have to pay to patch people up.  That is a slippery slope as heart disease kills by far the most people in the USA.  So after mandating helmets, we better go on to eliminate cake pie, cream, and red meat. 

    Not a world in which I want to live.

  8. I wear a helmet every time I ride , but that is my choise. Making a law to demand helmets is like making a law that that would demand people to stop smoking, after all I dont think my medical insurance should go up because you need long term care for lung cancer!

  9. The only way the “I have to pay for your medical bills” is valid is if they are on medicare/mainecare. Maybe we should focus the whole health care thing if thats your problem. Helmet laws are just as silly as seat belt laws. I almost never wear my seat belt especially in town. Thats my choice not yours. A motorcycle crash on the highway anything over 55mph is almost always going to be serious-fatal helmet or no helmet. And once again statistics have been warped to suit the needs of the oppressors. When people cite statistics (you did a fairly poor job of citing sources) they can present subjective numbers and therefore most modern rhetoric should be founded in qualitative discourse not quantitative logic.

    Where will you protectionists stop? Motorcycles today have the capacity for more horse power then many cars. My friends bike can do 0-60 in under 3 seconds in 2nd gear. Maybe you should just ban motorcycles all together because they go too fast and encourage thrill seeking riders to act foolish…

    WE DON’T NEED THE GOVERNMENT TO LIVE OUR LIVES FOR US!

    WE DON’T NEED NANNY’S

  10. Not wearing a seat belt or a helmet in situations that those items may help prevent injury or death IS a persons choice, I agree. Even if the law requires you to do so, all you have to do is pay the fine if you are caught. HOWEVER. It has been conclusively proved that these item help prevent injury and/or death. Therefore, reasonably speaking, what kind of an ignorant fool would not wear them? 

    1.  I dont wear a seat belt around town running errands and stuff. I wouldn’t call myself foolish I just find them inconvenient and uncomfortable…

      But like you said if people chose to go 150mph out on the highway with no safety gear then it will just weed out ignorant fools.

          1. I was hoping someone would take the chance to get that jab in there. I am a over weight smoker and social drinker. Diebeties, congestive heart failure, liver/kidney failure, also are pretty high up there… BUT I choose to do those things and I wont come looking for a handout when my decisions catch up to me and wanna put me in a pine box.

    2. I am no fool .I just believe that goverment needs to stay out of my life.I don’t need a babysitter at my age i think i know whats good for me better than some bleeding heart, don’t worry about my welfare and i won’t worry about yours. “LET THOSE WHO RIDE DECIDE”

  11. I’m a long time rider and always wear a helmet, leather jacket, heavy pants and boots.  You only need to see one accident to realize it’s the only smart choice.  I’m not going to dip into helmet debate, but I do have a suggestion.  Maine should adopt a law similar to those in Europe that require new riders to limit the size of motorcycle they can ride.  I see no reason a 16 year-old kid or novice rider should be ‘learning’ on a 1400cc sport bike that can go well over 200mph.  Give them a year on a 350cc or lower bike and another year at 600cc’s or lower.  Then you can graduate to whatever you  want.  It’s like handing the keys of a tractor trailer to a new driver.  You have to earn that right.

    I also agree that many of the motorcycle accidents are not the fault of the cyclist.  Drivers spend far too much time messing with their phones or just plain don’t understand the rules of the road.  I can’t count how many times I’ve had cars tailgating me on the bike and I’ve had to pull off the road to let them by even though I was easily at the speed limit or a little better.

    1.  lol if your not going to dip into the debate then why comment?!

      Yes only smart CHOICE. Laws take away choice and take away freedom.

      Maybe instead of laws we let people chose what to do with their lives. It is rare for a 16 year old kid to be able to afford a hyabusa but, if their rich parents want to buy it for them and they kill themselves on it that was a series of poor choices they were entitled to make as human beings.

      I agree with your rationale but not your means. By resorting to the government’s monoply on force and taking away the choice, creating, creating more laws and regulations we will create more criminals and save no less lives.

      1. You make a couple of assumptions that I don’t think make sense. 

        1. That only rich kids can afford dangerously fast bikes.  I can find 150mph bike for under $1,000 with a little effort.

        2. That just because some ‘rich parents’ think it’s a good idea a teenager should be allowed ride one.  As a sixteen year-old there were a lot of things I wanted to do that could have got me killed, but I had good parents who looked out for me.  Just because a kid is born with parents that make bad decisions doesn’t mean they should be condemned by those bad decisions. 

        We as a society set up boundaries for the common good.  This happens to be one I think should be in place.  I know I’m not going to change your mind; I don’t want to.  That’s just my opinion.  I don’t see some wholesale loss of personal freedom by making sensible rules.  Like I said before, we don’t hand teenagers or new drivers keys to tractor trailers.  There’s a reason.  Try driving in Central America and see what that kind of ‘freedom’ looks like.

        1.  I didnt say only rich kids can afford a bike I just said a suzuki hayabusa is not something a common 16 year old can find. I have a 1979 gs400 which I have had up to 110 no problem so yes your right it isnt hard to find a bike cheap that can go fast.

          We do have laws pertaining to minors to protect them from poor guidance on part of their parents. Riders in maine under 18 or permit holders must wear DOT approved head gear. That is fine but, adults can make their own decisions and choose for themselves and dont need nannies to tell them how to be in the world.

          Sensible Rules is very subjective. Sensible to who? Laws always result in a loss of freedom for someone and we already have a hyper-lexus that has grown out of our control.

          We don’t give teenages keys to big rigs? ever been to one of the regional tech schools where highschool students go to truck driving class? I am a trucking dispatcher many of my drivers have been driving big trucks since they were 17/18. You can’t get a CDL before 18 any more but I know plenty of young guys who can operate heavy equipment proficiently.

          If your talking about Columbia type guerrilla fighter controlled roads there is no freedom.  I don’t see the the paradigm your trying to draw there…

          1.  The point is a simple one.  We require extra training (CDL) to operate inherently dangerous vehicles.  High power motorcycles are inherently dangerous.  You should be required to take special training or have a specified amount of seat time.  My family are all truckers and heavy equip operators.  So yes I know all about CDL schools.

            There is almost no enforcement of driving requirements in Central America (or Mexico beyond the Mile 21 zone).  They have near complete ‘freedom’ to drive whatever they want without regard to skill.  Now go for a drive down there and tell me that it makes any kind of sense.  Because is seems to me your position is that the government shouldn’t take a regulatory role, which would have us looking a lot like a third-world country in that regard.

            Maybe we can agree that riders under 18 should have cc limitations?

          2. You are required currently by maine state law to take a 16 hour motorcycle certification course/test (written/road). It is probably more comprehensive then the drivers test for people over 18. To have a license @ all under 18 you have to have a certified drivers ed course which teaches you the rules of the road. So I think practical boundaries as you call them (laws) are already in place for young/novice riders/drivers.

            I agree a CC limitation for riders under 18 would be great! As well as no 2 up riding, helemet requirement. However that gets into a debate on horsepower in cars too. Whats too much? maybe a universal weight to power ratio for minors? I dunno, I am all about protecting minors from irresponsible parents but you get into specifics like that and give the extreme protectionist an inch they will take a mile.

            There is no enforcement period in most of central america. I never said I am an anarchist and government should not regulate all. It just needs to be extremely selective about what we need to draft new laws for.

  12. To BDN  why don’t you people investagate why the police do not take people to court that cause motorcycle accidents  ? I bet i know one reason why because it cost the cities/ town money every time they take a person to court an they get nothing in return . I know why BDN will not investagate because it takes time to go thru every accident in the past 2 years or they are to lazy to do a real investation

  13. If we pass a helmet law, can we please pass a law to force us all to wear our hats and mittens in the winter, and to brush our teeth after meals, and to tie our shoes? Helmet use should be a choice, if only because I don’t want to give the police one more thing they can pull me over for.

  14. No reason for Maine to emulate, even in part, policies like New Hampshire which reinforce their motto, “Live Free AND Die”.

    1. this don’t make no grammar cents.

      Do you mean Maine shouldn’t emulate policies derived from another state’s motto?

      The New Hampshire state motto is also Live Free or Die. Which was written by a NH revolutionary icon General John Stark

      “Live free or die: Death is not the worst of evils.”

  15. where is the authors name? Bridget Brown is cited under the picture but I am thinking she was the photographer?

  16. God this liberal rag is predictable.  If you haven’t read the column I’ll sum it up for you:   “Please nanny state, save us from ourselves, we’re too numb to make our own decisions.”  

     The other predictable liberal play is to cite a law that liberal safety Nazis crammed down everybody’s throats (the seat-belt law) to justify imposing another freedom killing restriction.  I can’t decide if liberals are simply arrogant or if they think the rest of us are just too stupid to notice.

  17. I’ve ridden since 1965.  Whether I do or don’t use a helmet is not the point today.

    How in a nation that rationalizes torturing citizens or arresting citizens without charges and that allows the President to decide which laws he will obey and enforce and that imprisons for trivial crimes and that says it’s ok to strip search someone pulled over for unpaid tickets and that wages wars without paying even lipservice to the US Constitution and that shrugs at homeless fellow citizens–how has our definition of freedom degenerated into a trivial argument about whether freedom is best served by allowing the wind to blow through your hair.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *