Personal Injury Law

Missouri columnist: Nixon should veto motorcycle helmet bill

By Hurley, McKenna & Murtz

In a column in the Columbia Daily Tribune (6/2) J. Scott Christianson wrote that the original intent of Senate Bill 202 "was to prevent insurance companies from assigning blame to motorcycle riders involved in an accident simply because they were riding a motorcycle." Yet, "during its travels through the General Assembly, Senator Schaefer's bill was amended so that it would also repeal Missouri's law requiring all motorcycle riders to wear a helmet while on public roads; only those under 21 or riding interstate highways would still have to wear a helmet if SB 202 is signed into law." Thus, Christianson concludes that "Governor Nixon should veto SB202."

Many studies have confirmed the positive relationship between helmet use and protection from head injury. One particularly poignant study in Florida showed that motorcycle deaths rose significantly when its mandatory helmet law was repealed. One newspaper, the Florida Today, ?found ?unhelmeted? deaths in Florida rose from 22 in 1998 and 1999, the years before the helmet law repeal, to 250 in 2004, the most recent year of available data? (CBS, 6/19/06).

This trend is not limited geographically as death rates for motorcyclists have been rising since repeals of helmet laws began in 1995, as reported by USA Today. Department of Transportation (DOT) statistics reflect that ?5.6 motorcyclists per 10,000 registered motorcycles were killed in 1996, and the number jumped to 7.3 in 2006. The number of motorcyclists who wear helmets has dropped from 63% in 1994 to 51% in 2006?.

Both common sense and empirical evidence lead to the conclusion that mandatory helmet laws would diminish unnecessary motorcycle injuries and deaths. As a personal injury lawyer in Chicago with experience in motorcycle injuries, I adamantly support mandatory helmet laws.

Full post as published by Illinois Car and Truck Accident Lawyer Blog on June 04, 2009 (boomark / email).