Is Centers for Disease Control trying to reduce motorcycle use?

[djh3]

OK I just opened this e-mail from the AMA. It intregued me because I couldnt for the life of me figure out how not wearing a helmet is a disease. I personaly wear a helmet of some sort all the time. When I grew up riding it was just the way I was taught and learned. If there are some that dont wish to I'm OK with that. Anyways here is the letter.

 

U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.) is asking the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention whether it is trying to reduce motorcycle ridership by pursuing a federal mandatory motorcycle helmet law, the American Motorcyclist Association reports.

The congressman also is questioning the economic impacts the CDC cited to support mandatory motorcycle helmet laws.

In a letter to CDC Director Thomas Frieden (enclosures included) dated Nov. 21, Walberg, who is a lifelong motorcyclist, an AMA life member and a member of the Congressional Motorcycle Caucus, asked “…is it the goal or strategy of the CDC to reduce the use of motorcycles -- a legal mode of transportation -- by recommending and pursuing a federal helmet law?

“If so, how would this strategy be implemented and by what authority would it be instituted?” Walberg asked. He also questioned whether Frieden believes the CDC is the federal agency best suited to research and make recommendations related to transportation safety.

The CDC, which is part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, is headquartered in Atlanta.

Walberg sent the letter after analyzing a presentation titled “Economic Impact of Motorcycle Helmet Law: A Systematic Review.” The presentation was made by the Helmet Law Review Team of the Community Preventive Services Task Force on Oct. 23. The 15-member task force, each of whom is appointed by the CDC director, makes recommendations to the CDC and reports to the U.S. Congress about community preventive services, programs and policies to improve health.

The task force is preparing to recommend that all states have universal helmet laws, which means that all riders, regardless of age, would be required to wear helmets.

In his letter, Walberg strongly opposed its findings and conclusions. One part of the presentation, in particular, “infers a positive awareness of helmet laws with the potential for reduced motorcycle use,” Walberg said. “The presentation goes on to conclude that ‘economic evidence shows that universal motorcycle helmet laws produce substantial economic benefits, and these benefits greatly exceed expected costs,’ however, there is no reference whatsoever to the significant economic costs anticipated by reducing motorcycle use.

“In fact, the only costs identified by the Task Force on slide 37 are the costs of purchasing a motorcycle helmet and the enactment and enforcement costs of helmet laws, which are concluded to be negligible,” Walberg said. “Not only does this contradict the earlier findings about how imposing motorcycle laws would discourage motorcycle use, but it ignores the positive economic impact motorcyclists provide.

“Motorcyclists not only enjoy riding on American roads, they also spend billions of dollars touring and attending rallies,” he said. “Reducing motorcycle use would have a detrimental effect on the motorcycle-industry, dealer sales, tourism, associated employment and related tax revenues. As an avid and experienced motorcycle rider, I believe government should be in the business of promoting the recreational, economic and environmental benefits of responsible motorcycle riding – not discouraging it.”

Wayne Allard, AMA vice president for government relations and a former U.S. representative and U.S. senator representing Colorado, praised Walberg for “asking some tough questions that need to be asked.

“The AMA doesn’t understand why the Centers for Disease Control is involving itself in motorcycling when it is supposed to be protecting Americans from diseases,” Allard said.

“Motorcycling is not a disease that needs to be eradicated,” he said. “It’s a legal form of transportation and a source of responsible recreation for millions of Americans nationwide.

‘We anxiously await the CDC’s answers to Rep. Walberg’s questions,” Allard said.

The AMA strongly advocates helmet use but believes adult helmet use should be voluntary. Simply put, mandatory helmet laws do nothing to prevent crashes. The AMA supports actions that help riders avoid a crash from occurring, including voluntary rider education, improved licensing and testing, and expanded motorist awareness programs.

To read the AMA position on voluntary helmet use, go to www.americanmotorcyclist.com/Rights/PositionStatements/VoluntaryHelmetUse.aspx.

Now more than ever, it is crucial that you and your riding friends become members of the AMA or ATVA to help protect our riding freedoms. More members mean more clout against the opponents of motorcycling and ATV riding. That support will help fight for your rights – on the road, trail, racetrack, and in the halls of government. If you are a motorcycle rider, join the AMA at AmericanMotorcyclist.com/membership/join. If you are an ATV rider, join ATVA at www.atvaonline.co m

[MikeWa]

I think it should be the Internal Revenue Service that enforces the federal motorcycle helmet laws. Couldn't you just see the federal tax agents on motorcycles stopping wayward bikers and Hells Angels for helmet violations.

 

Mike

[Guest tx2sturgis]

Jeeze.

 

 

 

[djh3]

Yea if IRS was involved I could see the rules changing every 6 months or so on how they would enforce. It still is a preposterous thought that if I choose I can ride my motorcycle to Key West say with no helmet and that OK. But if I get in my pick up and go to the corner store I get a ticket for no seat belt in a 5000# vehicle :confused24:

[uncledj]

Gubment just wants to protect us.

[XV1100SE]

O...Tim Walberg (R-Mich.) is asking the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention whether it is trying to reduce motorcycle ridership by pursuing a federal mandatory motorcycle helmet law, the American Motorcyclist Association reports....

 

Are they trying to say that forcing people to spend money on a helmet would stop people from riding?

 

They aren't saying you have to spend thousands on a helmet, just that riders should wear them. Is a cheap $70 spent on a helmet going to make someone stop or never ride?

 

I can see the CDC recommending helmet use. I would think that most riders would agree that wearing a helmet can reduce head injuries and save a few lives. That is the reason for seat belt laws (prevent people from being thrown thru a windshield or thrown out of a vehicle in a severe crash). Look at football players... and imagine what shape they'd be in if they weren't wearing helmets while playing.

 

I get the argument that helmets are a freedom of choice. When we were in South Dakota we rode in a town without helmets (first time without helmets) for a few miles and it was enjoyable, could see better without a helmet, could hear better, was nice feeling the wind... but our personal choice is to wear helmets.

 

In Canada, helmets are mandatory. They don't say you have to wear a full face helmet, just that you wear a helmet that passes certain standards. They don't make ATGATT mandatory. You could ride naked as long as you have a helmet.

 

I'm not making an argument for helmets. For us our personal choice is to wear helmets. If people feel strongly that it is their right to not wear helmets that is their choice. To say that having to wear a helmet would make people not ride is stretching it.

 

If you get hit by a bus/truck/car... a helmet isn't going to prevent the rest of your body from being injured. Before they mandate helmets I'd rather see graduated licenses limiting sizes or styles of bikes for new riders. But that is my personal opinion.

[Guest tx2sturgis]

Are they trying to say that forcing people to spend money on a helmet would stop people from riding?

 

They aren't saying you have to spend thousands on a helmet, just that riders should wear them. Is a cheap $70 spent on a helmet going to make someone stop or never ride?

 

I think the inference is that SOME people might not ride if helmets became mandatory. And many who ride to rallies where helmets are optional might not ride to those rallies IF helmets were mandated everywhere. They might travel less, rally less, and I agree...I know some riders who totally avoid traveling thru states where helmets are required.

 

Motorcycle commuters and those who voluntarily ride with helmets now would probably not be affected at all.

[XV1100SE]

I think the inference is that SOME people might not ride if helmets became mandatory. And many who ride to rallies where helmets are optional might not ride to those rallies IF helmets were mandated everywhere. They might travel less, rally less, and I agree...I know some riders who totally avoid traveling thru states where helmets are required.

 

Motorcycle commuters and those who voluntarily ride with helmets now would probably not be affected at all.

 

Only thing that would stop me from riding is if they mandated having to ride a Harley ! :-)

[bongobobny]

Ya know, it's just like the mandatory seat belt law when driving a cage! If you want to be dumb enough to not wear a seat belt and kill yourself that should be YOUR choice, not the law's decision...

[djh3]

I think after reading it a couple of times is that if they make it a PIA to ride by making everyone wear helmets and whtever else they decide, more folks will just say to heck with it and stop riding. Thus causing economic issues down line. I like the “Motorcycling is not a disease that needs to be eradicated,” he said. “It’s a legal form of transportation and a source of responsible recreation for millions of Americans nationwide." We all know it really is a disease though rite? But not a bad one.

[Evan]

I understand the reluctance to start wearing a helmet and the disdain for new laws requiring that. I rode a number of years before they became mandatory here in Ontario. Hated that law. Many years later, wearing a helmet became just a part of riding.

[Bert2006]

Ya know, it's just like the mandatory seat belt law when driving a cage! If you want to be dumb enough to not wear a seat belt and kill yourself that should be YOUR choice, not the law's decision...

 

Agree with you up to a certain point, only problem with that is that we all end up paying more for medical expenses and insurance.

 

[Rosie1965]

Agree with you up to a certain point, only problem with that is that we all end up paying more for medical expenses and insurance.

 

 

When seat belt use became mandatory in Iowa they said it would bring down the cost of insurance. That's been over 20 years and I'm still waiting for my insurance to go down.

[bongobobny]

Agree with you up to a certain point, only problem with that is that we all end up paying more for medical expenses and insurance.

 

Yeah, but it would thin out the donkeys...

[Huggy]

At the last Friday the 13th in Port Dover there was a guy riding his bike naked!!! And he had his helmet on!!

And even when we didn't have to wear helmets in Ontario I wore one!

[Rick Haywood]

Just one more liberty taken away and and one more tax for the greedy to get from us. No more no less:confused24:

[Trader]

REALLY?

 

I gotta think that anyone who would give up bikes just because he/she has to wear a helmet doesn't really love biking!

 

Who gave up driving when seat belt laws came out?

 

Who gave up going to bars or restaurants when no smoking laws came out?

 

My own opinion???......helmets save lives and reduce the cost of public health costs.

 

When I went to Don's MD and the IR last year I rode a SHORT distance without a helmet. But I found I was uncomfortable

 

Maybe it's the same as when I don't fasten my seatbelt....its just not what I'm used to anymore and so feels uncomfortable.