Motorcycle Helmets: Can The State Tell Us What To Do?

Motorcycle Helmets:

Can The State Tell Us What To Do?

There were more than 3,605 motorcycle involved accidents in Michigan last year in which 122 motorcyclists were killed and 2,721 were injured. (PRNewswire, 2006). Imagine how many more of these accidents would have ended fatally if Michigan repealed its State helmet law.

Many people are against the mandatory helmet law that Michigan has had in place for 37 years, but are the consequences of repealing it worth it? If you are for repealing the Michigan state helmet law you should know that it is could cost you. There is a current legislation to repeal Michigan's mandatory helmet law (Senate Bill 297 and House Bill 4505).

On the other side of the issue, motorcycle riders feel that the not wearing a motorcycle helmet should be a personal choice and that Michigan is losing out on a lot of money because tourists on motorcycles do not travel to Michigan because of the mandated helmet law. I feel that both sides of the issues have valid points in regards to their position and rights. I am going to discuss why the law was started and go in more details on what is currently happening in states where the helmet law has been repealed.

To understand the reasoning behind the mandated helmet law, you have to know the history of how it came to be. In 1966 the Interstate Highway system was in process and being funded by federal money from gasoline taxes. In order to add jobs and fund the project, states were asked to come up with ten percent of the project. (Williams, 1995) It was considered unconstitutional for the federal government to set a helmet law policy because it is considered an issue under the jurisdiction of individual states.

The 1966 Federal Highway Act incorporated some stipulations in order to guarantee a states highway construction funding. The plan was to influence states to comply with laws they wanted, or lose funding. States were asked to mandate helmets and require driver's licenses for motorcyclists. (Williams, 1995) If a state was not on board with these agreements, they could lose millions of dollars in federal funding. Many wonder of the political influence that was behind the inception of the helmet laws and the controversy is still going on today.

In 1975 Congress withdrew the federal requirement for states to comply with the universal helmet law or lose funding. Since then, many states have gone back and forth on the issue and many states have passed modified versions of the law that require minors to wear helmets.

In 1967 a biker by the name of Charlie Simon, of Massachusetts, filed a civil suit about the helmet law and the case went all the way to the Supreme Court. The court ruled against him because they felt the law was in place for protection and safety. In 1969 the Illinois Supreme court acknowledged the helmet law to be unconstitutional and that it infringed on a persons freedom and repealed the law that was only in place for six months. By 1974 every state, with the exception of California and Illinois had helmet laws