3208

VETOES

Compliance with and enforcement of the current helmet
law is excellent. I believe that the benefits of this law
are obvious. But I do not veto House Bill 1096 on the basis
of trends in other States or our own State's traffic safety
record. 1 do so based upon the evidence as presented to me
in the hundreds of communications which I have received in
the past six weeks.

Opponents of the bill point to several jurisdictions
which have repealed similar helmet laws. Specifically, the
experience in Kansas indicates that, during the first year
after repeal, although there was an insignificant increase
in motorcycle accidents, the resultant types and severity of
injuries sustained in motorcycle accidents changed greatly.
In fact, the incidence of head trauma increased by 70%. And
the death rate for those motorcyclists not wearing a helmet
at the time of accident was three times greater than the
rate for those who were wearing a helmet. Underlying this
data is the obvious conclusion that one effect of a repeal
of a mandatory helmet law is that voluntary helmet usage
will decline.

The opponents also rely upon a California study which
found that impact to the head occurs in 70% of all
motorcycle accidents. The conclusion of that study was that
the wearing of a helmet was vital to preventing head and
neck injuries when that impact occurs.

The proponents of House Bill 1096 claim that wearing a
helmet is detrimental to safety because it impairs hearing
and vision, and if head impact occurs, the helmet may even
contribute to neck injury. I cannot find any evidence to
substantiate these claims. Nor can I believe that the
members of the General Assembly were aware of such evidence.
If they had, I do not believe that they would have continued
to mandate helmet usage for 16 and 17 year old operators and
riders, a provisions which, in any event, will prove
difficult to enforce.

Above all, the proponents of the bill argue that the
issue is freedom of choice, and that one's freedom to wear
or not wear a helmet is paramount to any safety
considerations. If helmet usage is proven to be beneficial,
and if the law's repeal will result in a decline in the use
of helmets and a concurrent increase in the types and
severity of head injury, then I cannot agree. The State has
an interest, in this instance, in protecting its citizens,
despite the inconvenience or intrusion which some may
believe to be inherent in this law. This is not a complex
legal issue. It is a simple issue of safety.

The experience in several jurisdictions has shown that
the repeal of a mandatory helmet law indirectly contributes
to an increase in head injuries and deaths. The experience
is thus far limited because the trend to repeal such laws is