Campaigns
MAG Position - Crash Helmets
The compulsory requirement for motorcyclists to wear helmets was introduced in 1973 when an estimated 88% of bikers were wearing helmets voluntarily. By forcing the remaining 12% of riders to wear helmets at all times it was anticipated that a saving of some 300 lives per year would be made. That expectation was never realised, a fact which the DETR dismiss, claiming that savings are unquantifiable since other factors have masked what they think is the true picture.
MAG's anti-compulsion stance rests on three principle foundations:
1. The law was unnecessary since voluntary usage was almost completely universal.
2. To force people to take precautions for their own safety when the neglect to do so poses no threat to others is incompatible with the spirit of a free society.
3. It is hypocritical for a government to victimise bikers in this way when others whose indulgences indisputably represent a huge public burden are permitted free choice. The ability of the government to force helmet compulsion on bikers, when smokers and the obese, for example, are permitted unlimited license to indulge their injurious behaviour, owes everything to political feasibility and nothing to justice.
The supporters of this legislation refuse to recognise the limitation of helmets to save life and the negative aspects of helmet use which can increase the chances of accidents occurring and even aggravate the injuries under certain circumstances.
Many bikers declare their enthusiasm for helmets on the grounds that they FEEL safer in one. Feeling safe is the most dangerous sensation any road user can experience. MAG is convinced that risk compensation is a real phenomenon, illustrated by less careful behaviour on the part of those who feel secure, e.g. the Swedish insurance companies identified a high incidence of skidding accidents involving cars fitted with ABS (anti lock brakes). The DETR's refusal to acknowledge the existence of risk compensation reflects the artificial perception of the world they recognise.
Peripheral vision and hearing are adversely affected by helmets while the extra weight they burden the neck with can cause spinal fracture even if the head does not strike anything. The ACU (sport governing body) banned the use of full face helmets for those below the age of 18 on the grounds that below this age the neck has not developed its full strength.
While MAG recognise that there are many situations in which helmets can limit injury we insist that the flip-side of the coin is not respected by those who sustain this legislation. After years of campaigning by American bikers the US Government has finally decided to abandon its Federal legislation in this area and leave the decision to individual states, many of whom have repealed or reformed existing laws. On average 'free' states enjoy better safety records than those with helmet laws.
While MAG is opposed to compulsion per se we recognise the political impropriety associated with total repeal which inhibits many MPs from supporting us. MAG would welcome a reform of helmet compulsion to permit free choice to qualified riders or those over a certain age. The helmet law as it stands is a disgraceful and unsustainable anomaly in a supposedly free society.
MAG UK© October 2001 All rights reserved.
