The Joplin Globe, Joplin, MO

Joplin Metro

Related Photos

Discussion

July 3, 2009

Some motorcyclists voice opposition of helmet-law veto

By Dustin Shipman and Anne Hershewe

news@joplinglobe.com

A low rumble emerged this week as some motorcyclists across the state began to react to Gov. Jay Nixon’s veto of Senate Bill 202, which would have relaxed Missouri’s helmet-requirement law.

The current law requires all motorcyclists to wear a helmet while riding. The measure that was endorsed by the Legislature would have given riders older than 21, in most situations, the option of not wearing a helmet.

Nixon had seemed to be in favor of the bill last month, and some area motorcycle riders are confused and angered by his veto.

“I can’t understand it,” said Dave Obanion, owner of Westside Customs and Collision Repairs in Joplin.

The states that surround Southwest Missouri allow motorcyclists to ride without helmets, which Obanion said is frustrating.

“Why Missouri?” he asked. “Where’s the pressure coming from?”

Though Obanion is not happy with the situation, he said he knows several people who are more upset than he is. “I think a helmet law is practical, but I think it should be a choice.”

Dave Davis, a mechanic at Westside and a biker, said, “I think it ought to be our choice whether we want to (wear a helmet) or not.”

He said many people simply don’t like wearing helmets, and others would just like to wear novelty helmets that are not safety-approved by the state.

Stanley and Bonnie Seiler, of Springfield, on Friday were at Cycle Connection Harley-Davidson/Buell in Joplin.

They voiced irritation that the law was not revised. “It sucks,” said Stanley Seiler. “I should have a choice.”

He said his reasons for wearing a helmet or riding without shouldn’t matter. The bottom line is that he doesn’t want someone telling him what to do.

“Everybody we talked to was hoping it would go through,” said Bonnie Seiler. “(A helmet) doesn’t protect your ribs or legs or arms. We should have freedom of choice.”

Joe Perkins, a shift commander for the Carl Junction Fire Department, said he can see the side of the argument for giving riders a choice, but in his own experience of riding motorcycles and responding to a number of accidents on the highway, he said he personally would always wear a helmet.

“I don’t own a bike now, but I have ridden and I always had a helmet,” Perkins said. “Part of the reason that I don’t own a bike is because I work here and my wife is an RN at Freeman, and we’ve both seen a lot of accidents.”

Perkins said he doesn’t think a law should be what drives someone on a bike to put on a helmet, but rather common sense.

“A helmet, in my experience of doing this for 10 years, makes all the difference in the world if you crash,” Perkins said. “Not just in surviving (an accident) but also the injuries that you receive that might be debilitating or threaten your lifestyle. I don’t know if I would be in favor of the law or not, but it’s sort of one of those things that if people are not going to wear one, then they kind of get what they get.”

Nixon’s main reasons for vetoing the bill have to do with safety and cost, said a letter posted on his Web site. According the letter, which cited government statistic reports, “head injuries are the leading cause of death in motorcycle accidents” and helmets have saved nearly 20,000 cyclists’ lives in the past 22 years. The letter also said that the revision of the law would cause an increase in the cost of treatment for patients in motorcycle accidents, and taxpayers would end up having to cover a significant percentage of that cost.

Text Only
Joplin Metro