Oct 24, 2002 3 min read

This is an editorial and by its very nature reflects the opinion of the Herald-Standard. It is not an unbiased news account and does not pretend to be. We make this obvious disclosure in the event that it is circulated not only across the country but worldwide and ends up in the hands of an Australian reader. Such was the case with an editorial “On helmets and pandering” that was published in this space last week. “On helmets and pandering” was intended to remind voters that there are methods of checking incumbent candidates’ records to make sure that what they are saying on the campaign stump is accurate. We mentioned this in light of two lawmakers’ appearance at a rally held by the Alliance of Bikers Aimed Toward Education.

While this newspaper does not support the repeal of motorcycle helmet laws, it recognizes that there are voters who do, and that they shouldn’t just take a candidate’s word but check the General Assembly’s electronic bill room to determine who is and who isn’t a sponsor of particular bills. (This same tact can be taken by voters to check on many issues.)

Instead the ABATE community took offense and has activated members worldwide to let us know that this was the most vicious, biased, uninformed reporting that members have ever seen. It was opinion, folks.

Some ABATE members made good points, such as pointing out that driver education is also at the heart of their message. We repeatedly have made the same points ourselves. We have always supported efforts to caution drivers – of all kinds of vehicles – to keep the big picture while on the road. We have reminded car, truck, SUV drivers of the perils of seeing motorcyclists and bicyclists and have urged them to be aware that they share the road.

While we certainly agree that many laws are foolish, those that require automobile occupants to be restrained and those that require motorcyclists to wear protective gear do not fall into that category. Motorcyclists will always be more vulnerable to serious and fatal injuries – regardless of whether wearing helmets – because they aren’t encased in a metal shield that protects automobile occupants. The very things that make motorcycles fun and exhilarating to ride increase the dangers.

ABATE members complained that today’s helmets are bulky, heavy and limit their peripheral vision and that states that mandate usage fail to acknowledge that helmets also pose health and safety concerns. This needs to be pointed out with the same vigor used to inform the public of the dangers posed to children and smaller adults by airbags and with the same persistence that was used to lobby for changes in the design and inflation force of airbags.

Perhaps, instead of working to repeal helmet laws (a tact that has had little success in Pennsylvania), ABATE should consider concentrating on lobbying for improved helmets. If laws required it, helmet manufacturers would be forced to develop lighter helmets capable of withstanding impact at greater speeds.