Motorcycle Helmet Bill (HB 143)

 The bill to modify the all-rider motorcycle helmet law was filed January 19 and assigned bill number HB 143.  This bill was intended to modify the existing Maryland helmet law to apply only to minors.  Adult riders would have been able to decide for themselves when it is appropriate to wear a motorcycle helmet while riding.

HB 143 was assigned to the Commerce and Government Matters committee.  The committee hearing for HB 143 was held on Wednesday, February 16, 2000. 

A panel of ABATE members testified for the bill and several individuals testified for the bill as well.  Topics covered by those testifying for the bill included personal freedom, a history and analysis of the helmet law, accident and fatality information, fiscal impact of the law, driver awareness of motorcycles, helmet testing information, a veteran's perspective of personal freedom and the helmet law, and a physician's analysis of the helmet law.

Those opposed to the law included representatives from police agencies, Motor Vehicle Administration, MIEMSS (Shock Trauma), an insurance company, and members of the medical community.

The testimony from motorcycle riders was well received by the committee and most of the questions asked were directed at those opposing the bill.

On February 24, 2000 the Commerce and Government Matters Committee voted on HB 143 and the bill received an Unfavorable Report.  It was defeated by a 7 to 14 vote.  The committee vote is shown below.

Before the committee vote Delegates DeCarlo and Snodgrass attempted to persuade committee members to vote Yes on HB 143.  Delegate Snodgrass went so far as to state, “this is about freedom not body parts”, when she addressed the committee prior to the vote.

The primary sponsor for HB 143 is Delegate George Owings (District 27B) and the bills co-sponsors include:
Delegate Carmen Amedori, District 5
Delegate Diane DeCarlo, District 6
Delegate Van T. Mitchell, District 28
Delegate Anthony J. O'Donnell, District 29C
Delegate James E. Rzepkowski, District 32
Delegate Louise V. Snodgrass, District 3

Although the bill was defeated, it is never the time to lose sight of what we want.  In order to assure our supporters that we appreciate their support, take time to phone, write, or visit them and thank them for supporting us.  On the other hand, now is the time to contact those opposing this bill and let them know we are disappointed with their vote on this bill and ask them why they posted a No Vote.

A prime opportunity to visit the offices of your delegates is during Monday Night Lobbying.  ABATE of Maryland will conduct Monday Night Lobbying activities until April 10, 2000 when the General Assembly session concludes.  Visit the ABATE of Maryland office on 8 West Street in Annapolis anytime after 5:30 pm and sign in.  Then proceed to the legislative offices of your Delegates and Senators. 

Next Year and Beyond

It is clear that the Commerce and Government Matters Committee (CGM) this year and in previous years has been a road-block for the helmet bill.  Since this has perpetually been the case and we garnered partial success in the Senate last year, it is time to examine what works and what doesn’t work.  It is quite likely that we could find a way to get four more votes in the Senate.  But what does it take to get the votes we need from the CGM Committee in the House.  The following answers come to mind:

1.      Persuade each member of the committee that it is in their best interests to vote to allow voluntary helmet use by adult motorcycle riders.

2.      Bypass the CGM committee and find another path to the house floor.

3.      Change the information that we disseminate to committee members.

4.      Change the members of the CGM committee.

The answer to the question is all of the above.  We have to work with the CGM committee for the next two years.  It will remain unchanged until the next Maryland General Assembly elections in 2002.  A fact of life is that we must work to persuade the committee members to vote for voluntary helmet use whether the initial vote comes from CGM or elsewhere.  Ultimately, everyone in the House must vote on this bill.  Any work done to persuade CGM committee members to vote yes is valuable and on target.  However, it wouldn’t hurt to research different approaches to getting legislative language before house members.  This could include becoming more familiar with the practice of amending other bills rather than the single tactic of drafting a bill.

In years past, we tried to present new information and make sure that although we stood by our fundamental arguments such as personal freedom, safety record improvements, and the possibility that helmets may hurt as well as help a rider during an accident, new approaches were tried each year.  Those who vote against us hold some core values that they are somehow either protecting us from ourselves or that they are protecting society at-large from grave financial burdens.  We need to shatter this perception in a way that is undeniably obvious to anyone presented with the information.

The last item is to change the members of the CGM committee.  The only way I know do this is to elect new people.  This won’t happen until 2002, but it is never too late to take a look at the political landscape in your local communities and see who potential candidates might be.  When you find out, ask them what their positions are regarding the helmet law and persuade them to adopt a voluntary helmet use position early on, before they are elected.