The sounds of roaring motorcycle engines filled the streets and interstates in southern Wisconsin last week as the Harley-Davidson 100th Anniversary celebration commenced in Milwaukee. While hundreds of thousands of motorcyclists from around the United States and Canada came riding through town, Sen. Dave Zien, R-Eau Claire, fought to pass an anti-helmet bill in Wisconsin.
Senate Bill 223 proposes to prohibit insurance companies from reducing the damages awarded to a victim of a crash if they were not wearing protective headgear at the time of an accident.
“This legislation is necessary to protect those who ride and those who exercise their right to choose whether or not to wear a helmet,” Zien said. “Let’s let those who ride decide and not allow the court system to implement another mandatory helmet law.”
The current law does not require all riders to wear helmets. It does, however, allow a jury to decide whether a driver behaved in a safe and prudent manner.
The Wisconsin Legislature repealed its mandatory helmet law in 1978 after overriding a gubernatorial veto. Now only motorcycle riders who hold an instruction permit or those under the age of 18 are required to wear a helmet.
According to a Legislative Reference Bureau analysis of the bill, the proposal, if passed, would effectively reverse the 2002 state Supreme Court decision in Stehlik v. Rhoads that upheld a jury’s authority to consider helmet use in awarding damages to an all-terrain-vehicle rider.
Dave Dwyer, legislative chairman of the motorcyclist advocacy group A Brotherhood Against Totalitarian Enactments of Wisconsin, believes the current law has nothing to do with a rider’s safety.
“This is about the corporate greed of the insurance industry,” Dwyer said.
Zien introduced the anti-helmet bill and says it would protect bikers from being discriminated against by insurance companies and juries.
“I will go to the grave believing that helmets should be a freedom of choice,” he said.
Wisconsin Insurance Alliance President Eric Englund said an anti-helmet law would essentially take one piece of evidence away from the jury system when deciding claims cases.
“It will have an effect on anybody who sustains injuries,” Englund said. “It takes away any negative implication and cost impact of not wearing a helmet.”
University of Wisconsin sophomore and scooter owner Catherine Holznecht agrees with Zien. She said there does not seem to be a big enough problem with accidents on campus to warrant such a law.
“I never really spent the money on a helmet and was never really interested,” Holznecht said. “I think it’s a personal preference.”
Zien argued helmets could cause or contribute to accidents by reducing head mobility, vision and hearing.
Adam Kaufman, a UW senior and motorcycle owner who regularly wears a helmet dismissed the idea that helmets cause accidents by decreasing rider awareness.
“I would agree that helmets decrease peripheral vision, but I don’t think that causes accidents,” Kaufman said. “Usually a motorcycle accident is caused by the rider being careless, or its some other car driver’s fault.”
Kaufman said the risk of a headgear decreasing peripheral vision to the point a rider would crash would be outweighed by the risk of crashing without wearing a helmet.
The bill received a public hearing in the Senate Committee on Judiciary, Corrections and Privacy Aug. 26. The committee has not yet voted on a decision.
