State senators in Missouri yesterday heard arguments over a proposed repeal of the motorcycle helmet law. Folks supporting the repeal argue that helmets have not curbed the number of motorcycle injuries. On the other hand, folks against the repeal claim that helmets will protect against head injuries.

The State of Missouri has a law that prohibits anyone from riding a motorcycle without a helmet. There is now a bill to modify that law allowing people 21 and older to ride without a helmet.

Those protesting against the modification claim that helmet laws help the State save money in having to provide state-funded medical care in situations where an injured biker does not have their own health care insurance, AND where the offending party didn't have enough car insurance (as if this scenario is at epidemic proportions).

However, the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities reports that State Medicaid costs have risen year after year, despite the fact that more States have adopted helmet laws.

Heck, if States really wanted to save money, then it ought to require automobile drivers and passengers to wear helmets and chest protectors. There are far more people getting hurt in cars than in motorcycles.

Senator Matt Bartle, who is in favor of the repeal, had something clever to say:

Sen. Matt Bartle, a Lee's Summit Republican, who questioned whether government should make paternalistic choices for adults. Bartle said American diets will lead to an epidemic of adult-onset diabetes, but asked whether it was appropriate to enact laws that restrict calorie intake.

Labels: Missouri Helmet Laws