<p>Additional Information Provided by the Concerned Bikers Association of North Carolina.</p><p>- Repealing North Carolina’s mandatory helmet law will not require any rider to stop wearing a helmet.</p><p>- Sound attenuation from wearing helmets represents an impairment in the ability of a rider to perceive or discriminate warning or other useful sounds that will decrease the risk of being involved in an accident.</p><p>- Helmets can increase perspiration in warm weather and lead to sweat effecting vision. </p><p>- Our government tells us that it is perfectly legal to kill a fetus, jump out of a perfectly working airplane for fun, bungee jump, use tobacco (the #1 killer in the United States today), use alcohol (the #2 killer), SCUBA dive, and hang glide. However, it is illegal to ride a motorcycle without a helmet. Is this hypocritical? </p><p>- Human nature causes most people to inherently apply their personal opinion to what they think should be public policy. If we all step back and take a more humble approach, we see that our own opinion is a personal view and should not necessarily become public policy. There are many differing opinions on this subject. Repealing the mandatory helmet law will not require people to remove their helmets. Riders would be free to choose for themselves. Erring on the side of freedom of choice gives every citizen the ability to be happy (Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness). </p><p>- States without mandatory helmet laws get the bulk of the tourism dollars from motorcyclists. All of the four major rallies, (Sturgis, Laconia, Bike Week, and Biketoberfest) are held in free states. Our pro-choice sister state (SC) is the host to Myrtle Beach Bike Week which attracts 400,000 riders. NOTHING in North Carolina comes anywhere close to any of these rallies. It has been reported by Myrtle Beach authorities that each rider spends approximately $1500 dollars during Bike Week. At 400,000 riders, that's $600M infused into the SC economy because of Myrtle Beach Bike Week. By allowing adult riders the right to decide, North Carolina could host a large motorcycle rally and reap the financial benefits. Considering the budget crisis that North Carolina currently faces, this should seem attractive to everyone in North Carolina. </p><p>- Doctors and nurses who advocate mandatory helmet laws try to do what they think is best. They are appreciated very much by the motorcycle riding community. However, they only see one side of the issue. They see the injuries. They don't see the times when riders avoid accidents by having their hearing and sight intact. They don't know about the instances when perspiration does NOT get in someone's eyes. They only see one side of the issue, and their opinions are based on a one-sided view of the circumstances. - Mandatory helmet law advocates say they care about our head injuries and deaths. If that is so, what about all of the people who have head injuries and even deaths resulting from accidents while driving automobiles? There are more head injuries caused by automobile accidents then there are by motorcycle accidents. If helmet law advocates drove around in their automobiles for a few days while wearing crash helmets, they would see how distracting wearing a helmet can be. They would see how absurd it would be to have a law requiring mandatory crash helmet usage.</p><p>- A message from a non-riding citizen: "There are some good arguments on both sides of the issue. Those who support mandatory helmet laws say helmets help protect against head injuries — or at least lessen the impact to the head — if the motorcyclist crashes or is otherwise thrown from the vehicle. That’s a pretty logical conclusion. Any protection is better than no protection, one might think. Wearing helmets could, and probably have, saved lives. Some who want to rescind the mandatory law may admit that helmets offer protection for the head when it is pounded into asphalt or another vehicle. But they’ll also tell you that such helmets obstruct their vision, which could lead to the crashes occurring in the first place, and increase the possibility of neck injuries. Removing the restriction could lead to better peripheral vision, which could lead to fewer wrecks, which would also save lives. Safety experts, motorcycle enthusiasts and statisticians will argue until the cows come home which probabilities are more likely to occur. And I certainly don’t have an opinion from personal experience as I have never ridden a motorcycle. It seems to me that such a decision should be made by the individual who’s riding on the motorcycle, not by legislators in Raleigh. A bill that has been introduced in the General Assembly would give motorcyclists who are at least 21 years old that opportunity. And why not? After all, someone who’s 21 can volunteer to do things that are much more dangerous than riding a motorcycle. People of such age, and younger, are already in the military, many of whom are in foreign lands fighting terrorism and protecting our freedom. People who are 21 have the right to drink alcohol and smoke cigarettes. And we hope they’ll have the wisdom to know that it’s dangerous to drive, a car, a motorcycle or anything, after consuming too much alcohol. People who are 21 can run for local office and actually vote in the North Carolina legislature to repeal the helmet law. They can help make decisions about taxes, spending and an array of other things that affect our daily lives. Some decisions should be left to individuals. Whether to wear a helmet on a motorcycle should be one of them." ======</p><p>BOTTOM LINE: </p><p>It is not the government's job to mandate personal safety and control individuals. </p><p>Again, it's not about helmet USE. It's about governmental control by elected officials who do not ride motorcycles.</p><p>Let Those Who Ride Decide! </p><p>2</p>