Assemblyman Morrow: Thank you very much Mr. Chairman and members. I am pleased to be here this afternoon and proud to be here as the author of AB-244. I am particularly pleased because this is finally a subject which I have some degree of comfort in presenting to you because I have ridden motorcycles for about thirty years of my life and I can tell you from my first hand experience that I know, as other motorcyclists know, that whether or not wearing a helmet on a motorcycle makes you any safer is not necessarily a cut-and-dry issue.

Any one who's ever worn and helmet, and I have -- I own several helmets as well as several motorcycles throughout my life -- when a person dons a motorcycle helmet, that person chooses to impair, at least to some degree, that person's sensory capabilities. Whether it be in the field of vision, whether it be in the area of hearing, helmets certainly have an effect. When a person chooses to don a motorcycle helmet that person chooses to have, at least to some degree, he chooses fatigue over comfort; because you do tire very quickly in wearing helmets for rides of any lengths.

When a person dons a helmet that person chooses to strap on a four pound weight on the top of that person's head at the end of his or her spinal column which can contribute to or magnify a whip-lash effect if there is an accident. In fact I will tell you that the law of physics -- the law of physics which cannot be repealed -- four pounds becomes two hundred pounds upon impact at fifty miles an hour.

But in California, at least since 1992, that person that chooses to don a helmet really has no choice at all, because that choice has been made for him or her by the government.

This bill, AB-244 . . . first of all, I want to clarify, it does not repeal the mandatory helmet law. It does modify it, in that it would make its provisions applicable only to those persons twenty-one years and older, so it is not a complete repeal.

Let me give you three reasons why I think you should vote for this bill.

First of all, this is an area that should not be within the parameters of government to make decisions that are better left to the individuals; those who know their motorcycles, those who know their rider's abilities. For me that issue, that freedom of choice issue, is enough to vote for this bill. I recognize that there may be some members of this committee who may have a different philosophy of government where more will be needed, so let me give you two other reasons to vote for this bill.

Second is this, the proponents of the mandatory helmet law back in 1991 when it was passed to take effect in 1992, they promised that the fatality rate would go down if we had a mandatory helmet law provision. They promised that. I can tell you that that promise has not come true.

One thing that I want to emphasize . . . you're going to hear a lot of statistics here by the gentlemen who are here presenting on behalf of the bill and those in opposition, you're going to hear a lot about what we call the fatality rate; and I would ask the committee to keep their eye on the ball. Because when you hear these gentlemen here on the side of the proponents, when they refer to the fatality rate, they are referring to the rate -- the number or deaths per motorcycle accidents. That's the only way you can determine the effectiveness of a helmet law . . . whether or not a helmet performs is whether or not it performs after an accident.

However, when the opponents get up here they will tell you that the number of fatalities have declined since the law went into effect and we will concede that. It has. You'll learn why is because ridership is down significantly. There are less people on the road, they're riding less miles, and so you have less accidents and you have less head injuries and fatalities. But aside from that you will hear them say that the fatality rate has gone down. I want to emphasize to keep the eye on the ball here. The fatality rate that they are referring to is not the same fatality rate that we are. They determine the fatality rate by the number of fatalities per the number of motorcycle registrations in the state -- usually per one hundred thousand registrations.

Ask any one when they refer to the UCLA report, or any other report, ask them about the fatality rate. That's what it will be based on. It will have nothing to do with the number of fatalities per accident and that's the only way we can determine the effectiveness.

And you are going to find that when we apply that rate, the law has had no effect. These gentlemen will go into more detail on that.

Let me give you the third reason. The proponents of the mandatory helmet law back in 1991, they promised that if this bill were passed that it would save significant costs -- anywhere between sixty-five and one hundred million dollars a year. I can tell you safely again that it not has occurred. That promise has not been kept. In fact, it has cost the State up to date up to forty million dollars as far as trying to enforce these provisions. And I will let these gentlemen speak to you in detail of these arguments, these three areas which I think justifies an aye vote of this bill. If they miss an area, I'll certainly cover that on close. And with that, I would like to refer to Mr. Jim Lombardo who represents, here in Sacramento, ABATE of California.

(Senator Kelley interrupts to call the role to see who has arrived -- a quorum is formed)

Lombardo: Thank you Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee. Jim Lombardo, Legislative Advocate for ABATE of California. Rather than take up the time of testimony I would like to turn the testimony over to the Executive Director of ABATE, Paul Lax.

Senator Russell: Mr. Morrow, you indicated that you related the spinal injury increase, as you said, to wearing of helmets. In some information I have here, it says there is no evidence to support the claims that helmets increase the risk of spinal injuries as demonstrated by at least five studies reviewed by the GAO. An additional multi-states study in 1994 similarly found no association between spinal injuries and helmet use. Can you comment on that or one of your witnesses?

Assemblyman Morrow: I'll deliver that one to Mr. Lax who indeed can comment on that in detail.

Senator Russell: If he wants to do that later on that's fine, but I would like somebody to address that at the appropriate time.

Next Speaker | Back to Speaker's List