Interestingly, I have been asked to respond to the recent failure of AB244, the Helmet Law Modification Bill, by both sides of the controversy. Although my response may appear that I am taking one side over the other, in reality I am merely stating my personal opinions and beliefs.
California is an important state as far as other states look to it in legislative matters such as this. What happens in California could have a direct impact on the rest of the nation. Keeping than in mind, I personally felt some relief in the failure of AB244 to pass out of committee. The reason being that for California to pass such a measure that would deny certain basic freedoms from a segment of the adult population, no matter how small in size, would set a dangerous guideline for other states to follow.
So far, none of the states that have tried the compromise, modification language have been successful be a sign of the times. I have witnessed first hand, attempts in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Kentucky and Georgia, all of which have been defeated or stalled due to the ever present lies and distorted half-truths being bandied about by NHTSA, medical professionals and the insurance industry. It makes me wonder if somehow we haven't lost focus on our goals and rather have resigned ourselves to compete in the legislative arena in a less than forceful or meaningful nature. Even some of the committee members in California seemed a bit puzzled by our approach. On the one hand, we decry the shortcomings and limitations of helmet use, to the point of declaring them to be dangerous in certain instances, or at certain speeds. Then we turn around and admit and agree to the reasoning that it's ok for some of our colleagues, namely those under 21 years of age, to be forced to wear them. Passage of such a bill would be a shallow victory, with possible dangerous aftertones. What arguments are left in the future if proponents of helmet use insist again on full helmet laws. Can we come back and denounce helmet effectiveness after agreeing to mandating their use on adults under 21 years of age? Anyone who believes that the modification language is a stepping stone to possible full repeal is living in a dream world.
If any state should succeed with passing such a bill, it would serve as an example to other states, and possibly assist in similar passage of other state's bills. But at what cost to freedom, fairness and equal treatment?
No, I cannot support the notion that we should be bargaining with lawmakers in such a manner. In fact, I'm a little ashamed and embarrassed that we should entertain such thoughts in the first place. It seems we are groveling for crumbs when we should be going for the whole cake. I think of patriotic phrases such as "I have not yet begun to fight", or "Give me liberty or give me death", and I wonder why we have become so complacent and agreeable to compromise. Political correctness is a thing of the late '80s and early '90s, but something I am not particularly proud of or would want to brag about. Our limited victories and successes are limited only because we limit ourselves in what we demand. It might seem easy for me to criticize other states from a state with an existing law for those under 18 years of age. But that compromise was more palatable since we are not dealing with lost rights to adults.
Even with that said, we fought the helmet law in Wisconsin for 10 years before allowing such a deal to be struck, and it was firmly stated that we would not support any law mandating helmet use for any adults under 21 years of age. We fought our law in the legislature as well as in the courts. For states in the '90s to begin considering compromising the rights of some adults sets a dangerous precedent that could effect my state in the future. For these reasons, I personally am inwardly glad that AB244 failed. I grieve for the struggle and past efforts of California's motorcyclists, but I celebrate in the knowledge that for the time, they still have the opportunity to move forward with an attempt to fully repeal their existing law for all adults, something that could not and would not happen if AB244 had been successful.
Pan
The first commentary I offered on AB244 (above) was with respect to the typed transcript of testimony offered at the Senate hearing. Yesterday, I was afforded the opportunity to view the actual video of the hearing, and now make these observations.
I was expectantly impressed with Sen. Morrow's adept presentation and coolness under fire. I was equally impressed with Mike Osborn's ability to answer questions and shoot from the hip.
I was extremely impressed with Paul Lax's professionalism in his presentation and rebuttal of questions put to him. These gentlemen handled the pro-AB244 arguments very well and represented their cause in unyielding fashion. Unfortunately, it would appear the vote was cast before the actual hearing. Unimpressive was the majority of the testimony, probably due to the fact that I have been present at so many of these types of affairs that it all becomes routine and expected. For the most part, it was the usual boring statistical maze of fact and fiction.
The highlight of the hearing was without a doubt, Richard Quigley, Helmet Law Defense League and BOLT. His verbal intercourse with Senator Quentin L.Kopp was classic. His apparent disdain for the senator's biased disposition was both entertaining and enjoyable. Good for Quig. I don't believe in social amenities being extended to our enemies. Quig's lack of decorum and pseudo politeness brought a freshness to an otherwise dull and uneventful proceeding.
I also found the comments by Dick Floyd to be amusing and enlightening. One observation I made was the persistant questioning by Hanoi Janes ex, Senator Tom Hayden. He seemed to be going out of his way to discredit Senator Morrow. Morrow hung tough with the annoying Hayden questioning. My overall opinion remains the same as my first observations except that I found the video much more entertaining. I recommend that anyone interested in how government doesn't work should obtain a copy of the video for their viewing pleasure, and take it for what it's worth.
Pan
Back to Senate Hearing Opinions