Assemblyman Bill Morrow: I would Mr. Chair, Members and a . . . ha ha, the last two witnesses, as entertaining as they were, I do want to emphasize they were in opposition to the bill.

Somebody once said, I think it was Edgar Allen Poe, that one time out of one instances a point is excessively discussed because it is obscure. The other ninety-nine times it is obscure because it is excessively discussed. And I think that's what we have to some degree here.

Hey, I'll be blunt about it, I think much of that obscurity over this issue as delivered is quite an intentional act. There are people here who would like to obscure the issue and to could your minds, to convince you not to vote for this bill.

Let's go, at the risk of compounding that statement and the problems with that, let me address just a few points. The statistics that were mentioned, I couldn't help but note, my good friend Stan Perez of the Highway Patrol here. A good friend. We work together with the Assembly Transportation Committee, but he referred to some statistics. And as with many instances, you're not getting the whole picture as we told you you wouldn't, at least from the other side.

He stated in 1991, under the previous formula followed by the Highway Patrol, they had 2.7 fatalities, that was 1991 the year before the helmet law, 2.7 fatalities per one hundred motorcycle accidents. And what he said was the very next year it dropped significantly to, and he quoted this, to 2.38 fatalities. Yeah that's a significant drop, but what he didn't tell you was the very next year, 1993, the second year of the helmet law, the fatality rate was 2.84. Actually higher than what the rate was in 1991. And it goes on from there, we had those statistics.

But it's kind of interesting. If you look at those statistics, it certainly doesn't support the position of the Highway Patrol who does oppose this bill and so they did kind of change the numbers. What they did in their calculations, they threw into the equation into the calculations, and you'll see it in the reports, they consider now all accidents that damage only accidents. Of course if it's damage only accidents, we're not talking about accidents where you have an injury much less a fatality. And so you have all what he did, they increased the pool of statistics, but the fatalities remained the same. So there's a sudden drop. Well they didn't get away with it because we just apply apples to apples and oranges to oranges, we use those statistics, and you heard Mr. Osborn cite those. When you apply those statistics from 1991 to 1995 the only difference between the rate of fatality, under those statistics using the property damage issue, is less than one tenth of one percent. The law's had no effect.

Let me wrap up quickly with this. I mean you've heard the testimony of Shannon Laughy. She was a vivid example. She told you that in her belief that if she hadn't been wearing the helmet she wouldn't be disables. That is if she was not wearing a helmet she would not be disabled. You heard the circumstances of her.

You heard the circumstance of Mr. Steve Lambert with the spinal injury. And you also heard evidence today that indeed spinal injuries are more likely if you're wearing a helmet.

I mean, who can say? Who can really say if whether or not a person wears a helmet will make a difference? Whether or not the person will have a spinal injury? Whether or not the person will have a head injury. And who in this room would really want to make that decision for somebody else. Because even the experts can disagree on this, and you've heard.

Again, referring to my friend Stan Perez. In the Highway Patrol when he rides motorcycles. And I gotta tell you, and draw on your own experiences here too, I had many friends on the Highway Patrol, and I'm going to get my own cousin in trouble here, 15 years on the force. A motor officer who hates this damned helmet law and he wants this bill to pass. No, you won't see him up here for obvious reasons. You won't see other Highway Patrol officers who oppose the mandatory helmet law up here for obvious reasons. They are going against their employer on this, but they're out there.

Even the experts, the people that deal with this on a daily basis. They can disagree on that. That being the case, the Legislature should not be making this decision for them. That decision is best in the hands of those who will be riding that motorcycle and have to live with consequences of whether or not they wear a helmet, and with that, I ask for an any vote and thank you very much.

Senator Quentin Kopp: There is a question from Senator Polanco. I want to thank you very much for your presentation. Senator Polanco.

Senator Polanco: Yes, question to the author with reference to the issue of cost. The debate has been today with reference to cost and specifically the cost to taxpayers. Have you given any consideration, Senator Morrow, with reference to a mandatory catastrophic health coverage for those adults of the age of twenty-one so that that particular issue can be addressed?

Assemblyman Bill Morrow: Yes we have considered that and a number of other issues that have been proposed in the past. This is not a new issue. I can tell you that I would resist any efforts to include that as a solution because it is not a solution. I mean, to me that is certainly discriminatory. Why don't we require that of anyone else? Or in a motor vehicle?

You've heard much testimony here in terms of the motorcyclist, no it's not true that there are motorcyclists who are uninsured or under-insured than motor vehicle drivers. That's not the case.

That's a whole different problem that should be addressed by way of tort reform bills and other things in dealing with the issue. That's not an issue to be addressed in the helmet issue.

Senator Quentin Kopp: Senator Russell.

Senator Russell: Mr. Morrow, you are obviously opposed to being required to wear helmets, and all of your supporters were of the same belief. And I did not vote for Mr. Floyd's bill as he will remember, but I'm curious if it's a bad thing for all the various reasons, why do you require those under 21 to wear them.

Assemblyman Bill Morrow: Senator Russell let me . . . I'll be absolutely blunt with you. I don't believe there should be a limit of 21 years. I may consider 18 the normal age of majority. However, hey we're talking political expediency and realities here and frankly, particularly on the Assembly side, I happen to know that there are members there who would not support this bill unless we drew the line at 21. They felt that it should apply to a traditional age of majority, what we consider adults.

Senator Quentin Kopp: Okay, Senator Hayden.

Senator Hayden: Not to prolong it forever, but I didn't understand the ah . . . a question and a comment. I didn't quite understand the response that you made either to the CHP or to the witnesses who had done the academic studies as to injuries, fatalities and costs. What I thought I heard you say, Mr. Morrow, is who can say if wearing a helmet is protective against head injuries or not. I heard you say there are invisible members of the CHP who are not present who are really on your side, and I wondered if you could elaborate briefly on that and provide us with any affidavits or unsigned letters from these invisible members of the CHP.

Assemblyman Bill Morrow: Well, I'll do better than that. Your committee analysis references 700 letters by individuals in support of the bill.

Senator Hayden: Are those CHP members?

Assemblyman Bill Morrow: No, and don't get me wrong Senator Hayden, I'm not saying . . .

Senator Hayden: That's what I was asking about was whether or not you could put a number on the CHP . . . was it like three? Thirty?

Assemblyman Bill Morrow: Senator Hayden, I've given you my testimony here.

Senator Hayden: Well you claim to have this inside knowledge of the department, I want to know . . .

Assemblyman Bill Morrow: I'm not at all, and I don't mean to suggest that every single motor officer of the Highway Patrol would be in favor of this bill to repeal it. However, I will tell you from my personal experience, and I will call upon your own personal experience, if you may or may not have had this conversation with motor officers of the Highway Patrol. But I can tell you from my personal experience, first hand knowledge, yes many have related to me that they don't believe in the mandatory helmet law and wish that it would be repealed.

Senator Hayden: Do you think that more than a majority? Co you think that a majority of them feel your way?

Assemblyman Bill Morrow: I don't know and I would not comment on that, but I will tell you when Mr. Stan Perez, of course is a member of the Highway Patrol, and I believe . . . well I know he's a rider if not a motor officer in the past in his Highway Patrol career. I mean, he is representing himself as an expert and a member of the Highway Patrol. I can tell you from my first hand experience that other members of the Highway Patrol have certainly indicated to me that they oppose the mandatory helmet law.

Senator Hayden: Right, but in any large organization there's going to be some who oppose what the majority thinks. You're not arguing are you that large numbers of a majority of the Highway Patrol agree with your bill?

Assemblyman Bill Morrow: No. Look, I made those comments only to make a point and obviously to be taken at it's weight. I have only suggested two instances.

Senator Hayden: Now what about the . . . what's the rebuttal to scientific studies as to injuries, fatalities and costs?

Assemblyman Bill Morrow: I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand the question.

Senator Hayden: We have witnesses who summarize their studies. One member of the panel demanded to know is they'd been sent to our offices. I've read some of the material. Some is certainly in our offices. But what was the rebuttal? I just missed it.

Assemblyman Bill Morrow: Sure. I'm not sure I really referred to that in my closing, but I think Mr. Lax can answer your question.

Senator Hayden: Ah, then I didn't miss it. You responded to the CHP but you offered no rebuttal to witnesses who have . . .

Assemblyman Bill Morrow: Oh no. Not at all. What's a rebuttal?

Senator Hayden: Your rebuttal to their scientific . . . are you saying that those are not objective findings? Or what are you saying?

Assemblyman Bill Morrow: Oh, no, Senator Hayden. Our rebuttal is contained in our, forgive me for using a lawyer's terminology here, but in our case in chief. We've already given the evidence in our presentation with witnesses and in materials you have right in view.

Senator Hayden: And then they replied with their . . . so in close, you have nothing to say about those witnesses?

Assemblyman Bill Morrow: I've said all I intent to say on those witnesses.

Senator Hayden: Mr. Chairman, I just want to make a personal comment.

Senator Quentin Kopp: Senator Hayden, you're recognized.

Senator Hayden: I am uncomfortable being on the side of law and order against these free spirits. I really am, but I'll tell you why. Here's my problem, and I haven't seen any evidence to dissuade my gut feeling. When I was in college a close friend of mine had his head taken off when he slid in the rain under a truck riding a motorcycle. And I believe to this moment that he might have lived had he had a helmet. So I've always wondered, and needed, especially to see where the preponderance of evidence is. And it seemed to me today that the preponderance of evidence is still with my gut.

Assemblyman Bill Morrow: And I appreciate that Senator Hayden, but we certainly can bring in as much anecdotal evidence of people with testimonies. And we have given you one witnesses testimony, and I don't know if you were here, if you heard Shannon Laughy. If you heard her testimony. But that's not something that we can really or should get into. We should be looking at the scientific aspects of the statistics. But I think it's not a matter that should be entirely ignored either, and that's why you had Mr. Laughy here testifying here today.

Senator Hayden: That's why I asked you. Which anecdote does the evidence tend to support? And I still feel that the evidence tends to support that the law has saved lives and reduced injuries.

Assemblyman Bill Morrow: Well, let me throw one more anecdote into the equation. I for one, I indicated when I first opened here that I have ridden motorcycles for thirty years. Let me slip in one caveat, I haven't ridden my motorcycle since December 31, 1991. The day before the helmet law went into effect. In the thirty years that I had ridden previously, at least riding street motorcycles, I have never ever fallen on a motorcycle.

I have never had an accident except I will tell you one close call, and that close call was occasioned by a helmet that I was wearing where in traveling at 55 miles per hour, or I guess it was 65 miles per hour at the time, and turning into a left hand lane, which it was two lanes, actually four going both ways, I turned as I normally do and looked over my shoulder. A gust of wind caught my helmet and almost broke my neck, causing me not only to veer into the lane that I wanted to go into, but into oncoming traffic. And I missed a head-on collision by a matter of feet. That's one instance, a very instance, where an accident almost happened because of a helmet. I'll tell you that's absolutely rare, but that's just one thing that happened.

Senator Hayden: But if it's absolutely rare, doesn't that suggest that the evidence reinforces my anecdote rather than yours?

Assemblyman Bill Morrow: Not at all.

Senator Quentin Kopp: Alright, the matter is in the hands of the Committee. Mr. Morrow has closed. What's the pleasure of the Committee? I think the bill is with the Committee Mr. Morrow.

Epilogue | Back to Speaker's List