Missouri Helmet Law Repeal?

April 28, 2008

Missouri Helmet Law Repeal?

I meant to write about this a few weeks ago when I first heard about it. Earlier this month, a Senate panel endorsed a bill to repeal Missouri’s mandatory helmet law.

This is one of those examples of a law designed to “protect Missourians from themselves.” Would I ride a motorcycle without a helmet? Absolutely not, are you crazy? But should I be allowed to? Yes.

Opponents argue that the law’s repeal will result in more highway deaths, possibly increasing taxpayer-funded health care costs and driving up insurance premiums.

I used to hold that insurance belief as well, until I looked into the evidence a little more. From what I’ve read, there is only weak evidence that seat belt and helmet laws decrease highway fatalities, and mixed evidence that safety device laws actually cause more erratic driving (potentially offsetting the decrease in premium costs).

The insurance argument is evoked a lot, and several state supreme courts have upheld the argument. To the best of my knowledge, however, there is no empirical connection between helmet laws and insurance premiums absent some circumstantial studies about long-term effects. I would also argue that the numbers most often cited are one-sided, focused on the cost of helmet repeal alone. They don’t address the cost borne by society for enforcement and installation of “mandated safety devices” — such as airbags, etc. — that taxpayers and individuals incur already (think of all those seatbelt law commercials and the amount of time police officers are forced to spend enforcing such laws rather than, say, preventing violent crimes).

So I could go either way on this. If the law does in fact lower taxpayer costs, then I might find it justified. I tend to believe, however, that the law’s primary intent is simply to “protect us from ourselves.”

« Read Previous Entry Read Next Entry »

29 Comments »

I am looking for information on Missouri Mandatory Helmet Law. Was this law repealed in 2008? I heard a rumor that the repeal of this law took place on August 24, 2008. Can you confirm this?

Comment by Mike Talley — August 25, 2008 @ 12:48 p.m.
Mike,
I don’t believe the law was passed. Here is the bill tracking link: http://www.senate.mo.gov/08info/BTS_Web/Bill.aspx?SessionType=R&BillID=68070
I don’t see the magic words, “Truly Agreed To and Finally Passed.”

Comment by David Stokes — August 26, 2008 @ 4:27 p.m.
The helmet law is still in effect. Several Democrat Senators wanting to add silly ammendments stopped it this year. Main Senator involved was Chuck Graham from Columbia, MO area. Remember him from the DUI he got after an accident he caused and refused any test. Cops got a warrant and proved he was over limit. His lawyer moved the case to Fulton and he paid a fine and is still driving. Isn’t it normally a suspension of driving?? And he’s still a Senator in Missouri up for re-election. Maybe informed people should vote him OUT.
How bout a bill that would require all DUI to wear helmets??

Comment by Tony ABATE for Missouri — September 6, 2008 @ 12:50 p.m.
The state of PA just published a study that the accident rate had actually gone DOWN since the repeal of the helmet law there. Maybe we should try that same thing in Missouri. Most of the fiction of mandatory helmets has been brought on by the Insurance Companies anyway. Let’s stop the fiction and bring on the facts. Instead of mandatory helmets, let’s get more rider education. And on top of that, put driver education back in the schools.

One last comment before getting off my soapbox. Seatbelts, airbags and helmets give the driver and rider a false sense of security. It takes more than that to keep us safe on the roads. Education is the key. As Justin pointed out, the laws are passed to “save us from ourselves”. Well I say they need to give it a rest.

Comment by Peachy — September 6, 2008 @ 1:12 p.m.
I agree that all those charged with DUI should wear helmets. But addition, I think everyone should wear their helmets. It’s mandatory in California and it has saved lives. It doesn’t make the guys in leather jackets look less cool, IMHO.

Comment by dui — September 23, 2008 @ 12:00 p.m.
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration there about 43,000 people killed in car accidents each year. Of those it is estimated that a minimum 21% die from head trauma. That means over 9,000 people die each year in auto accidents from head injury. Many times that have severe head injuries that partialy or severly disable them. In 2001 there were 3,181 motorcyclist deaths. 58 percent were wearing helmets. So 42% were not. Or 1336. So 7 times the number of motorcycles killed were killed in auto accidents as a result of a head injury. So the argument could easily be made that thousands of lives could be saved if automobile drivers were required to wear helmets. Why is there no push for mandatory helmets on all auto drivers? And by the way: In 1999: 14,986 people died from falls. Ladders, porches, roofs, in the shower etc.9,510 people died from accidental poisoning3,488 people died from drowning These just don’t make the news!

Comment by mark — January 23, 2009 @ 9:51 a.m.
I thought this was America the free.

look at the tobacco industry. it has been proven that tobacco kilss. and in that proof the Goverment and citizens have sued the heck out of the tobacco industry but YET they STILL let them sell Tobacco….? its a proven killer but is still illegal.
If this isnt hipocrycy then what is….your average typical Polotition… Not for the will of the people but for whatever they want or pays the most or gets them back in office. Where has the character of our country gone to…? Where are those that will stand up for whats right and whats fair and for what the will of the people is…? America is a disgrace, and yes if there was another free land I woudl go there. but there aint so now all I can do is speak up for Old Glory and aginst all that is against it,our once great country the United State Of America.

Comment by mark — January 23, 2009 @ 9:58 a.m.
I feel that it is the person who is riding the motorcycles decision. Maybe there should an age requirement. I vote yes to repeal the helment law.

Comment by russell middleton — March 11, 2009 @ 12:56 p.m.
Does govenor jay nixon support the helmet law repeal?

Comment by mark g — March 12, 2009 @ 7:22 a.m.
Maybe it should be the motorcyclists decision, I don’t know?

I ride all year long, not just during the summer months, and I always wear my full face helmet plus a protective one-piece suit, it’s known as ATGATT (all the gear all the time).

But if they repeal the helmet law does that mean they should repeal the seat belt law also? Then what about child safety seats? Shouldn’t it be their choice?

As soon as it’s repealed they’ll probably be more people riding without a helmet. If you actually ride a motorcycle and don’t wear a helmet you’re probably not going to be wearing any other protective gear either. Think about what happens when you come off of that bike, without wearing the proper gear you’d likely to be severely injured. Then what..

Comment by Tony — March 13, 2009 @ 12:19 p.m.
As a rider and an adult I would just like to choose whether or not to wear headgear. to be honest the helmet I use now is a novelty and not at all dot certified and furthermore I don’t have any friends who use approved headgear. the good Lord gives us freewill the state takes it away!

Comment by Shane Ryerson — March 20, 2009 @ 12:12 a.m.
If a third of the people that ride motorcycles wear novelty helmets, then no wonder there’s not good statistics that show more deaths after helmet laws are repealed.
On the other hand, adults should have the choice, since it doesn’t affect anyone but themselves if they die from a head injury.
Seat belts are a different matter. If 2 people are in a car and one doesn’t wear a helmet, then there’s a good chance that person will collide into the other person if there’s an accident.

Comment by Randy — April 4, 2009 @ 6:42 p.m.
It is too bad Justin is no longer with SMI, so he is unable to enjoy seeing his post slowly, but surely, become our most commented-on post ever. As an old-timer might say, that kid could blog…

Comment by David Stokes — April 6, 2009 @ 11:51 a.m.
Missouri does not have a helmet law as written. They have a protective headgear law which is a joke. Think about it. What does it mean? Can I wear a sweat band as protective headgear? No where does it say wear a helmet. It’s a political issue to fight over and gain votes. Just like abortion. Nothing will change.

Comment by Rich — April 14, 2009 @ 9:02 p.m.
Check out Missouri SB202. It deals with insurance and the protective headgear on motorcycles. It’s passed the Senate and is now in the House Rules committee. It will allow riders choice of helmet use except on the Interstate system. 5 year sunset clause. $25 fine if not wearing on Interstate. Any comments on this???

Comment by Tony Shepherd — April 19, 2009 @ 9:37 a.m.
Check out the events page on the web site for abateformissouri.
We have a ride to Jeff City Capitol on Saturday April 25. This is not a protest but a ride for motorcycle rights.
Thanks,
tony

Comment by Tony Shepherd — April 19, 2009 @ 9:46 a.m.
Money makes the world go round? Well maybe not the world but certianly the Missouri Legislators. Show them how it would benefit them to cut out helmets. It is easy to get a list of Legislators, write to them. Tell them you intend to vote against them if they do not repeal the helmet law. Truth is, I wear a helmet. But it is my choice. It should not be the law.

Comment by Robert Budach — April 20, 2009 @ 3:56 p.m.
This law was “repealed” by the state senate yesterday ( 4/29/09) but it has to accepted by our Gov. Jay Nixon.

Comment by r. l. — April 30, 2009 @ 1:40 p.m.
I am 71 years old and had motor cycles every since I was kid and rode a lot of miles and never felt I needeed someone who has not ever rode a cycle at all ,tell me I have to wear helmet.I hope that gov. Nixon repeals the law.

Comment by larry mcbrien — May 1, 2009 @ 12:07 p.m.
I am a Cop that rides a Harley. Have rode bikes since age 6. I think it should be a choice of the rider but propose the following.
Have a endorsement and disclaimer added to your drivers license that states that if the driver signs the form they can choose not to wear a helmet but if they are an accident victim and suffer a head injury that they waive the right of disability claims arising as the result of the head injury.
this way the people have their rights,if they want it that way and the healthcare and insurance industry isnt burdened.
the endorsement would be added to your d.l. and you could purchase a different color license plate that would let the cops know you are a legally licensed non helmet wearer.
I think the 21 year old deal makes about as much sense as making legal drinking age 21 while you can fight in iraq and die at 18 ?.
Just my two cents.
I think Passengers under 18 should be required to wear on though just to protect the Kiddies.

Comment by shannon caldwell — May 10, 2009 @ 12:08 a.m.
If the governor does not sign the bill (stating he will take no stand) does it become law or is it dead. In other workds, does he have to sign or veto it.

Comment by Tom Kurth — May 15, 2009 @ 10:37 a.m.
Does the new repeal bill say that kids under 11 can not ride. My kids have been riding since i got my bike. they wear full face helmets and riding gear when we ride. I was told that if the bill passes they cant ride until they are 11.

Thanks john

Comment by john collins — May 20, 2009 @ 5:05 p.m.
HELMETS OBSCURE hearing and sight. There are circumstances where a helmet is NOT a good idea. I have a quiet motorcycle. Without a helmet, at low and moderate speeds, I hear children playing, dogs barking, and traffic APPROACHING from behind in my lane or next lane. You respond to traffic more effectively when you can see and hear. If you do not actually ride a motorcycle, you don’t know this.

An extra dollar on my insurance premium is worth having my sight and hearing unobscured(PLEASE-be realistic about the “risk” argument for pete’s sake!!)

As far as more organ donor comments or those that like to quote fatality statistics… it is called Natural Selection! REMEMBER, liberal gun laws do more to threaten me than riding without a helmet !!!

You wear a helmet if you want to (IF you even ride!!!), but do not presume to instruct me on motorcycle safety, or force me to subscribe to your choice to wear a helmet.

Comment by Andrew — May 21, 2009 @ 10:20 a.m.
just got back from a 1000 mile loop through mo.,ark. and oklahoma.

have to admit that those helmetless days were much more enjoyable without the turbulance in my ears caused by my helmet catching wind or the strap rubbing my throat raw every time an 18 wheeler blasted past me.

Comment by shannon caldwell — May 24, 2009 @ 12:36 p.m.
i’ve been riding motorcycles all my life. and i have to agree. Being able to hear and see better are advantages. however the law wont state that you cant wear a helmet, so i feel that it should be able to make a choose if you want to wear one or not. and not the state telling you that you have to wear one. they arent on the bike with you. and for everyone who doesnt ride a motorcycle, if you are that afraid that it will raise your taxes and what not, BE MORE OBSERVANT!!! WATCH FOR MOTORCYCLES!!!we know the risks of getting on the motorcycle everytime that we throw our leg over that seat.

i dont know maybe they could make it so that if you dont have so many years of riding under your belt, that you have to wear a helmet. look at what they did to the driving license’s (F class). just a thought, besides if your just learning to ride or have less then a year under your belt, you need to wear a helmet anyway. your not totally familiar with riding, and theres still alot of miles to ride before you are.

Comment by Brian — June 8, 2009 @ 5:30 p.m.
I guess I am not that up on the process of government, but I have to ask… Why do we have “the people”, the reps, and all under the Governor and the President, making decisions and voting one way if one man can change it at the end. Doesn’t make sense to me . Why bother in the first place if one can decide for all. Why waste time, just ask him to decide and leave what the people want out of it. Isn’t that how we did it before Democracy?

Comment by Dillard Medlock — July 13, 2009 @ 6:09 p.m.
Helmets still required, maybe next year….

02 Jul 2009 | 06:33 PM ET
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. – Gov. Jay Nixon vetoed legislation Thursday that would have relaxed a law that requires motorcyclists in Missouri to wear helmets at all times, citing concerns about highway safety and health care costs

Comment by Pete — August 11, 2009 @ 10:33 p.m.
I guess we just continue by passing the show me state on all our rides east, until we have the to decide. ride on and be safe, weather you wear a helmet or not.

Comment by king — August 29, 2009 @ 8:33 p.m.
the law says i have to wear protective headgear?does it say that i have to wear it on my head?or can i strap a helmet to my leg?

Comment by mike zwally — June 7, 2010 @ 5:10 p.m.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Categories

I am looking for information on Missouri Mandatory Helmet Law. Was this law repealed in 2008? I heard a rumor that the repeal of this law took place on August 24, 2008. Can you confirm this?

Comment by Mike Talley — August 25, 2008 @ 12:48 p.m.

Mike,
I don’t believe the law was passed. Here is the bill tracking link: http://www.senate.mo.gov/08info/BTS_Web/Bill.aspx?SessionType=R&BillID=68070
I don’t see the magic words, “Truly Agreed To and Finally Passed.”

Comment by David Stokes — August 26, 2008 @ 4:27 p.m.

The helmet law is still in effect. Several Democrat Senators wanting to add silly ammendments stopped it this year. Main Senator involved was Chuck Graham from Columbia, MO area. Remember him from the DUI he got after an accident he caused and refused any test. Cops got a warrant and proved he was over limit. His lawyer moved the case to Fulton and he paid a fine and is still driving. Isn’t it normally a suspension of driving?? And he’s still a Senator in Missouri up for re-election. Maybe informed people should vote him OUT.
How bout a bill that would require all DUI to wear helmets??

Comment by Tony ABATE for Missouri — September 6, 2008 @ 12:50 p.m.

The state of PA just published a study that the accident rate had actually gone DOWN since the repeal of the helmet law there. Maybe we should try that same thing in Missouri. Most of the fiction of mandatory helmets has been brought on by the Insurance Companies anyway. Let’s stop the fiction and bring on the facts. Instead of mandatory helmets, let’s get more rider education. And on top of that, put driver education back in the schools.

One last comment before getting off my soapbox. Seatbelts, airbags and helmets give the driver and rider a false sense of security. It takes more than that to keep us safe on the roads. Education is the key. As Justin pointed out, the laws are passed to “save us from ourselves”. Well I say they need to give it a rest.

Comment by Peachy — September 6, 2008 @ 1:12 p.m.

I agree that all those charged with DUI should wear helmets. But addition, I think everyone should wear their helmets. It’s mandatory in California and it has saved lives. It doesn’t make the guys in leather jackets look less cool, IMHO.

Comment by dui — September 23, 2008 @ 12:00 p.m.

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration there about 43,000 people killed in car accidents each year. Of those it is estimated that a minimum 21% die from head trauma. That means over 9,000 people die each year in auto accidents from head injury. Many times that have severe head injuries that partialy or severly disable them. In 2001 there were 3,181 motorcyclist deaths. 58 percent were wearing helmets. So 42% were not. Or 1336. So 7 times the number of motorcycles killed were killed in auto accidents as a result of a head injury. So the argument could easily be made that thousands of lives could be saved if automobile drivers were required to wear helmets. Why is there no push for mandatory helmets on all auto drivers? And by the way: In 1999: 14,986 people died from falls. Ladders, porches, roofs, in the shower etc.9,510 people died from accidental poisoning3,488 people died from drowning These just don’t make the news!

Comment by mark — January 23, 2009 @ 9:51 a.m.

I thought this was America the free.

look at the tobacco industry. it has been proven that tobacco kilss. and in that proof the Goverment and citizens have sued the heck out of the tobacco industry but YET they STILL let them sell Tobacco….? its a proven killer but is still illegal.
If this isnt hipocrycy then what is….your average typical Polotition… Not for the will of the people but for whatever they want or pays the most or gets them back in office. Where has the character of our country gone to…? Where are those that will stand up for whats right and whats fair and for what the will of the people is…? America is a disgrace, and yes if there was another free land I woudl go there. but there aint so now all I can do is speak up for Old Glory and aginst all that is against it,our once great country the United State Of America.

Comment by mark — January 23, 2009 @ 9:58 a.m.

I feel that it is the person who is riding the motorcycles decision. Maybe there should an age requirement. I vote yes to repeal the helment law.

Comment by russell middleton — March 11, 2009 @ 12:56 p.m.

Does govenor jay nixon support the helmet law repeal?

Comment by mark g — March 12, 2009 @ 7:22 a.m.

Maybe it should be the motorcyclists decision, I don’t know?

I ride all year long, not just during the summer months, and I always wear my full face helmet plus a protective one-piece suit, it’s known as ATGATT (all the gear all the time).

But if they repeal the helmet law does that mean they should repeal the seat belt law also? Then what about child safety seats? Shouldn’t it be their choice?

As soon as it’s repealed they’ll probably be more people riding without a helmet. If you actually ride a motorcycle and don’t wear a helmet you’re probably not going to be wearing any other protective gear either. Think about what happens when you come off of that bike, without wearing the proper gear you’d likely to be severely injured. Then what..

Comment by Tony — March 13, 2009 @ 12:19 p.m.

As a rider and an adult I would just like to choose whether or not to wear headgear. to be honest the helmet I use now is a novelty and not at all dot certified and furthermore I don’t have any friends who use approved headgear. the good Lord gives us freewill the state takes it away!

Comment by Shane Ryerson — March 20, 2009 @ 12:12 a.m.

If a third of the people that ride motorcycles wear novelty helmets, then no wonder there’s not good statistics that show more deaths after helmet laws are repealed.
On the other hand, adults should have the choice, since it doesn’t affect anyone but themselves if they die from a head injury.
Seat belts are a different matter. If 2 people are in a car and one doesn’t wear a helmet, then there’s a good chance that person will collide into the other person if there’s an accident.

Comment by Randy — April 4, 2009 @ 6:42 p.m.

It is too bad Justin is no longer with SMI, so he is unable to enjoy seeing his post slowly, but surely, become our most commented-on post ever. As an old-timer might say, that kid could blog…

Comment by David Stokes — April 6, 2009 @ 11:51 a.m.

Missouri does not have a helmet law as written. They have a protective headgear law which is a joke. Think about it. What does it mean? Can I wear a sweat band as protective headgear? No where does it say wear a helmet. It’s a political issue to fight over and gain votes. Just like abortion. Nothing will change.

Comment by Rich — April 14, 2009 @ 9:02 p.m.

Check out Missouri SB202. It deals with insurance and the protective headgear on motorcycles. It’s passed the Senate and is now in the House Rules committee. It will allow riders choice of helmet use except on the Interstate system. 5 year sunset clause. $25 fine if not wearing on Interstate. Any comments on this???

Comment by Tony Shepherd — April 19, 2009 @ 9:37 a.m.

Check out the events page on the web site for abateformissouri.
We have a ride to Jeff City Capitol on Saturday April 25. This is not a protest but a ride for motorcycle rights.
Thanks,
tony

Comment by Tony Shepherd — April 19, 2009 @ 9:46 a.m.

Money makes the world go round? Well maybe not the world but certianly the Missouri Legislators. Show them how it would benefit them to cut out helmets. It is easy to get a list of Legislators, write to them. Tell them you intend to vote against them if they do not repeal the helmet law. Truth is, I wear a helmet. But it is my choice. It should not be the law.

Comment by Robert Budach — April 20, 2009 @ 3:56 p.m.

This law was “repealed” by the state senate yesterday ( 4/29/09) but it has to accepted by our Gov. Jay Nixon.

Comment by r. l. — April 30, 2009 @ 1:40 p.m.

I am 71 years old and had motor cycles every since I was kid and rode a lot of miles and never felt I needeed someone who has not ever rode a cycle at all ,tell me I have to wear helmet.I hope that gov. Nixon repeals the law.

Comment by larry mcbrien — May 1, 2009 @ 12:07 p.m.

I am a Cop that rides a Harley. Have rode bikes since age 6. I think it should be a choice of the rider but propose the following.
Have a endorsement and disclaimer added to your drivers license that states that if the driver signs the form they can choose not to wear a helmet but if they are an accident victim and suffer a head injury that they waive the right of disability claims arising as the result of the head injury.
this way the people have their rights,if they want it that way and the healthcare and insurance industry isnt burdened.
the endorsement would be added to your d.l. and you could purchase a different color license plate that would let the cops know you are a legally licensed non helmet wearer.
I think the 21 year old deal makes about as much sense as making legal drinking age 21 while you can fight in iraq and die at 18 ?.
Just my two cents.
I think Passengers under 18 should be required to wear on though just to protect the Kiddies.

Comment by shannon caldwell — May 10, 2009 @ 12:08 a.m.

If the governor does not sign the bill (stating he will take no stand) does it become law or is it dead. In other workds, does he have to sign or veto it.

Comment by Tom Kurth — May 15, 2009 @ 10:37 a.m.

Does the new repeal bill say that kids under 11 can not ride. My kids have been riding since i got my bike. they wear full face helmets and riding gear when we ride. I was told that if the bill passes they cant ride until they are 11.

Thanks john

Comment by john collins — May 20, 2009 @ 5:05 p.m.

HELMETS OBSCURE hearing and sight. There are circumstances where a helmet is NOT a good idea. I have a quiet motorcycle. Without a helmet, at low and moderate speeds, I hear children playing, dogs barking, and traffic APPROACHING from behind in my lane or next lane. You respond to traffic more effectively when you can see and hear. If you do not actually ride a motorcycle, you don’t know this.

An extra dollar on my insurance premium is worth having my sight and hearing unobscured(PLEASE-be realistic about the “risk” argument for pete’s sake!!)

As far as more organ donor comments or those that like to quote fatality statistics… it is called Natural Selection! REMEMBER, liberal gun laws do more to threaten me than riding without a helmet !!!

You wear a helmet if you want to (IF you even ride!!!), but do not presume to instruct me on motorcycle safety, or force me to subscribe to your choice to wear a helmet.

Comment by Andrew — May 21, 2009 @ 10:20 a.m.

just got back from a 1000 mile loop through mo.,ark. and oklahoma.

have to admit that those helmetless days were much more enjoyable without the turbulance in my ears caused by my helmet catching wind or the strap rubbing my throat raw every time an 18 wheeler blasted past me.

Comment by shannon caldwell — May 24, 2009 @ 12:36 p.m.

i’ve been riding motorcycles all my life. and i have to agree. Being able to hear and see better are advantages. however the law wont state that you cant wear a helmet, so i feel that it should be able to make a choose if you want to wear one or not. and not the state telling you that you have to wear one. they arent on the bike with you. and for everyone who doesnt ride a motorcycle, if you are that afraid that it will raise your taxes and what not, BE MORE OBSERVANT!!! WATCH FOR MOTORCYCLES!!!we know the risks of getting on the motorcycle everytime that we throw our leg over that seat.

i dont know maybe they could make it so that if you dont have so many years of riding under your belt, that you have to wear a helmet. look at what they did to the driving license’s (F class). just a thought, besides if your just learning to ride or have less then a year under your belt, you need to wear a helmet anyway. your not totally familiar with riding, and theres still alot of miles to ride before you are.

Comment by Brian — June 8, 2009 @ 5:30 p.m.

I guess I am not that up on the process of government, but I have to ask… Why do we have “the people”, the reps, and all under the Governor and the President, making decisions and voting one way if one man can change it at the end. Doesn’t make sense to me . Why bother in the first place if one can decide for all. Why waste time, just ask him to decide and leave what the people want out of it. Isn’t that how we did it before Democracy?

Comment by Dillard Medlock — July 13, 2009 @ 6:09 p.m.

Helmets still required, maybe next year….

02 Jul 2009 | 06:33 PM ET
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. – Gov. Jay Nixon vetoed legislation Thursday that would have relaxed a law that requires motorcyclists in Missouri to wear helmets at all times, citing concerns about highway safety and health care costs

Comment by Pete — August 11, 2009 @ 10:33 p.m.

I guess we just continue by passing the show me state on all our rides east, until we have the to decide. ride on and be safe, weather you wear a helmet or not.

Comment by king — August 29, 2009 @ 8:33 p.m.

the law says i have to wear protective headgear?does it say that i have to wear it on my head?or can i strap a helmet to my leg?

Comment by mike zwally — June 7, 2010 @ 5:10 p.m.

April 28, 2008