In the years since 1989 when I became active in motorcyclist's rights, I've met many dedicated people who are passionate about repealing helmet laws. Some have stronger feelings than others. But, the core of active SMRO (State Motorcyclist Rights Organization) members all seem to be very opposed to helmet laws. Bill Gannon is at the top of the list. I don't know anyone more passionate about helmet laws, or more dedicated to getting them repealed.
It was the helmet law that lit my fire too. I have never enjoyed wearing a helmet and would frequently plan trips to NH and Maine for the opportunity to ride free. When a high school friend of mine showed me some statistics that indicated the passage of helmet laws was more effective at reducing ridership than helmet use was at reducing fatalities, I was flabbergasted.
It amazes me that so many motorcyclists are convinced by the misleading and exaggerated claims of the insurance companies. There are so many facets of the helmet controversy. Helmet use versus helmet laws, head injuries versus neck injuries, accident statistics versus ridership, tourist trade versus social burden... Etc., Etc. I've talked to many riders over the years and have discovered that their opinions about helmet use and the helmet law vary widely. Aside from those of us who hate the helmet law and enjoy riding free, there are those who feel the law is unfair, but would wear their helmets anyway. Then there are those who feel strongly that mandatory helmet laws are necessary to keep suicidal riders from killing themselves.
One of the first things I learned about lobbying for legislation, is you must have a large membership to be effective. The more members (potential voters) you represent, the more likely it will be that the legislators will listen to your position. A few years ago, the board of directors of "The Modified Motorcycle Association" (MMA) recognized this and worked on a strategy to increase membership. Feedback from motorcyclists indicated that their impression of the MMA was that of a bunch of radical Harley riders who just want to repeal the helmet law. So, it was decided to emphasize less controversial issues and try to change the MMA image to one that reflects the majority of riders interests. We put the helmet law repeal on the back burner; focused on safety programs, and inspection regulations, and insurance issues, and charity events, to attract more members.
Not all of the hard core members agreed with this approach. Some even
sought to discredit the leaders of this initiative and undermine their efforts.
For more information about the MMA activities at that time and discussion from
MMA members, read these two letters to the editor and my response to them.
These were published in "The MMA Update" in November and December 1994.
(click here ->> http://Home.ATTBI.com/~AndyTheAndroid/MMAletters.HTML
)
I believe the MMA should shift priorities occasionally. Our opponents do, and it's important to counter their efforts. But, it's also important not to abandon our other efforts. With multiple priorities, we're more likely to have the support of a variety of riders. Anytime we abandon an effort, we stand to lose members who feel that particular issue is important to them.
It was once suggested that we discontinue any charity event unless the recipient organization publicly endorse our helmet law repeal effort. Charity events improve our public image, are fun for riders to attend, and it's just the right thing to do. Why would anyone think we should impose such an ultimatum?
I admire Paul Cote's efforts to increase MMA membership. His initiatives like the circus charity event go a long way towards dispelling the MMA reputation of just being a helmet law repeal organization. Providing additional benefits like insurance discounts to attract new members is also a good goal. I only spoke out against that effort because of our previous experience with losing members over privacy concerns. I understand and appreciate how much effort goes into running an organization like the MMA.
It's appropriate to have board members with differing priorities. After all, the motorcyclists we're supposed to represent certainly do.