To my elected NC representatives: Please introduce this legislation.

OFF THE WIRE
Sent by Jan
To: NC House District 40 Representative Marilyn Avila


To: NC Senate District 15 Senator Neal Hunt

bcc: various people in the NC and US motorcycling community
To my elected representatives in the NC General Assembly, Rep. Marilyn Avila and Sen. Neal Hunt

Please introduce the following legislation.
§ 20‑140.4. Repealed by Session Laws 2011 -____, effective July 4, 2011..

That is the full text of the legislative proposal. Of course, you might need to title it. I suggest "An Act to Allow Voluntary Motorcycle Helmet Use", with a short title of "Voluntary Motorcycle Helmet Use".

Note: Regarding section (1), it is redundant. Overcrowded vehicles are already covered by § 20‑140.2. Overloaded or overcrowded vehicle.

As an individual who believes in telling my elected representatives what I want, this is what I want, in the simplest form possible. As my representatives in the General Assembly, please introduce both a House and Senate version of this legislative proposal, and allow the General Assembly to vote on it, as is. I ask for no compromises to be added, as no lengthy legislation is required. If you introduce the legislation, please contact me with the bill number and you can then leave it up to the motorcycling community to lobby their representatives across the state to sign on as sponsors. We will get out the word to the motorcycling community and they can call on their representatives to support the bill. While some states allow the general public to introduce bills for consideration, North Carolina requires all legislative proposals to be introduced by members of the General Assembly, so that is what I ask of you, with all due respect, as my elected representatives,

Pro Argument

The right of an individual to make important decisions for himself/herself.

The State is overbearing and goes beyond important constructs of liberty when it criminalizes people who do no harm to others.

It is an important decisionMandating motorcycle helmets to be worn on ones head is not a proper role of government. This would leave the decision to wear a motorcycle helmet up to the individual. The individual, who has already proven to know the rules of the road, and has already reached an age of maturity to understand that motorcycling can be dangerous, is the appropriate "level of government" for these decisions to be made at. It would leave it up to the helmet industry to use their money to promote motorcycle helmet usage rather than continuing to use a "better marketing by legislative mandates" approach.

Con Argument

Those opposed to this legislation will undoubtedly say "helmets save lives".
Countering the Con Argument:

So do life preservers, but that does not mean that every time a person goes near a puddle of water they must wear them lest they be criminalized. There comes a point when government becomes overbearing, and mandatory helmet laws rather than allowing individual choice is overbearing. Mandatory helmet law proponents greatly exaggerate the effectiveness of helmets and mandatory helmet laws, relying on cherry-picked data to promote their propaganda. Individuals should be allowed to make responsible decisions. If the helmet industry believes in their product, they can promote their product, and stand behind their product. Then, maybe, we might see innovative improvements come from inventions in the free market.

Thank you,
Respectfully,
Janice MacKay

NC House 40

NC Senate 15
Current text of General Statute 20-140.4 is as follows:
§ 20‑140.4. Special provisions for motorcycles and mopeds.

(a) No person shall operate a motorcycle or moped upon a highway or public vehicular area:

(1) When the number of persons upon such motorcycle or moped, including the operator, shall exceed the number of persons which it was designed to carry.

(2) Unless the operator and all passengers thereon wear on their heads, with a retention strap properly secured, safety helmets of a type that complies with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 218.

(b) Violation of any provision of this section shall not be considered negligence per se or contributory negligence per se in any civil action.

(c) Any person convicted of violating this section shall have committed an infraction and shall pay a penalty of twenty‑five dollars and fifty cents ($25.50) plus the following court costs: the General Court of Justice fee provided for in G.S. 7A‑304(a)(4), the telephone facilities fee provided for in G.S. 7A‑304(a)(2a), and the law enforcement training and certification fee provided for in G.S. 7A‑304(a)(3b). Conviction of an infraction under this section has no other consequence.

(d) No drivers license points or insurance surcharge shall be assessed on account of violation of this section. (1973, c. 1330, s. 6; 1989, c. 711, s. 1; 2007‑360, s. 7; 2009‑451, s. 15.20(k).)