The requirement for motorcyclists to wear helmets was introduced in the early 70's when an estimated 90% of motorcyclists where wearing helmets voluntarily. No study or reassessment of this initially experimental law has been made despite the fact that no benefit whatsoever is apparent from road accident statistics.
MAG's anti compulsion stance rests on three principle foundations.
1. The law was unnecessary since voluntary usage was almost completely universal.
2. To force people to take precautions for their own safety, when the neglect to do so poses no threat whatsoever to others, is incompatible with the spirit of a free society.
3. It is hypocritical for a government to victimise motorcyclists in this way when others whose indulgences indisputably represent a far bigger public burden are permitted free choice.
The ability of the government to force helmet compulsion on motorcyclists, when smokers and the obese for example are permitted unlimited license to indulge their injurious behaviour, owes everything to political feasibility and nothing to justice.
The crash helmets currently used by motorcyclists were originally designed for use in cars and with head injuries as the leading cause of death in car accidents anyone accepting the legislation which requires crash helmets for motorcyclists should also request it for the occupants of cars.
The supporters of this legislation refuse to recognise the limitation of helmets to save life and the negative aspects of helmet use which can increase the chances of accidents occurring and even aggravate the injuries under certain circumstances.
Many motorcyclists declare their enthusiasm for helmets on the grounds that they feel safer in them. FEELING safe is the most dangerous sensation any road user can experience. MAG are convinced that risk compensation is a real phenomenon, illustrated by less careful behaviour on the part of those who feel secure, e.g. the Swedish insurance companies identified a high incidence of skidding accidents involving cars fitted with ABS (anti lock brakes).
Peripheral vision and hearing are adversely affected by helmets while the extra weight they burden the neck with can cause spinal fracture even if the head does not strike anything. The ACU (sport governing body), banned the use of full face helmets for those below the age of 18 on the grounds that below this age the neck has not developed its full strength.
It would seem that there are pros and cons to helmet wearing which render the issue something of a lottery. What MAG object to is being forced to take a part in that lottery.
While MAG recognise that although in the majority of situations helmets can limit injury we insist that the 'flip side of the coin' is not respected by those who support this legislation.
After years of campaigning by American motorcyclists the US Govt. has finally decided to abandon its Federal legislation in this area and leave the decision to individual states, many of whom have repealed or reformed existing laws. On average 'free' states enjoy better safety records than those with helmet laws.
Were motorcycle helmet usage to become voluntary MAG would support their use and information programs.
Adult citizens who drive motorcycles should naturally be permitted to make choices which affect only their own safety. The helmet law as it stands is an unjustified, disgraceful and unsustainable burden on a minority in a free society.
While MAG is opposed to compulsion, we recognise the political impropriety associated with total repeal which inhibits many TDs from supporting us on this issue. MAG would welcome a reassessment of the helmet law accompanied by a reform of helmet compulsion to permit free choice to qualified riders or those over a certain age or experience level.
15.1 Introduction
The Motorcycle Action Group's aim is to promote and protect motorcycling. The
high cost of insurance and the limited options available in Ireland have a negative
effect on motorcycling.
The entry into the market of a second insurer in December 1997 was mainly due to the effort put in by MAG to present the case for Irish motorcyclists. The cover on offer effectively answers most of our previous policy aims.
Unfortunately this cover only applies to older riders. The following aims are therefore unfulfilled for the full under 25 age group.
15.2 Aims
15.2.1 Wider assessment of the rider
MAG would like to see a wider assessment of the rider used in determining premiums.
The only criteria currently used by the principal insurer are:
· Capacity of motorcycle
· Age of rider
· Area of country (Dublin, near Dublin or far away from Dublin)
· Loadings for motorcycle couriers and endorsable traffic offences
· Licence type: Full or provisional
There is no evidence that the motorcycle capacity is an indicator of accident risk (which is the only insurable risk for larger bikes). The rider's age and address taken in isolation only offer crude details on which to assess the risk.
What is notably
missing from the criteria used are:
· Holding of a full licence as opposed to provisional
· Having taken a recognised motorcyclist training course
· The number of years the customer has been riding a motorcycle
· Any assessment of the motorcycle's characteristics beyond the crude
measure of engine capacity.
There are popular bikes under 250cc with greater top speed and acceleration
than some of the popular bikes over 750cc. Given the sophistication of the motorcycle
classification system used in the UK by the principal insurer of motorcycles
in Ireland much of the cost of introducing a similar system here has been covered.
15.2.2 Fire &
Theft Cover
Policies covering fire and theft are not available for motorcycles over 350cc.
The current relationship between motorcycle capacity and retail cost does not
support this type of differentiation. Roughly speaking the retail cost of many
motorcycles under 350cc is equal to or greater than the replacement value of
many motorcycles over five years old regardless of capacity. A much more equitable
approach would be to only insure up to a certain value.
Motorcycle theft at 431 bikes stolen in 1992 is not near as high as the English
theft rate. Given that 371 of the cases occurred in Dublin many people would
like to have the option of obtaining theft cover. Outside Dublin there is little
reason not to offer theft cover.
15.2.3 "No
claims" Bonus
There is a currently a ten percent discount for motorcyclists renewing their
insurance policy in time. A full no-claims bonus scheme would not be difficult
to implement and would reward safer motorcyclists. This would address the problem
of assessing a motorcyclist's experience level.
15.2.4 Lower Cost
As is obvious the cost of insurance is directly related to the size and frequency
of awards to claimants. This is primarily a matter for the government and the
judiciary. Insurance companies should work with motorcyclists towards reducing
the claim frequency through sponsorship and encouragement of motorcyclist training
and anti-theft schemes.
15.2.5 Cover to
be available on a medium and large motorcycles
There is absolutely no evidence to even suggest that there is any benefit to
be gained by limiting riders under 21 to motorcycles under 200cc or that riders
under 25 should be limited to motorcycles under 350cc. A proper assessment of
the rider and motorcycle should be undertaken.
15.3 Conclusion
There are ways to improve the insurance options available to Irish motorcyclists
without incurring significant costs.
MAG Ireland supports the policy on noise adopted by FEMA in 1998, reproduced below.
Motorcycle Noise -The Sound of Our Demise?
The position of the Federation of European Motorcyclists' Associations
The problem
No one can doubt
that excessive noise is a serious problem. Not the most serious when compared
to the quality of the air that we breathe or the cleanliness of our rivers and
seas, but loud noise can be extremely
irritating at best and health-damaging at worst.
Road traffic noise is a particularly worrying area of noise pollution. Many people live close to motorways, major trunk roads and road junctions and the quality of their lives are often blighted by the associated fumes, vibration and noise.
The sound of a
heavy lorry grinding up through its gears, the noise from
the tyres of a typical family saloon car travelling at 100 kilometres an
hour on a concrete road with regular ridges between the sections and the noise
of a young person on a moped on which the baffles have been removed from the
silencer, or of a more mature rider of a larger motorcycle with a straight-through
replacement exhaust system, all can make the life of other citizens unpleasant
or even unbearable.
These are examples
of the real problem with road traffic noise and
particularly with noise from powered two-wheelers. The problem that riders'
organisations have, however, is that the politicians, legislators and policy
makers do not either recognise or address the real problem.
With a few notable exceptions, such as with the Members of the European Parliament, those responsible for ensuring that one person's freedom is not at the expense of another person's, choose to understand or portray the problem as being an all encompassing one and one that can be rectified by simply imposing ever lower legislative standards.
FEMA. the Federation of European Motorcyclists' Associations, believe that the real problem of motorcycle noise should be addressed. The problem is excessive noise arising from the illegal modification of a bike's exhaust system, or from the fitting of an illegal replacement exhaust system.
We not believe
that further reductions in overall noise limits will help,
because the real problem is a result of riders not complying with existing legislative
standards. To further lower the standards, which will result in further restricting
the flow of gasses into and out of the engine, with a consequential restriction
of the machine's performance, will only be an incentive to more riders to modify
their machines.
The solution
In a series of
practical demonstrations, actively supported by the Amsterdam Traffic Police,
the Federation of European Motorcyclists'
Associations convinced over 95% of the Members of the European Parliament (MEPs)
that the then generally applied national noise levels of 82 dB(A) were more
than adequate and did not give offence. As a consequence MEPs proposed amendments
to European legislation to give effect to that reasonable standard. Unfortunately
the Member States and the European Commission did not agree with the Riders'
representatives and the European Parliament, and they were able to impose an
80 dB(A) limit.
Recognising that
the new 80 dB(A) limit is only just coming into force it might be thought that
it is the end of the matter. Unfortunately that is
not the case. Already further reductions are being planned which, if
enacted, would definitely mean the end of the air-cooled engine and fully-faired
styling being required on all motorcycles to contain the mechanical noise from
their engines and transmission. This must not be
allowed to happen.
Roadside controls
on motorcycles with defective, modified or illegal
replacement exhaust systems, by the police and by governmental
environmental and transport authorities, is the only way to deal with the
motorcycle noise problem. The Federation of European Motorcyclists'
Associations believes that funds should be made available by the European institutions
to enable the development of effective and consistent road-side noise measuring
equipment.
Motorcycling is
more than just a means of cost-effective, time-effective
and environmentally friendly transport. It is also a very enjoyable pastime
where being in tune with your machine is central to that enjoyment. Further
noise reduction legislation from the European Union will mean the demise of
air-cooled engines and will lead to heavier, fully-enclosed motorcycles with
exhaust systems that not only strangle the exhaust noise but also severely limit
the machine's normal performance.
Riders' accept
that they cannot live in isolation, unaware of the effect of
their machines on the public at large. They believe that they have the
right, however, to be treated reasonably and not be subject to constant
legislative attacks based on ignorance or bigotry.
The Federation
of European Motorcyclists' Associations