An Open Letter to the American Motorcyclists Association

Dear AMA,

I was recently pointed to your article, "FAQ:  Is the Centers for Disease Control Trying to Reduce Motorcycle Use?"  This article left me with grave concerns about the motorcycling community, but not the ones you wanted me to have.

First of all, let's address the question of why the CDC is involved.  You say "AMA Vice President for Government Relations Wayne Allard has delivered a letter to the CDC director and the task force asking for an explanation of their goals."  While I am not a representative of the CDC, I believe I can answer that question.  From their webpage, their mission statement is that the "CDC works 24/7 to protect America from health, safety and security threats, both foreign and in the U.S."  Basically, they exist to protect and support health and healthy behaviors ("Promoting healthy and safe behaviors, communities and environment") in the United States.  Their goal in looking at motorcycle safety, then, is to improve safety.  Full stop. 

Next, let's address what you seem to believe is the central issue here:  whether being forced to wear a helmet will change whether people ride motorcycles.  Let's look at two countries, according to the best statistics I can find.  In the US, motorcyclists may or may not have to wear a helmet, depending on state laws.  Over the entire country, it appears that about 3% of the total registered vehicles are motorcycles.  In the UK, licenses are graduated (you start on a small bike, and can move up in increments) and helmets are required for all riders.  In the UK, about 2.6% of vehicles on the road are licensed motorcycles.  That would seem to imply that helmet laws and graduated licenses both have no effect on the overall percentage of riders, although we don't know how many Brits would be riding without those laws.


Let's look more closely at the United States, then.  All statistics here are from the Federal Office of Highway Policy Information, and the data is from 2011.  The document can be found here.  All figures include only registered motor vehicles, not those being driven without a registration.

 In two states with no helmet laws (the only two at the time data was collected), Indiana and Illinois, about 3.3% of the registered motor vehicles are motorcycles.  In several states where helmets are mandatory for all riders, California, Massachusetts, and Missouri, about 2.8% of registered vehicles are motorcycles.  I chose those three to give a good range of climate, lifestyle, and politics.  That's a difference of about 0.5%.  Unless your only goal is to increase the number of motorcycle riders, by any and all means possible, that's not much of a difference.


Almost every European country has laws requiring helmets, and motorcycles are, at least in the countries I have been to, far more prevalent, although I don't have numbers to support that.

Finally, let's address one more major concern, and the reason I am not -- and will not be, without a change in your policies -- a member of the American Motorcyclist Association.  In this article, you say "On the contrary, the AMA strongly encourages the use of a properly fitted motorcycle helmet certified by its manufacturer to meet the DOT standard.... Helmets do not prevent crashes and the AMA believes government resources should be directed toward programs that reduce the risk of crashes occurring such as voluntary rider education and motorist awareness programs."  In another recent document, you state that "the safety of motorcyclists [is] the utmost priority of the AMA". 

Let's look at some facts.  The following paragraph is taken from the Governors Highway Safety Association report from 2012, available at http://www.ghsa.org/html/publications/spotlight/motorcycle2012.html. 

"Two initial reports suggest the consequences of Michigan’s helmet law repeal. The MLive
Media Group examined state police data for more than 3,000 motorcycle crashes in the six
months after the repeal, April 13 to Oct. 13, 2012. They concluded that motorcyclists without
helmets were three times more likely to die and 43% more likely to suffer serious injuries
in their crashes than motorcyclists wearing helmets (Keep, 2012). In March 2013, Carol
Flannagan of the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI) analyzed
Michigan’s motorcycle crashes for the full year. She estimated that motorcyclist fatalities would
have decreased by 21% if Michigan had not repealed its helmet law (Klug, 2013a). In fact,
fatalities increased by 18%, from 109 in 2011 to 129 in 2012 (Klug, 2013b)."

Also from that report:

• "29% of fatally injured motorcycle riders had a BAC above the legal limit of .08 (NHTSA, 2012c)"
• "35% of motorcycle riders involved in fatal crashes were speeding (NHTSA, 2012c)"
• "Almost half of all motorcycle fatal crashes did not involve another vehicle"

Helmets are proven to reduce head injuries and fatalities in accidents.  Rider education is proven to reduce the number of accidents.  Proper riding gear -- leather or abrasion-resistant synthetics, backed with armor in critical points -- is proven to reduce injuries in accidents.  If rider safety was truly your utmost priority, you would work to promote laws requiring the wearing of helmets and other safety gear, and the training of riders.  Requiring all riders to take and pass a rigorous training course before being licensed would, I suspect, do more to reduce motorcycle fatalities than any other possible step.  As of 2001, a DOT NHTSA report indicated that 45% of motorcycle fatalities were single vehicle.  Forty-five percent.  All the "motorist awareness programs" in the world won't reduce that number.  Training will.  Wearing a helmet will.  Wearing armored riding gear will.  And if you're not going to advocate for those, then you're not making motorcyclist safety your highest priority.  It's coming in somewhere after "lifestyle", "image", "freedom", and getting more people on motorcycles, whether they're safe or not.  That makes it your fifth priority, at best, by my count.