There are two editorials here; check the double standard.

The Capital

Annapolis, MD.

Our Say

HELMET LAW WORKS AND SHOULD STAY ON THE BOOKS

November 25, 1997

When you can't get the legislature to repeal a law you despise , what do you do next? You go to court, of course. and try to find some judges who will declare the law unconstitutional.

So we're not surprised that this tactic is being tied by the die-hard opponents of the 1992 measure that made the wearing of helmets mandatory for all Maryland motorcyclists. Since these folks have failed to interest enough legislators in a repeal in every subsequent General Assembly session, going to court was the obvious next step.

Whatever new tactics are brought into play, we strongly support the helmet law. Unlike so many state laws, this one has performed exactly as advertised. It has reduced fatalities and cut the hospitalization costs that are being paid by the taxpayers either directly (when motorcyclists are uninsured or under insured) or indirectly (in increased insurance cost).

The bottom line is that 50 cyclists died in accidents in the state 1991, and 26 died last year. And we're hard put to see anything this change can be attributed to except the helmet law.

Practical results like these make a big impression on legislators. But they aren't a factor in court. A local case involving Crofton resident Bill Gawthrop - who got himself ticketed to make his point - turns on the Motor Vehicle Administration's failure to published its own list of approved protective headgear for motorcyclists. He contends that this invalidates enforcement of the law. State officials argue that Maryland complies with federal guidelines on the subject, which is sufficient.

In a challenge to the law in St. Mary's County, a Circuit Court judge ruled that the helmet law is unconstitutional and unenforceable. That case is set to be heard by the state's highest court, the Court of Appeals, next month.

We don't know how the legal arguments will turn out. But we trust that even if the law, as written, is invalidated, the General Assembly can quickly repair it and reinstate it.

People like Mr. Gawthrop are annoyed at what they consider a patronizing intrusion into their freedom to decide on acceptable risks. "Most people are not stupid", he insists. True, but it doesn't take many stupid people to create havoc on the roads or clog hospital emergency rooms.

State roads are not private property or a laissez-faire environment. The state puts limits on the judgment of the average driver. It sets speed limits, enforces basic rules of the road, and requires motorists to wear seat belts and have proper equipment in their cars. We fail to see why requiring motorcyclists to wear helmets is so different from all these other laws.

The helmet law is doing what it is supposed to do - saving lives and taxpayers'

money. It should stay on the books.

The Capital

Annapolis, MD.

Our Say

FEDS SHOULDN'T MANDATE USE OF LIFE JACKETS

January 19, 1998

Another effort is under way to require all boaters, regardless of age or swimming ability, to wear life jackets whenever they are on the water. The federally appointed council that advises the Coast Guard on safety regulations is proposing such a requirement, and is asking for public comments. This is not the first time - or, most likely, the last - that boaters have been pushed to embrace the notion that life jackets for

everyone will save lives.

Indeed they might, but we doubt life jackets will eliminate all deaths on the water.

They might even cause some. In any case, we don't think responsible boaters out for a day of fun ought to be penalized for the carelessness of others.

The Coast Guard says boating accidents caused more than 800 deaths in 1995, more than 600 through drowning. But no one, including the Coast Guard, knows how many of those 600 would have died from their injuries if drowning weren't a factor. To conclude that mandatory life jackets would significantly reduce these numbers is foolish.

In most cases, it wasn't the lack of a life jacket that caused the death - it was a careless boater who didn't know the rules of the road or chose to violate them. Such boaters aren't likely to wear life jackets even if there is a law to force them to do so. And, if they did, most likely they would continue to operate their boats recklessly. Life jackets aren't going to change the ways of reckless skippers.

There is risk in anything we do, whether it be walking across the street or lighting a gas grill. Although we expect government regulations to make such activities reasonably safe, no one expects government to eliminate fatal mistakes or even dumb ones. If government assumed that role, we might have to wear bulletproof vests whenever we ventured into Washington, DC But the consequences of a Coast Guard mandate on safe boaters - the vast majority of people who use the waterways - would be enormous. Boaters would have to wear life jackets when safely anchored or berthed in slips. They would have to wear them below decks, while seated at dinner or while using the head. They would have to wear them in their dinghies just rowing ashore or checking their crab pots. Having guests aboard for cocktails? Make sure you have plenty of clean life jackets aboard to cover their nice clothes. And won't they feel nice in August weather?

Life jackets make sense for children who wander forward while a boat is under way, or for sailors who need to trim a spinnaker in 4-foot seas. But they make no practical sense for an operator of a day sailor going 7 knots, or even for the powerboat captain traveling much faster in open, flat water. Life jackets should be worn when they make sense - when risk is involved. Boating is a recreational sport, but it won't be recreational if overwhelmed by safety measures like mandatory life jackets Let's keep the fun in boating and leave life jackets as a choice for responsible boater.