Legislation that would end North Carolina’s mandatory helmet law and make it optional for riders age 21 and over won support from the majority in a divided state House panel this week. On a voice vote, the House Transportation Committee approved giving adults the choice to ride without a helmet if they have had a motorcycle license or endorsement for a year, completed a motorcycle safety course and have insurance covering $10,000 in medical benefits. The measure, which now goes to a House judiciary panel, appears to run counter to recommendations and data from federal health officials and vehicle safety advocates. They say wearing helmets saves lives and saves the health care costs from head injuries that ultimately all insured people must pay. Helmets are estimated to reduce by 37 percent the likelihood of a motorcycle crash death, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Motorcycle-related deaths have increased 55 percent since 2000, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said.

But some motorcycle groups argue fatality rates in states with strict helmet requirements aren’t statistically different from those that have exceptions for adults or none at all. “Liberty is being able to chart your own course without fear of retribution from the state, so this is a liberty issue,” said Charlie Boone of Zebulon, vice president of North Carolina’s Concerned Bikers Association. “The education of motorists and motorcyclists is what saves lives.” Boone’s group and others have sought the freedom to ride with the wind in their hair for several years, and most of the measures introduced at the legislature went nowhere. Rep. John Torbett, R-Gaston, a motorcyclist and primary sponsor of the bill, said he chooses to take off his helmet when he rides into South Carolina, which also grants the option to 21-year-olds. North Carolina is one of 19 states with universal helmet requirements for people on motorcycles, while the other states have partial requirements or have no use law, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

Bill supporter Rep. Rodney Moore, D-Mecklenburg, said he would wear a helmet riding a motorcycle, but at age 21 someone “should be able to make a reasonable decision whether they want to wear a helmet or not.” Groups opposing the change disagree strongly with bikers’ groups, saying a partial helmet law will lead to increased injuries and medical costs. They point to Florida, where a universal helmet law like what North Carolina now has was changed to a partial law in 2000. Hospitalizations due to motorcycle crashes rose by more than 40 percent and head injury treatments from those injuries doubled, according to AAA Carolinas. Having a law that doesn’t cover all motorcyclists also will make it difficult for law enforcement to determine who is breaking the law, the motor club said. “My choice is I don’t want to be bumping into a motorcycle rider without a helmet and he falls off and injures his head and something serious happens,” AAA spokesman Tom Crosby said after the committee meeting.

Boone questioned why lawmakers aren’t requiring automobile passengers to wear helmets, too. And a high percentage of traumatic brain injuries are attributed to falls, he said. But Rep. Rick Catlin, R-New Hanover, said he worries about the cost to the public of traumatic brain injuries.rivet motorcycle jackets australia “Having had a motorcycle and wearing a helmet, it saved my life,” he said.motorcycle gear in victorville ca Motorcycle operators who violate the scaled-back requirement would face an infraction, requiring a $25.50 fine. bmw motorcycle dealer des moinesThe current law requires the fine and court costs of $135.50, according to legislative researchers.

WASHINGTON -- The Republican-controlled North Carolina House pushed through anti-abortion legislation on Thursday, using as their vehicle a motorcycle safety bill that lawmakers had stealthily turned into a measure on abortion. The final vote was 74-41; the bill now heads back to the state Senate for approval. The legislation (S.B. 353) would bar so-called sex-selective abortions and impose additional regulations on abortion clinics. Public employees and individuals who obtain health coverage through the federal health care law's new public exchanges would also not have access to a plan that includes abortion coverage. "This is really all about protecting the health and safety of women," said state Rep. Ruth Samuelson (R), one of the main backers of the bill. "Problems do exist in some of our abortion clinics, and that's what we're trying to address." State Rep. Jean Farmer-Butterfield (D) disagreed. "This is an anti-woman bill in disguise, a wolf in sheep’s clothing," she said.

Republicans introduced the legislation in the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday morning by attaching the abortion provisions to a motorcycle safety bill -- without first notifying either the public or their Democratic colleagues. The House version tweaked a similar measure passed by the Senate -- which itself had been tacked onto a bill banning Sharia law -- and was meant to address some concerns raised by the administration of Gov. Pat McCrory (R), who had threatened to veto the Senate bill. The vote came after three hours of debate on Thursday. The gallery was filled with onlookers who remained quiet until nearly the very end, under threat that if just one person made noise, the entire side of the room would be emptied. (After the debate, as lawmakers praised audience members for their good behavior, one woman yelled out, resulting in the right side of the gallery being cleared.) Many protesters wore pink, some wore motorcycle helmets and a group of five women wore T-shirts spelling out "SHAME."

Supporters of the bill encouraged people to come out and wear blue. "Like a thief in the night to steal women's reproductive rights, this bill came hurriedly through the Senate, rerouted through the House on a motorcycle, we think," lamented state Rep. Alma Adams (D). "No input from stakeholders, no public scrutiny, no transparency, no fiscal note." Samuelson, however, defended the process, arguing that it was even more open than usual. "By doing it the way that we have done it here, we have allowed for there to be a public hearing that we had on Tuesday ... to let the public voice their interests, their concerns about this bill, to let members do the same thing and most importantly, to let the Secretary [Aldona Zofia Wos] of the DHHS [Department of Health and Human Services] address the concerns that she and the governor had with some of the language had been "We then took it before a committee and had that committee thoroughly debate that bill, had opportunity for amendments and we're now bringing it back here for a very public process."

Democrats have pointed out that the Tuesday hearing was on the Senate legislation, not the altered House version, and they were not given additional time to study the new bill. Republicans repeatedly said that they were simply interested in improving the safety of abortion clinics, not in closing them down. State Rep. Michele Presnell (R) was one of the lawmakers who stood up to argue that abortion clinics were unsafe for women. Democrats, however, argued that measures like S.B. 353 were taking away women's reproductive rights. "I understand what you're saying," said state Rep. Yvonne Lewis Holley (D). "There are exceptions to every rule, and there will be facilities that are like that. But would you prefer her to go to some back alley with a nasty coat hanger?" Presnell responded by saying she wanted women to be more responsible. "Personally, I'd prefer that she plan ahead, OK? There are a lot of birth procedures that you can take care of in the way of birth control," she replied.