Protecting SC's Helmet Law is as Important Today as it was in 2009 Article By Matt Danielson

November 2022

February 28, 2009. That was the date that South Carolina motorcyclists, led by members of ABATE of South Carolina, took a stand against the City of Myrtle Beach in order to take back what the City thought that they could take away. The City quickly learned that they were wrong.

Since 1980, adult motorcyclists in South Carolina have had the right to choose whether or not to wear a motorcycle helmet when riding in the Palmetto State. Today, South Carolina is one of 32 states that recognize that right. In 2009, the City of Myrtle Beach attempted to take that right away.

I remember the day that the Myrtle Beach Ordinance requiring motorcycle helmets within the city limits went into effect. It was February 28, 2009, and it was the first time that my law firm, Tom McGrath’s Motorcycle Law Group, had the honor of working with ABATE of South Carolina in order to protect the rights of South Carolina motorcyclists. I am proud to say that it was not the last time.

But it wasn’t the work of my firm that ultimately led to the defeat of the Myrtle Beach Ordinance. It was the dedication and sacrifice of South Carolina motorcyclists who were willing to take part in a protest ride in order to purposely violate that ordinance and be charged by the City so that we could go before the court and challenge the legality of what the City of Myrtle Beach had done. Without those riders there would have been no case to take before the South Carolina Supreme Court. Without those riders, the South Carolina Supreme Court would not have been able to tell the City of Myrtle Beach not just no, but hell no.

The purpose of this article is not to talk about the riders who took part in that protest ride, although I still tip my cap to each and every one of them. The purpose is to discuss the importance of what they did, and why they did it.

I am often asked why I support the right of riders to choose whether or not to wear a motorcycle helmet. The answer is simple. Because it is the logical position to take on the subject.

First and foremost, allowing adults to choose for themselves when it comes to their personal safety should be the default position of the government. It is the proper role of government to protect one citizen from another citizen. That is why we have laws against assault, murder, burglary and robbery. It is generally not the proper role of government to protect a citizen from themselves. Rational adults should be trusted with making decisions as to their own personal safety.

But what about the health care costs that we all have to bear when an un-helmeted motorcyclists crashes and suffers a head injury? Doesn’t that affect everyone? The evidence would suggest that it doesn’t. When you compare both health insurance premiums and inpatient health care costs between the states that have mandatory helmet laws and those that do not, there is no evidence that the 32 states that allow adults to make their own choice are suffering higher health care costs as a result.

Those in favor of mandatory helmet laws often cite figures provided by both the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) which say that motorcycle helmets are anywhere from 37% to 41% effective in preventing fatalities. However, once again, the evidence does not support those claims. If motorcycle helmets were 40% effective in preventing fatalities, then we would expect to see roughly 40% more motorcycle fatalities per capita in the states that allow adults to choose. The problem is that we don’t. When you compare motorcycle fatalities per registered motorcycles between states that have mandatory helmet laws and those that don’t, you find no significant difference. How can that be if motorcycle helmets are anywhere from 37% to 41% effective in preventing fatalities? I have asked that question to more than a few motorcycle safety advocates who favor mandatory helmet laws and have yet to receive a good answer.

Finally, and let’s come back to the role of government again, allowing adults to choose is good government. The law should neither prohibit nor compel unless there is a rational reason to do so. When it comes to the use of motorcycle helmets there is simply not a rational reason to prohibit riders from making their own choice by compelling them to wear one. That is why only eighteen states have mandatory helmet laws today.

This is why South Carolina riders stood up to the City of Myrtle Beach in 2009, and it is why members of ABATE of South Carolina continue to stand up today. It is not just about the right to ride without a helmet, it is about our right to our rights. You can draw a line from the riders who changed South Carolina’s motorcycle helmet law in 1980 to the ones who took a stand against Myrtle Beach in 2009. You can draw a line from those riders in 2009 to the ones who obtained equal access to public transportation facilities for motorcyclists in 2014. You can draw a line from those riders to the ones who continue to advocate for South Carolina motorcyclists today. The right to choose is not just about helmets, it is about rights. The right to choose is not just about 1980 or 2009, it is about today, and it is about tomorrow.

Matt Danielson

McGrath, Danielson & Sorrell The Motorcycle Law Group 1-855-LAW-RIDERS 1-855-529-7433 Motorcyclelawgroup.com

Matt Danielson is a partner at Tom McGrath’s Motorcycle Law Group, a personal injury law firm whose attorneys all ride motorcycles and practice in VA, NC, SC, GA and WV. Matt has successfully represented clients in cases from simple property damage to complex multi-million dollar personal injury claims. He is also a lobbyist, lecturer, and works with motorcycle rights organizations throughout the country. To learn more about the Motorcycle Law Group, visit MotorcycleLawGroup.com.