An ongoing debate in Lincoln has two sides pitted against each other arguing about Nebraska’s helmet laws.

Currently, Nebraska law forces motorcycle riders to wear helmets while they’re in the state. These laws, of course, annoy riders to no end. This year, like every year, they took the issue to Lincoln to revive a bill from January 2013 (LB 393) in hopes of removing the helmet laws. This comes as little surprise seeing as the argument has become something of a tradition here.

The anti-helmet proponents have essentially one actual argument for the repealing of our law. They point out that Nebraska riders who wish to avoid wearing a helmet will readily head over to Iowa for a cruise. This in turn leads to them spending more money in Iowa than Nebraska, money we could be keeping in state if we only got rid of those pesky helmet laws. The Omaha World-Herald, however, mentions that there are over two dozen studies that found helmet laws  drastically reduce medical costs in a state.

One such study done by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated that in 2010, about $300 was saved per registered motorcycle as a result of helmet use in Nebraska. That number jumps up to $1,400 for Virginia and $1,600 for North Carolina, where both states also have a mandatory helmet law.

Now, the only way the removal of our helmet law would be economically beneficial is if every single registered motorcycle rider currently spent at least $300 in another state every year. Because riding is only really feasible during a few months in Nebraska, that seems like a tall order. The CDC study additionally points out that helmet use prevents around 37 percent of deaths among motorcycle operators and 41 percent of deaths among passengers. It’s just too bad we’re missing out on that great untapped income though right?

Repeal supporters have very few other legitimate points. State Sen. Dave Bloomfield, who sponsors LB 393, reminds us that there are more head injuries each year from falls than in motorcycle crashes. That’s like saying there are more paper cuts each year than band saw injuries, so band saw operators shouldn’t have to wear any sort of protection.

According to the Omaha World- Herald, repeal supporters also argue that the lack of helmet laws among car drivers also results in increased medical bills/insurance payouts. What? I think it’s called a “roof” and oh yeah, car drivers also have seat belts. That argument is so poor it’s comical.

It seems to me that the repeal supporters are trying to argue against common sense. Redacting our current helmet laws would almost undoubtedly lead to an increase in deaths, hospital bills, and insurance payouts. The fact of the matter is that motorcycles are dangerous, there’s no getting around it. While the risk of injury is always going to be high for a rider, helmets can decrease it significantly.

Thankfully, as of Feb. 11, lawmakers in Lincoln voted to cease debate on the bill, at least for this year. I certainly hope it stays this way. If the motorcycle riders in this state feel like they’re missing out, they can go to Iowa.