In 1976, Congress passed legislation which prohibits withholding highway funds from states without mandatory helmet laws. Since this action, 30 states have repealed or weakened their helmet laws in favor of personal liberty.

While there are many reasons to wear a helmet, backed up with countless statistics, this is not a debate whether to wear a helmet or not. It is a debate of legislating personal safety versus personal liberty.

Some citizens draw the conclusion that a helmet law is no more of an infringement on personal rights than the current seat-belt law. However, secondary accidents are caused by automobiles when a driver has been ejected from the driver’s seat and is unable to brake or otherwise control a moving vehicle.

In the case of a motorcyclist who has been ejected from a motorcycle, the vehicle does not stay upright or have the ability to cause secondary accidents. In the case of helmet legislation, I would hope legislators can separate their good intentions from their obligation to protect the public in a fair and constitutional manner.

Most court challenges to helmet laws succeed because the laws lacked a public purpose – they deal only with an individual’s private well-being and demand unjustified infringement of personal liberty.

Maine’s lack of helmet laws for persons 18 and over is about liberty and personal rights. Even if people do not ride a motorcycle, I hope they can understand that this debate is about the right of those who ride to decide.

Adam J. Smith, Auburn