You raised several significant points in your editorial (BDN, Aug. 17-18) on motorcycle helmet use, but arrived at some erroneous conclusions.

Using the statistics you provided it is obvious that the current Maine helmet laws are effective. While the number of registered cyclists has increased 109 percent, the number of deaths per capita has decreased 58 percent since 1978. There are other statistics available that indicate that the vast majority of deaths or serious injuries in motorcycle accidents occur in the first year of the cyclists’ experience. Maine law requires that operators and passengers wear helmets for the first year after issue of the license.

As with any category of accident the emphasis should be placed on education and training before the fact, not on legislating a “fix” after the consequences.

I’m alive today because a helmet saved me from my own experience. Since then I’ve remained alive because my experience has taught me to watch out for the other drivers who don’t watch out for me. I wear a helmet by choice, but I would like to reserve that choice for myself. I hope never to make eye contact with another driver and then watch that driver force me off the road. But I know that’s wishful thinking. Jeffrey L. Brown Bucksport

Early most every morning you can hear a fast-moving cyclist going an extremely high rate of speed on the northbound lane of Interstate 95. Being knowledgeable of what kind of machine this is, I identify it as a racing-style bike designed for professionals in the European circuit. They are the targets for the 18- to 20-year-old rider and have a nickname of “crotch rocket.” The operator of the machine must lean forward just like a pro race driver. It’s obvious young people like to be noticed. There is no problem to accelerate a machine from 0 to 95 mph within 20 seconds.

If it was economical, you would see Indy-style cars in the showrooms that can exceed 175 to 200 mph. Would we be able to put up with this type of menace on our highways? We give driver training for automobiles and an intensive course in heavy trucks. Why not a similar system for motorcycles? How about some contribution from the motorcycle industry, the ones who are making lots of money from highway jets?

The insurance industry that covers motorcycles is very small compared to automobiles. I would not like to see the day when they will say, “Do it our way or we do not pay.” Do you think someone in Augusta will put oil on the squeaky wheel? Jim Koritzy Bangor

I am mystified by the conclusions that were reached in the editorial on motorcycle helmets. The statistics presented in it said something far different to me.

In each of the last three years shown in the table (1986, 1988, and 1990):

the number of fatalities per number of registered motorcycles was as low as it was in any year before the repeal of the mandatory helmet law (about five deaths per 10,000 motorcycles).

the number of fatalities per number of licensed motorcyclists (two deaths per 10,000 cyclists) was half or less than the rate it was in any year before the repeal.

essentially the same number of cyclists were killed as were killed in 1976, the last year listed before the repeal. Seventeen of the 19 people killed on motorcycles in 1976 were wearing helemts. In fact, a full 90 percent of the fatalities listed in the table before the repeal of the helmet law were cyclists who were wearing helmets.

Clearly, the statistics on motorcycle fatalities do not support the wearing of a helmet — perhaps similar statistics on head injuries would. Bob Capetta Hermon

I don’t know who wrote the editorial on motorcycle helmets, but he or she needs to have his or her head examined.

How can any person with normal intelligence conclude that there is a direct relationship between fatal motorcycle accidents and wearing helmets? Is the only possible cause of death head injuries? If that is the case, we should have helmets on when driving a car. Maybe we should have a law that requires us to put on helmets before getting out of bed….

I cannot agree with the statement that the number of cyclists killed on state roads has risen dramatically. If you will examine the statistics you will also see that the numbers of licensed motorcyclists and the registered motorcyclists have increased. If there are more motorcycles and motorcyclists on the road then there are probably going to be more accidents, too….

Assuming that the statistics in the editorial were correct, let us play the game of statistics and look at the number of fatal accidents each year per registered motorcycle and by licensed cyclist….

The statistics indicate that since 1986, there are fewer fatal accidents per motorcyclist and even a positive trend in fatal accidents per motorcycle.

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t like to see 19 to 20 killed a year either. I believe, however, that those wanting to put mandatory motorcycle helmet laws in place are attacking the wrong issue. A mandatory helmet law is not going to solve the problem and that has already been proved in other states. Two issues need to be addressed: alcohol and drugs, and operator immaturity and inexperience.

But rather than spending our efforts on the real issues, we have politicians and other supporters going after the motorcycle helmet laws as a way to get the motorcyclists. Strange as it is, there seems to be a negative attitude in our public mind toward motorcycles. The issue is not our right to ride with or without helmets. The issue is how can the motorcyclist be killed and have it be OK because he or she was wearing a helmet when killed.

Reread the editorial, for it was OK according to the writer that 19 were killed in 1976 when 17 of them were wearing helmets. But the situation is now out of hand according to the writer, as we are experiencing about the same number of fatal accidents with most of those killed not wearing helmets. George C. Jarrard Millinocket