WSJ: "Studies Show Helmet Laws Keep Bikers Safer"

Saw this in the Wall Street Journal. I'm not making any judgement, just
bringing it to the groups attention.

The Wall Street Journal, Tuesday, August 9th, 2005, page D6.

"Studies Show Helmet Laws Keep Bikers Safer"

"States that repeal laws requiring motorcycle riders to wear helmets
run the risk of increased deaths and mounting health care costs for
injured bikers, according to two studies released yesterday, one by the
government, the other by the insurance industry.

"The first, by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
found that in the three years following Florida's repeal of its
mandatory helmet law in 2000, 933 motorcyclists were killed, an 81%
increase from the 515 bikers killed from 1997 to 1999.

"Even though the state requires helmet use by riders under age 21,
fatalities among that group nearly tripled in the three years after the
repeal; 45% of those killed weren't wearing helmets. The cost of
hospital care for motorcycle injuries rose from $21 million to $44
million in the 30 months after the law changed; the figures were
adjusted for inflation.

"The second study released yesterday, by the Insurance Institute for
Highway Safety, found that the death rate of motorcyclists from 2001-02
increased 25% compared with the two years before the repeal of helmet
laws.

On 9 Aug 2005 19:31:36 -0700, wrote:

Saw this in the Wall Street Journal. I'm not making any judgement, just
bringing it to the groups attention.

The Wall Street Journal, Tuesday, August 9th, 2005, page D6.

"Studies Show Helmet Laws Keep Bikers Safer"

"States that repeal laws requiring motorcycle riders to wear helmets
run the risk of increased deaths and mounting health care costs for
injured bikers, according to two studies released yesterday, one by the
government, the other by the insurance industry.

"The first, by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
found that in the three years following Florida's repeal of its
mandatory helmet law in 2000, 933 motorcyclists were killed, an 81%
increase from the 515 bikers killed from 1997 to 1999.

"Even though the state requires helmet use by riders under age 21,
fatalities among that group nearly tripled in the three years after the
repeal; 45% of those killed weren't wearing helmets. The cost of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
hospital care for motorcycle injuries rose from $21 million to $44
million in the 30 months after the law changed; the figures were
adjusted for inflation.

"The second study released yesterday, by the Insurance Institute for
Highway Safety, found that the death rate of motorcyclists from 2001-02
increased 25% compared with the two years before the repeal of helmet
laws.

Dear Dianne,

As always, an interesting post. I look forward to what
people who dig into such studies have to say.

The article seems to say that 55% of the under-21
motorcyclists killed in Florida were wearing helmets as
required by the age-limit law.

The article doesn't say how many of the victims died of head
injuries, a common point of confusion.

The increase from 515 motorcycle deaths to 933 seems likely
to be more than the general population rise in Florida, but
it would nice to know what the change (if any) in the
motorcycle population was.

Thanks for putting the article up.

Carl Fogel

wrote:
Saw this in the Wall Street Journal. I'm not making any judgement, just
bringing it to the groups attention.

The Wall Street Journal, Tuesday, August 9th, 2005, page D6.

"Studies Show Helmet Laws Keep Bikers Safer"

"States that repeal laws requiring motorcycle riders to wear helmets
run the risk of increased deaths and mounting health care costs for
injured bikers, according to two studies released yesterday, one by the
government, the other by the insurance industry.

"The first, by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
found that in the three years following Florida's repeal of its
mandatory helmet law in 2000, 933 motorcyclists were killed, an 81%
increase from the 515 bikers killed from 1997 to 1999.

"Even though the state requires helmet use by riders under age 21,
fatalities among that group nearly tripled in the three years after the
repeal; 45% of those killed weren't wearing helmets. The cost of
hospital care for motorcycle injuries rose from $21 million to $44
million in the 30 months after the law changed; the figures were
adjusted for inflation.

"The second study released yesterday, by the Insurance Institute for
Highway Safety, found that the death rate of motorcyclists from 2001-02
increased 25% compared with the two years before the repeal of helmet
laws.


"studies show that bike helmets that cost $5 from china and which are
sold here for $100, increase the cash profile of wsj spin-meisters with
a vested interest in increasing helmet sales."

On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 21:16:38 -0600, carlfogel wrote:

The increase from 515 motorcycle deaths to 933 seems likely to be more
than the general population rise in Florida, but it would nice to know
what the change (if any) in the motorcycle population was.

Motorcycle registration has been up for the last few years as well.

I don't even know if one can draw a fair comparison between m/c helmets
and styrofoam hats for bikes. Different construction, different speeds
involved...In my mind a m/c helmet is really more a defense against
abrasion more than impact--if you go head first into a semi at 60mph--I
have a feeling that helmet will do nothing for your snapped neck.

I almost always wear a full face helmet on my Honda, along with steel toed
boots and a reinforced jacket. I need some better gloves, and wearing
jeans is stupid, but I do it anyway... I've had half a dozen friends
survive pretty nasty motorcycle crashes because of gear--I'm not gonna say
that their helmets did anything for internal head injuries, but they kept
their noses and ears from being ripped off. That's always a plus.

BTW, have ya'll ever seen what folks wear on motorbikes in Florida? Forget
about the helmet debate. I mean FLIP FLOPS?! Geez.

Then there's the phony wannabe biker culture that's become a darling of a
certain group of folks. It usually involves riding to a bar, parking your
bike so everybody can see it, drinking half a dozen longnecks, and hoping
to god you get home.

On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 20:27:51 -0700, jim beam
wrote:

wrote:
Saw this in the Wall Street Journal. I'm not making any judgement, just
bringing it to the groups attention.

The Wall Street Journal, Tuesday, August 9th, 2005, page D6.

"Studies Show Helmet Laws Keep Bikers Safer"

"States that repeal laws requiring motorcycle riders to wear helmets
run the risk of increased deaths and mounting health care costs for
injured bikers, according to two studies released yesterday, one by the
government, the other by the insurance industry.

"The first, by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
found that in the three years following Florida's repeal of its
mandatory helmet law in 2000, 933 motorcyclists were killed, an 81%
increase from the 515 bikers killed from 1997 to 1999.

"Even though the state requires helmet use by riders under age 21,
fatalities among that group nearly tripled in the three years after the
repeal; 45% of those killed weren't wearing helmets. The cost of
hospital care for motorcycle injuries rose from $21 million to $44
million in the 30 months after the law changed; the figures were
adjusted for inflation.

"The second study released yesterday, by the Insurance Institute for
Highway Safety, found that the death rate of motorcyclists from 2001-02
increased 25% compared with the two years before the repeal of helmet
laws.


"studies show that bike helmets that cost $5 from china and which are
sold here for $100, increase the cash profile of wsj spin-meisters with
a vested interest in increasing helmet sales."

Dear Jim,

Actually, the story is from the Associated Press and
appeared in numerous newspapers besids the WSJ.

Here's a fuller version of the AP story:

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/florida/MGBLYN1B5CE.html

Carl Fogel

On 9 Aug 2005 19:31:36 -0700, wrote:

Saw this in the Wall Street Journal. I'm not making any judgement, just
bringing it to the groups attention.

The Wall Street Journal, Tuesday, August 9th, 2005, page D6.

"Studies Show Helmet Laws Keep Bikers Safer"

In my experience, the motorcyclists (and that's what was studied) who
are most likely to engage in stupid and/or risky behaviors *in
traffic* are also the ones most likely to not wear a helmet, but this
is not universally true. I have noticed that the full-face
matched-to-the-bike motorcycle helmet has become a fashion accessory
for the rice-burner crowd. I hear groups of rice-burners go screaming
past on the 610 Loop at odd hours of the late night, at rpm levels
that leave no doubt about what they're doing; on the few occasions
that I've caught sight of them, I've noticed that helmets are pretty
common among them. By contrast, I hear far fewer such pack runs
involving Hardly Ablesons, despite the fact that their ubiquitous
habit of having no form of muffler whatsoever would make them that
much louder.

Flip side: All of the motorcyclists that I've known who have been
injured in a collision were engaged in lawful progress down the road
at the time of the incident. There's an old saying in the motorcycle
world; it's not necessarily what *you* do that's likely to get you
killed, it's what that idiot in the car does.


I have seen no difference in the stupid-behavior level of the *adult*
helmet and bare-head *bicycle* factions...mostly because the
stupid-behavior level there is pretty close to zero. I think bicycles
are both too much work and not flashy enough to attract the kind of
swaggering idiot that thinks it's cool to be dumb.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

wrote:
Saw this in the Wall Street Journal. I'm not making any judgement, just
bringing it to the groups attention.

I think you hit the wrong group. This group is about bicycles.

Motorcyclists do have a high head injury rate per hour, and a high
fatality rate per hour, compared with bicyclists. Bicyclists' per-hour
rates are roughly the same as motorists and pedestrians (actually,
better than pedestrians).

But: Before accepting that article as accurate, I'd be interested in
data on, say, miles ridden. As with bicycles, MHLs for motorcyclists
have been shown to reduce motorcycling. Even if the helmets have zero
protective benefit (which, BTW, I doubt) repealing a MHL would be
expected to increase motorcycle riding. And even if each mile ridden
is just as safe as before, more miles ridden would yield more injuries
and deaths. I doubt the "safety" crew has taken that into account.

(That insurance group mentions the death "rate," but they don't specify
what rate that is - per year, per mile, per hour ridden, per
registration, etc.)

- Frank Krygowski

There was an 81% increase in death rate in 2000, compared with a 25%
increase in 2001 and 2002. Extrapolating this would indicate no increase
in death rate by about 2004. Perhaps the data is just indicating that
all the problem riders will be killed off by then :^)

Ernie

wrote:
Saw this in the Wall Street Journal. I'm not making any judgement, just
bringing it to the groups attention.

The Wall Street Journal, Tuesday, August 9th, 2005, page D6.

"Studies Show Helmet Laws Keep Bikers Safer"

"States that repeal laws requiring motorcycle riders to wear helmets
run the risk of increased deaths and mounting health care costs for
injured bikers, according to two studies released yesterday, one by the
government, the other by the insurance industry.

"The first, by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
found that in the three years following Florida's repeal of its
mandatory helmet law in 2000, 933 motorcyclists were killed, an 81%
increase from the 515 bikers killed from 1997 to 1999.

"Even though the state requires helmet use by riders under age 21,
fatalities among that group nearly tripled in the three years after the
repeal; 45% of those killed weren't wearing helmets. The cost of
hospital care for motorcycle injuries rose from $21 million to $44
million in the 30 months after the law changed; the figures were
adjusted for inflation.

"The second study released yesterday, by the Insurance Institute for
Highway Safety, found that the death rate of motorcyclists from 2001-02
increased 25% compared with the two years before the repeal of helmet
laws.

There was an 81% increase in death rate in 2000, compared with a 25%
increase in 2001 and 2002. Extrapolating this would indicate no increase
in death rate by about 2004. Perhaps the data is just indicating that
all the problem riders will be killed off by then :^)

Ernie

wrote:
Saw this in the Wall Street Journal. I'm not making any judgement, just
bringing it to the groups attention.

The Wall Street Journal, Tuesday, August 9th, 2005, page D6.

"Studies Show Helmet Laws Keep Bikers Safer"

"States that repeal laws requiring motorcycle riders to wear helmets
run the risk of increased deaths and mounting health care costs for
injured bikers, according to two studies released yesterday, one by the
government, the other by the insurance industry.

"The first, by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
found that in the three years following Florida's repeal of its
mandatory helmet law in 2000, 933 motorcyclists were killed, an 81%
increase from the 515 bikers killed from 1997 to 1999.

"Even though the state requires helmet use by riders under age 21,
fatalities among that group nearly tripled in the three years after the
repeal; 45% of those killed weren't wearing helmets. The cost of
hospital care for motorcycle injuries rose from $21 million to $44
million in the 30 months after the law changed; the figures were
adjusted for inflation.

"The second study released yesterday, by the Insurance Institute for
Highway Safety, found that the death rate of motorcyclists from 2001-02
increased 25% compared with the two years before the repeal of helmet
laws.

wrote:

But: Before accepting that article as accurate, I'd be interested in
data on, say, miles ridden [...] I doubt the "safety" crew has taken
that into account.

Then you'd be wrong:
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/inju...ages/Index.htm