Natural selection at work

Could this mean helmets on bike riders also saves lives?



Deaths up since Florida helmet law repealed

Tuesday, August 9, 2005; Posted: 6:35 a.m. EDT (10:35 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Motorcycle fatalities have risen sharply in Florida
since the state repealed its mandatory helmet law.

States that repeal such laws run the risk of increased deaths and
mounting health care costs for injured bikers, according to two studies
released Monday, 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 percent
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 percent of those killed were not wearing helmets.

The cost of hospital care for motorcycle injuries grew from $21 million
to $44 million in the 30 months after the law changed; the figures were
adjusted for inflation.

The study, conducted by the Connecticut-based Preusser Research Group,
mirrored the findings of a 2003 federal review that found that
fatalities grew by more than 50 percent in Kentucky and 100 percent in
Louisiana after those states struck down their mandatory helmet laws.

"The results are remarkably similar that when you repeal a helmet law,
you can expect an increase in fatalities and you can expect an increase
in medical costs," said NHTSA spokesman Rae Tyson.

The second study released Monday, by the Insurance Institute for
Highway Safety, found that the death rate of motorcyclists from 2001-02
increased 25 percent compared with the two years before the repeal of
the helmet law in Florida.

The debate has generated legislative struggles during the past decade,
with motorcyclists rumbling through state capitals and unleashing
torrents of phone calls and e-mails to lobby for repeals. Some
motorcyclists complain that they should have the choice of wearing a
helmet and urge states to focus more on rider education.

But safety groups contend that less restrictive laws lead to more
fatalities and burden society through higher medical costs. They mostly
have waged a losing battle since the mid-1990s, when Congress removed
federal sanctions against states without helmet laws and a handful of
states weakened their statutes.

Twenty states and the District of Columbia require all motorcycle
riders to wear protective helmets, a decline from 47 states in 1975,
according to the institute, which is funded by the insurance industry.

Nationally, fatalities increased nearly 8 percent to 4,008 in 2004, the
first time they have surpassed 4,000 deaths since 1987.

Motorcycle deaths have increased seven years in a row.

Florida requires helmet use by riders under the age of 21 or by older
riders who do not carry a minimum of $10,000 medical insurance
coverage. The state's climate allows for year-round riding, and Daytona
Beach's Bike Week attracts hundreds of thousands of motorcyclists every
March.

In the institute's report, the motorcycle-crash death rate increased 25
percent in the two years after Florida's law changed, growing from 30.8
deaths to 38.8 deaths per 1,000 crashes.

Tom Lindsay, a spokesman for the American Motorcyclist Association,
noted that both studies failed to show the causes of crashes, such as
the rider's behavior, road and weather conditions or the motorcycle
itself.

The federal highway bill approved by Congress in late July included
funding for the first major study of motorcycle crash data since the
late 1970s.

"We're looking forward to real research that surveys many factors of
motorcycling crashes and comes up with ways that we can reduce this
number," Lindsay said.

wrote:


The federal highway bill approved by Congress in late July included
funding for the first major study of motorcycle crash data since the
late 1970s.

That's nothing but pork for "scientists."

"We're looking forward to real research that surveys many factors of
motorcycling crashes and comes up with ways that we can reduce this
number," Lindsay said.

Sure he is "looking forward to real research," as long as someone else,
meaning taxpayers, pays for it. Why be careful and lower one's risk if
taxpayers -- who have little choice in the matter -- will bear the cost
of risky behavior?

wrote in message
oups.com...
Could this mean helmets on bike riders also saves lives?

Could this mean you can't read?

" 81 percent increase" in motorcycle fatalities.

This article 'neglects' to mention that there was a 300% increase in new
motorcycle sales with the dropping of mandatory helmet laws.

Could it be that the helmet zealots aren't anxious for anyone to know the
truth?

"Tom Kunich" wrote in message
nk.net...
wrote in message
oups.com...
Could this mean helmets on bike riders also saves lives?

Could this mean you can't read?

" 81 percent increase" in motorcycle fatalities.

This article 'neglects' to mention that there was a 300% increase in new
motorcycle sales with the dropping of mandatory helmet laws.

Hmm, that's not what this study says.
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/inju...onaltrends.htm

Looks like fatalities increased more than motorcycle registrations after
helmet laws were repealed. 300% increase in sales? Did you pull that # out
of your ass?

Could it be that the helmet zealots aren't anxious for anyone to know the
truth?

Why is someone that conducts a scientific study a "helmet zealot?" Look,
nobody cares if YOU don't want to wear a helmet, but don't you think it's
wrong to try to suppress scientific proof that might save even one life?

"Suz Weldon" wrote in message
...

"Tom Kunich" wrote in message
nk.net...
wrote in message
oups.com...
Could this mean helmets on bike riders also saves lives?

Could this mean you can't read?

" 81 percent increase" in motorcycle fatalities.

This article 'neglects' to mention that there was a 300% increase in new
motorcycle sales with the dropping of mandatory helmet laws.

Hmm, that's not what this study says.
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/inju...onaltrends.htm

Looks like fatalities increased more than motorcycle registrations after
helmet laws were repealed. 300% increase in sales? Did you pull that #
out of your ass?

Could it be that the helmet zealots aren't anxious for anyone to know the
truth?

Why is someone that conducts a scientific study a "helmet zealot?" Look,
nobody cares if YOU don't want to wear a helmet, but don't you think it's
wrong to try to suppress scientific proof that might save even one life?


Is a helmet really going to help if a motorcyclist dumps it at highway
speed? I can't imagine that a helmeted head hitting pavement at 60mph is
going to be in very good shape. Isn't the brain still going to suffer
deceleration trauma when it bounces off the skull?

Dumbass,

I call a physics violation. Your head doesn't hit the ground at 60 MPH.
Your head hits the ground at the velocity it attains based on the
height from which it fell. Unless you high-side like Beloki, then
you're in hurt city. In any case, try to remember not to drop your head
onto the ground from great heights. The brain cell you save could be
your own.

"Gooserider" wrote in message
.. .
Is a helmet really going to help if a motorcyclist dumps it at highway
speed? I can't imagine that a helmeted head hitting pavement at 60mph is
going to be in very good shape. Isn't the brain still going to suffer
deceleration trauma when it bounces off the skull?

Having wrecked about 3 helmets back in my motorcycle roadracing days at
speeds well above 60mph, the answer is is yes, it will help a lot...a
lot....a lot...a lot with no lingering effects either...ther...ther....ther.


-Andy B.

"Gooserider" wrote in message news:hglKe.1971
Is a helmet really going to help if a motorcyclist dumps it at highway
speed? I can't imagine that a helmeted head hitting pavement at 60mph is
going to be in very good shape. Isn't the brain still going to suffer
deceleration trauma when it bounces off the skull?
Of course it will help. Coincidentally, we had a patient just yesterday who
crashed at 70mph just 3 days ago. He broke a couple bones in his hand and
foot, but suffered only a mild concussion in his head. His helmet was
crushed.

In article .com,
says...

Could this mean helmets on bike riders also saves lives?
Deaths up since Florida helmet law repealed
Tuesday, August 9, 2005; Posted: 6:35 a.m. EDT (10:35 GMT)
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Motorcycle fatalities have risen sharply in Florida
since the state repealed its mandatory helmet law.
States that repeal such laws run the risk of increased deaths and
mounting health care costs for injured bikers, according to two studies
released Monday, 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 percent
increase from the 515 bikers killed from 1997 to 1999.

Raw numbers are not a good way to gauge safety. Deaths per number of miles
traveled is a better indicator. That they are not using that number leads
one to believe they are trying to hide something. They want to manipulate
the numbers to support thier hypothesis, or at least give the impression that
the numbers support it.


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 percent of those killed were not wearing helmets.

That means that 55 percent of those killed were wearing helmets and died
anyway. An important piece of information that is missing is how many
miles were traveled by all those motorcycle riders. If the number of miles
traveled increased, then the number of deaths would also increase even if
the helmet law had not been repealed.

The cost of hospital care for motorcycle injuries grew from $21 million
to $44 million in the 30 months after the law changed; the figures were
adjusted for inflation.

Of course it did. You have more injured folks, so the costs will go up.
What were they expecting, the cost to go down with more injuries?

The study, conducted by the Connecticut-based Preusser Research Group,
mirrored the findings of a 2003 federal review that found that
fatalities grew by more than 50 percent in Kentucky and 100 percent in
Louisiana after those states struck down their mandatory helmet laws.

Again, unless they tell you how they came up with the numbers, they are
meaningless.

"The results are remarkably similar that when you repeal a helmet law,
you can expect an increase in fatalities and you can expect an increase
in medical costs," said NHTSA spokesman Rae Tyson.

Another parrot repeating the same old story.

The second study released Monday, by the Insurance Institute for
Highway Safety, found that the death rate of motorcyclists from 2001-02
increased 25 percent compared with the two years before the repeal of
the helmet law in Florida.

The IIHS is a organization that is fully funded by the insurance industry, so
they will always come up with results that support what the insurance industry
wants to support.

The debate has generated legislative struggles during the past decade,
with motorcyclists rumbling through state capitals and unleashing
torrents of phone calls and e-mails to lobby for repeals. Some
motorcyclists complain that they should have the choice of wearing a
helmet and urge states to focus more on rider education.

Good for them. Too bad rider education isn't going to help them against
the idiots in cars who don't see a motorcycle on the road.

But safety groups contend that less restrictive laws lead to more
fatalities and burden society through higher medical costs. They mostly
have waged a losing battle since the mid-1990s, when Congress removed
federal sanctions against states without helmet laws and a handful of
states weakened their statutes.

Now if this kind of thinking would also be applied to other stupid laws
the feds want states to pass, we would be making real progress.

Nationally, fatalities increased nearly 8 percent to 4,008 in 2004, the
first time they have surpassed 4,000 deaths since 1987.

Again, raw death numbers are meaningless.

In the institute's report, the motorcycle-crash death rate increased 25
percent in the two years after Florida's law changed, growing from 30.8
deaths to 38.8 deaths per 1,000 crashes.

Finally we see a number that makes some sense. But the it is still not the
number they should be using. They should be using deaths/miles travelled.

----------------
Alex

In article , says...

Why is someone that conducts a scientific study a "helmet zealot?" Look,
nobody cares if YOU don't want to wear a helmet, but don't you think it's
wrong to try to suppress scientific proof that might save even one life?

At what cost are you willing to save that one life?
------------
Alex