I don’t get it: are you saying requiring use of a helmet is the same as prohibiting the activity? It seems like you’re comparing apples and oranges: laws requiring helmets for safety reasons with prohibition for safety reasons.
Nic, Huh?
Do you have any reason to believe that the number of motorcycles on the road or of hours of ride time or miles travelled have dramatically increased? To the best of my knowledge it has been a fairly consistent number with even the American Motorcyclist site quoting a modest 11% increase in miles travelled over the period of 1990 to 1999. In 2005 it was 2% of all registered vehicles and about 0.4% of vehicle miles travelled while representing 9% of all traffic fatalities. (NHTSA 2005).
No, I wasn’t putting forth a “drunk motorcyclist” stereotype, even though it is true that 40 percent more motorcyclist accidents have alcohol involvement than do those with drivers of passenger vehicles. (NHTSA 2003) and the American Motorcyclist Association states that 40% of all motorcyclist accidents involve alcohol. I would guess that drunk motorcyclists cause fairly few deaths to others compared to deaths to themselves. For the sake of discussion, if they only were of physical harm to themselves, and the only harm from drunk driving to others was the economic impact of their rehab and hospital stays, should it be allowed? Would that just be a lifestyle choice? Should laws be rewritten such that it is okay to drive/ride drunk on empty rural highways?
As the data, I presented it already. In multiple states, in multiple regions, in multiple countries, in various time periods, there has been a 20 to 40% decrease in motorcycle accident fatalities associated with mandatory helmet laws, which translates to about 3% of all traffic fatalities. The costs associated with the emergency care, hospital care, rehab, etc. that would be associated with those head injuries that both ended up dieing soon and those who required ongoing care has been estimated at more than a quarter billion dollars annually. And yes that benefit would be from year one on.
Is that benefit (again, not even worrying about mortality rate and suffering) substantial enough to warrant a limitation of choice to the degree of mandating helmet use? If not, then how much benefit to society would warrant that degree of restriction? A billion a year? Two? A hundred billion? Or is it “wind in the hair - priceless.”
And yes, I’d be interested in any data that you would like to present that makes a convincing case that helmets for passanger car occupants would save either a substantial number of lives or money for society. I do not think that it exists, but I would be interested in seeing it. In the case of mandatory motorcycle helmets the data is overwhelming. 20 to 40% fewer deaths, 67% fewer serious brain injuries, and saving $250 million annually in the United States balanced against mandating that which all but a minority of motorcyclists already do, and that which the American Motorcyclist Association advises. That’s the calculus.
Well I must volunteer some additional information I just found. While there is no evidence of any substantial increase in numbers of miles travelled by motorcycles, it does turn out that substantially more have been sold, so Nic you do have a point there. they seem to mainly bought by the over 40 recreational rider crowd and by 2003 nearly half of all motorcycle fatalities involved alcohol impaired drivers over 40. I thereby cede the point that annual statistics are subject to other factors. The strength of the data regarding the effects of mandatory helmet laws stands however.
My answer is that we should not do an ECONOMIC analysis of restriction of freedoms. Why? Because we never REALLY use economics to objectively justify restriction of freedoms. And we know that we have not done a REAL economic analysis of our society. If we did, there’d be a hell of a lot of things on the list ahead of helmet laws. But those things would affect huge numbers of people and so would never be passed. So we cherry pick things that affect small numbers of people.
And in the unlikely event that we actually objectively used economic data to restrict freedoms, we hit a terribly slippery slope. An estimate of $250 million/year for helmets? Mandate them. An estimate of $150 million/year rescuing backcountry campers? Outlaw backcountry camping. An estimate of $50 million/year for tablesaw accidents? Outlaw home use of table saws. Note that actual statistics are imaginary and used for illustrative purposes only.
And notice the dis-similarity between wearing a helmet and speeding while drunk. Wearing a helmet affects only your survival after an accident. Speeding while drunk affects the likelihood of having an accident that will physically harm other people. I am perfectly happy with laws that protect me physically from other people and protect other people from me. I am not willing to restrict freedoms to save myself $10/year.
DSeid I appreciate your candor. I think that info is in keeping with my earlier statement that I would be interested in seeing (and seem to recall) that a large number of the accidents driving the statistics involve:
Young riders of 21 years and younger
New riders (the 40-somethings) within the first year of their beginning to ride.
My point being that laws to restrict all riders due to a limited and identifiable percentage is disingenuous on the part of law makers.
If I read your statistics correctly
a 40% at most decrease lead to a 3% decrease in overall fatalities. If that is the case, I assume it is safe to say that 97% of all fatalities nationwide are the result everyone not riding helmet-less. I’d say we’re doin’ a hell of a job! 
I concur that riding with a helmet is likely safer than without.
My point is are the numbers of those accidents/injuries that are claimed to have helmets at their root actually correct (in number and severity) and is this true percentage great enough of a burden on the Public Good to enact special conditions on a minority of the population in the face of many more dangerous and costly past-times.
As an avid motorcyclist I don’t buy the cut off from the world-I can’t see to the side thing.
Wearing my full face helmet cuts me off from sound no more than as in a car with the windows closed. I’ve never had a problem with turning my head to see to the side. Just as if I were in a car.
Following Seid’s advice that we should do a cost/benefit analysis:
From http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/alcohol/Archive/safesobr/OPlanner/protection/cycle.html
“The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates more than $7.5 billion was saved from 1984 through 1995 because of the use of helmets. An additional $6.8 billion would most likely have been saved if all motorcyclists had worn helmets.”
Let’s assume that a national helmet law would be 100% effective. That’s dubious of course, so consider my estimates to be an upper bound.
Using the quote, helmet laws save at most $680 million per year. US adult population was about 200 million in 1990, so that works out to $3.40 per person per year.
Put it another way. There are about 5.7 million motorcycle owners in the US, according to the trade group, the American Motorcyclist Association. They have about “270,000 enthusiastic members”.
If the 5.7 million gained $120 of benefits per person per year from not having 100% helment law enforcement, then further tightening of helmet restrictions would be a bad idea. Of course many of those 5.7 million lived in helmet-requiring states, so $120 is probably an underestimate.
These figures are very rough: they could be improved. But I ask those who seek to overturn helmet laws: how much would you be willing to pay to live under such a regime? Is the breeze on your face (or the convenience) honestly worth ~300/yr (US 2006)? If so, this nonrider might consider forking out the ~$3/yr.
So much for upper bound. I see now that there’s an estimate of $250 million/yr floating around. That works out to $1.10 per US adult or $43 per US rider, regardless of location.
If we net out the 1/2 of the population that lives in states with helmet laws (I base this on info from here and 2000 census estimates - elaboration by request), then that works out to approx. $86 per US rider living in states where those over 21 can ride helmet-free.
So, does anybody here think that motorcyclists would pay an average of $86 to live in without helmet restrictions on adults? They might, I would WAG.
I am highly dubious about those who characterize this as a human rights issue, which is what loaded words like, “Freedom” imply.
I see it as a transfer, frankly. Either all citizens will pay a buck (quite a bit less, actually, as many motorcyclists have insurance) or motorcyclists will have the amenity of riding without a helmet, on occasion or constantly.
If that amenity is worth $100 bucks per year to the average motorcyclist (by my VERY rough calculation), then I’d tend to agree to repeal helmet laws, pending better analysis. Insurance requirments would close the deal.
I’m curious, do you have a slow motorcycle, or do you never go above the speed limit?
I ride a Yamaha YZF-R6. Appart from the head injury issues, I would never ride without a helmet because of dust, debris, bugs etc. getting in my eyes. In summertime, it takes about five minutes of riding at 250km/h to get the helmet visor fully covered with bugs. I would be surprised if you never had bugs hit your eyes.
Sunglasses.
You’re right, so here’s how it should be: agree to register all your dangerous/wreckless vices (foods included) and be charged insurance rates accordingly. Get caught lying and have an accident? No payout.
You can have the freedom to be wreckless; just expect to pay more than the “timid”.
In answer to this completely unsubstantiated statement, I offer one of my own: Usually, the people who claim they desire nanny-state-style laws because it will save the public money on insurance rates and disability benefits, really just think they are so gosh darn smart that they should be the ones to tell everyone else how to live their lives.
An aside to the public costs of TBI, including those due to motorcycle accidents … if you’re uninsured, the TBI costs go to the public. Even if you’re insured, and the initial phase of treatment and rehabilitation, it isn’t unusual for things to lead to the need for public assistance at some point, even in the cases of mild TBI. Any sort of clinically significant TBI can significantly impact one’s quality of life and ability to function independently. Even in cases where a mild-to-medium TBI is initially covered by insurance, post-TBI status is rarely 100% of pre-morbid function, and frequently less than complete. So you see in many case decline in work history/income, and loss of family support … it leads to a decline.
As for the severe/vegetative state TBI survivors, they tend to destroy their families, at least financially, and then the public funding starts.
As for the rocket scientists who apparently can’t move their heads during the operation of a motorcycle, and who apparently can’t be bothered to try the thing out in the store, they have these things called mirrors. As a convertible owner, I find that when the top is up, the peripheral viz sucks. So I added convex mirrors to my car. Voila! No blind spots, no need to ratchet my noggin 85 degrees to get a side view.
Actually, with the plunging cost of LCD displays, I’ve seen several sportbikes with lipstick sized wide angle cameras wired to a 3-4" LCD on the dash. They peek out from the tail and offer a view of both your blind spots, and you dont even have to turn your head.
(I always turn my head, the extra 1/2" I have to turn it to clear my peripheral vision doesn’t bother me)
I concede that turnaround is fair play but…
… a motorcycle accident is likely to affect a lot of people other than the guy found bouncing on the pavement. Friends. Family. Payers of insurance premiums. Taxpayers.
Now personally, if you want the amenity of riding without a helmet --or driving inside a gas guzzler for that matter-- I’m willing to tolerate that, though the former may freak me when I’m driving. I’m just saying that those who impose on society should be willing to pay. the. piper.
Otherwise, you’re just another freeloader.
Pre-emption:
Golly gee what about those who drive cars without helmets? Quantify the benefits of that particular requirement (small, I’d guess) and compare it to the costs (larger methinks). Then we can talk.
But for comparing helmet laws to hanging and torturing innocent people, we should invent a new law, named after you.
May be Black Legend, but the story around here is that this is why the UK stopped requiring helmets. The cost of rehab for someone who can get rehabilitated is nothing compared with the cost of caring for multiplejics.
It is definitely a Black Legend. In the UK it is illegal to ride a motorcycle on a public road without a helmet, even if you are a passenger.