Motorcycle Helmet Laws
April 7th, 2007
Two recent articles I read: one about Missouri coming closer to a helmet law repeal and the other about 8 states considering reinstating helmet laws, gave me occasion to express my views on the helmet law debate.
Let’s examine first some of the reasons there may be an increased drive to mandate helmet usage for motorcyclists. From the article cited above:
“States are beginning to be concerned about the number of people killed in motorcycle crashes,” said Barbara Harsha, head of the Governors Highway Safety Association, which supports helmet laws.
Motorcycle fatalities soared from 2,116 in 1997 to 4,553 in 2005 as other roadway deaths declined. Motorcycle riding also grew, but the fatality rate nearly doubled from 1997 to 2004, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
The agency says helmets are “the most effective safety gear” for motorcyclists. But helmet use dropped from 71% in 2000 to 51% in 2006, NHTSA says, adding that helmets saved 1,546 lives in 2005.
My first question here is “How can NHTSA determine that [exactly] 1,546 lives were saved in 2005?” Sounds more like throwing out numbers to support a point of view to me. Which, of course is what statistics are all about, isn’t it? Two groups taking the same raw data, and coming to two exactly opposite conclusions, of course both saying it is backed by factual statistics!
And of course, media’s use of appropriate terminology helps whichever side stress their side more also. Note that the motorcycle fatalities “soared”? Also, notice that the years compared always seem to change? From 1997 to 2005 for the first point, then 1997 to 2004 for the second point (which by the way just gleans on a very good reason for motorcycle fatalities and accidents to ’soar’ – the number of people actually riding a motorcycle has expanded greatly, perhaps even enough to fully explain the rise in motorcycle fatalities… but then NHTSA is not trying to keep people from buying motorcycles, they are trying to force them to buy motorcycle helmets). And then finally, when discussing decline in usage, a new year span, 2000 to 2006, is used. So here we are, putting all the data together by comparing apples to oranges to grapefruit… but the numbers don’t lie, do they? Per the NHTSA logic, there is a direct correlation between the rising number of motorcycle deaths and the decrease in helmet usage. Are you convinced? Sorry, not me, I need more relevant data.
The American Bikers Aimed Towards Education (ABATE) makes an attempt to more accurately portray motorcycle fatality statistics in a meaningful way, by comparing the death rate state by state and correlating the raw numbers to the number of motorcycles registered in each state. The problem with their data is it is dated now, based on statistics over 10 years ago. I would definitely be interested in seeing these statistics updated into this century, and urge ABATE to do so. Since ABATE is the spearhead for most states fights about singling the biker out for laws, it would be in all bikers interest to do this.
Finally, while on statistics and use of them to pass helmet laws, it is interesting to note that while head injuries are a very common injury in car accidents, there is no drive by the NHTSA to get states to pass a helmet law for automobiles! Could it be that, while bikers do not have the total numbers strength to vote out their entire legislative body, car owners do? Laws that are deemed safe for a politicians career seem to be in flavor now.
Entry Filed under: Motorcycle Laws, Motorcycle Safety
2 Comments Add your own
1. Motorcycle Helmet Laws&hellip | April 7th, 2007 at 2:00 pm
[...] Motorcycle Helmet Laws [...]
2. Steve Johnson | April 8th, 2007 at 12:55 am
The anti-motorcycle community wants to lure bikers into a debate on fatality statistics, because that’s the only way they can win.
The argument that bikers should respond with is the freedom issue. That’s the argument that the anti-motorcycle lobby does not want to get into. The old illustration of “big government intruding upon our lives” works pretty well in the “Heartland” of our country.
The anti-motorcycle lobby argues that while bikers have the freedom not to wear helmets, their injuries become a burden on public healthcare. This is where ABATE can get into an argument on numbers. ..
First, most motorcycle accidents are a liability issue where the responsible party pays, not the public healthcare system. Second, many motorcycle riders have uninsured/underinsured coverage, which pays for healthcare. Third, many motorcycle riders have a healthcare policy ON THEIR MOTORCYCLE insurance. Fourth, many motorcycle riders have their own health care insurance, which pays when the motorcycle insurance is not liable.
So, it’s highly unlikely a motorcyclist goes on the public dole for their healthcare. There are far more cagers creating an even bigger burden on the public healthcare system.
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed