Motorcyclist protesting helmet law dies when he hits his head...

Darn and I just picked up a Go Diego Go coloring book and a nice shiny box of Crayola Crayons for your birthday.

 

I've looked but cannot find any study that unequivocally determines the public cost of helmetless vs helmeted motorcycling. The assumption is that helmeted riders involved in an accident impose less public economic burden than unhelmeted ones, but if the mortality rate of unhelmeted accidents exceeds a certain threshhold, it's CHEAPER to the public to let 'em crash & die. Wearing a helmet decreases the mortality rate but does not necessarily decrease the hospitalization rate, and may in fact INCREASE the hospitalization rate because the victim survived the accident - with head intact but also with a ruptured spleen, a collapsed lung and 9 compound fractures in both legs.

Anyone know of any studies that address this question specifically?

Without such studies, all our assumptions are just so much pointless hand waving, similar to the hand waving a cyclist exhibits enroute over the top of the handlebars: useless.

Personally, even if the public cost of helmet laws IS increased because the hospitalization rate is increased, I still favor such laws. Any law that mitigates stupidity decreases the general misery index another tick and those ticks are all uphill.

 

Some years ago (during a brief time when I rode a road bicycle, before a knee inflammation made me quit) I was riding on a paved rural road behind a friend. This was in windy North Dakota. There was a bit of sand on the road and a sudden gust of wind caught my friend and his wheels just flew out from under him. I could hear the loud THUNK of his helmet on the pavement.

He came out of it with a headache. He took some aspirin. Without a helmet he'd have spilled his brains all over the road. And that was just a bicycle.

 

I've broken three bicycle helmets in five years. One of the tumbles I thought was minor broke one of them. Had no idea I'd struck my head. Another spill that split the helmet also wrecked my shoulder so severely it took a cadaver graft and three titanium bolts to put right.

None of the spills were planned. Every one of them was a surprise.

 

My ex wife is a physical therapist and one of my best friend's wife is an emergency room nurse. Do I need to tell you my position on motorcycles?

 

Lets take out the word "helmet" and substitute . . .

alcohol
smoking
drugs
trans-fats
sunbathing on the beach
high risk sports
certain lifestyles

. . . any difference in your opinions? They all apply as equally well and in the instance of the top three even more so. Yet I'd venture to say most here have no objections to alcohol or drugs. Why oh why do so many people want to nanny state themselves?

 

Tre, you know those crumple zones on your car or thoses air bags think Toyota put them there out of the kindness of their hearts? That was thanks to our Nanny State.

 

My (last) motorcycle wreck was caused by an old lady who blew a stop sign and ran me off the road. Seriously, she could barely see over her steering wheel, and just kept going - fast.

I came out with a dinged up sportsbike, a rashed helmet, and a destroyed leather jacket (elbows and back scraped down to the hard plastic armor plates). It was Halloween 2008, and I walked with a limp for about a week. So I dressed up as "Dr. House" for all of the parties.

The gear saved my life, and I never ride without it. However at some point you have to stop legislating common sense for those that don't have any.

If you want to make the roads safer, we'd probably do better to remove more senior citizens from behind the wheel. Anyone consider the larger social costs of letting those people drive?

 

Given that she's your EX-wife, a motorcycle would have been my first purchase post-split.

I can't count how many (ex)girlfriends I've had that wanted me to stop riding, or would start telling me stories about how some cousin's-former-roommate-twice-removed died some horrible tragic death. At some point I get tired of it and counter with a story about someone dying in a car wreck. It happens. Get over it.

The fact remains, that cruising through canyons and whizzing around a closed race track at 100+ MPH is better than sex. I wouldn't give it up for anyone.

 

And talking of sex, if one doesn't want to catch something nasty or start an unwanted family don't you wear a different type of helmet?

 

I hope it's seated, facing forward, knees to the breeze...and yes, properly equipped.

 

I always wear full gear: helmet, boots, gloves, riding jeans and a leather or mesh jacket. For "other" activities, yes I gear up appropriately.

My point is that you don't have a condom law for people without a shred of common sense, so why do we need a helmet law?

 

Easier to enforce.....

 

Alcoholism and drug abuse is most like helmetless bikers in that the clear burden it puts on taxpayers and the relatively immediate effects. Bad diet and smoking is not so strong a comparision because the harm is slower and taxpayers don't necessarily get the tab.

 

The 'Hurt Report' was the largest in the US and MAIDS was largest in Europe each with over 900 motorcycle accident investigations. There haven't been larger reports yet.

The Hurt Report summarized accident findings related to motorcycle crashes into a [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_findings_in_the_Hurt_Report"]55-point list[/ame]. Among the major points: two-thirds of motorcycle-car crashes occurred when the car driver failed to see the approaching motorcycle and violated the rider's right-of-way. The report also provided data showing clearly that helmets significantly reduce the risk of brain injury and death but with no increased risk of crash involvement or neck injury.

[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurt_Report[/ame]

 

Even when wearing a helmet, one still gets to enjoy riding. If you're trying to equate helmet requirements to banning alcohol or smoking, well, no comparison. I don't think people should be allowed to make a nuisance while drunk in public, smoke next to me anywhere they want or do any kind of drugs anywhere.

 

Riding motorcycles goes something like this for wise individuals - Take lots of safety training and get a license for riding. You venture out carefully here and there. You go again, and come home safe, over and over.

So many cases I've heard of with death or injury on a motorcycle involve rider error. Many if not most. Missing a corner, hitting a guardrail. Clipping a car, unsafe lane change, getting run over.

I'm not saying no one gets run over by the red light runner. It's just that so many accidents are due to rider error.

My crash in the first year was 100% my fault. Lack of skill, braked, blew a left turn, ran off road. The next 2,000 trips out the door, I came home safe.

That said, obviously if one crashes, the results can be horrific.

 

I *think* the prevailing reason I've heard here in CA is ... if Joey goes out and hits his head from a minor lowside, ends up with massive head trauma and ends up needing great care for the rest of his life, with huge medical expenses that burden someone, possiblly taxpayers, etc, etc... when otherwise, if Joey had a helmet, the helmet would have had some scratches on it, but Joey's head would have been just fine except for maybe a slight headache.

I wonder why people don't like helmets - they're uncomfortable? They like the wind in their hair? They want to be seen, or, they don't like being told what to do.

In my opinion, it's rather arrogant thinking one is not going to have an accident, or if they do, they are tough enough to come out of it unscathed even without a helmet. That's downright stupid and arrogant.

One's body can put up with a pretty good hit on the pavement - brain is not down in your gut or legs. But the head, your brain, cannot survive a massive hit.

Years ago, the Hurt Report, IIRC, proved without a doubt that helmets significantly limit head trauma.

Accidents happen like with this rider. He would be alive today if he had one on.

 

Three POVs, then my stand:

1. Either prohibiting motorcycles or require helmets AND full-leather armor, etc - nanny state

2. No helmet laws and sensible laws dealing with the accidents when they happen.

3. Helmet laws and laws to deal with accidents. In other words, go back to the late 1800's when there were few regulations.


I grew up being regarded as an arch-conservative agreeing with position #3. I KNOW I'm getting older when those that like position #2 may consider me sympathetic to a nanny state. My position is even a limited government needs from safeguard or abuses will endanger it (speculators in 2008/1929, people that cut corners on the BP oil well....) My concept of the "Rugged Individual" is the biker that wears a helmet to head off the nanny state advocates at the pass....common sense that allows conservative government to work.

My problem with the GOP in recent years is running government too lean, then avoid responsibility when accident DO happen.

 

Think any NFL player would like to play a game without a helmet?