Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[TIF2]

This an interesting study performed in 2009 by NHSTA. I find it interesting that IIHS does not point to or reference this more recent study on their FAQ in section 7.

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811208.PDF

 If you take the time to read through it carefully, you'll see how it can be easily "spun" to support helmet laws and the cost of healthcare. However, the data doesn't support non-helmeted riders to be a contributing factor over helmeted riders. While you can make big headlines that non-helmeted riders suffered more TBI than helmeted riders - the actual numbers between the two categories are small. A relevent excerpt as follows (I added the emphasis):

"In the data set, 57 percent of motorcyclists were helmeted at the time of the crashes and 43 percent were non-helmeted. For both groups, about 40 percent of motorcyclists were treated at hospitals or died following the crashes. However, 6.6 percent of unhelmeted motorcyclists suffered a moderate to severe head or facial injury compared to 5.1 percent of helmeted motorcyclists. Moderate to severe injuries were defined as a Maximum Abbreviated Injury Severity (MAIS) scale of level 2 or higher

Fifteen percent of hospital-treated helmeted motorcyclists suffered traumatic brain injury (TBI) compared to 21 percent of hospital-treated unhelmeted motorcyclists. TBI severity varied by helmet use. Almost 9 percent of unhelmeted and 7 percent of helmeted hospital-treated motorcyclists received minor to moderate TBI. More than 7 percent of unhelmeted and 4.7 percent of hospital-treated helmeted motorcyclists sustained severe TBI.

Median charges for hospitalized motorcyclists who survived to discharge were 13 times higher for those incurring a TBI compared to those who did not sustain a TBI ($31,979 versus $2,461). Over 85 percent of hospital-treated motorcyclists without a TBI were discharged home, compared to 56 percent of motorcyclists with severe TBI. Motorcyclists admitted to the hospital with TBI were more likely to die, be discharged to rehab, or transferred to a long-term care facility. While 17 percent of all hospital-admitted motorcyclists had TBI, they account for 54 percent of all admitted riders who did not survive." <-- Note that in this paragraph it does not distinguish between "helmeted" vs "non-helmeted" riders, ony those riders that suffered TBI.

So from the above study:

6.6% of non-helmeted riders suffered MAIS
5.1% of helmeted riders suffered MAIS
Difference = 1.5%

15% of helmeted riders suffered TBI
21% of non-helmeted riders suffered TBI
Difference = 6%

However, remember that the total percentage of helmeted riders in this study were larger, 57% to 43% - so the actual numbers are as follows(rounded to nearest real person):
Total helmeted riders = 59,549
Total MAIS = 3,037
Total TBI = 8,932

Total non-helmeted riders = 44,923
Total MAIS = 2,965
Total TBI = 9,434

Bottom line here is that it really makes no appreciable difference whether people wear a helmet or not as far as healthcare costs go. Helmeted riders are not imune from MAIS and TBI. While I will contend that in the above study, non-helmeted riders (as a percentage of non-helmeted riders) suffered more MAIS and TBI than helmeted riders (as a percentage of helmeted riders) - the numbers do not support a "causation" difference for total healthcare costs. You have to keep in mind that once riders are classified as "with TBI" - it doesn't matter if they were helmeted or not - the costs per the study are the same for both groups. The study goes on to state:

"A logistic regression analysis that accounted for clustering of motorcyclists within States indicated that helmets significantly reduced the odds of sustaining head or facial injury, TBI, and dying in the hospital."

I don't know what a "logistic regression analysis" when applied to "clustering of motorcyclists" is, but the actual numbers state 6% difference in TBI. Not sure I see that as "significant".

[TIF2]

Ok ... my last post on the subject (well - maybe )

I don't care whether anyone wears a helmet or not. Fundamentally I believe in the Right for a person to chose one's own destiny - be it right or be it wrong - and as long as that decision does not impede on other's Rights to do the same; then more power to you I say. I also believe that helmet legislation only benefits the Corporations that have a vested interest (by profit) in keeping them on the books.

The last thing helmet laws are about is "protecting society".
It is analogous to passing a law that prevents people from pissing in a creek because it might cause the oceans to flood.

I've edited the content of my original post - after having read it a couple of times I realize it could have been considered condescending to others.
Sorry about that - never meant it to come off that way.

[DDavidson]

TIF2 well stated. Motorcycle accident costs are so minimal in regards to total Vehicle accident costs. Making helmet-less rider accidents even more minimal in regards to total Vehicle accident costs.

I notice more insurance companies starting to offer motorcycle insurance and if the accident costs were high they wouldn't touch it.

When I high-sided on my bike last fall I wasn't screaming for Jesus but I was wishing I had put my chin guard down. But a little tuck of the head and a roll of the shoulder and I didn't touch the helmet at all. I still think my helmet would have better protected my skull hitting the pavement versus my hair gel alone.

After my brother got the Mirror Post shoved through his forehead we all wished he'd had a seatbelt on. Hindsight logic for him.

People shouldn't have to breathe other people's smoke, but Helmet Laws aren't the same.

Nanny Laws are annoying. I almost want to guess that people who create these laws don't ride motorcycles, mountain bike, ride personal watercraft, boat, raft, rock climb, ski, sky dive, wind surf, hang glide, ride atvs or swing dance. But somebody (paramedics, doctors, police) must be telling Law-makers that if he had a helmet on he'd have survived.

But who asked Lawmakers to protect us educated experienced Adults from ourselves?

Lawmakers also use a process that once they reduce the current period's number one cause of accidents they move the number two to number one and start all over with protecting us. Pretty soon "walking while elderly" will be a hazard and we will be required to wear helmets and use walkers with flashing lights when over 65 years old and using a public walkway to prevent head injuries when falling. Using the public walkways is a priviledge and thus can be controlled by a Government Agency.

[TIF2]

"An honest man can feel no pleasure in the exercise of power over his fellow citizens."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Melish, January 13, 1813

'Nuff said to me.