helmet law repeal in Kentucky = 58% increased deaths

[fawndog]

She was talking on a cell phone while driving when she drove off the road and crashed. Stupid. We're not paying for the damage.

We already have laws like this, akin to She was not paying attention to the road because she was cracking open a fresh beer! Sorry but phone calls can be made later.

 

[madkiwi]

Another thought on the Kentucky numbers- how many of the deaths before and after were from head injuries? Perhaps the increases had nothing to do with the presense/lack of helmets.

I love statistics because they can be so misused.

madkiwi

 

[Joebar4000]

Seems like there's two arguments going on here...

Those that don't believe, or seemingly, don't WANT to believe the stats, haven't come off a bike and banged their (helmeted) head yet. I have, at about 10mph. If I wasn't wearing my lid, I wouldn't be typing this now.

Lids save lives, period. Not everybodies, obviously.

65% of the people in the state that repealed the law stated they still always wear a lid. So that means that 35% of the riders have accounted for a 20% rise in the RATE (that includes the increase in the number of registered riders).

Yeah, you can take THIS study and bitch about details, but there have been SO many studies and oh yeah, where's that thread on the death of common sense - OF COURSE helmets save lives.

I used to berate others about smoking, because it kills - it's a risky thing to do. Then I started rock climbing, motorcycling and parachuting...now who am I to tell smokers that what they do is risky? LOL!

Now, if the helmetless riders doesn't off themself and turn themself into a vegetable - then you might have grounds to complain that they are sucking up funds to care for others. But where do we draw the line? Do we really want to live in a society where ALL risk is removed because it COSTS too much? People have accidents all the time doing nothing risky at all - others engage in risky behaviour all their lives and never come a cropper.

I think people who ride helmetless are stupid - organ donors to be. But the general public could aim this same accusation at ALL motorcyclists - and have a point. Personally, I think the benefits FAR outweigh the risks - which is why I'm still riding

It's a tough one - my own personal gripe with the lack of helmet law is that some stupid people will think this means the government thinks it's not that unsafe to ride without a lid.

There again, so we want these people to persist anyway? A barbaric way to think, but in these days where teenagers can get pregnant and EXPECT the welfare state to pay for it, Darwinism could do with every bit of help we can manage, perhaps? Now, that's a whole new thread all on it's own

Shades of grey - sounds like another thread I was subscribed too

 

[OaklandF4i]

Joe Bar - I'm one of those often poking holes in stats. Its not that I dont believe or want to believe. I do advocate helmets, but not a law because as budman, BadDad and yourself have pointed out - the same sort of logic can be used against bikes in general and/or many other activities deemed to be more dangerous than what your average suburban housewife (no ill will intended) would find acceptable.

Furthermore, these stats in general are skewed and usually fail to disclose important information regarding the manner in which it was compiled, the population used, and total lack of a control group (Indiana doesnt have a helmet law and their death rate is less than 1/2 of Kentucky's since the repeal).

Reading posts like Herpantes is scarey. There are too many folks with opinions like his that vote who are not motorcyclists. Deciding what is right and an acceptable risk for others erodes EVERYONES freedom.

BTW Joebar - good post. Shows some real introspection and a rational/logical approach to the problem of deaths on the road.

 

[DataDan]

madkiwi wrote: Another thought on the Kentucky numbers- how many of the deaths before and after were from head injuries? Perhaps the increases had nothing to do with the presense/lack of helmets.

A more basic question is how much effect did repeal have on helmet use? Though the NHTSA report claims 96% compliance with the helmet law prior to repeal, 41% of motorcycle fatalities in 1996-97 (the last two full years before the 15 July 98 repeal) were unhelmeted. After repeal, NHTSA claims that helmet use dropped to 65-70%, but post-repeal unhelmeted fatalities (1999-2000) increased only to 49%. Not much of a rise for a supposedly large drop in helmet use. From the raw numbers of casualties, it's clear that somthing pushed the death count up, but helmet non-use was just one part of it.

(some data came from NHTSA's on-line query facility)

 

[Joebar4000]

From the raw numbers of casualties, it's clear that somthing pushed the death count up, but helmet non-use was just one part of it.

(some data came from NHTSA's on-line query facility)

Interesting point and one that should be warning to anyone looking at a large populace and citing only 2 axes to 'prove'/'disprove' their point of view.

For example, you lot might now have ever heard of Herr Bangemann, a German politician, who fought for a long time to have the maximum power output of bikes limited to 100hp.

JUST so happens that at that time, that was the max. power that any BMW bike made. Hmm.

He cited a study on this one particular stretch of road where 96% of fatalities involving motorcycles, had OVER 100hp. Compelling stuff.

He kinda 'left out' that this was high in the Alps, a tourist road - and that 98% of the bikes that travelled it, had over 100hp!

So, in actuality, biker UNDER 100hp overrepresented the fatalities by 2-1 by RATE.

I tend to agree with studies done like this however, because it goes with common sense...but you rightly pointed out some very pertinent missing data - that of compliance before and after, which puts a very different shade on it...you may well have a point - if the ACTUAL helmet USE hasn't changed, but the fatalities have gone up by 20% more than the registration amount, then some other factor is involved. It could be SO many things - age of rider, more new riders (it only records registrations after all, not experience of the rider) new road surfaces, yadda yadda.

That's why I'm always nonplussed when people point to simplistic studies to prove that guns are bad/guns are good/pitbulls are bad/pitbulls are good - when they don't take into acount a zillion other sociological factors...

 

[DataDan]

Joebar4000 wrote: if the ACTUAL helmet USE hasn't changed, but the fatalities have gone up by 20% more than the registration amount, then some other factor is involved. It could be SO many things - age of rider, more new riders (it only records registrations after all, not experience of the rider) new road surfaces, yadda yadda.

A good example of "SO many other things" occurred after helmet law repeal in Louisiana (covered in the same NHTSA report as Kentucky). Deaths increased in LA as they did in KY, but unhelmeted deaths jumped from 36% before repeal to 60% after repeal. However, for whatever reason, those who died unhelmeted in the years following repeal were much more likely to have been drinking than those who died helmeted. Overall, the drink-involved percentage changed little after helmet-law repeal, but those who did die on a motorcycle after drinking tended not to wear helmets. So does the increase in unhelmeted deaths after repeal reflect the danger of riding without a helmet, or does is it merely reflect the preference of drunks who were going to die anyway?