Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rising deaths stir new debate over helmet laws
Philadelphia Inquirer ^ | 12/01/03 | Joseph A. Gambardello

Posted on 12/01/2003 7:38:02 AM PST by Holly_P

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 181-183 next last
To: HamiltonJay
I came close more than a few times through No. 3 "Caged Drivers". I gave up bikes (for now) when a garbage truck ran through a red light and almost clipped me. If I hadn't goosed the throttle and skooted out of his way fast.... well, "killed by garbage truck" is NOT what I want on my tombstone.

Now that I'm a cager, I find myself practicing extra awareness around bikers (more space between vehicles, extra room on rainy days, watch your vehicle wake on rainy days, etc.). I still cuss when I see some freakin' idiot on a rice-burnin' crotch-rocket running between lanes of cars on the interstate at 90 mph, but I guess that's a sign of getting older.

When my kids are out of the house (and my wife lets me), I'm going to buy me that soft-tail Harley "one of these days". (smile)

41 posted on 12/01/2003 9:15:02 AM PST by Jonah Hex (If it wasn't for door-to-door salesmen, my dog would never get any exercise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: JSteff
Welcome to the epidemic disease of trauma. I am a general surgeon who specializes in trauma and surgical critical care. These are my patients.

Trauma-related injuries are the leading cause of death for Americans between the ages of 1 year to 44 years (CDC data, look it up yourself).

Trauma removes more citizens from productive life, either temporarily or permanently, than any other disease.

(If you want to get into the horribly technical details, google "Disability Adjusted Life Years" or check out http://www.worldbank.org/html/extdr/hnp/hddflash/workp/wp_00068.html).

With some editing and rearrangement of the original post, I have a few thoughts and comments.

A few days earlier, a federal agency had released figures showing the average number of motorcyclists killed in crashes had doubled in Louisiana in the first two years after the state repealed its mandatory helmet law.

Departing Gov. Mike Foster, a biker himself, signed Louisiana's repeal into law in August 1999, saying it represented a move toward "less government."

"Government ought not tell us what we can do to protect ourselves," he said. "We should have enough sense to protect ourselves."

And Americans by now SHOULD have enough sense not to use alcohol or drugs and then get behind the wheel, get in a barroom fight, etc. Yet over 50% of my trauma patients have ingested alcohol or other substances of abuse prior to their trauma. Let's not use arguments made up of straw-men that are perfect; it's not a perfect world.

A motorcyclist is now 26 times more likely to die in a crash than an automobile passenger, with 3,141 killed in 2001. Researchers are still exploring the causes of the sudden rise, and possible culprits include more motorcycles, bigger engines, older riders, increased alcohol consumption, and the repeal of helmet laws.

A report prepared for the Louisiana Highway Safety Commission and issued this year showed that in cases where helmet use was known, bikers not wearing helmets and dying in accidents outnumbered those who did, by 1.6 to 1, after the repeal.

"You can make numbers look like anything you want, say anything you want," said Travis "Blackie" Lawless, a St. James Parish motorcycle officer who wears a helmet on the job but does not when he is off-duty unless the weather is bad.

"Not wearing a helmet does not cause an accident," said Lawless, ABATE-Louisiana's vice president.

True, and completely pointless. This is not about preventing the crash, but about decreasing the risk of fatal or permanently disabling injury. Google "Haddon matrix".

"And just because you have a helmet on does not mean you're going to survive an accident."

No, it just dramatically increases the odds of survival in your favor, reduces the total cost of survivors' care, and reduces the loss of productive man-years to society. See above.

The Louisiana study said a possible key factor in that state is that most bikers in Louisiana apparently have not taken a safety course needed to get the license endorsement to operate a motorcycle. Bikers without a motorcycle endorsement account for 62 percent of the fatalities in Louisiana, the report said.

Lawless and Elkins, a retired chemical-plant worker, agreed that many bikers do not have the safety skills needed to ride motorcycles.

"If [a biker] doesn't know his limitations, he is setting himself up for failure," Lawless said.

No, he's setting himself up for permanent disability or death. If you own a gun, learn how to use it safely and responsibly. If you own a motorcycle, same deal.

Still, the study said, "there is convincing evidence that a decline in helmet use is the most important factor contributing to death and severe injury."

If you want to improve things, start with the areas where even small changes can have big effects. Or, "go where the money is"; speaking of which:

Under the Louisiana law, bikers 18 and older do not have to wear a helmet as long as they have proof of at least $10,000 in medical insurance coverage.

Jim Aiken, an emergency-room doctor at New Orleans' Charity Hospital, ... said the $10,000 in insurance coverage bikers are required to carry to ride helmetless would come nowhere near covering the cost of a lifetime of care, which often falls to the state.

$10,000 won't TOUCH the costs of even ACUTE hospitalization for a serious injury. With just the typical ICU costs of about $2000-3000/day, this will go in a flash.

The cost of the acute care alone falls heavily on the trauma centers. Depending upon the percentage of uninsured trauma patients, the overal reimbursement rates can range from as low as 15% up to maybe 40%. Try keeping any other venture open with those rates.

But to the bikers, getting out on the highway on a Harley unencumbered with a helmet is a freedom issue, one with risk but a matter of choice.

Freedom isn't free; privilege is bought by responsibility. If you can't cover the consequences of your choice, you are being irresponsible and creating a burden to the rest of society.

42 posted on 12/01/2003 9:15:03 AM PST by OccamsRazor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: BraveMan
Was your wife's friend wearing a seat belt with shoulder strap? Seat belts are to cars what helmets are to motorcycles.
43 posted on 12/01/2003 9:15:07 AM PST by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Holly_P; martin_fierro
Blah, blah, blah ,blah

Make law, rescind law, make law, rescind law, make law, rescind law.

I'm so cornfused!

Oh look, goofy brother-in-law is gonna die too!!

44 posted on 12/01/2003 9:22:00 AM PST by JoeSixPack1 (POW/MIA Bring 'em Home, Or Send us Back!! Semper Fi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 69ConvertibleFirebird
I agree. I've been riding for close to 18 years now (dirt bikes as a youth, and street bikes when I was older/bigger), and I've noticed that I, as well as other biker friends of mine, get an inflated sense of confidence while wearing a helmet.

I can say for a fact that I ride much more safely if I DON'T wear a helmet.

Does anyone else experience this?
45 posted on 12/01/2003 9:28:56 AM PST by Buell_X1-1200 (Topeka Kansas Toys for Tots 2003 - What a ride!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: civil discourse
Your insurance premiums are negatively impacted by the existence of motorcyclists, but not for the reasons you might think . . .

The majority of motorcycle accidents (approx. 73%) occur when the driver of an automobile turns left in front of an oncoming motorcyclist, violating the motorcyclist's right-of-way. The insurance company payouts from the ensuing litigation tend to be VERY LARGE. The insurance companies want motorcyclists off the road. Mandatory helmet laws serve their purpose nicely.

Ridership has declined significantly in every state where helmet laws were enacted. In California, motorcycle registrations fell 23% in the first year mandatory helmet laws were enacted.

All this hue and cry over "donors and idiots" creating this terrible public burden is just so much chasing after the wind. They have no facts to support their claim; only anecdotes they think support their knee-jerk conclusions. The fact of the matter is the heath care for injured motorcyclists amounts to 0.583% of the health care costs nationally.

Those who champion this "helmet on every biker's head" mentality are nothing more than Socialists masquerading as conservatives on this forum. Incidentally, this form of socialism would be infinitely more productive if aimed at automobile drivers instead of motorcyclists. I've read that over 90% of the automobile accident fatalities are the result of head injuries sustained in the accident.
46 posted on 12/01/2003 9:30:18 AM PST by BraveMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: JSteff
Perhaps "those-without-helmets" and "those-without-seatbelts" could be deemed to automatically be organ donors without the need for consent.
47 posted on 12/01/2003 9:33:58 AM PST by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: OccamsRazor
"Freedom isn't free; privilege is bought by responsibility. If you can't cover the consequences of your choice, you are being irresponsible and creating a burden to the rest of society."

Only under socialism are you burdened by other peoples irresponsibility.

48 posted on 12/01/2003 9:40:07 AM PST by Bob Mc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Havoc
My head was one of the first things on my body to make contact with the road. If there'd been a helmet law in Indiana at the time of my wreck - the likely hood is I would be dead as a result of law

Huh?

49 posted on 12/01/2003 9:45:43 AM PST by The Good Doctor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Revelation 911
I also see the game youre playing

No games, no spin. Its a given that far more people die from head injuries sustained in automobile accidents than motorcycle accidents. Its also a given that motorcycle fatalities due to head injuries run roughly equal between helmeted versus non-helmeted riders. Thats the truth.

Why do I need to subsidize some rice burning rockets insurance coverage by participating in the same risk pool ?

Good question. The part that confuses me is why you think (if you do indeed think this way) mandatory helmet laws are going to solve this problem. It won't! The motorcycle fatality rate per 100 riders is actually slightly HIGHER in states that mandate helmet use. Far better to look at graduated licensing requirements like those used in Japan, or better DRIVER education.

50 posted on 12/01/2003 9:48:00 AM PST by BraveMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer
Ping.
51 posted on 12/01/2003 9:52:54 AM PST by biblewonk (I must answer all bible questions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: HamiltonJay
I don't buy into the argument not wearing a helmet makes you safer or more aware, it doesn't. Don't believe government should be telling adults they have to wear one either.

Or seatbelts.

52 posted on 12/01/2003 9:54:19 AM PST by biblewonk (I must answer all bible questions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: All; biblewonk
A motorcyclist is now 26 times more likely to die in a crash than an automobile passenger

I wonder how many different ways there are to measure such a "statistic." I mean, at the very least, there is deaths-per-million-miles-traveled, deaths-per-million-passenger-miles-traveled, deaths-per-registered-vehicle, ...

53 posted on 12/01/2003 9:59:37 AM PST by newgeezer (fundamentalist, regarding the Constitution AND the Holy Bible, i.e. words mean things!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Good Doctor
Don't you know, helmets are dangerous and cause broken necks? No? Actually, I don't know, maybe those shorty helmets are prone to having an edge catch and providing extra leverage for the pavement to break your neck or whatever. I do know that with full-face helmet like the one I wear the design pretty much precludes the edge of the helmet catching on the pavement. And the helmet's shell has a lower coefficient of friction on pavement than does hair and skin.
54 posted on 12/01/2003 10:00:55 AM PST by -YYZ-
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: The Good Doctor
Huh?

Result of Havoc's having landed on his head first.

55 posted on 12/01/2003 10:05:07 AM PST by Cagey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: JSteff
There is one good thing about "No Helmet" laws. My wife is an R.N. and says that they usually leave good organ donor bodies. Unlike those who die from old age etc, most of the time the other organs are in relatively good shape.

I happen to be an organ donor. I have, however, given orders that if I should happen to kick off, in a bike accident or otherwise, in a locale with a helmet law, no donation is to be made and my remains are to be cremated.

And since some unscrupulous physicians will *harvest* organs before notifying the family, claiming that the urgency of the situation required such immediate measures, I've also given orders that if such should occur, the funds from an insurance policy taken out for just such an instance should be used as a bounty for similarly harvesting the hands and eyes of any physician so involved in such a procedure, or anyone assisting.

After all, turn about is fair play, right?

In the event things are more routine, the insurance benefits get used for a party for my pals instead. That'd be a much happier ending, but you never can tell how things will turn out when crooked do-gooders are involved.

-archy-/-

56 posted on 12/01/2003 10:07:42 AM PST by archy (Angiloj! Mia kusenveturilo estas plena da angiloj!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Onelifetogive
They point to a Louisiana safety commission report that estimated that 46 deaths and 73 severe injuries could have been avoided if motorcyclists had worn helmets between 1999 and 2002. The study calculated that those casualties cost the citizens of Louisiana $102 million.

They wouldn't say it if it wasn't true, right? Sort of like the "scrubbing bubbles" . . .

I'm looking for this report; I can't find it. I would love to learn how they arrived at these figures, because the numbers cited differ greatly from the nationwide study done not too long ago.

NHTSA "CODES" Study

57 posted on 12/01/2003 10:09:34 AM PST by BraveMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: BraveMan
"Good question. The part that confuses me is why you think (if you do indeed think this way) mandatory helmet laws are going to solve this problem. It won't! The motorcycle fatality rate per 100 riders is actually slightly HIGHER in states that mandate helmet use. Far better to look at graduated licensing requirements like those used in Japan, or better DRIVER education."

And in fact, the social costs argument for helmet use is pretty weak, too. For every rider who escapes an accident with minor injuries that would have put them in long term care for a brain injury, by wearing a helmet, you can probably find another who ends up brain injured from an accident wearing a helmet where they would have ended up dead without it. Any caring for a brain-injured person in the long run is much more expensive than paying out on a death.

The above is also a favorite argument of the ABATE types. Personally, I'd rather take a chance on ending up brain-injured rather than dead in a major accident, if it means that I have a good chance of walking away from an accident that might have left me brain-injured or dead if I wasn't wearing a helmet. Think Gary Busey, for example.

The thing is, people are still free in this society to take any number of risks without any proof of being insured for the care they might need. Sky diving. Rock climbing. White water rafting. Bicycling in traffic. Working on ladders. And so on and so forth. So why does the public suddenly have an interest in your health when you get behind the wheel or throw a leg over your bike?
58 posted on 12/01/2003 10:11:28 AM PST by -YYZ-
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: BraveMan
They wouldn't say it if it wasn't true, right?

I agree...But these statistics aside...You cannot argue that people with serious injuries and little or no insurance, get medical care...no matter how expensive.

59 posted on 12/01/2003 10:14:00 AM PST by Onelifetogive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Holly_P
Government shouldn't legislate common sense.
60 posted on 12/01/2003 10:17:44 AM PST by petercooper (Proud VRWC Neanderthal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 181-183 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson