Deaths up since Florida helmet law repealed

[thirdman]

from here:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/08/09/motorcycle.deaths.ap/index.html

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Motorcycle fatalities have risen sharply in Florida since the state repealed its mandatory helmet law.

States that repeal such laws run the risk of increased deaths and mounting health care costs for injured bikers, according to two studies released Monday, one by the government, the other by the insurance industry.

The first, by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, found that in the three years following Florida's repeal of its mandatory helmet law in 2000, 933 motorcyclists were killed, an 81 percent increase from the 515 bikers killed from 1997 to 1999.

Even though the state requires helmet use by riders under age 21, fatalities among that group nearly tripled in the three years after the repeal; 45 percent of those killed were not wearing helmets.

The cost of hospital care for motorcycle injuries grew from $21 million to $44 million in the 30 months after the law changed; the figures were adjusted for inflation.

The study, conducted by the Connecticut-based Preusser Research Group, mirrored the findings of a 2003 federal review that found that fatalities grew by more than 50 percent in Kentucky and 100 percent in Louisiana after those states struck down their mandatory helmet laws.

"The results are remarkably similar that when you repeal a helmet law, you can expect an increase in fatalities and you can expect an increase in medical costs," said NHTSA spokesman Rae Tyson.

The second study released Monday, by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, found that the death rate of motorcyclists from 2001-02 increased 25 percent compared with the two years before the repeal of the helmet law in Florida.

The debate has generated legislative struggles during the past decade, with motorcyclists rumbling through state capitals and unleashing torrents of phone calls and e-mails to lobby for repeals. Some motorcyclists complain that they should have the choice of wearing a helmet and urge states to focus more on rider education.

But safety groups contend that less restrictive laws lead to more fatalities and burden society through higher medical costs. They mostly have waged a losing battle since the mid-1990s, when Congress removed federal sanctions against states without helmet laws and a handful of states weakened their statutes.

Twenty states and the District of Columbia require all motorcycle riders to wear protective helmets, a decline from 47 states in 1975, according to the institute, which is funded by the insurance industry.

Nationally, fatalities increased nearly 8 percent to 4,008 in 2004, the first time they have surpassed 4,000 deaths since 1987.

Motorcycle deaths have increased seven years in a row.

Florida requires helmet use by riders under the age of 21 or by older riders who do not carry a minimum of $10,000 medical insurance coverage. The state's climate allows for year-round riding, and Daytona Beach's Bike Week attracts hundreds of thousands of motorcyclists every March.

In the institute's report, the motorcycle-crash death rate increased 25 percent in the two years after Florida's law changed, growing from 30.8 deaths to 38.8 deaths per 1,000 crashes.

Tom Lindsay, a spokesman for the American Motorcyclist Association, noted that both studies failed to show the causes of crashes, such as the rider's behavior, road and weather conditions or the motorcycle itself.

The federal highway bill approved by Congress in late July included funding for the first major study of motorcycle crash data since the late 1970s.

"We're looking forward to real research that surveys many factors of motorcycling crashes and comes up with ways that we can reduce this number," Lindsay said.

[callmelenny]

[thirdman]

So do you think there should be manditory helmet laws?

[indestructibleman]

i would like to see them compare the change in death rates in those states to the change in death rates in states that kept their helmet laws over the same time period.

i've read several previous NHTSA studies on motorcycle safety, and they have all been prime examples of stupid misuse of statistics.  they have a tendency to completely fail to put their stats into any meaningful context.


-will

[Roadstergal]

[RVertigo]

Seat belts are mandatory in, what... 20 states?  I see no difference between seat belt laws and helmet laws.

I don't care if I have to wear my seat belt (although it is a "pull over" offence in WA), I wear it anyway.  Same goes for my helmet.

Although, I agree with the statement, "I don't believe in a government that protects us from ourselves."

[RVertigo]

I think the driving/riding age should be a lot higher than it is now, for just that reason of not-quite-adult-and-rational

They'd have to change the driving age too...  And they'd have to make them both 25...  Statistics say that people under 25 are way more likely to crash and do stupid shaZam!...

[thirdman]

I am personally torn on this topic.  I believe that everyone on a motorcycle should wear a helmet (and gear), but I am not sure if I want the government telling me EVERYTHING that I can and can't do.    But some folks are stupid... and their stupidity can impact others.  I waffle, I admit it.

Big gov't vs. small gov't.  Discuss.

--or--

Let captialism handle it...  the insurance companies could deny coverage to anyone who doesn't wear a helmet...? Would this be enforcable? Insurance is required to legally drive... Discuss

[indestructibleman]

I think the driving/riding age should be a lot higher than it is now, for just that reason of not-quite-adult-and-rational

They'd have to change the driving age too...  And they'd have to make them both 25...  Statistics say that people under 25 are way more likely to crash and do stupid shaZam!...

the automobile lobby would never stand for that, i'm guessing.

though, if the age were raised, i imagine that might lead to an increased concern for the quality of our public transportation.

- They aren't always killed. Sometimes they end up a vegetable, soaking up either insurance or tax dollars living a brain-dead life in a hospital.

-Regardless of whether they die or live comatose, it hikes insurance rates for the rest of us.

i generally agree with this reasoning.  unfortunately, this argument could also be used to protect loopholes allowing health insurance not to cover injuries from motorcycling.  why should others pay increased rates to cover the extra risk that motorcyclists run?


-will

[Roadstergal]

They'd have to change the driving age too...  And they'd have to make them both 25...  Statistics say that people under 25 are way more likely to crash and do stupid shaZam!...

the automobile lobby would never stand for that, i'm guessing.

though, if the age were raised, i imagine that might lead to an increased concern for the quality of our public transportation.

Yep, yep, and yep.

unfortunately, this argument could also be used to protect loopholes allowing health insurance not to cover injuries from motorcycling.  why should others pay increased rates to cover the extra risk that motorcyclists run?

You increase your risk by walking out of the door, by getting in a car, etc. - the general standard is that a slight increased risk with a defineable positive tradeoff is worth coverage.  Motorcycling responsibly (with course training and all of the gear) is a moderate risk increase with definite positives for both the biker and the community at large.  Motorcycling without a helmet is a massively increased risk with no real benifit.

[indestructibleman]

on a similar note, i'd also support a tiered liscensing system for motorcycles.

man, imagine what raising the driving age to 25 might do for traffic congestion and pollution.

[gazingwa]

In Ohio, we require a helmet for the first year only.  I see mabe 10% of cruiser riders wearing, 30% of sportbike(half of those with just helmet and t-shirt) and about 70% of touring bike(non harley).  In other words... not many people around here wear helmets.  So relying on common sense doesn't do you much good when it seems to be accepted to ride around without a helmet.  My uncle (v-star 650) has the idea, if I'm gonna crash, it's over anyways so why bother and it isn't the first time i've heard that argument.  But look around here, how many of our members have gone down and are still riding today because of gear?

Summary for the lazy crowd:

Helmet laws Good

[Roadstergal]

man, imagine what raising the driving age to 25 might do for traffic congestion and pollution.

Yeah, baby...

I was saying the other day that I think I'm getting old, because... well, the music kids listen to today does suck, and they are lazy.

[davipu]

and what's wrong with being lazy?

[RVertigo]

on a similar note, i'd also support a tiered liscensing system for motorcycles.

man, imagine what raising the driving age to 25 might do for traffic congestion and pollution.

Yeah...  Forcing people to start on a small bike is another one of those laws...  It wouldn't affect me, 'cause I did it anyway...

While we're raising the driving age to 25, we might as well make a max driving age.  70 sound good?

How about a reflex test...  Intelligence test...  The requirement to be able to see far enough to read street signs.  With re-tests every two years...  Outright license revocation for a first time DUI...  Jail time for driving without a license.

[Jazzzzz]

[Jazzzzz]

While we're raising the driving age to 25, we might as well make a max driving age.  70 sound good?

As long as after 70 they can test yearly to keep their license - vision and driving test.

Outright license revocation for a first time DUI...  Jail time for driving without a license.

Too many people in jail for BS offenses at it is, but I do agree that DUI punishments need to be stepped up.  My ex-guitar instructor had over 10 DUIs and could still drive legally.  License revocation on first DUI is too strict, but I'm all for yanking it on the second or third.  House arrest and community service plus fines for driving on a suspended or invalid license.

[gazingwa]

License revocation on first DUI is too strict, but I'm all for yanking it on the second or third.  

     
It only took 1 DUI to ruin my wifes back(3/4 ton truck vs ford tempo).  The guy just moved out of state (happened in PA) and got a Florida liscense.

Horrible to think he is allowed to do it to someone else.  Actually, he did....  He hit her as he was fleeing the scene after he hit an elderly couple in a Cavelier.  After hitting my wife, he ran off to his house and was too drunk to remember the passcode to get in, when the cops tracked him down he laughed about hitting her.  Now tell me why he should be allowed to drive again?

[Jazzzzz]

License revocation on first DUI is too strict, but I'm all for yanking it on the second or third.  

     
It only took 1 DUI to ruin my wifes back(3/4 ton truck vs ford tempo).  The guy just moved out of state (happened in PA) and got a Florida liscense.

Horrible to think he is allowed to do it to someone else.  Actually, he did....  He hit her as he was fleeing the scene after he hit an elderly couple in a Cavelier.  After hitting my wife, he ran off to his house and was too drunk to remember the passcode to get in, when the cops tracked him down he laughed about hitting her.  Now tell me why he should be allowed to drive again?

I didn't say anything about not revoking a license for causing an accident with injury or fleeing the scene.  Revoking the license of some guy who gets pulled over after one beer at a barbecue and breathalyzed is a bit steep.  A judge should by all means have the leeway to take a driver's license in a case such as what happened to your wife, but he should not be required to do so.  Draconian mandatory sentencing laws are the reason why jails are overfilled with drug addicts that need counseling instead of hardened criminals that need to be locked up (yes I realize I am generalizing to the point of sounding preachy, but I hope you get the gist of what I'm trying to say).

[oppy00]

What about mandatory executions for DUI offenders. :guns:  
That will ease congestion, decrease pollution, and boost the funeral business's economy.  It's a win-win-win situation.


Sure I'm being obsurd (sp)  but this is the kind of big-government crap we're heading towards.  I disagree with helmet laws, as well as seat belt laws, but only on principle.  These laws are limitations on freedom and set precedence for government control.  If you have helmet laws why not have riding-gear laws?

I wear my helmet, I wear gear (at least a jacket and gloves w/ jeans), I wear my seat-belt, but it isn't the government's (big brother's) place to make me.  There are too many compassionate people to allow stupid people to just die (that is probably a good thing).  

If I could I'd by the world a Bud    and we'd all just get along.