GStwin.com GS500 Message Forum

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WASHINGTON (AP) -- Motorcycle fatalities have risen sharply in Florida since the state repealed its mandatory helmet law.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

So do you think there should be manditory helmet laws?

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

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."

Quote from: RoadstergalI 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!...

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

Quote from: RVertigo

Quote from: RoadstergalI 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.

Quote from: Roadstergal- 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

Quote from: indestructibleman

Quote from: RVertigoThey'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.

Quote from: indestructiblemanunfortunately, 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.

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.

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 :thumb:

Quote from: indestructiblemanman, 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.

and what's wrong with being lazy?

Quote from: indestructiblemanon 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.

Quote from: RVertigo

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.

QuoteOutright 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.

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

:bs:  :bs:  :bs:  :bs:
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?

Quote from: gazingwa

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

:bs:  :bs:  :bs:  :bs:
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).

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   :cheers:  and we'd all just get along.

You are missing the point, those stupid people cost the rest of us money, in insurance (both bike and health) and their deaths affect others, fatherless/motherless childer and such

Quote from: thirdmanSo do you think there should be manditory helmet laws?

I answer yes to that question, but as someone with a Libertarian outlook I kind of choke on the answer.

I have no problem with idiots killing themselves but unfortunately the rest of us often bear the costs of their idiocy.

I think seatbelts laws are necessary for the same reasons.

I consider it a minor inconvenience to the individual for a large benefit to the society. I guess that is the test I apply when considering the situation.

I realize this can be a slippery slope.

Quote from: gazingwaYou are missing the point, those stupid people cost the rest of us money, in insurance (both bike and health) and their deaths affect others, fatherless/motherless childer and such

Hear hear.  I hate paying for other people to be stupid.

Quote from: oppy00this is the kind of big-government crap we're heading towards.

Yup...

Welcome to the world of foamy corners and lukewarm coffee...

Save us from ourselves!

Why does a hairdryer have a warning that says, "Do no use in bath."  It's a sad state of affairs when we spend more money keeping ignorant people from killing themselves than we do trying to rid our country of ignorance.

Educate the masses and let people handle their own safety.

Quote from: RVertigo
Educate the masses and let people handle their own safety.

You can't educate the unwilling.  "The Mobb", if you will, has always existed, and likely always will.  The ease with which a lawsuit over the most frivolous claims can be launched and won has made everyone pander to the lowest common denominator.  Makes you want to be a hermit.

Quote from: JazzzzzYou can't educate the unwilling.  "The Mobb", if you will, has always existed, and likely always will.

Yep.

Quote from: callmelennyI consider it a minor inconvenience to the individual for a large benefit to the society. I guess that is the test I apply when considering the situation.

Yep.

Call it a slippery slope, but I'll take that over an untenable bluff any day.



"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and consciencious stupidity."  -MLK Jr.

Yea Helmet laws ... I cant even keep my eyes open at 40 MPH with face sheild open ... OK I guess that's why so many crashes ... they cant see where they going ...
BTW cost to public ... I cant accept that ... I'd say Dont treat it from public funds, its gotta be in his insurance ... Like a smokers ins policy ... Buy your own medical, wear it on your wrist, if its helmeted only, and you get an accident un helmeted, then you pay for it. Else Insurance covers it. I hate it when I am in doubt as to if my motorcycle accident will be taken care of by my insurance ... I want them to say Motorcycle on my card ...  :lol:  ... but Might as well say Helmet or no helmet ...
Cool.
Srinath.

I like that...  If you wreck without a DOT helmet, you have to pay out-of-pocket for your treatment...

Sounds like a great law to me.  Then people can go without if they want...  and the rest of us will be covered by insurance and/or county hospitals. :thumb:

Quote from: RVertigoI like that...  If you wreck without a DOT helmet, you have to pay out-of-pocket for your treatment...

But that doesn't take care of 3, 4, and 5 on my list.  I worry particularly about 4.

Sure it does...  It places the safety of children where it belongs, on the parents.

If you say people are too ignorant to know how to protect their children, then that takes us back to education...  

I was sitting in a bar across from the airport in Reno waiting for my ride and I overheard a railroad worker talking about a run-in he had with a stupid parent.  He was letting his little kids ride up and down the train tracks, more-or-less unsupervised.  If a train came along, the helmet on the kid's head wouldn't have don't a damn thing except make him a pretty corpse...  Maybe.

It's not just a helmet that will save someone's life.

The problem with this argument is, where does it stop? If I eat a danish for breakfast once a week, can the insurance company say that they won't pay for my heart bypass, because I didn't take care of myself?

I've always rather been on the fence about laws that restrict our freedom. I recall being against the seatbelt law when it passed, but I'd never be caught without my seatbelt. I think all drugs should be legalized; if people want to fry themselves on drugs, let them...let's empty out the prisons and put the money toward rehab.

Where I have the hardest time is with children. They can't advocate for themselves, so if the government needs to, so be it. Insofar as mandatory-helmet laws... once again, I'm torn between the government restricting our freedoms and rights, and the ugly, torn lives of people left behind after fatal (or maiming) motorcycle accidents.

At this point, I probably lean closer to personal freedom, but I won't be caught dead without my helmet (if you'll pardon the 'spression).

pandy
who takes a deep breath after having been serious for so long!!  :mrgreen:

Quote from: RVertigoI like that...  If you wreck without a DOT helmet, you have to pay out-of-pocket for your treatment...

Sounds like a great law to me.  Then people can go without if they want...  and the rest of us will be covered by insurance and/or county hospitals. :thumb:

The prisons and drugs thing ... Yea I actually have an idea ... If you are convicted of a crime, depending on the seriousness of the crime, instead of being tossed in jail for 100's of years ... you can opt to give up a spare organ. Like Manslaughter 2 will be a kidney, murder 2 will be a lung, Murder 1 is everything. Just harvest all ... Heck ... if you're committing the crime might as well really pay your debt to society, instead of being a burden on it. Now the nice thing about it. If someone is really repentful, they can go back to their normal life and be a normal human being. Instead of being stuck in jail for 25 years wasting themselves and the states $$$ ... The rest of the judicial process is the same, and heck jail time is still an option. If you're organs are frocked from drug use, Heck, Toss you in prison/detox, and use the organs on a similar druggie who does not have a criminal past. AKA why waste good organs on druggies ... and why let druggies die ... on the off chance that they may reform. How's that. OK fine I am watching too much CSI. Fine now what.
Cool.
Srinath.

Quote from: RVertigoIf you say people are too ignorant to know how to protect their children, then that takes us back to education...

It's a more difficult process to legally catch a fish than it is to legally raise a child.  That's whacked.

But - by your argument, we shouldn't have laws that prevent parents from starving their children, or locking them in broom closets for hours, or other recognized forms of child abuse.  After all, it's the parents' responsibility...

Oh, Srinath, you need to read Larry Niven.  He took the idea of a future where crimes are punished by giving organs to people who need them, and went from there.  Very intersting reading.

Quote from: RoadstergalBut - by your argument, we shouldn't have laws that prevent parents from starving their children, or locking them in broom closets for hours, or other recognized forms of child abuse.  After all, it's the parents' responsibility...

Every kid needs a good ass-whoopin' from time to time, and parents are terrified to do it these days.

When I was bad, I got whooped...  When I wasn't bad, I didn't get whooped...  I learned pretty fast. :lol:

But...  You're taking an extra step.  Child abuse and neglect are different than putting your kid in the front seat when you have an airbag...  Or letting your kid ride a bicycle/skateboard without a helmet and pads.

Think about the difference in "Child Safety" laws from when our parents were kids to laws now......  Somehow humankind has survived pointy sticks and sharp rocks without the aid of CPS. :dunno:

I've got an idea...

Let's take all the criminals, druggies, debters, and stupid people, put then on a boat and send them to an island to colonize in the name of ...

Oh, I don't know...

Britain.  We'll call the island Australia, or the United States of America (we'd have to send the religious nuts as well).

Or if we are in the modern era...

President Bush wants to colonize Mars and the moon, we'll just send all the 'tards there.  Let the dummies figure out how to breath and eat and all that crap.


"Oh, how simple the world would be, if people weren't here,"  sighed the hippie.


OK, I'm not quite sure where all that came from, :dunno: (bad chinese food, maybe?)  So, I heard a funny joke at church once.  It was about a lady who wanted something that would go from 0-200 really fast.


Her husband bought her a bathroom scale. :thumb:

That's all I got for this post. Sorry for the randomness.

QuoteThey 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.

those become organ doners. not like they gonna be fishing the following weekend.

QuoteEvery kid needs a good ass-whoopin' from time to time, and parents are terrified to do it these days.

biggest crock of shineola, few folks cant control thier anger now no kid is spose to get spanked? eat me.

Srinath, I like your idea, but it won't work for a lot of drug users - a large number of chronic drug users have fun diseases like Hepatitis C that preclude organ donation.

Quote from: pizzleboy

Quote from: gazingwaYou are missing the point, those stupid people cost the rest of us money, in insurance (both bike and health) and their deaths affect others, fatherless/motherless childer and such

Hear hear.  I hate paying for other people to be stupid.

Ah but you're treading on the slippery slope.  I've made this point on other boards numerous times, so I guess it's time to trot it out here:

The increase in risk you take on when you move from a car to a motorcycle is much, much greater than the increase in risk you take on when you go from riding with a helmet to riding without a helmet.  I even whipped up a little graph to illustrate it (note, no actual data in this graph, but I think it reflects reality)



So, if we're drawing the line for "stupid", objectively you'd have to put somewhere on that steep slope of increasing risk wouldn't you?  Sure, for a bunch of concientious, gear wearing riders like ourselves, it's easy to point at the squids and helmetless fools and say how crazy and stupid they are.  But for people who drive cars, how crazy and stupid do we look?

jeff

OK Rvertigo - you're not accounting into the fact that people in bikes drive more cautiously and defensively (squids in stretched chromed Hayabusa's not withstanding) and People in SUV's drive while eating, on the cell phone, and spanking their kids ... and you are also not taking into account Total damage in a crash ... just damage to the 1 vehicle that is your point of view, involved in a 2 or more vehicle crash ...
Cool.
Srinath.

:dunno: Huh?  I didn't post the graph...  I was the guy saying that I don't like laws that protect us from ourselves.

I think people that ride motorcycles make better drivers in general. (Yes, squids excluded)...

And... I'd like to see some actual numbers.  I'd guess the crash percentage is about the same between motos and cars...  It's just crashing on a bike is potentially more dangerous.

Ok, here are some numbers, from a discussion (http://www.msgroup.org/forums/mtt/topic.asp?ARCHIVE=true&TOPIC_ID=242) on another site I stumbled across.  Some of the take-aways:

"Number of motorcycles involved in reported accidents (injuries, death or property damage) per 100 million vehicle miles traveled was 776.57 while the number of passenger cars involved in such accidents per 100 million miles traveled was only 423.13. In other words, you are almost twice as likely to be in an accident riding a motorcycle than riding in a passenger car."

"The fatality rate per 100,000 registered motorcycle was 64.88 while the number of fatalities per 100,000 registered passenger cars was only 15.72. In other words, motorcycle accidents are four times more likely to be deadly than are passenger car accidents."

"In fact, based on the NHTSA data I received, there were 632 injuries per each 100 million motorcycle miles ridden as compared to only 122 injuries per 100 million passenger car miles ridden. That's right, despite there being fewer injuries per registered motorcycle than per registered passenger car, there were nearly SIX TIMES MORE INJURIES per motorcycle mile ridden than per car mile ridden."

Don't forget guys, I do ride!  I just refuse to allow myself to be lulled into a false sense of security by the misperception that motorcycling isn't really any more dangerous than driving a car.  It is, there's no way around it.

And before anyone says "well those stats include helmet-less riders, new riders on huge bikes, non MSF'rs, drunks, etc", I'd just point out that the car statistics include the same people.  Of course reducing our risk by not doing stupid stuff is hugely helpful, but it still doesn't make it as safe as driving a car.  

jeff

:thumb:

Nice stats!  And I was stupid enough to ride about a half mile yesterday without my jacket. :nono:  But, I was REALLY HOT!   :roll:

Quote from: RVertigo:thumb:

Nice stats!  And I was stupid enough to ride about a half mile yesterday without my jacket. :nono:  But, I was REALLY HOT!   :roll:

Happy to help.  Tell me about it, I have been dying for the last month.  Between 95+ degree temps, regular thunderstorms, and pedal bike training, my poor GS has been feeling neglected  :(  The mother-in-law is visiting this weekend though, so I should have some time for joyriding  :cheers:

jeff

Quote from: Jeff P"The fatality rate per 100,000 registered motorcycle was 64.88 while the number of fatalities per 100,000 registered passenger cars was only 15.72. In other words, motorcycle accidents are four times more likely to be deadly than are passenger car accidents."

that is an incorrect conclusion based on that statistic.  the stat says that per vehicle registered, motorcycles have about four times as many fatalities as cars.

unless we know how many accidents per vehicle registered, we can't determine the relative fatality of car vs. motorcycle accidents.  the stat says nothing about fatalities per accident (which would actually be an interesting thing to know).

i'm personally more interested in stats per vehicle mile travelled.

according to some NHTSA stats i've seen, there are fewer motorcycle injuries per registered vehicles.  this has led to the misleading assertion that you are less likely to be injured travelling on a motorcycle.

injuries (or fatalities) per vehicle mile travelled will give you a better idea of relative safety.

just like i've seen stats showing that more people die by slipping in the bathrub than in motorcycle accidents.  thus, you (the generic you) are more likely to die in the bathtub than a motorcycle accident.  that's true, as far as it goes.  however, it doesn't mean that bathing is more dangerous than riding a motorcycle.

statistics without context are worse than useless.

I knew there was a reason I stopped that bathing crap.

Of course motorcycle wrecks are more dangerous, it is simple physics.

But motorcycling is different from driving in many important ways.

First there is much greater variation between different groups within the motorcycle community. New riders and unlicencsed riders have remarkably higher accident rates than experienced riders.

Also, motorcycle riders are  more likely to be drunk.

Nearly half of motorcycle accidents are caused by a rider running off the road.

Rider training and helmets go a long way to reducing those numbers.