If you don't like to wear a motorcyle helmet, consider the following article from the Journal Of American Medical Assn. Now, do you still think helmet laws are bad?
Southern California Injury Prevention Research Center School of Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles 90024-1772.
OBJECTIVE--To determine the effects of the California motorcycle helmet use law on statewide fatalities and a large sample of nonfatal injuries before and after law implementation. DESIGN--Police reports and death certificates were collected for motorcycle crash fatalities in California for 1991 (prelaw) and 1992 (postlaw). Official counts of registered motorcycles provided a statewide basis for exposure to a motorcycle crash. Autopsy results were collected for fatalities in 11 counties. Hospital records were reviewed for nonfatal injuries in 28 hospitals in 10 of the 11 counties. Police reports were linked to injury data for the riders. SUBJECTS AND PATIENTS--A total of 850 fatalities and injury data for 547 fatally injured riders and 3252 nonfatally injured patients. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Changes in number and rates among statewide fatalities were estimated. The number and pattern of head injuries in fatally and nonfatally injured motorcycle riders were evaluated. RESULTS--After implementation of the helmet use law, statewide motorcycle crash fatalities decreased by 37.5%, from 523 fatalities in 1991 to 327 in 1992, more than 37%, and an estimated 92 to 122 fatalities were prevented. Motorcycle fatality rates were reduced by 26.5%, from 70.1 per 100,000 registered motorcycles in 1991 to 51.5 per 100,000 in 1992. Head injuries decreased significantly among both fatally and nonfatally injured motorcyclists. CONCLUSION--Enactment of an unrestricted helmet law significantly reduces the incidence of motorcycle crash fatalities and the number and severity of head injuries.
2007-06-21 04:54:04 · 12 answers · asked by JeffyB 7 in Cars & Transportation ➔ Motorcycles
If you actually care about whats in the helmet you wear it
2007-06-21 09:03:44 · answer #1 · answered by brian 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I never said helmets were bad. Helmet laws are.
Laws are meant to protect the larger public from an individual.
Why does everyone use old data when supporting these laws?
Instead of arguing, I'll just point out one small flaw in your figures that no one takes into account. You use the number of registered motorcycles as a baseline. The number of these not ridden increases when a helmet law is passed. Many people also own multiple registered cycles, but obviously can only ride one at a time.
2007-06-21 10:15:07 · answer #2 · answered by Firecracker . 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
No one can reasonably oppose the FACT that wearing helmets reduces head trauma in motorcycle accidents.
HOWEVER, that is a straw man argument, and does not address the root of the argument in opposition. Opponents of helmet laws (of which group I am a member, despite the fact that I ALWAYS wear my helmet) are opposed to anyone mandating personal choice. And that is a serious issue.
So arguing about how helmets save lives is nonsequitur. It does not address the key concern, which is government regulation of personal choice.
Now, if you want to argue that mandatory helmet laws are socially responsible because the cost of medical care for tens of thousands of brain-dead bikers on respirators is too high, then you might have a legitimate position. But I don't think you can make that argument (even if such statistics exist), without also arguing that there should be laws against all dangerous activities ... mountain climbing, whitewater rafting, skydiving, scuba diving, ALL motorcycling ... and perhaps against all dangerous professions, as well. And frankly, I don't think even helmetnannies want to go there.
Bottom line, if a biker chooses to die by head trauma, that's fine by me ... I may need his organs anyway, because I wear my helmet and plan to live a while yet.
2007-06-21 05:11:34 · answer #3 · answered by Grendle 6 · 8⤊ 0⤋
Nothing against helmets. It's the corrupt politicians that accept bribes/payoffs/ contributions, from the helmet manufacturers to make it law that all must BUY$$ helmets.
They do this claiming it is for our own good ,when in fact it is the *good of their bank accounts* they are concerned with.
If helmets are so effective at preventing injuries ,why then have insurance rates not dropped equal to the injury stats. you quote. Is it because the insurance companies are as corrupt as the politicians and lobbyists? or is the statistical data flawed?
2007-06-21 05:52:55 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
About three times a year I want to ride around the block without my helmet to warm the motorcycle up for its oil change. That's the only time I'd ride without a helmet. Oh well.
2007-06-21 07:31:24 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
confident, helmets save lives... yet no longer donning one is possible that a biker takes. Bikers take hazards. in the event that they did no longer, they prob does no longer experience motorcycles. in case you're an experienced rider, using in ninety degree climate, you could elect to no longer positioned on a helmet. women elect to KILL fetuses (and that's criminal), so why shouldn't riders elect to possibility their own lives?! I see no reason regulations could intervene with this. Now to your question... "do you think of its easy that contemporary regulation helps the kinfolk of a motorbike crash sufferer to sue the driving force of the different motor vehicle for wrongful dying, etc. in situations the place reason grow to be the two twin fault or no fault, and a helmet would have saved the sufferer's existence?" ... A courtroom would come to a type who grow to be at fault. If the driving force of a automobile grow to be at fault for inflicting the accident... it does no longer count if the rider grow to be donning a helmet or no longer. The helmet subject is irrelivent. besides, DRIVERS are greater risk-free on the line than bikers... even bikers who positioned on helmets. The kinfolk of a ineffective biker could take the case to courtroom and sue in the event that they are in a position to. twin fault as an occasion, a motor vehicle hit a helmet-much less biker that grow to be using on the line in a turn... it rather is stressful to declare, yet i do no longer think of it rather is incorrect fot the kinfolk to attempt to SUE... permit the courtroom come to a type... and finally, a "No fault" accident would effect in no funds for the kinfolk, of course. Helmets can preserve bikers, yet so can regulations. AMA is working on it.
2016-10-02 21:30:18 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
you are also far less likely to suffer head trauma if you ride the bus or public transit instead of riding a motorcycle, I suggest you do that instead of driving your car which is also more dangerous than public transit. get the point!
Joan claybrook a carter appointee actually attempted to outlaw motorcycles altogether & did mandate speedometers only read to 85 mph. if they had another 4 years in office what would they have done? once I let YOU choose what my lifestyle choices should be where does it end?
you do your thing & I'll do mine ok ? lets keep the government out of it.
2007-06-21 05:57:33 · answer #7 · answered by Who Dat ? 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Your right I would rather be an amputee or quadriplegic. At least I'll still have my winning smile. If you want to save lives send some stats to your Senator about the gulf war and American force occupation in the Middle East.
2007-06-21 06:42:39 · answer #8 · answered by ROCKET 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
These stats are quite misleading. Yes, the number of deaths has decreased but so have the number of accidents. If you look at the ratio of deaths per 1000 accidents you will find that it actually increased after passage of the helmet law. By looking at the accident/death ratio in all states the 6 "safest" states (Least number of deaths per 1000 accidents) are states that have no helmet law.
2007-06-21 05:42:08 · answer #9 · answered by jrrysimmons 5 · 5⤊ 1⤋
Nobody argues whether or not helmets save lives. The helmet law issue is about personal choice.
I ride and I choose to always wear a helmet. But I am glad I can also choose not to wear one.
2007-06-21 05:14:45 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 0⤋