Fatalities in Texas increase, following helmet law repeal

[Bob]

According to a study by the Southern Medical Journal, since the repeal of the compulsory helmet law in the state of Texas, the number of fatalities has increased significantly.

Data was analysed from the period 1994-2004 to analyse trends in the rate of fatal injuries before and after the change in helmet laws. Even allowing for an increase in motorcycle ownership, overall the number of deaths increased by 30% after the law was repealed.

The number of deaths per 100,000 registered motorcycles increased from 89 in 1994 to 101 in 2004 - a 15% increase. Motorcycle fatalities per vehicle mile travelled also increased significantly, by 25%.

Doctors Bavon and Standerfer, who undertook the study, concluded "This suggests that the combination of increased exposure with the option not to wear a helmet has the potential to have dramatic detrimental effects on the number of fatal injuries to motorcyclists."

[p.dath]

Now that sounds like a good study. Before and after, and few other factors changing. Do you have a URL for it?

Also of interest, do you know about non-fatality accidents? I bet they went up as well.

[steve_t]

Wouldn't it stand to reason that with all other factors accounted for, the number of non-fatal accidents should go down by a similar figure that the fatal ones increased? ie the number of total accidents per 100,000 registered bikes or per miles travelled shouldn't change with respect to whether a helmet was being worn or not so if one stat goes up, the other must come down. Sorry for being difficult ;)

[Bob]

The Southern Medical Journal reported the study.

Useful link at: http://journals.lww.com/smajournalonline/pages/default.aspx

[TimeOut]

Wouldn't it stand to reason that with all other factors accounted for, the number of non-fatal accidents should go down by a similar figure that the fatal ones increased? ie the number of total accidents per 100,000 registered bikes or per miles travelled shouldn't change with respect to whether a helmet was being worn or not so if one stat goes up, the other must come down. Sorry for being difficult ;)

A good point with sound reasoning

[slofox]

I'm hardly surprised at the outcome of that study...

[p.dath]

Wouldn't it stand to reason that with all other factors accounted for, the number of non-fatal accidents should go down by a similar figure that the fatal ones increased? ie the number of total accidents per 100,000 registered bikes or per miles travelled shouldn't change with respect to whether a helmet was being worn or not so if one stat goes up, the other must come down. Sorry for being difficult ;)

No. Lets assume the same number of accidents occurr. However people who previsouly walked away from an accident may now be taken to hospital with head injuries that did not kill them.

[Badjelly]

There was a study cited previously on KB comparing people who wore helmets with those who didn't. IIRC, wearing a helmet reduced the fatality rate by 36%. Of course, there are problems with a study like that, eg self-selection: non-wearers may be people who naturally take more risks. But the result broadly agrees with the present study.

I think a lot of people would be surprised the effect is only ~ 25-30%.

[dipshit]

Wouldn't it stand to reason that with all other factors accounted for, the number of non-fatal accidents should go down by a similar figure that the fatal ones increased? ie the number of total accidents per 100,000 registered bikes or per miles travelled shouldn't change with respect to whether a helmet was being worn or not so if one stat goes up, the other must come down. Sorry for being difficult ;)


Errr.. no. Accidents that didn't result in any injuries if the rider was wearing a helmet may become an injury accident now the rider isn't wearing one.

And I bet NZ would be seeing much more worse motorcycle statistics now too if BRONZ had gotten its way and overturned compulsory helmet use as well.

[steve_t]

No. Lets assume the same number of accidents occurr. However people who previsouly walked away from an accident may now be taken to hospital with head injuries that did not kill them.

Ah... I get what you're saying. We're on different wavelengths. You're saying that after the law repeal the total number of accidents should have increased due to more of them being severe enough to need medical attention or be reported. This I agree with. Sorry, my bad :)


Errr.. no. Accidents that didn't result any injuries if the rider was wearing a helmet may become an injury accident now the rider isn't wearing one.

And I bet NZ would be seeing much more worse motorcycle statistics now too if BRONZ had gotten its way and overturned compulsory helmet use as well.

Same different wavelength ;) I was going off the assumption that an accident that caused injuries and an accident that didn't cause injury would both be counted as non-fatal accidents

[R6_kid]

Also of interest, do you know about non-fatality accidents? I bet they went up as well.

Not wearing a helmet doesn't increase your chances of an accident, it increases your chances of injury if you have an accident.

[p.dath]

Ah... I get what you're saying. We're on different wavelengths. You're saying that after the law repeal the total number of accidents should have increased due to more of them being severe enough to need medical attention or be reported. This I agree with. Sorry, my bad :)

Same different wavelength ;) I was going off the assumption that an accident that caused injuries and an accident that didn't cause injury would both be counted as non-fatal accidents

I was thinking the number of "injury" accidents would increase (as did fatal accidents).

So the number of accidents should remain the same, but I would expect non-injury accidents to decrease, injury accidents to increase, and fatal accidents to increase.

[crazyhorse]

According to a study by the Southern Medical Journal, since the repeal of the compulsory helmet law in the state of Texas, the number of fatalities has increased significantly.

Data was analysed from the period 1994-2004 to analyse trends in the rate of fatal injuries before and after the change in helmet laws. Even allowing for an increase in motorcycle ownership, overall the number of deaths increased by 30% after the law was repealed.

The number of deaths per 100,000 registered motorcycles increased from 89 in 1994 to 101 in 2004 - a 15% increase. Motorcycle fatalities per vehicle mile travelled also increased significantly, by 25%.

Doctors Bavon and Standerfer, who undertook the study, concluded "This suggests that the combination of increased exposure with the option not to wear a helmet has the potential to have dramatic detrimental effects on the number of fatal injuries to motorcyclists."

And what part of this is a surprise?????

[avgas]

we need that here. squid meat it too well protect here

[Ronin]

And what part of this is a surprise?????


That some people are surprised by it.

[dipshit]

A I was going off the assumption that an accident that caused injuries and an accident that didn't cause injury would both be counted as non-fatal accidents

But a lot of single vehicle motorcycle accidents that don't result in any injury tend to not get reported.

Those ones stand a much higher chance of becoming an injury accident if the rider isn't wearing a helmet.

[steve_t]

But a lot of single vehicle motorcycle accidents that don't result in any injury tend to not get reported.

Those ones stand a much higher chance of becoming an injury accident if the rider isn't wearing a helmet.

Yup. Agree

[crazyhorse]

That some people are surprised by it.

rofl: :rofl:

[Juzz976]

If your cruising around at 100k and something hits you in the face and causes you to crash then a helmet would not prevent this?

On a few occasions I've had things hit my visor and thought 'f#$% that would be nasty if I not had a visor or helmet'.

[centaurus]

Not wearing a helmet doesn't increase your chances of an accident, it increases your chances of injury if you have an accident.


Wouldn't it stand to reason that with all other factors accounted for, the number of non-fatal accidents should go down by a similar figure that the fatal ones increased? ie the number of total accidents per 100,000 registered bikes or per miles travelled shouldn't change with respect to whether a helmet was being worn or not so if one stat goes up, the other must come down. Sorry for being difficult ;)

If you think of the helmets with eye protection, a helmet can also prevent accidents. Keeping your eyes protected from the wind and random debris or dust, it reduces the risk of you being temporarly blinded/visualy impaired or just with tired eyes (from the wind) in a critical moment when you really need your vision to see hazards and thus avoid them. And before you say: "yeah, but most people wear sunglasses anyway", sunglasses have only partial protection. They only protect you from relatively large debris and reduce (but sometime worsen) the wind. They don't stop dust or small debris from reaching your eyes.

[bogan]

and what about medical cost from not even having an accident, some bikes have well loud exhausts, mines pretty quiet by comparison but I still wouldn't ride without some sort of hearing protection

[yachtie10]

The number of deaths per 100,000 registered motorcycles increased from 89 in 1994 to 101 in 2004 - a 15% increase

increase is 15% not 30
surprises me its that low, but I dont think its really been about safety, but about freedom

what gets me is that they have 89+ deaths per 100,000 makes ours look pretty good by comparison

[peasea]

If your cruising around at 100k and something hits you in the face and causes you to crash then a helmet would not prevent this?

On a few occasions I've had things hit my visor and thought 'f#$% that would be nasty if I not had a visor or helmet'.

I thought that. I'm so old, when I first planted my arse on a bike helmets were not compulsory. A few rocks and bees later many discovered they weren't such a bad thing after all. I still think it should be down to the rider (and I ride without on occasion but I choose my moments/locations carefully) but common sense should prevail. While a helmet is now compulsory in NZ eye protection isn't. (Unless there's been a law introduced that I don't know about.) My helmet has a few grazes on it from rocks and what have you and I'm glad the marks are there and not on my head or in my eyes.

Any more knocks to the head and I'd be crazy..................

[golfmade]

Only good Texan is a dea... better not finish the sentence and get sent off to Gitmo....

[davereid]

I thought that. I'm so old, when I first planted my arse on a bike helmets were not compulsory. A few rocks and bees later many discovered they weren't such a bad thing after all. I still think it should be down to the rider (and I ride without on occasion but I choose my moments/locations carefully) but common sense should prevail

Same here, give that man a DB.

Hopping on my motorcycle makes me 15 to 30 times* more likely to die than driving my car.

This helmet study shows you can improve your odds by 1.15 (15%) by wearing a helmet.

I have no doubt that the people who made me 1.15 safer by making me wear a helmet didn't give up there, and are cheerfully looking for a way of making me 15-30 times safer.



*depending on whos study you want to believe.

[NighthawkNZ]

Considering the Majestic 12 (http://www.google.co.nz/#hl=en&source=hp&q=Majestic+12&btnG=Google+Search&meta=&aq=f&oq=&fp=6aed753a793df92e) (or the people that actually run the governments of the world) want to redue the population to uder 1 billion on the planet I don't think they really care...
http://www.radioliberty.com/stones.htm