Fatalities in Texas increase, following helmet law repeal

**Bob** · 19th January 2010, 01:38

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Even allowing for an increase in motorcycle ownership, overall the number of deaths increased by 30% after the law was repealed.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** · 19th January 2010, 06:48

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** · 19th January 2010, 07:04

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** · 19th January 2010, 07:29

The Southern Medical Journal reported the study.

Useful link at: http://journals.lww.com/smajournalon...s/default.aspx

**TimeOut** · 19th January 2010, 07:45

Originally Posted by 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

A good point with sound reasoning

**slofox** · 19th January 2010, 07:48

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

**p.dath** · 19th January 2010, 07:52

Originally Posted by 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

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** · 19th January 2010, 08:44

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** · 19th January 2010, 09:00

Originally Posted by 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

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** · 19th January 2010, 09:12

Originally Posted by p.dath

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

Originally Posted by dipshit

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:Me** · 19th January 2010, 09:46

Originally Posted by p.dath

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** · 19th January 2010, 10:16

Originally Posted by steve_t

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** · 19th January 2010, 10:26

Originally Posted by 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."

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