Study shows “deaths up over 80% after helmet law repealed”

[Bob]

As the various states in the USA continue to debate whether to have compulsory helmet laws, a study in Florida has found motorcycle fatalities increased by more than 80% in the three years after the compulsory helmet law was repealed.

In the three years before the July 1, 2000, repeal of the helmet law, 9 percent of the 515 motorcyclists killed in crashes were not wearing a helmet. Of the 35 motorcyclists younger than 21 killed in crashes during those three years, 26 percent were not wearing helmets.

In the three years after the repeal, 61 percent of the 933 fatally injured motorcyclists were not wearing a helmet. Of the 101 riders younger than 21 who were killed in those three years, 45 percent were not wearing a helmet.

The study also noted that some of the increase can be attributed to alcohol use, speed and the increased number of riders.

[curious george]

They needed a study to figure that one out?.....
Goes to show dont it

[Lou Girardin]

Why don't they repeal it here?
It'll improve the gene pool.

[TwoSeven]

I'm not surprised.

The problem in the states is their constitution often shafts common sense laws.

For example, the constitution does allow you to force people to wear seatbelts. So car designers had to invent air-bags to stop people who wouldnt wear seatbelts from suing them when they got injured.

Same with helmet laws.

[Drunken Monkey]

I'm not surprised.

The problem in the states is their constitution often shafts common sense laws.

For example, the constitution does allow you to force people to wear seatbelts. So car designers had to invent air-bags to stop people who wouldnt wear seatbelts from suing them when they got injured.

Same with helmet laws.

Although I see your point, I disagree with your terminology.

Compulsory helmet laws are a nanny-state function. If common sense prevailed, the population would be self-regulating.

Not too sure about the air-bags statement either, I was pretty sure they didn't function properly without seatbelts - the crash victim would roll over the top of the airbag and still strike the windscreen.

[vifferman]

Compulsory helmet laws are a nanny-state function. If common sense prevailed, the population would be self-regulating.

As are most laws, including road laws. If common sense prevailed, there would be no need for speed restrictions. Unfortunately, too many drivers are morons, with no regard for other road users.

As for helmet laws, I've taken this up with several Murkns on US bike forums, when they rave on about "if I crash and die, so what? Doesn't hurt anyone except me!" They conveniently overlook what happens to those people with severe head injuries. It's a very sobering thing to visit a head trauma unit at a hospital. You don't hear about all the people who survive accidents, badly injured or mentally fookd, just the ones that die...

[ManDownUnder]

Agree with drunken monkey.

I don't like Nanny laws, but if they're removed I do expect education to expose us all the the dangers present (where it's not obvious or the audience might not otherwise know - too young etc).

[Ixion]

Head injuries form a significant proportion of serious injury/death from car crashes.

So why don't car driver's have to wear helmets ?

(I tried it once, years ago. Got some unwelcome attention from a cop, who was very unwilling to believe that I wasn't taking part in some illegal race)

[vifferman]

Head injuries form a significant proportion of serious injury/death from car crashes.

So why don't car driver's have to wear helmets ?

(I tried it once, years ago. Got some unwelcome attention from a cop, who was very unwilling to believe that I wasn't taking part in some illegal race)

Acksherly, we were talking abou this t'other day. I reckon if cars suddenly appeared now, the licence requirements would be so very stringent, hardly anyone wouls be able to drive them. You'd have to wear a racing harness and helmet, and they'd be equipped with much more in the way of safety stuff (mandatory ABS, heaps of airbags, built-in rollcage, etc.), so they'd also be toldlessly more expensive.
There's a neuro surgeon in NZ who was shown on the goggle box one time a few years back. He wears a helmet in his car, as do all members of his family. They look like pillocks, but he's seen WAY too many head traumas to not take the risks seriously.

[Eurygnomes]

He wears a helmet in his car, as do all members of his family.

While I appreciate others being concerned for my safety, I also appreciate not having been a teenager with this neurosurgeon of a father!! How awfully traumatic (not head injurywise...but on the knees, I'd be absolutely crouching in the footwell in the hope that no one from school saw me!).

Carry on with being serious now:

I can't believe they didnt think that there would be more fatalities without helmets. If we let the economists at hte data, the next stage would definitely be: what costs more? a fatality, or a rider with a head injury...?

[Drunken Monkey]

As are most laws, including road laws. If common sense prevailed, there would be no need for speed restrictions. Unfortunately, too many drivers are morons, with no regard for other road users....

I can assure you I don't disagree!

As for helmet laws, I've taken this up with several Murkns on US bike forums, when they rave on about "if I crash and die, so what? Doesn't hurt anyone except me!" They conveniently overlook what happens to those people with severe head injuries. It's a very sobering thing to visit a head trauma unit at a hospital. You don't hear about all the people who survive accidents, badly injured or mentally fookd, just the ones that die...

Indeed, but even our own road-law-nanny, the LTNZ, are bent on reducing the death toll. We get little, if any, information about how many people are still getting injured. It appears, as far as the government is concerned, no-one cares about the crips.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating or promoting motorcycling without helmets! I just beleive anyone should be able to chose to do so, knowing in the event of an accident, they forfeit all priority to health care to others who have made attempts to minimize their risks.

"111! Ouch, my head is broken! I fell off my bike! I can see my brains leaking onto the ground"

"Were you wearing your helmet?"

"Erm, no"

"Sorry, our ambo is attending a dude with a sore finger. He fell off his bike too, but he was wearing his helmet. Your case number is 14766. We are now serving customer 14701. Please wait..."

[Motu]

I always gotta laugh at the Yanks when they do their huffy helmet law rave...makes a change from gun threads.Anyway,they go on about freedom of choice yada,yada,yada - but then they ALL wear them on a race track or off road....they can't race without a helmet...so that's ok,but on the road they don't want to be told??

[ManDownUnder]

I always gotta laugh at the Yanks when they do their huffy helmet law rave...makes a change from gun threads.Anyway,they go on about freedom of choice yada,yada,yada - but then they ALL wear them on a race track or off road....they can't race without a helmet...so that's ok,but on the road they don't want to be told??

I know what you're saying... I have to admit though... if you think a bee in the face at 100kph hurts... and it does...imagine it at 300+...!

[Kickaha]

Not too sure about the air-bags statement either, I was pretty sure they didn't function properly without seatbelts - the crash victim would roll over the top of the airbag and still strike the windscreen.

Airbags in America are(or at least were some time ago) designed to stop an unrestrained adult due to a low rate of seatbelt wearing

[HDTboy]

Not too sure about the air-bags statement either, I was pretty sure they didn't function properly without seatbelts - the crash victim would roll over the top of the airbag and still strike the windscreen.

As posted above, US market airbags are much bigger than rest-of-the-world spec, they also put sensors in the passenger seat to avoid having to fire that airbag if there's nobody in that seat (pressure buildup)