Posted on 12/27/2012 10:39:48 AM PST by MichCapCon
Last spring, Michigan eliminated its helmet requirement for motorcycle riders who had additional insurance coverage and met other conditions.
Six months after the bill went into effect, MLive ran an investigative series claiming to show the "regrettable impact of the change."
The series focused on one main point: Motorcyclists who chose not to wear a helmet were more likely to die or be seriously injured in their crashes. This is true, but the analysis is lacking in other areas and the insinuation that allowing people to not wear helmets is more dangerous is not supported by the data.
First, MLive discounts something important: That people who choose not to wear helmets are more reckless in general, and thus more likely to get in crashes as well as experience severe injury or death. That is, the report assumes every rider is exactly the same.
But that’s not the case. As reporter John Barnes notes, for crashes, “Helmetless operators were at fault 51 percent of the time, compared to 42 percent for those with helmets. They also were more likely to have been drinking, one in seven compared to one in 17 with helmets.”
MLive ignores the evidence that helmetless riders are significantly more likely to get in accidents in the first place — whether wearing a helmet or not.
Allowing riders the choice in protection separated them into categories of "riders with helmets" and "riders without helmets," whereas before they were all together, which skews the data for both groups. This oversight happens in many reports discussing motorcycle accidents and deaths and is almost always enough to throw out the rest of the analysis.
Second, it has been maintained that riding without a helmet can allow riders to avoid some accidents since the helmet can restrict vision. This is backed up by the data MLive presents. MLive notes that, "There were more than 3,000 motorcycle crashes (both with and without helmets) in Michigan since the state's helmet requirement was repealed in April. At least 700 of these involved riders or passengers without helmets." Around the country, 66 percent of motorcycle riders wear helmets, and the number is lower in states giving riders the choice.
So while it is too early in Michigan to know the percentage of riders who choose not to wear a helmet, these numbers suggest that they are less likely to get into accidents. And that’s even with those riders being more prone to accidents in the first place.
The analysis also is incomplete.
For example, it may be true that not wearing a helmet means someone involved in an accident is more prone to death. But what are the coma or other severe injury rates of riders with and without helmets? Perhaps there is a trade-off in the types of injuries or death suffered.
The comparison also ignores the increased number of people registering to ride motorcycles compared to past years. One of the researchers hired by MLive concluded that his years of study convinced him that "helmet use does not reduce fatalities." This is not expanded upon or mentioned again. In the meantime, motorcycle fatalities and injuries have been stagnant or trending downward, despite no real trend in helmet usage; this is never mentioned or discussed.
The last point the analysis misses is what is known as the “Peltzman Effect.” The theory, popularized by University of Chicago economist Sam Peltzman, notes the “tendency of people to react to a safety regulation by increasing other risky behavior, offsetting some or all of the benefit of the regulation.” This suggests that riding without a helmet may mean cyclists driving more safely.
This “risk compensation” is well-documented and shows up in mandated seat belt use, bicyclist accidents from wearing helmets, moral hazard from bank and auto bailouts, flood deaths despite safer levees and many other instances in walks of life.
Riding a motorcycle is one of the most dangerous choices that someone can make: Riders are 5 to 14-times more likely to die than those riding in cars. But whether a rider chooses to wear a helmet or not should be left up to them; personal freedom only means something if people are able to do something other people don’t like. And it is only because of the pervasiveness of government into our lives that motorcycle safety affects other people at all.
in most states motorcycles do not participate in no fault insurance. They have seperate insurance for them.
Also, most motorcycle caused accidents are UNLINCENSED riders (who would NEVER be covered regardless) and only have been riding less than six months.
Accidents not caused by motorcycles and are the fault of the driver would be covered REGARDLESS.
The people to go after are 1. unlicensed drivers and 2. car drivers who cause motorcycle accidents. THEY cause insurance to go up.
Democrats trust government bureaucrats and politicians even with their lives. Liberals are sick creatures. their god is government . Democrats want to make government more powerful while at the same time dis-empower the individual , taking away his rights like gun ownership, and ownership of his property and even his own life. democrats want to give government more power as if it is not already big enough and powerful enough.
Can a government bureaucrat coordinate the activities of thousands of businesses at the same time to produce that watch into a dollar tree like capitalism can? NO and anyone with a brain knows this , look at the government schools and government housing projects as examples of failure
Capitalism and the free market can coordinate the activities of millions of engineers, miners, plastic producers , chip produces, shippers, truck drivers , managers, etc. to bring to the Dollar Tree a watch for $1 1 dollar. The free market which include medicines from the evil pharmaceutical companies, GPS’s ,smart phones google and my individual mind is all I need to succeed and live my life the way I see fit.Why is a government bureaucrat superior to me to tell me what I have to wear ( like a helmet) or what healthcare I can have ? Why is an unaccountable , sick , liberal , corrupt , government bureaucrat or politician superior that he has the right to tell me what to do ? by what right?
If a woman has the right to kill her unborn child, because its “her body”, then it is also my right to risk my own life by not wearing a helmet, for the exact same reason.
“As long as those who ride have enough insurance to ensure lifetime care, it doesn’t matter to me.”
More people get devastating head injuries in car wrecks than on bikes. That’s just the fact of it. Do you demand they wear helmets, or carry some loony insurance policy that will pay for lifetime care?
And how about people who drink, or eat fettucini alfredo every night? And Obese people? Why do you single out riders without helmets to be the only ones you demand strict accountability for? Odd,,
Nationally, fifty percent+ of all motorcycle accidents happen in just two states: California and Florida.
Ban motorcycles in those states!
Don’t want to wear a helmet? Don’t, but your medical insurance shouldn’t pay for head injuries.
Ya know what? If your going fast enough the Helmet won’t help you!!! Too many laws!!!!
I left a few liberals shut up with their mouth open as I was debating them. They were chastising me for raising their healthcare costs and I embarrassed them in front of everyone.
“Don’t want to wear a helmet? Don’t, but your medical insurance shouldn’t pay for head injuries.”
And if you eat crap all your life, smoke and drink, never exercise, etc, should your health insurance pay when you have a heart attack? Or should we just leave you flopping in the street?
democrats say we need health care laws, seat belt laws , helmet laws to save us health care costs.
However if they die of heart attacks , car crashes without seat belts then THAT would save more as the cost of health care is for old age and many won’t reach old age.
I’ve shut up a few liberals in debate with that.
Ride slower and wear a helmet. More common sense and greater freedom from injury.
I ride a MC and wear a helmet, but am against helmet laws. Not every good idea needs to be a law. Like seatbelt laws, it’s basic nanny-state mentality.
That’s right. Helmets do greatly restrict side vision, as well your hearing, both of which are vital to your safety. Also, they can bounce off the pavement like a ping pong ball breaking the wearers neck while saving them from a severe head injury. Of course this statistic is one no one ever wants to mention. Just like seat belts, they can save you... or, they can hold you in position to be crushed to death. You never know.
And it has the added benefit of taking the stupid out of the gene pool. A real win-win!
Lot of people here hate motorcycles and even more that hate folks who wouldn’t wear a helmet if given a choice.
So much for personal freedoms.. unless of course it’s a particular freedom that you support.
Sounds familiar, like everything I hate about liberals.
I am a bike rider-I own a 1996 HD 883. If smokers have to pay higher premiums, so be it. I say the same for bikers. It takes quite an accident for someone to suffer paralysis or severe head injuries in a car accident, while it’s almost guaranteed in a bike crash.
If I drove on the left side of the road, I'd put other people in danger as well as myself -- government has little to do with it. My not wearing a helmet doesn't put you in harm's way at all. That's the point of the post.
Tell the Hooligans to bring popcorn . . .
Wah Wah you sound like a progressive! I want less government intrusion. I grew up when they didn’t have car seats, seat belts and helmets were not required. If you want to wear one fine I just don’t like all the laws on the books.. We even have kill switches for stupid people on lawn mowers. Why so they won’t reach under the mower when it is running!!!!
You can’t protect people from stupidity! Don’t need a law for a helmet.... Or seat belts for that matter!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.