Posted on 11/16/2010 3:37:26 PM PST by WOBBLY BOB
You have an affinity for ad hominem attacks, straw men arguments, and splitting hairs for distraction from the main argument.
Anyone that rides a motorcycle, which may or may not include you, should do some serious thinking about writing a will. Motorcycles are dangerous. Even with a helmet.
Come to think of it, if the goal is to reduce motorcycle fatalities, why stop at simply a ban of riding without a helmet? Just go all the way and ban riding motorcycles all together.
You know how it goes... "If it saves just one life..."
In 2008, 25% of the motorcycles involved in fatal crashes collided with fixed objects, compared to 19% for cars, 14% for light trucks, and 4% for heavy trucks.
Which is interesting considering all accidents, not just fatal ones follow a different pattern:
(2006) Approximately three-fourths of these motorcycle accidents involved collision with another vehicle, which was most usually a passenger automobile.
(2006) Approximately one-fourth of these motorcycle accidents were single vehicle accidents involving the motorcycle colliding with the roadway or some fixed object in the environment.
Sources were law firm websites that are nearly impossible to avoid when looking up MC stats.
Wasn't 2003 a mandatory year? That's the year legislation passed. At the very least, the first half was a mandatory year. Why did you pick 2003 for the start of your PennDOT fatality statistics?
Regardless, pre-law repeal year fatalities by themselves don't give enough information alone to determine the effectiveness of helmets.
I would submit that we need the number of all MC accidents per year pre- and post repeal to compare the percentage of accidents survived. (But even then, it wouldn't address the severity of the accidents or injuries.)
It would however, be a better measure than simply using raw numbers of fatalities or even adjusting for increased number of riders or registered bikes.
The pitfall you seem to be falling in is that any increase in fatalities is due entirely to fewer riders wearing helmets. There are a lot more bikes out there now, something like 75% more over a ten year period, and the VMT per rider is on the decline. That means there are a lot more inexperienced riders skewing the post law repeal stats.
I'll have to dig out the stats, and it will take a lot of time, but I am going to predict that the number of accidents/crashes/collisions (whatever you want to call them) has increased at a greater rate than the number of fatalities over the same period.
And finally, since fatalities are distributed about 50-50 between helmet wearing and non wearing groups, and that the NHTSA believes 37% of of the non wearers could have been saved, the maximum estimated reduction of fatalities would be 18.5%, not 50%. (I do think the NHTSA study is flawed, and that even 18.5% is high. They would be better off focusing on DUI and speeding issues. Save far more lives.)
The issue under discussion was helmet laws and the NTSB. You have ragged on Harley riders, people who don't like helmets (as if YOU are going to get them to change their minds--HA!), loud pipes, etc. You keep changing subjects.
SO, let me rephrase the question, once and for all.
DO YOU SUPPORT HELMET LAWS FOR ADULT RIDERS?
If not, get off my back--I fought against them for decades.
If so, get stuffed. Either way, I have nothing further to way to you.
Go back and read the posts. Some dude said they increased every year since 2003. I posted since 2003 to counter his claim. I have stated the stats for 1999 and stated I did NOT have the 2002 stats. I think 2003 was the first year for the PennDOT statistics.
No. I keep responding to items in your posts.
How have I been a pain? Posting facts while you post falsely about me?
Only those that remove their mufflers and white-line in traffic.
First off, I know you meant that the dude said decreased.
With that correction, I can respond, yes I know what you posted to counter his claim. I did not say that you were wrong. I countered you by adding registered motorcycles.
Yes, the raw numbers have gone up. But so has the population. Raw numbers are fairly useless for comparison. I mean, you may as well state that more people die now than before disc brakes, seat belts, or airbags were installed in cars. That would be a useless claim since there are far more cars on the road then when disc brakes and seat belts were invented.
That's why I added the MC registration info. From the first year to the last year you supplied, fatalities increased by a third while registrations increased by half. That means fewer fatalities per bike on the road.
That of course is just one year compared to another year. You can pick a low year or high year to make whatever point you wish to make. However, if you average it out, the rate of fatalities with respect to registrations, it's been remarkably stable.
If we use 2003--which I think we can agree is a "mixed year" of starting with mandatory helmet laws and finishing as voluntary sometime after summer--and hold the fatality rate constant through 2009 and assume that MC registrations rose evenly to 2009, you would expect to have 1218 fatalities. The actual number is 1219. Remarkably consistent.
That was my point. Now, if you want to talk about saving lives, we'll need fatalities vs accident information. I've seen statistics a while ago that compared the number of MC accidents to number of MC fatalities, and it showed states with voluntary helmet laws to have a lower fatality per accident rate than states with mandatory helmet laws. I'll have to dig that out and verify the numbers are good.
You know, I’m going to have to echo Joe’s request for you to state whether or not you support a mandatory MC helmet law for adult riders, or if you think it should be voluntary.
For the record, I am vehemently against mandatory MC helmet laws for adults. (Which does not make me anti-helmet. I’m not anti-helmet. I’m anti-helmet law.)
Here is a study showing NOT wearing a helmet actually saves lives!
http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/22/motorcycle-helmets-and-donor-organs/
The thing that jumps out at me the most in that chart is how many fewer Vehicle Miles Traveed (VMT) per Registered Motorcycle (RMC)
YEAR: VMT/RMC
1995: 2514 miles per registered MC
1996: 2562 mi
1997: 2635 mi
1998: 2651 mi
1999: 2549 mi
2000: 2409 mi
2001: 1966 mi
2002: 1909 mi
2003: 1783 mi
2004: 1738 mi
Miles ridden has dropped by 34% from 1998 to 2004. That’s a lot of inexperienced riders dragging the numbers down. Inexperienced riders are more likely to be in an accident, particularly fatal accidents.
In fact, the three factors that have the highest correlation to MC fatalities are inexperience, speed, and BAC. Want to save lives? Combat drunk driving and speeders, and institute mandatory training for new MC riders.
Thanks for the article. I particularly enjoyed the following comment posted:
Besides … why bother to pry open a closed mind that has no relevance? Couch potatoes don’t make the rules, so motorcyclists don’t need their consent.
Instead, I encourage all freedom-loving riders to take their rights back … and not to beg for them. At B4BS.NET, only those who ride decide.
— Sturdi
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.