The cost of repealing mandatory motorcycle helmet laws

[progressoid]

In 2012, the Michigan legislature repealed the state’s motorcycle helmet law, a law that had been on the books for 35 years. In its place, the new law allowed riders 21 years old and older who have passed a motorcycle safety course within the last two years to forego wearing a helmet. One additional requirement, which was basically an explicit acknowledgement that this law was going to lead to a lot more deaths and severe injuries, is that helmetless riders must carry an additional $20,000 in medical insurance. This was, of course, almost certainly grossly inadequate, as Michigan AAA pointed out, but was in fact a concession to reality, however weak.

The Brain Injury Association, AAA, trauma doctors, and other groups promoting highway safety appealed to Governor Rick Snyder to veto this misbegotten piece of legislation, as his predecessor Governor Jennifer Granholm had done to two prior bills before. After a fight that had lasted decades, advocates of “freedom” had won based on arguments like this:

Vince Consiglio, president of American Bikers Aiming Toward Education of Michigan, called the law a useless holdover from bygone days.

“Helmet laws have done nothing to improve safety or reduce fatalities or the cost of insurance,” Consiglio said in a statement. “I want to extend our gratitude to all the legislative officials and Governor Rick Snyder, who courageously supported freedom in the face of an onslaught of baseless and emotional arguments perpetuated by our opponents.”

These claims are, of course, demonstrably false. Indeed, this statement reminds me a lot of the arguments that antivaccinationists make when they claim that vaccines don’t decrease mortality from infectious disease, that business interests are what keep vaccine mandates in place, and that their opponents make “emotional” arguments against loosening vaccine mandates. There’s also a massive case of projection here, given that arguments from anti-helmet law groups like ABATE rely heavily on appeals to “freedom,” much as antivaccinationists and quacks rely on appeals to “health freedom” and accusations of “doctored statistics,” again, very much like the antivaccine movement.

So now that the helmet law has been on the books for nearly four years, there are actually data to look at. In the introduction to the study, Dr. Rodriguez’s notes that one year after the repeal his group had published the early clinical impact due to this legislative change, noting that although fatality rates didn’t increase in hospitalized patients, crash scene fatalities increased significantly, as did intensive care unit stay, mechanical ventilation time, and cost of stay, which was roughly 50% higher. Looking at this pilot study, what struck me was how much the fatalities at the scene increased after the change in law – a more than five-fold jump.

More at https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-cost-of-repealing-mandatory-motorcycle-helmet-laws/

[SunSeeker]

1. You already must be a little nuts to ride a motorcycle in the city.

But to do it without a helmet is batshit crazy. Those nutjobs' "freedom" to have the wind blow through their hair is costing the rest of us a fortune.

[davidpdx]

2. Riding without a helmet is just stupidity.

I see people doing it here in South Korea and it just shocks me how careless people are.

[BigDemVoter]

6. Amen to that. . . . Complete lunacy.

[Turbineguy]

3. I had a friend who needed a heart and lung transplant.

He called me when the California helmet law was enacted. "I'm a dead man". Indeed. He died 5 months later at age 35. As for contrary statistics, it's pretty easy to obtain a motorcycle that will easily do 150 mph. In Florida you regularly see unhelmeted people weaving through traffic at breakneck speed.

[DavidDvorkin]

5. My son told me that when he worked in a hospital, they called motorcycles "donorcycles".

[OxQQme]

4. There were always motorcycles in my life.

Dad said I was conceived over the back fender of his Indian Chief out back of a barn dance in the orange groves of California in the second month of 1940.
I'm currently 75 and don't ride anymore. When I did it was my choice to always wear a helmet except for slow putt putt rides around the 'hood on a summer evening.

However....I disagree with a law that singles out a small segment of society using 'for your safety' as the primary reason.
A secondary basis for such a law was to cut down on the expense to the insurance providers.

Using both arguments, it could be stated that ALL citizens must wear an approved overcoat when the temperature drops below
35 degrees as it has been proven that it reduces the chance of catching a cold and swamping the ER at the hospital.
Or some other mandatory regulation that removes the freedom of choice if it hurts no one but self.

25 years of my life was in a m/c store with sales/parts/service on my resume. 5 of those years was as a service manager.
One of my duties was writing insurance estimates for crashed bikes.
My observation, from talking with the insurance adjusters, was that BODY ARMOR would've had more protection as it was mostly legs, arms and torso that suffered the predominant damage when in a collision with that car driver that 'didn't see you'.

btw..I knew nobody that rode without a helmet.