Motorcycle Helmets Cause Accidents?

[XLFD]

Some intriguing stats come from the first couple months of the Helmet-optional law for motorcycle operators.  From this Mlive article on Data Trends we find that since the law has taken effect.  In Michigan, 719 motorcyclists and their passengers were in accidents from April 12 through June 17, 2012, with 14 fatalities. 

Of the 654 cases where usage was recorded, 80 percent of riders covered their heads, and here is a couple of pie charts comparing the two:

 

AAA spokeswoman Nancy Cain predictably deciphers these results to suit her view.  We’re not surprised at all,” Cain said. “We’re saddened by it, because study after study after study shows that wearing your helmet is the best protection, no matter what the law.”

AAA has cited figures from the Michigan Office of Highway Safety Planning forecasting 30 additional motorcycle fatalities and 127 additional incapacitating injuries each year following the repeal.

“Above and beyond the freedom of choice, it is a traffic safety issue,” Cain said.

 

But let's look closer at the stats.  The last two years had 30 and 29 deaths during the same period in Michigan, and barring any other reports, this years 14 deaths is a significant decrease.  Here is a page from a AAA friendly organization also desiring motorcycle helmet laws:   http://www.smarter-usa.org/PDF%20DOCUMENTS/Data_Trends_after_Helmet...

 

 

So before this law, Michigan was roughly 100% helmeted, and through statistical analysis of the other 20 states the laws have been repealed indicate usage will be dropping to just less than 60%. This scholarly article indicates that actual helmet use in crashes is always lower than the statewide use rate (and footnotes to its own data).  But wait-- 80% of the crashes in Michigan since the repeal were done by people wearing helmets.  80% is greater than 58%. 

 

So how do AAA spokespeople for safety explain that the risk-taking, moronic 42% of non-helmeted riders are involved in only 20% of the crashes and only represent 42% (6 of 14) of the fatalities so far?  And how does smarter-usa.org feel about their 'is always lower' rule being debunked so resoundingly? 

 

Fact is, more people are out riding their motorcycles more often due to the repeal of the law and so the spike one would expect to come in crashes and fatalities failing to appear surprises even this person.  Few could reasonably argue that a helmet won't protect your head in a crash, but then few should reasonably argue that sometimes a helmet can create neck injuries where there wouldn't have been otherwise, and that not wearing a helmet can help prevent crashes caused by having less sensory input and more neck fatigue. 

 

The current stats seem to show that you are more likely to get hurt in a crash if you don't wear a helmet, but you are a bit less likely to get in that crash in the first place.  Which is why I think the repeal was a good thing-- an educated motorcyclist can decide what's best for them on any given day, with any given conditions. 

 

[Lisa O'Brien]

wheres the proof that the non helmet wearing cyclist would have survived - had they worn a helmet.

[XLFD]

Unfortunately, that isn't part of the statistics given out, and is a bit subjective.  It would be just an educated guess whether a helmet would have saved any of those six helmetless fatalities.

Statistics alone have their limitations in proving anything.  If I flip a fair coin 10 times and it always comes up heads, there is still a 50% chance for tails on that 11th trial. 

[Willy]

I don't think it's the Governments place to tell people they have to wear helmits. On the other hand I don't want to pay a dime out of my pocket to pay for the medical bills of anyone who is involved in an accident while riding a motorcycle or a bicycle.

[XLFD]

Then, according to the above stats:  85 helmeted riders sustained incapacitating injuries (.162 X 825) and 32  (.248 X 129) non-helmeted riders sustained incapacitating injuries.  These are the accidents that have big medical bills. 

If we assume 58% of cyclists are helmeted, then the normalized incapacitating injury rate for helmeted riders is almost twice that of non-helmeted riders (85 vs. 44) with this data set.  This is why that AAA spokeswoman is such an airhead-- she looks at the data and makes false conclusions from it. 

When she says:  "Above and beyond the freedom of choice, it (wearing helmets) is a traffic safety issue."  I look at the data and say "Hunh; 80% of the crashes are being committed by the 58% of people that wear helmets!?"  It refutes her point about wearing helmets for safety. 

[easymoney]

just a few days ago around the flint area a biker was trying to make the U turn lane and lost control of his bike. The rider was wearing a helmet , but the drivers wasn"t, the one wearing the helmet was killed, and the helmet less driver survived.

I live in the  buck eye state and we don't have a helmet law, so , the majority of the time, I don't wear one, but, that s my choice. I've ridden since the late fifty's and remember when mich. didn't have a helmet law. I've always felt that if you lose control of your bike at hiway speeds, that helmet isn't really going to do you much good.

Wish some one would pull up the stats that show who is mostly at fault in vehicle-bike crashes? bet you money over 90% are caused by un-attentive auto drivers...If you ride a bike, you really have to pay attention to everything around you, and, that helmet can obscure alot of things, with a helmet, what you can't see, you also can't hear. Can't count how many times I've had to pull some LUCKY manuvering to avoid a car who did something stupid, like, look right at you, and pull out anyway. (can any of you riders relate?)

[XLFD]

Michigan is a no-fault state, so stats on accountability here are incomplete, and I couldn't find a study on 'fault'.  I picked up 2009 MI stats on motorcycle accidents, which likely mirror Ohio, and got this:

 

2/3 of accidents occur when the motorcyclist is going straight ahead, and the next two highest factors, counting over 10%, occur when the motorcyclist slows or stops on the road.  You can form some conclusions therefrom. 

 

The NHTSA has done studies that show there effectively is no deleterious effect to vision or hearing when using a motorcycle helmet.  This is nonsense, I'm more inclined to believe this commonsense result:  http://www.bikersrights.com/statistics/notsafe.html

 

 

[easymoney]

THANK YOU XLFD

Now if we could get none riders to understand what riders have been complaining about, most of these arguements would disapear.

[XLFD]

It's been a while since I've been thanked in all caps.  YOUR WELCOME EASYMONEY, I believe, is the correct response. 

When the NHTSA says that you have the same vision in a full helmet (you just have to turn your head further around) it loses credibility.  When they then say you have the same ability to hear, it totally blows their bias out of the water. 

I would say that wearing certain motorcycle helmets increase the likelihood of an accident, and decrease the potential for avoiding an accident, as you stated earlier.  Facts are, if you get in certain types of accidents, a helmet will hinder your survival chances. 

Yet motorcycle helmets will decrease the chance your brains get splattered on other types of accidents.  That's why I'm totally for letting the individual biker decide what headgear, if any, they feel will get them from point A to B. 

[Willy]

X

I want to compliment you on your research and information you have posted. Nice work

[XLFD]

Thanks, Willy.  BTW, if I see any of you motorcycling (or bicycling) while having headphones or earbuds around or inside your cauliflowers (or texting), you're dumber than a box of rocks. 

[Willy]

I'll tell you who's dumber than rocks. People who get in and out of their car while parked at the curb and traffic is whizzing by. I almost took out a woman and her door in downtown Ludington last week. When she swung her door open and stepped out of the car and looked at my headlights I could read her lips, she was saying "oh sh-t". Luckily there was noone next to me and I swerved into the next lane.  I also see people getting out of the car while on the phone or texting.

[Dave]

Saw this in today's Muskegon Chronicle, figured it would fit in nicely to this discussion.....

 

MLive analysis: See who's more at fault in Michigan motorcycle crashes; riders with or without helmets?

Helmetless motorcyclists were more likely to be at least partly at fault in crashes than those with helmets, a new MLive Media Group analysis of Michigan State Police records shows.

They also tended to be older than helmeted riders, the review found.

The findings stem from a deeper analysis of records involving more than 1,300 motorcyclists and passengers who were in crashes since Gov. Rick Snyder repealed Michigan’s mandatory helmet law.

An earlier review of those records, published last week, showed helmetless cyclists continued to suffer more serious injuries in the three months after the helmet requirement was lifted April 12.

The new analysis indicates there are other differences as well.

According to the state police data, 49.4 percent of the 265 crashes involving helmetless cyclists were due to some form of “hazardous action” on their part, typically speeding or failure to yield. That compares to 42.1 percent of helmeted riders who were at fault in 856 crashes.

Those without helmets are also more likely to be older. The median age for helmetless riders in all crashes was 41.5 years old; the oldest was 76, who suffered non-incapacitating injuries in Emmet County on June 26.

The median for those with helmets was 34; the oldest was 88, who suffered incapacitating injuries in Presque Isle County on May 19.

Terrance Jungel, executive director of the Michigan Sheriffs’ Association, said the at-fault gap is significant, but not surprising.

“The only thing they focused on when they repealed that act was the protection of the cranium," he said. "They forget there is dust and dirt and debris that is flying at the riders on a regular basis.

“They may be laying it down, and cited for no due caution or something else, but there could be an underlying reason," Jungel said.

Anne Readett, communications chief for the state Office of Highway Safety Planning, said officials are “monitoring the crash data closely,” but generally focus more on fatalities and serious injuries and ways to avert them.

“I don’t know that we’ve looked at it from that perspective,” she said.

“We really don’t look at fatalities and those things in terms of who’s at fault,” she added. “It’s something I can bring up to say, ‘Should we look at things that way?’ and see what comes up and is there something we can do about it.”

Regarding the age gap, American Motorcyclist Association spokesman Pete terHorst said older riders tend to be more cautious than younger riders – traveling slower and preferring touring bikes to sport cycles, for example.

Those precautions might also lead to a level of security where some feel justified in not wearing a helmet, terHorst said.

Still, with both the age and at-fault gaps, terHorst and Readett emphasized it’s too soon to draw conclusions.

“You would need 12 months of numbers, and even then, from year to year, you may see a variation in numbers,” said terHorst, whose organization supports helmet use but opposes mandatory laws.

A major research project under way at Oklahoma State University should provide the best insight in a generation, he said. It is due out in 2014.

Largely funded by the federal government, the $3.8 million Motorcycle Crash Causation Study is the “most comprehensive investigation” in the U.S. into causes, rider demographics and effective deterrence in more than 30 years, according to the Federal Highway Administration.

The study was approved by Congress following concerns about rising motorcycle fatalities nationally, even as all traffic-related fatalities fell.

-- Email statewide projects coordinator John Barnes at [e-mail] or follow him on Twitter.

http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2012/07/mlive_analysis_see_whos...