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law, Michigan was roughly 100% helmeted, and through statistical analysis of the other 20 states the laws have been repealed indicate usage will be dropping to just less than 60%.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. 

 

[XLFD]

Thanks for the update Dave, I missed this. 

Even with the warmer weather making it more likely for bikers to go helmetless, the ones without helmets are only getting in 23.6% of the accidents, that makes 76.4% of all accidents with helmets. 

Furthermore, when the article says:  "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."

This effectively says 360 helmeted riders did hazardous actions to get into accidents (.421 X 856) while only 131 of the helmetless ones did (.494 X 265).   The title of this piece continues to be the case. 

[Dave]

I read over part of the article and as I read I could see where the title of the article was a bit misleading with the way the presented the facts.