If helmets were optional...
Discussion
moanthebairns said:
what a load of s
t, nanny state, its my life, what a load of "oppressed" bullst. Stick it to the man dude, this is my life not yours.
Now lets look at this sensibly.
Your life, your health, so you feel that you shouldn't have to wear a helmet. Great, but lets actually look at the implications of this.
you have an accident or are involved in one that with a helmet you would have walked away from but in this situation your dead.
So instead of getting up and settling this minor accident with insurance we now have.
police RTA investigation,
ambulance crew,
Doctors,
A much bigger insurance problem,
A person going through hell who may or may not be to blame for the accident but as you are to liberal to not wear a fking helmet will have years of torment through the courts till its settled.
That's before you look at the mental implications witnessing this could have on others and being involved in the process. The financial costs become a burden along with using valuable stretched resources.
If you cannot see how this being a burden on society then frankly you shouldn't be voting. The reason we have common sense laws in this country is for people exactly like you. To thick to go, "I see no problem with this, this is a non event".
What do you want, a country with world leading safety standards at work and on the road or your "freedom" similar to countries that don't even have running water and high mortality rates.
I think most people agree that riding a modern bike without a helmet is pretty ft, nanny state, its my life, what a load of "oppressed" bullst. Stick it to the man dude, this is my life not yours.Now lets look at this sensibly.
Your life, your health, so you feel that you shouldn't have to wear a helmet. Great, but lets actually look at the implications of this.
you have an accident or are involved in one that with a helmet you would have walked away from but in this situation your dead.
So instead of getting up and settling this minor accident with insurance we now have.
police RTA investigation,
ambulance crew,
Doctors,
A much bigger insurance problem,
A person going through hell who may or may not be to blame for the accident but as you are to liberal to not wear a f
king helmet will have years of torment through the courts till its settled. That's before you look at the mental implications witnessing this could have on others and being involved in the process. The financial costs become a burden along with using valuable stretched resources.
If you cannot see how this being a burden on society then frankly you shouldn't be voting. The reason we have common sense laws in this country is for people exactly like you. To thick to go, "I see no problem with this, this is a non event".
What do you want, a country with world leading safety standards at work and on the road or your "freedom" similar to countries that don't even have running water and high mortality rates.
king stupid. But there are loads of times when riding a motorbike or scooter is no different to riding a push bike. There are also other times when the risk of having an accident is extremely low.It is for those reasons people should be able to make their own choice on whether they want to wear a helmet or not.
I was in Amsterdam a few months ago and I’d say that only around 10% of all riders, push bike’s scooters and motorcyclist were wearing helmets. If it’s really that dangerous and life threatening why not make helmet compulsory there too?
As you get older you will probably start to understand people’s views on this a little bit better. For example, there are things that you are doing now that when you get to my age the nanny state will have banned. They will have been deemed too dangerous or for the reasons you've quoted above they will have decided the risks and associated costs are too high.
This could include limiting the BHP of motorbikes to double figures or even there top speed to within the maximum UK speed limit. Driving data loggers are already being introduced and these could become compulsory and the data held could be used in court. Motorbike track days might be deemed a drain on A&E resources so they might go too along with road racing. The list goes on.
Back on topic, if helmet were optional there are times when I wouldn’t wear one. But that wouldn't include general UK road riding.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Do you feel better about yourself now?Can you hear all your friends applauding?
Nothing I have said here is untrue, and nor does it make me a danger to other road users (circumstance would do that). They usually manage that off their own back.
Wierdly enough when my driving was assessed by an IAM advanced driving instructor he gave me a glowing report.
I was obeying the speed limits though.
black-k1 said:
Balanced on whose scales?
As a net payer to the state system (I pay much more in than I take out) why would I not be entitled to state care?
Because the risk would be beyond what was deemed 'normal' by any reasonable guidelines? As a net payer to the state system (I pay much more in than I take out) why would I not be entitled to state care?
Besides, whenever I have hurt something I go to the physio. I also pay into the state but recognize that there are far better uses of their time, caring for people (not those who would be daft enough to head butt the ground without a lid) and much better equipped places to handle sports injury.
Besides, most would probably be fatally injured, or left with life changing injuries. Who picks up the tab for that exactly?
Andy XRV said:
I think most people agree that riding a modern bike without a helmet is pretty fking stupid. But there are loads of times when riding a motorbike or scooter is no different to riding a push bike. There are also other times when the risk of having an accident is extremely low.
It is for those reasons people should be able to make their own choice on whether they want to wear a helmet or not.
I was in Amsterdam a few months ago and I’d say that only around 10% of all riders, push bike’s scooters and motorcyclist were wearing helmets. If it’s really that dangerous and life threatening why not make helmet compulsory there too?
As you get older you will probably start to understand people’s views on this a little bit better. For example, there are things that you are doing now that when you get to my age the nanny state will have banned. They will have been deemed too dangerous or for the reasons you've quoted above they will have decided the risks and associated costs are too high.
This could include limiting the BHP of motorbikes to double figures or even there top speed to within the maximum UK speed limit. Driving data loggers are already being introduced and these could become compulsory and the data held could be used in court. Motorbike track days might be deemed a drain on A&E resources so they might go too along with road racing. The list goes on.
Back on topic, if helmet were optional there are times when I wouldn’t wear one. But that wouldn't include general UK road riding.
in all eu countries helmets are the law, in Holland only scooter riders can get away with it and their scooter must no exceed 12 mph.king stupid. But there are loads of times when riding a motorbike or scooter is no different to riding a push bike. There are also other times when the risk of having an accident is extremely low.It is for those reasons people should be able to make their own choice on whether they want to wear a helmet or not.
I was in Amsterdam a few months ago and I’d say that only around 10% of all riders, push bike’s scooters and motorcyclist were wearing helmets. If it’s really that dangerous and life threatening why not make helmet compulsory there too?
As you get older you will probably start to understand people’s views on this a little bit better. For example, there are things that you are doing now that when you get to my age the nanny state will have banned. They will have been deemed too dangerous or for the reasons you've quoted above they will have decided the risks and associated costs are too high.
This could include limiting the BHP of motorbikes to double figures or even there top speed to within the maximum UK speed limit. Driving data loggers are already being introduced and these could become compulsory and the data held could be used in court. Motorbike track days might be deemed a drain on A&E resources so they might go too along with road racing. The list goes on.
Back on topic, if helmet were optional there are times when I wouldn’t wear one. But that wouldn't include general UK road riding.
Disastrous said:
What is wrong with the way it is with bicycles?
People can if they want but it isn't mandatory.
I always find this argument weird as nobody is demanding you don't wear a helmet. Only asking that you allow others their right to choose.
Should it be mandatory for cyclists as well?
There are so many other issues for cyclists that helmets are just a minor detail in the greater scheme of road safety. Plenty say they don't make a difference. I've seen first hand that they can, not always, but that's good enough for me.People can if they want but it isn't mandatory.
I always find this argument weird as nobody is demanding you don't wear a helmet. Only asking that you allow others their right to choose.
Should it be mandatory for cyclists as well?
Dr Jekyll said:
It's perfectly possible that a lot of seriously injured bikers requiring months of treatment and years of care might have been killed instantly if they weren't wearing a helmet. So the cost argument can go both ways.
Thanks for the man maths, that's reminded me my VAT is due. anonymous said:
[redacted]
Agreed, but here's an alternative..Would you ride a Rollercoaster with no safety mechanisms and if it went wrong, be told by the operator you had no recourse as it was your choice whether you rode it or not.
As others have said, whilst an individual freedoms are important, the effect on society as a whole must be considered.
How about an individual Asylum seekers rights or freedoms or the those of the wider society when the individual become a swarm?
Is it your individual freedome to smoke in a room where i, as a non smoker am eating? or are my rights being infinged by you?
What if my childs desire to "express" itself is damaging the education your child is recieiving? Is my child within its rights to do that??
The moment society is based solely on the rights of an individual, Society as a whole is f
ked. We co exist by mutual consent.We allow the Government to govern. We allow the Police to police, we, as a society permit these things by mutal agreement. If not, we have anarchy.
Dr Jekyll said:
It's perfectly possible that a lot of seriously injured bikers requiring months of treatment and years of care might have been killed instantly if they weren't wearing a helmet. So the cost argument can go both ways.
So where does that stack up morally if the rider was riding like an absolute tt? Is that a fair use for limited state resources?moanthebairns said:
Andy XRV said:
I think most people agree that riding a modern bike without a helmet is pretty fking stupid. But there are loads of times when riding a motorbike or scooter is no different to riding a push bike. There are also other times when the risk of having an accident is extremely low.
It is for those reasons people should be able to make their own choice on whether they want to wear a helmet or not.
I was in Amsterdam a few months ago and I’d say that only around 10% of all riders, push bike’s scooters and motorcyclist were wearing helmets. If it’s really that dangerous and life threatening why not make helmet compulsory there too?
As you get older you will probably start to understand people’s views on this a little bit better. For example, there are things that you are doing now that when you get to my age the nanny state will have banned. They will have been deemed too dangerous or for the reasons you've quoted above they will have decided the risks and associated costs are too high.
This could include limiting the BHP of motorbikes to double figures or even there top speed to within the maximum UK speed limit. Driving data loggers are already being introduced and these could become compulsory and the data held could be used in court. Motorbike track days might be deemed a drain on A&E resources so they might go too along with road racing. The list goes on.
Back on topic, if helmet were optional there are times when I wouldn’t wear one. But that wouldn't include general UK road riding.
in all eu countries helmets are the law, in Holland only scooter riders can get away with it and their scooter must no exceed 12 mph.king stupid. But there are loads of times when riding a motorbike or scooter is no different to riding a push bike. There are also other times when the risk of having an accident is extremely low.It is for those reasons people should be able to make their own choice on whether they want to wear a helmet or not.
I was in Amsterdam a few months ago and I’d say that only around 10% of all riders, push bike’s scooters and motorcyclist were wearing helmets. If it’s really that dangerous and life threatening why not make helmet compulsory there too?
As you get older you will probably start to understand people’s views on this a little bit better. For example, there are things that you are doing now that when you get to my age the nanny state will have banned. They will have been deemed too dangerous or for the reasons you've quoted above they will have decided the risks and associated costs are too high.
This could include limiting the BHP of motorbikes to double figures or even there top speed to within the maximum UK speed limit. Driving data loggers are already being introduced and these could become compulsory and the data held could be used in court. Motorbike track days might be deemed a drain on A&E resources so they might go too along with road racing. The list goes on.
Back on topic, if helmet were optional there are times when I wouldn’t wear one. But that wouldn't include general UK road riding.
Andy XRV said:
moanthebairns said:
Andy XRV said:
I think most people agree that riding a modern bike without a helmet is pretty fking stupid. But there are loads of times when riding a motorbike or scooter is no different to riding a push bike. There are also other times when the risk of having an accident is extremely low.
It is for those reasons people should be able to make their own choice on whether they want to wear a helmet or not.
I was in Amsterdam a few months ago and I’d say that only around 10% of all riders, push bike’s scooters and motorcyclist were wearing helmets. If it’s really that dangerous and life threatening why not make helmet compulsory there too?
As you get older you will probably start to understand people’s views on this a little bit better. For example, there are things that you are doing now that when you get to my age the nanny state will have banned. They will have been deemed too dangerous or for the reasons you've quoted above they will have decided the risks and associated costs are too high.
This could include limiting the BHP of motorbikes to double figures or even there top speed to within the maximum UK speed limit. Driving data loggers are already being introduced and these could become compulsory and the data held could be used in court. Motorbike track days might be deemed a drain on A&E resources so they might go too along with road racing. The list goes on.
Back on topic, if helmet were optional there are times when I wouldn’t wear one. But that wouldn't include general UK road riding.
in all eu countries helmets are the law, in Holland only scooter riders can get away with it and their scooter must no exceed 12 mph.king stupid. But there are loads of times when riding a motorbike or scooter is no different to riding a push bike. There are also other times when the risk of having an accident is extremely low.It is for those reasons people should be able to make their own choice on whether they want to wear a helmet or not.
I was in Amsterdam a few months ago and I’d say that only around 10% of all riders, push bike’s scooters and motorcyclist were wearing helmets. If it’s really that dangerous and life threatening why not make helmet compulsory there too?
As you get older you will probably start to understand people’s views on this a little bit better. For example, there are things that you are doing now that when you get to my age the nanny state will have banned. They will have been deemed too dangerous or for the reasons you've quoted above they will have decided the risks and associated costs are too high.
This could include limiting the BHP of motorbikes to double figures or even there top speed to within the maximum UK speed limit. Driving data loggers are already being introduced and these could become compulsory and the data held could be used in court. Motorbike track days might be deemed a drain on A&E resources so they might go too along with road racing. The list goes on.
Back on topic, if helmet were optional there are times when I wouldn’t wear one. But that wouldn't include general UK road riding.
having spent a lot of time in Holland and Amsterdam, there's not much the local 5-0 don't enforce..
Holland, Belgium and the Czech Republic are the only exceptions for scooters based on top speed. For all motorcycles, helments are mandatory right across the EU.
As a compariso, here's a report fom the US where there exists 3 states of helmet law. Full/partial/None.
The numbers make for sombre reading.
In 2010, the 4,502 motorcyclists (operators and passengers) killed in motorcycle crashes made up 14% of all road traffic deaths, yet motorcycles accounted for <1% of all vehicle miles traveled (1,2). Helmet use consistently has been shown to reduce motorcycle crash–related injuries and deaths, and the most effective strategy to increase helmet use is enactment of universal helmet laws (3). Universal helmet laws require all motorcyclists to wear helmets whenever they ride. To examine the association between states' motorcycle helmet laws and helmet use or nonuse among fatally injured motorcyclists, CDC analyzed 2008–2010 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS), a census of fatal traffic crashes in the United States (1). Additionally, economic cost data from NHTSA were obtained to compare the costs saved as a result of helmet use, by type of state motorcycle helmet law. The findings indicated that, on average, 12% of fatally injured motorcyclists were not wearing helmets in states with universal helmet laws, compared with 64% in partial helmet law states (laws that only required specific groups, usually young riders, to wear helmets) and 79% in states without a helmet law. Additionally, in 2010, economic costs saved from helmet use by society in states with a universal helmet law were, on average, $725 per registered motorcycle, nearly four times greater than in states without such a law ($198).
Motorcyclist death data for operators and passengers were obtained from FARS. To be included in FARS, a crash must result in the death of at least one person (occupant of a vehicle or a nonmotorist) within 30 days of the crash. Percentages of fatally injured motorcyclists who were not wearing a helmet were calculated as a proportion of all motorcyclist fatalities by state for 2008–2010. Percentages were suppressed for states with fewer than 10 fatalities involving motorcyclists who were not wearing helmets.
Information on economic costs saved from helmet use (e.g., medical and productivity costs saved) was obtained from NHTSA (NHTSA, unpublished data, 2012). The methods used to estimate 2010 costs were first used to calculate 2008 cost estimates.* For 2010, the number of fatally injured motorcyclists who wore helmets was derived from FARS, and estimates of the number of helmeted motorcyclists who were injured were obtained from NHTSA's General Estimates System, a nationally representative sample of nonfatal traffic crashes.† These values were divided by 1 minus the corresponding effectiveness estimate for preventing motorcycle crash fatalities and injuries§ (4) to obtain estimates of the potential number of motorcycle crash fatalities and injuries expected if helmeted riders had not been wearing a helmet. The numbers of fatalities and injuries involving helmeted motorcyclists were then subtracted from the expected numbers of motorcycle crash fatalities and injuries to estimate the numbers of motorcyclist lives saved and serious and minor injuries prevented. Corresponding cost calculations from NHTSA¶ were then applied to these estimates, and the resulting costs were adjusted to year 2010 dollars. Costs saved were estimated to be $1,212,800 per fatality, $171,753 per serious injury, and $7,523 per minor injury (in year 2010 dollars) (NHTSA, unpublished data, 2012). Costs saved included injury-related costs (e.g., medical and emergency services costs, and household and work productivity losses) and excluded costs (e.g., property damage and travel delay). For this report, costs saved were standardized by state by dividing the total costs saved in each state by the number of registered motorcycles in that state in 2010** to determine costs saved per registered motorcycle.
During 2008–2010, a total of 14,283 motorcyclists were killed in crashes, among whom 6,057 (42%) were not wearing a helmet. In the 20 states with a universal helmet law, 739 (12%) fatally injured motorcyclists were not wearing a helmet, compared with 4,814 motorcyclists (64%) in the 27 states with partial helmet laws and 504 (79%) motorcyclists in the three states without a helmet law (Figure 1).
By preventing motorcyclist deaths and protecting against injuries, helmet use also translated to economic costs saved. In 2010, approximately $3 billion in costs were saved as a result of helmet use in the United States; however, another $1.4 billion could have been saved if all motorcyclists had worn helmets (NHTSA, unpublished data, 2012). Total costs saved from helmet use ranged from $394 million in California to $2.6 million in New Mexico. Economic costs saved from helmet use per registered motorcycle ranged from $1,627 in North Carolina to $48 in New Mexico, with a median of $286 (Figure 2). Nearly all (23 of the 25) states with costs saved per registered motorcycle below the median had either a partial helmet law or no helmet law. Costs saved in states with a universal helmet law were, on average, nearly four times greater per registered motorcycle than in states without such a law ($725 versus $198).
Editorial Note
The findings in this report indicate that fatally injured motorcycle riders were less likely to wear helmets in states that do not have universal helmet laws. During 2008–2010, fatally injured motorcyclists in states with a partial helmet law were more than five times as likely not to have been wearing a helmet as those in states with a universal helmet law (64% versus 12%). Fatally injured motorcyclists in states with no helmet law were more than six times as likely not to have been wearing a helmet as those in states with a universal helmet law (79% versus 12%). In addition, the economic costs saved by helmet use are substantial. The savings in states with a universal helmet law were, on average, $725 per registered motorcycle, nearly four times greater than in states without such a law ($198).
As of April 2012, 19 states and the District of Columbia had universal helmet laws, 28 states had partial helmet laws, and three states had no helmet law (5). Motorcycle helmet legislation in the United States has been marked by change, with cycles of helmet law enactments followed by periods of helmet law repeals (Figure 3) (5). In the mid-1970s, 47 states and the District of Columbia had universal helmet laws, prompted in part by a 1967 federal requirement that states have such laws or lose a portion of their federal highway funds. In 1976, however, Congress removed penalties for not having a universal helmet law and states began to change or repeal their laws. By 1980, 20 states had changed their universal helmet laws to partial helmet laws and eight states had repealed their laws altogether (5). In 1991, Congress reintroduced financial penalties for states without universal helmet laws; California and Maryland responded by passing universal helmet laws. In 1995, federal sanctions against states without universal helmet laws again were lifted, and New Hampshire's helmet law immediately was repealed. During 1997–2003, Arkansas, Texas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Florida, and Pennsylvania followed by changing their helmet laws from universal helmet laws to partial helmet laws (5). In 2004, Louisiana reinstated its universal helmet law. Since then, state legislatures have continued to debate helmet laws, and bills to change or repeal universal helmet laws routinely are introduced. In 2011, such bills were introduced in 10 of the 20 universal helmet law states, and in April 2012, Michigan changed its universal helmet law to a partial helmet law (5,6).
Research has shown that when a state repeals its helmet law or opts for less restrictive requirements, helmet use decreases and motorcycle-related deaths, injuries, and costs increase. In 2000, for example, Florida changed its universal helmet law to a partial helmet law that covered only riders aged <21 years and those with <$10,000 in medical insurance coverage. During the 2 years after the law was changed, the motorcyclist death rate per 10,000 registered motorcycles in Florida increased by 21%, deaths among motorcycle riders aged <21 years nearly tripled, and hospital admissions of motorcyclists with injuries to the head, brain, and skull increased by 82% (7). In addition, gross costs charged to hospital-admitted motorcyclists with head, brain, or skull injuries in Florida more than doubled, from $21 million to $50 million (7). Studies that have examined nonfatal injury outcomes among motorcyclists who wore helmets and those who did not have found that hospitalized riders who had not worn helmets incurred higher health-care costs (8,9). Riders who do not wear helmets are more likely to suffer traumatic brain injuries, and median hospital charges for those with traumatic brain injuries are 13 times higher than for those without such injuries (8). Riders who do not wear helmets also are less likely to have health insurance, and therefore are more likely to require publicly funded health care (9).
The findings in this report are subject to at least three limitations. First, the NHTSA cost estimates are based on year 2000 estimates, converted to year 2010 dollars; however, these are the most recent and comprehensive motorcyclist injury cost estimates available. Second, costs estimates are derived from national data and do not reflect variation in costs across states. Cost estimates also do not include intangible costs, such as those for pain, suffering, and decreased quality of life, nor do they account for the costs associated with a universal helmet law or owning a helmet. Finally, helmet use was unknown and therefore estimated for 2.5% of motorcyclist fatalities; however, no meaningful differences resulted from inclusion of these estimates.
Helmet use is estimated to prevent 37% of fatalities among motorcycle operators and 41% of fatalities among passengers (4). NHTSA estimates that in 2010, helmet use saved the lives of 1,544 motorcyclists, and an additional 709 lives might have been saved if all motorcyclists had worn helmets (NHTSA, unpublished data, 2012). With motorcycle ownership at an all-time high (8.2 million registered motorcycles in 2010, compared with 4.3 million in 2000),†† motorcycle-related deaths and their associated costs are expected to remain at high levels unless more effective protective measures are implemented (10). Helmets are proven to save lives and money, and universal helmet laws are the most effective way to increase helmet use (3).
The numbers make for sombre reading.
In 2010, the 4,502 motorcyclists (operators and passengers) killed in motorcycle crashes made up 14% of all road traffic deaths, yet motorcycles accounted for <1% of all vehicle miles traveled (1,2). Helmet use consistently has been shown to reduce motorcycle crash–related injuries and deaths, and the most effective strategy to increase helmet use is enactment of universal helmet laws (3). Universal helmet laws require all motorcyclists to wear helmets whenever they ride. To examine the association between states' motorcycle helmet laws and helmet use or nonuse among fatally injured motorcyclists, CDC analyzed 2008–2010 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS), a census of fatal traffic crashes in the United States (1). Additionally, economic cost data from NHTSA were obtained to compare the costs saved as a result of helmet use, by type of state motorcycle helmet law. The findings indicated that, on average, 12% of fatally injured motorcyclists were not wearing helmets in states with universal helmet laws, compared with 64% in partial helmet law states (laws that only required specific groups, usually young riders, to wear helmets) and 79% in states without a helmet law. Additionally, in 2010, economic costs saved from helmet use by society in states with a universal helmet law were, on average, $725 per registered motorcycle, nearly four times greater than in states without such a law ($198).
Motorcyclist death data for operators and passengers were obtained from FARS. To be included in FARS, a crash must result in the death of at least one person (occupant of a vehicle or a nonmotorist) within 30 days of the crash. Percentages of fatally injured motorcyclists who were not wearing a helmet were calculated as a proportion of all motorcyclist fatalities by state for 2008–2010. Percentages were suppressed for states with fewer than 10 fatalities involving motorcyclists who were not wearing helmets.
Information on economic costs saved from helmet use (e.g., medical and productivity costs saved) was obtained from NHTSA (NHTSA, unpublished data, 2012). The methods used to estimate 2010 costs were first used to calculate 2008 cost estimates.* For 2010, the number of fatally injured motorcyclists who wore helmets was derived from FARS, and estimates of the number of helmeted motorcyclists who were injured were obtained from NHTSA's General Estimates System, a nationally representative sample of nonfatal traffic crashes.† These values were divided by 1 minus the corresponding effectiveness estimate for preventing motorcycle crash fatalities and injuries§ (4) to obtain estimates of the potential number of motorcycle crash fatalities and injuries expected if helmeted riders had not been wearing a helmet. The numbers of fatalities and injuries involving helmeted motorcyclists were then subtracted from the expected numbers of motorcycle crash fatalities and injuries to estimate the numbers of motorcyclist lives saved and serious and minor injuries prevented. Corresponding cost calculations from NHTSA¶ were then applied to these estimates, and the resulting costs were adjusted to year 2010 dollars. Costs saved were estimated to be $1,212,800 per fatality, $171,753 per serious injury, and $7,523 per minor injury (in year 2010 dollars) (NHTSA, unpublished data, 2012). Costs saved included injury-related costs (e.g., medical and emergency services costs, and household and work productivity losses) and excluded costs (e.g., property damage and travel delay). For this report, costs saved were standardized by state by dividing the total costs saved in each state by the number of registered motorcycles in that state in 2010** to determine costs saved per registered motorcycle.
During 2008–2010, a total of 14,283 motorcyclists were killed in crashes, among whom 6,057 (42%) were not wearing a helmet. In the 20 states with a universal helmet law, 739 (12%) fatally injured motorcyclists were not wearing a helmet, compared with 4,814 motorcyclists (64%) in the 27 states with partial helmet laws and 504 (79%) motorcyclists in the three states without a helmet law (Figure 1).
By preventing motorcyclist deaths and protecting against injuries, helmet use also translated to economic costs saved. In 2010, approximately $3 billion in costs were saved as a result of helmet use in the United States; however, another $1.4 billion could have been saved if all motorcyclists had worn helmets (NHTSA, unpublished data, 2012). Total costs saved from helmet use ranged from $394 million in California to $2.6 million in New Mexico. Economic costs saved from helmet use per registered motorcycle ranged from $1,627 in North Carolina to $48 in New Mexico, with a median of $286 (Figure 2). Nearly all (23 of the 25) states with costs saved per registered motorcycle below the median had either a partial helmet law or no helmet law. Costs saved in states with a universal helmet law were, on average, nearly four times greater per registered motorcycle than in states without such a law ($725 versus $198).
Editorial Note
The findings in this report indicate that fatally injured motorcycle riders were less likely to wear helmets in states that do not have universal helmet laws. During 2008–2010, fatally injured motorcyclists in states with a partial helmet law were more than five times as likely not to have been wearing a helmet as those in states with a universal helmet law (64% versus 12%). Fatally injured motorcyclists in states with no helmet law were more than six times as likely not to have been wearing a helmet as those in states with a universal helmet law (79% versus 12%). In addition, the economic costs saved by helmet use are substantial. The savings in states with a universal helmet law were, on average, $725 per registered motorcycle, nearly four times greater than in states without such a law ($198).
As of April 2012, 19 states and the District of Columbia had universal helmet laws, 28 states had partial helmet laws, and three states had no helmet law (5). Motorcycle helmet legislation in the United States has been marked by change, with cycles of helmet law enactments followed by periods of helmet law repeals (Figure 3) (5). In the mid-1970s, 47 states and the District of Columbia had universal helmet laws, prompted in part by a 1967 federal requirement that states have such laws or lose a portion of their federal highway funds. In 1976, however, Congress removed penalties for not having a universal helmet law and states began to change or repeal their laws. By 1980, 20 states had changed their universal helmet laws to partial helmet laws and eight states had repealed their laws altogether (5). In 1991, Congress reintroduced financial penalties for states without universal helmet laws; California and Maryland responded by passing universal helmet laws. In 1995, federal sanctions against states without universal helmet laws again were lifted, and New Hampshire's helmet law immediately was repealed. During 1997–2003, Arkansas, Texas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Florida, and Pennsylvania followed by changing their helmet laws from universal helmet laws to partial helmet laws (5). In 2004, Louisiana reinstated its universal helmet law. Since then, state legislatures have continued to debate helmet laws, and bills to change or repeal universal helmet laws routinely are introduced. In 2011, such bills were introduced in 10 of the 20 universal helmet law states, and in April 2012, Michigan changed its universal helmet law to a partial helmet law (5,6).
Research has shown that when a state repeals its helmet law or opts for less restrictive requirements, helmet use decreases and motorcycle-related deaths, injuries, and costs increase. In 2000, for example, Florida changed its universal helmet law to a partial helmet law that covered only riders aged <21 years and those with <$10,000 in medical insurance coverage. During the 2 years after the law was changed, the motorcyclist death rate per 10,000 registered motorcycles in Florida increased by 21%, deaths among motorcycle riders aged <21 years nearly tripled, and hospital admissions of motorcyclists with injuries to the head, brain, and skull increased by 82% (7). In addition, gross costs charged to hospital-admitted motorcyclists with head, brain, or skull injuries in Florida more than doubled, from $21 million to $50 million (7). Studies that have examined nonfatal injury outcomes among motorcyclists who wore helmets and those who did not have found that hospitalized riders who had not worn helmets incurred higher health-care costs (8,9). Riders who do not wear helmets are more likely to suffer traumatic brain injuries, and median hospital charges for those with traumatic brain injuries are 13 times higher than for those without such injuries (8). Riders who do not wear helmets also are less likely to have health insurance, and therefore are more likely to require publicly funded health care (9).
The findings in this report are subject to at least three limitations. First, the NHTSA cost estimates are based on year 2000 estimates, converted to year 2010 dollars; however, these are the most recent and comprehensive motorcyclist injury cost estimates available. Second, costs estimates are derived from national data and do not reflect variation in costs across states. Cost estimates also do not include intangible costs, such as those for pain, suffering, and decreased quality of life, nor do they account for the costs associated with a universal helmet law or owning a helmet. Finally, helmet use was unknown and therefore estimated for 2.5% of motorcyclist fatalities; however, no meaningful differences resulted from inclusion of these estimates.
Helmet use is estimated to prevent 37% of fatalities among motorcycle operators and 41% of fatalities among passengers (4). NHTSA estimates that in 2010, helmet use saved the lives of 1,544 motorcyclists, and an additional 709 lives might have been saved if all motorcyclists had worn helmets (NHTSA, unpublished data, 2012). With motorcycle ownership at an all-time high (8.2 million registered motorcycles in 2010, compared with 4.3 million in 2000),†† motorcycle-related deaths and their associated costs are expected to remain at high levels unless more effective protective measures are implemented (10). Helmets are proven to save lives and money, and universal helmet laws are the most effective way to increase helmet use (3).
black-k1 said:
Balanced on whose scales?
As a net payer to the state system (I pay much more in than I take out) why would I not be entitled to state care?
because the ecommics of dealing with an RTA where a motorcyclist wasn't wearing a helmet is exponentially higher than those who were. The subsequet care costs are hugely more expensive unless you're happy that they just switch you off should you seem marginal? The ability to maintain life without quality has grown hugely, As a net payer to the state system (I pay much more in than I take out) why would I not be entitled to state care?
You're arguing it's YOUR right to cost ME more tax to pay for your care or a poorer health service due to the huge sums diverted to care for those injured to a far higher level than had they been wearing a helmet. How is that fair to me?
The fact is helmets save lives AND money and resources. your level of input into the system doesn't dicate the level of care dispensed. With a finite amount of resources to go round, is it fair that huge sums be consumed by those who's injuries could be reduced?
talking of eliminating risk entirely is idiotic, but it's totally acceptable to take pracical measures to reduce that risk in a way that provided the biggest cost to benefit to personal libery ratio.
Steve Bass said:
As a compariso, here's a report fom the US where there exists 3 states of helmet law. Full/partial/None.
The numbers make for sombre reading.
In 2010, the 4,502 motorcyclists (operators and passengers) killed in motorcycle crashes made up 14% of all road traffic deaths, yet motorcycles accounted for <1% of all vehicle miles traveled (1,2). Helmet use consistently has been shown to reduce motorcycle crash–related injuries and deaths, and the most effective strategy to increase helmet use is enactment of universal helmet laws (3). Universal helmet laws require all motorcyclists to wear helmets whenever they ride. To examine the association between states' motorcycle helmet laws and helmet use or nonuse among fatally injured motorcyclists, CDC analyzed 2008–2010 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS), a census of fatal traffic crashes in the United States (1). Additionally, economic cost data from NHTSA were obtained to compare the costs saved as a result of helmet use, by type of state motorcycle helmet law. The findings indicated that, on average, 12% of fatally injured motorcyclists were not wearing helmets in states with universal helmet laws, compared with 64% in partial helmet law states (laws that only required specific groups, usually young riders, to wear helmets) and 79% in states without a helmet law. Additionally, in 2010, economic costs saved from helmet use by society in states with a universal helmet law were, on average, $725 per registered motorcycle, nearly four times greater than in states without such a law ($198).
Motorcyclist death data for operators and passengers were obtained from FARS. To be included in FARS, a crash must result in the death of at least one person (occupant of a vehicle or a nonmotorist) within 30 days of the crash. Percentages of fatally injured motorcyclists who were not wearing a helmet were calculated as a proportion of all motorcyclist fatalities by state for 2008–2010. Percentages were suppressed for states with fewer than 10 fatalities involving motorcyclists who were not wearing helmets.
Information on economic costs saved from helmet use (e.g., medical and productivity costs saved) was obtained from NHTSA (NHTSA, unpublished data, 2012). The methods used to estimate 2010 costs were first used to calculate 2008 cost estimates.* For 2010, the number of fatally injured motorcyclists who wore helmets was derived from FARS, and estimates of the number of helmeted motorcyclists who were injured were obtained from NHTSA's General Estimates System, a nationally representative sample of nonfatal traffic crashes.† These values were divided by 1 minus the corresponding effectiveness estimate for preventing motorcycle crash fatalities and injuries§ (4) to obtain estimates of the potential number of motorcycle crash fatalities and injuries expected if helmeted riders had not been wearing a helmet. The numbers of fatalities and injuries involving helmeted motorcyclists were then subtracted from the expected numbers of motorcycle crash fatalities and injuries to estimate the numbers of motorcyclist lives saved and serious and minor injuries prevented. Corresponding cost calculations from NHTSA¶ were then applied to these estimates, and the resulting costs were adjusted to year 2010 dollars. Costs saved were estimated to be $1,212,800 per fatality, $171,753 per serious injury, and $7,523 per minor injury (in year 2010 dollars) (NHTSA, unpublished data, 2012). Costs saved included injury-related costs (e.g., medical and emergency services costs, and household and work productivity losses) and excluded costs (e.g., property damage and travel delay). For this report, costs saved were standardized by state by dividing the total costs saved in each state by the number of registered motorcycles in that state in 2010** to determine costs saved per registered motorcycle.
During 2008–2010, a total of 14,283 motorcyclists were killed in crashes, among whom 6,057 (42%) were not wearing a helmet. In the 20 states with a universal helmet law, 739 (12%) fatally injured motorcyclists were not wearing a helmet, compared with 4,814 motorcyclists (64%) in the 27 states with partial helmet laws and 504 (79%) motorcyclists in the three states without a helmet law (Figure 1).
By preventing motorcyclist deaths and protecting against injuries, helmet use also translated to economic costs saved. In 2010, approximately $3 billion in costs were saved as a result of helmet use in the United States; however, another $1.4 billion could have been saved if all motorcyclists had worn helmets (NHTSA, unpublished data, 2012). Total costs saved from helmet use ranged from $394 million in California to $2.6 million in New Mexico. Economic costs saved from helmet use per registered motorcycle ranged from $1,627 in North Carolina to $48 in New Mexico, with a median of $286 (Figure 2). Nearly all (23 of the 25) states with costs saved per registered motorcycle below the median had either a partial helmet law or no helmet law. Costs saved in states with a universal helmet law were, on average, nearly four times greater per registered motorcycle than in states without such a law ($725 versus $198).
Editorial Note
The findings in this report indicate that fatally injured motorcycle riders were less likely to wear helmets in states that do not have universal helmet laws. During 2008–2010, fatally injured motorcyclists in states with a partial helmet law were more than five times as likely not to have been wearing a helmet as those in states with a universal helmet law (64% versus 12%). Fatally injured motorcyclists in states with no helmet law were more than six times as likely not to have been wearing a helmet as those in states with a universal helmet law (79% versus 12%). In addition, the economic costs saved by helmet use are substantial. The savings in states with a universal helmet law were, on average, $725 per registered motorcycle, nearly four times greater than in states without such a law ($198).
As of April 2012, 19 states and the District of Columbia had universal helmet laws, 28 states had partial helmet laws, and three states had no helmet law (5). Motorcycle helmet legislation in the United States has been marked by change, with cycles of helmet law enactments followed by periods of helmet law repeals (Figure 3) (5). In the mid-1970s, 47 states and the District of Columbia had universal helmet laws, prompted in part by a 1967 federal requirement that states have such laws or lose a portion of their federal highway funds. In 1976, however, Congress removed penalties for not having a universal helmet law and states began to change or repeal their laws. By 1980, 20 states had changed their universal helmet laws to partial helmet laws and eight states had repealed their laws altogether (5). In 1991, Congress reintroduced financial penalties for states without universal helmet laws; California and Maryland responded by passing universal helmet laws. In 1995, federal sanctions against states without universal helmet laws again were lifted, and New Hampshire's helmet law immediately was repealed. During 1997–2003, Arkansas, Texas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Florida, and Pennsylvania followed by changing their helmet laws from universal helmet laws to partial helmet laws (5). In 2004, Louisiana reinstated its universal helmet law. Since then, state legislatures have continued to debate helmet laws, and bills to change or repeal universal helmet laws routinely are introduced. In 2011, such bills were introduced in 10 of the 20 universal helmet law states, and in April 2012, Michigan changed its universal helmet law to a partial helmet law (5,6).
Research has shown that when a state repeals its helmet law or opts for less restrictive requirements, helmet use decreases and motorcycle-related deaths, injuries, and costs increase. In 2000, for example, Florida changed its universal helmet law to a partial helmet law that covered only riders aged <21 years and those with <$10,000 in medical insurance coverage. During the 2 years after the law was changed, the motorcyclist death rate per 10,000 registered motorcycles in Florida increased by 21%, deaths among motorcycle riders aged <21 years nearly tripled, and hospital admissions of motorcyclists with injuries to the head, brain, and skull increased by 82% (7). In addition, gross costs charged to hospital-admitted motorcyclists with head, brain, or skull injuries in Florida more than doubled, from $21 million to $50 million (7). Studies that have examined nonfatal injury outcomes among motorcyclists who wore helmets and those who did not have found that hospitalized riders who had not worn helmets incurred higher health-care costs (8,9). Riders who do not wear helmets are more likely to suffer traumatic brain injuries, and median hospital charges for those with traumatic brain injuries are 13 times higher than for those without such injuries (8). Riders who do not wear helmets also are less likely to have health insurance, and therefore are more likely to require publicly funded health care (9).
The findings in this report are subject to at least three limitations. First, the NHTSA cost estimates are based on year 2000 estimates, converted to year 2010 dollars; however, these are the most recent and comprehensive motorcyclist injury cost estimates available. Second, costs estimates are derived from national data and do not reflect variation in costs across states. Cost estimates also do not include intangible costs, such as those for pain, suffering, and decreased quality of life, nor do they account for the costs associated with a universal helmet law or owning a helmet. Finally, helmet use was unknown and therefore estimated for 2.5% of motorcyclist fatalities; however, no meaningful differences resulted from inclusion of these estimates.
Helmet use is estimated to prevent 37% of fatalities among motorcycle operators and 41% of fatalities among passengers (4). NHTSA estimates that in 2010, helmet use saved the lives of 1,544 motorcyclists, and an additional 709 lives might have been saved if all motorcyclists had worn helmets (NHTSA, unpublished data, 2012). With motorcycle ownership at an all-time high (8.2 million registered motorcycles in 2010, compared with 4.3 million in 2000),†† motorcycle-related deaths and their associated costs are expected to remain at high levels unless more effective protective measures are implemented (10). Helmets are proven to save lives and money, and universal helmet laws are the most effective way to increase helmet use (3).
Conclusion :- You're more likely to get killed if you don't wear a helmet.The numbers make for sombre reading.
In 2010, the 4,502 motorcyclists (operators and passengers) killed in motorcycle crashes made up 14% of all road traffic deaths, yet motorcycles accounted for <1% of all vehicle miles traveled (1,2). Helmet use consistently has been shown to reduce motorcycle crash–related injuries and deaths, and the most effective strategy to increase helmet use is enactment of universal helmet laws (3). Universal helmet laws require all motorcyclists to wear helmets whenever they ride. To examine the association between states' motorcycle helmet laws and helmet use or nonuse among fatally injured motorcyclists, CDC analyzed 2008–2010 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS), a census of fatal traffic crashes in the United States (1). Additionally, economic cost data from NHTSA were obtained to compare the costs saved as a result of helmet use, by type of state motorcycle helmet law. The findings indicated that, on average, 12% of fatally injured motorcyclists were not wearing helmets in states with universal helmet laws, compared with 64% in partial helmet law states (laws that only required specific groups, usually young riders, to wear helmets) and 79% in states without a helmet law. Additionally, in 2010, economic costs saved from helmet use by society in states with a universal helmet law were, on average, $725 per registered motorcycle, nearly four times greater than in states without such a law ($198).
Motorcyclist death data for operators and passengers were obtained from FARS. To be included in FARS, a crash must result in the death of at least one person (occupant of a vehicle or a nonmotorist) within 30 days of the crash. Percentages of fatally injured motorcyclists who were not wearing a helmet were calculated as a proportion of all motorcyclist fatalities by state for 2008–2010. Percentages were suppressed for states with fewer than 10 fatalities involving motorcyclists who were not wearing helmets.
Information on economic costs saved from helmet use (e.g., medical and productivity costs saved) was obtained from NHTSA (NHTSA, unpublished data, 2012). The methods used to estimate 2010 costs were first used to calculate 2008 cost estimates.* For 2010, the number of fatally injured motorcyclists who wore helmets was derived from FARS, and estimates of the number of helmeted motorcyclists who were injured were obtained from NHTSA's General Estimates System, a nationally representative sample of nonfatal traffic crashes.† These values were divided by 1 minus the corresponding effectiveness estimate for preventing motorcycle crash fatalities and injuries§ (4) to obtain estimates of the potential number of motorcycle crash fatalities and injuries expected if helmeted riders had not been wearing a helmet. The numbers of fatalities and injuries involving helmeted motorcyclists were then subtracted from the expected numbers of motorcycle crash fatalities and injuries to estimate the numbers of motorcyclist lives saved and serious and minor injuries prevented. Corresponding cost calculations from NHTSA¶ were then applied to these estimates, and the resulting costs were adjusted to year 2010 dollars. Costs saved were estimated to be $1,212,800 per fatality, $171,753 per serious injury, and $7,523 per minor injury (in year 2010 dollars) (NHTSA, unpublished data, 2012). Costs saved included injury-related costs (e.g., medical and emergency services costs, and household and work productivity losses) and excluded costs (e.g., property damage and travel delay). For this report, costs saved were standardized by state by dividing the total costs saved in each state by the number of registered motorcycles in that state in 2010** to determine costs saved per registered motorcycle.
During 2008–2010, a total of 14,283 motorcyclists were killed in crashes, among whom 6,057 (42%) were not wearing a helmet. In the 20 states with a universal helmet law, 739 (12%) fatally injured motorcyclists were not wearing a helmet, compared with 4,814 motorcyclists (64%) in the 27 states with partial helmet laws and 504 (79%) motorcyclists in the three states without a helmet law (Figure 1).
By preventing motorcyclist deaths and protecting against injuries, helmet use also translated to economic costs saved. In 2010, approximately $3 billion in costs were saved as a result of helmet use in the United States; however, another $1.4 billion could have been saved if all motorcyclists had worn helmets (NHTSA, unpublished data, 2012). Total costs saved from helmet use ranged from $394 million in California to $2.6 million in New Mexico. Economic costs saved from helmet use per registered motorcycle ranged from $1,627 in North Carolina to $48 in New Mexico, with a median of $286 (Figure 2). Nearly all (23 of the 25) states with costs saved per registered motorcycle below the median had either a partial helmet law or no helmet law. Costs saved in states with a universal helmet law were, on average, nearly four times greater per registered motorcycle than in states without such a law ($725 versus $198).
Editorial Note
The findings in this report indicate that fatally injured motorcycle riders were less likely to wear helmets in states that do not have universal helmet laws. During 2008–2010, fatally injured motorcyclists in states with a partial helmet law were more than five times as likely not to have been wearing a helmet as those in states with a universal helmet law (64% versus 12%). Fatally injured motorcyclists in states with no helmet law were more than six times as likely not to have been wearing a helmet as those in states with a universal helmet law (79% versus 12%). In addition, the economic costs saved by helmet use are substantial. The savings in states with a universal helmet law were, on average, $725 per registered motorcycle, nearly four times greater than in states without such a law ($198).
As of April 2012, 19 states and the District of Columbia had universal helmet laws, 28 states had partial helmet laws, and three states had no helmet law (5). Motorcycle helmet legislation in the United States has been marked by change, with cycles of helmet law enactments followed by periods of helmet law repeals (Figure 3) (5). In the mid-1970s, 47 states and the District of Columbia had universal helmet laws, prompted in part by a 1967 federal requirement that states have such laws or lose a portion of their federal highway funds. In 1976, however, Congress removed penalties for not having a universal helmet law and states began to change or repeal their laws. By 1980, 20 states had changed their universal helmet laws to partial helmet laws and eight states had repealed their laws altogether (5). In 1991, Congress reintroduced financial penalties for states without universal helmet laws; California and Maryland responded by passing universal helmet laws. In 1995, federal sanctions against states without universal helmet laws again were lifted, and New Hampshire's helmet law immediately was repealed. During 1997–2003, Arkansas, Texas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Florida, and Pennsylvania followed by changing their helmet laws from universal helmet laws to partial helmet laws (5). In 2004, Louisiana reinstated its universal helmet law. Since then, state legislatures have continued to debate helmet laws, and bills to change or repeal universal helmet laws routinely are introduced. In 2011, such bills were introduced in 10 of the 20 universal helmet law states, and in April 2012, Michigan changed its universal helmet law to a partial helmet law (5,6).
Research has shown that when a state repeals its helmet law or opts for less restrictive requirements, helmet use decreases and motorcycle-related deaths, injuries, and costs increase. In 2000, for example, Florida changed its universal helmet law to a partial helmet law that covered only riders aged <21 years and those with <$10,000 in medical insurance coverage. During the 2 years after the law was changed, the motorcyclist death rate per 10,000 registered motorcycles in Florida increased by 21%, deaths among motorcycle riders aged <21 years nearly tripled, and hospital admissions of motorcyclists with injuries to the head, brain, and skull increased by 82% (7). In addition, gross costs charged to hospital-admitted motorcyclists with head, brain, or skull injuries in Florida more than doubled, from $21 million to $50 million (7). Studies that have examined nonfatal injury outcomes among motorcyclists who wore helmets and those who did not have found that hospitalized riders who had not worn helmets incurred higher health-care costs (8,9). Riders who do not wear helmets are more likely to suffer traumatic brain injuries, and median hospital charges for those with traumatic brain injuries are 13 times higher than for those without such injuries (8). Riders who do not wear helmets also are less likely to have health insurance, and therefore are more likely to require publicly funded health care (9).
The findings in this report are subject to at least three limitations. First, the NHTSA cost estimates are based on year 2000 estimates, converted to year 2010 dollars; however, these are the most recent and comprehensive motorcyclist injury cost estimates available. Second, costs estimates are derived from national data and do not reflect variation in costs across states. Cost estimates also do not include intangible costs, such as those for pain, suffering, and decreased quality of life, nor do they account for the costs associated with a universal helmet law or owning a helmet. Finally, helmet use was unknown and therefore estimated for 2.5% of motorcyclist fatalities; however, no meaningful differences resulted from inclusion of these estimates.
Helmet use is estimated to prevent 37% of fatalities among motorcycle operators and 41% of fatalities among passengers (4). NHTSA estimates that in 2010, helmet use saved the lives of 1,544 motorcyclists, and an additional 709 lives might have been saved if all motorcyclists had worn helmets (NHTSA, unpublished data, 2012). With motorcycle ownership at an all-time high (8.2 million registered motorcycles in 2010, compared with 4.3 million in 2000),†† motorcycle-related deaths and their associated costs are expected to remain at high levels unless more effective protective measures are implemented (10). Helmets are proven to save lives and money, and universal helmet laws are the most effective way to increase helmet use (3).
No s
t Sherlock, I'd never have guessed that without that extensive study.Gassing Station | Biker Banter | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff