Topic: Where to get stats to support anit-helmet law intro to state congress

[madmtnmotors]

As long as the govt (and hence other tax payers) have the option to not care for your life-long brain injury when it happens.
Peter.

+1

But the irresponsible/injured rider won't care... being a vegetable and all...

I only have anecdotal evidence, no real hard facts, but most severe injuries and fatalities that I see reported in the news seem to occur disproportionately more often to helmetless riders. I would be more than happy to eat crow if someone could produce hard facts to the contrary, but the laws of physics and biology seem to imply otherwise. I wonder how boxknife would have fared if he had been wearing a helmet?

http://forums.sohc4.net/index.php?topic=112595.msg1268186#msg1268186

I understand the "wind in your hair" and have ridden without a helmet more than once... just not anymore. Used to ride in shorts and a t-shirt too... just not anymore. The hazards are too real and asphalt and steel are too unforgiving. Helmet laws suck and so do seat belt laws, it's just too bad that the 1%'ers can compel lawmakers to feel obligated to try and protect us from ourselves through legislation.

There are arguments to be made for Darwinism...

[BeSeeingYou]

as your signature says michel , you can have your own opinions but not your own facts . there are non that support not wearing a helmet .
not wearing a helmet is probably good for america though , killing off a few dumb people will only strengthen the gene pool

Too true. ;-)
Actually, 95% of the time I DO wear a helmet,
but I want to have the option to not wear one.
peace,
michel

As long as the govt (and hence other tax payers) have the option to not care for your life-long brain injury when it happens.
Peter.

   Well if you want to take that line......What about the smokers who add a huge burden on the healthcare system that we all pay for.  Or the drinkers....but then nobody here drinks excessively and/or smokes I am sure.  How about the irresponsible gun owners we read about on almost a daily basis whose spouses, children, friends, or themselves who are accidentally shot?  Should we deny them any access to taxpayer funded healthcare for their risky behavior?
    Back to the original question.  I think like some have said you have to frame it as a freedom of choice issue.  I don't see how it could be argued on a safety issue as for every stat you present the opposing one can provide another that says the opposite.  I don't doubt that helmets are safer but I am glad to live in a state where I have a choice.  I use it a vast majority of the time but under certain circumstances I may not and it's great.  We all have a different level of risk we find acceptable in the activities we engage in.  I have often sailed a small boat across a large and potentially dangerous body of water (Lake Superior) and been told my vessel is to small or that I am crazy.  Often we are the smallest boat in the anchorage but I have never felt in danger.  Some might call me stupid but it's just that they have a lower level of risk tolerance and hence are usually much more boring individuals.

[74cb750]

"Some might call me stupid but it's just that they have a lower level of risk tolerance and hence are usually much more boring individuals. "

exactly!

[Bob Wessner]

There are arguments to be made for Darwinism... [/guote]

As well as the laws of physics. 

[74cb750]

I find it interesting that instead of following the initial statement:
"Re: Where to get stats to support anit-helmet law intro to state congress"
almost everyone gave their opinions on the subject,
not facts for or against.

Hm.....still looking for facts to back up my desire to change the law in Vermont.

peace,
michel

[Duke McDukiedook]

Well, if you are going to argue about the 'freedom' of whether or not you get a choice on wearing a helmet why don't you argue against seatbelt laws, drunk driving laws, airbags in newer cars, car seats for babies, lead in paint, lead in gasoline, et al.
I don't hear people arguing against these things, maybe you should take up these causes also.

Whoever says helmet laws infringe on their basic rights is just plain silly.

[Retro Rocket]

"Some might call me stupid but it's just that they have a lower level of risk tolerance and hence are usually much more boring individuals. "

exactly!

Come on mate, thats pure bull#$%*, I've done sh1t that would make you go Grey over night but i NEVER ride without a helmet, i'm not that stupid.... Keep looking, you will never find any facts to support your crusade, quite the contrary.... No wonder your health care is all up the sh1t, your all wasting your time on helmet and gun laws, your governments must just love it..... Wear a helmet and save your family/ loved ones the grief of looking after a vegetable that wanted to be "free"      And  don't #$%* about the replies here mate, if you thought it would receive no detrimental comments then you are rather naive...

[scottly]

I find it interesting that instead of following the initial statement:
"Re: Where to get stats to support anit-helmet law intro to state congress"
almost everyone gave their opinions on the subject,
not facts for or against.

Hm.....still looking for facts to back up my desire to change the law in Vermont.

peace,
michel

Here is my fact: when I was 15 years old, I cart-wheeled a Yamaha 175. There were three points of impact with the ground: the headlight, my unprotected head, and the tail-light. I was in and out of consciousness for 2 days, and groggy for weeks. No one had to pass a law to convince me that helmets can save your life, and at some point I realized than riding in a car without a seat-belt was the same, well before any mandatory seat belt laws were passed. Sorry, but there simply no "facts" to support not wearing helmets, but that is only my opinion.    

[dave500]

youve no doubt googled the hell out of this and still cant find any stats to suit?might tell you something?i know guys who dont wear gloves riding,ever,i think theyre stupid,but a hurt hand will hardly kill you.

[bear]

I find it interesting that instead of following the initial statement:
"Re: Where to get stats to support anit-helmet law intro to state congress"
almost everyone gave their opinions on the subject,
not facts for or against.

Hm.....still looking for facts to back up my desire to change the law in Vermont.

peace,
michel

Abstract

A comprehensive study was conducted of all motorcycle traffic crashes occurring in Maryland during a one-year period. All available medical and cost data were linked with police crash reports. During the study period, 1,900 motorcycle drivers were involved in crashes. The data indicated that (i) helmet usage was 35% overall, 30% among fatally injured drivers, and only 16% among drivers with a history of drug/alcohol conviction, (ii) unhelmeted drivers seen at an emergency department were almost twice as likely to have sustained head injury (40%) as were helmeted drivers (21%) (the corresponding percentages for hospitalized drivers were 55% and 38%), and (iii) acute care cost for unhelmeted drivers was three times ($30,365) that of helmeted drivers.

    Presented at the 34th Annual Meeting of the Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine, October 1–3, 1990, Scottsdale, AZ.

†

    Present address: University of Pittsburgh, Department of Epidemiology/GSPH, 130 DeSoto Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15261.


Abstract

Helmet effectiveness in preventing fatalities to motorcycle drivers and passengers was determined by applying the double pair comparison method to the Fatal Accident Reporting System (PARS) data for 1975 through 1986. Motorcycles with a driver and a passenger, at least one of whom was killed, were used. In order to reduce as much as possible potentially confounding effects due to the dependence of survivability on sex and age, the analysis is confined to male drivers (there were insufficient female driver data), and to cases in which the driver and passenger age do not differ by more than three years. Motorcycle helmet effectiveness estimates are found to be relatively unaffected by performing the analyses in a number of ways different from that indicated above. It was found that helmets are (28 ± % effective in preventing fatalities to motorcycle riders (the error is one standard error), the effectiveness being similar for male and female passengers, and similar for drivers and passengers. An additional result found was that the fatality risk in the driver seat exceeds that in the passenger seat by (26 ± 2)%. The 28% effectiveness found generates calculated fatality increases from repeal of mandatory helmetwearing laws that are compatible with observed increases.

There are no figures or tables for this document.

☆

    An earlier version of this paper, which used FARS data through 1984, rather than through 1986, was presented to the 31st Annual Conference of the American Association for Automotive Medicine, New Orleans, September 1987, and appears in the Proceedings of the meeting.

Copyright © 1988 Published by Elsevier Ltd.


Motorcycle helmets and traffic safety

    Thomas S. Deea, b, Corresponding author contact information, E-mail the corresponding author

    a Department of Economics, Swarthmore College, 500 College Avenue, Swarthmore, PA 19081, United States
    b China Center for Human Capital and Labor Market Research, Central University of Finance and Economics, Beijing, China

    http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2008.12.002, How to Cite or Link Using DOI

    Permissions & Reprints

View full text
Purchase $39.95

Abstract

Between 1997 and 2005, the number of annual motorcyclist fatalities doubled. Motorcyclist fatalities now account for over 10 percent of all traffic-related fatalities. However, over the last three decades, states have generally been eliminating laws that require helmet use among all motorcyclists. This study examines the effectiveness of helmet use and state laws that mandate helmet use in reducing motorcyclist fatalities. Within-vehicle comparisons among two-rider motorcycles indicate that helmet use reduces fatality risk by 34 percent. State laws requiring helmet use appear to reduce motorcyclist fatalities by 27 percent. Fatality reductions of this magnitude suggest that the health benefits of helmet-use laws are not meaningfully compromised by compensating increases in risk-taking by motorcyclists.
JEL classification

    I12;
    I18;
    H75

Keywords

    Traffic safety;
    Risk compensation;
    Technological efficacy

Figures and tables from this article:

Full-size image (20 K)

    Fig. 1. Registered motorcycles and motorcyclist fatalities, 1983–2005.


Motorcyclist fatality rates and mandatory helmet-use laws

    David J. Houstona, Corresponding author contact information, E-mail the corresponding author,
    Lilliard E. Richardsonb, 1, E-mail the corresponding author

    a Department of Political Science, 1001 McClung Tower, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996-0410, United States
    b Truman School of Public Affairs, 105 Middlebush Hall, University of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia, MO 65211-6100, United States

    http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2007.05.005, How to Cite or Link Using DOI

    Permissions & Reprints

View full text
Purchase $41.95

Abstract

Using cross-sectional time series data for the 50 states and Washington, DC, covering the period 1975–2004, we estimate fixed effects regression models that examine the effects of universal and partial helmet laws on three different motorcyclist fatality rates, while controlling for other state policies and characteristics. Depending on the particular measure that is employed, states with universal helmet laws have motorcyclist fatality rates that are on average 22–33% lower in comparison to the experience with no helmet law. Additionally, partial coverage helmet laws are associated with reductions in motorcyclist fatality rates of 7–10%, on average.
Keywords

    Motorcycle helmet-use laws;
    Universal coverage;
    Partial coverage;
    Fatality rates

Figures and tables from this article:

Full-size image (43 K)

    Fig. 1. U.S. Motorcyclist fatalities, 1975–2004.


Are helmet laws protecting young motorcyclists?

    David J. HoustonCorresponding author contact information, E-mail the corresponding author

    Department of Political Science, 1001 McClung Tower, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996–0410

    http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2007.05.002, How to Cite or Link Using DOI

    Permissions & Reprints

View full text
Purchase $31.50

Abstract
Problem

The trend in state mandatory motorcycle helmet laws is away from universal coverage to partial coverage statutes that require only young riders to wear a helmet. Among partial coverage states substantial variation exists in this age requirement. How effective are motorcycle helmet laws at reducing young motorcyclist fatalities?
Method

The dependent variable is the number of motorcyclist fatalities 15–20 years of age. Fixed effects negative binomial regression models are estimated using panel data for all 50 states and Washington DC, for the period 1975–2004.
Results

Universal helmet laws are associated with fatality rates that are 31% lower among motorcyclists 15–20 years of age. In contrast, partial coverage laws targeting young motorcyclists are statistically unrelated to a reduction in the fatality rates of this age group.
Discussion

The long-term consequence of the move away from universal helmet laws will be an increased level of risk faced by young motorcyclists. In many states, mandatory motorcycle helmet laws are not protecting even young riders.
Keywords

    Helmet laws;
    Motorcycles;
    Fatalities;
    Young adults;
    Negative binomial regression

Figures and tables from this article:

Full-size image (33 K)

    Fig. 1. Trends in Motorcycle Helmet Laws by Highest Age Covered, 1975–2004.


Study objective:

To determine the effect of the use of a motorcycle helmet on reducing the mortality, morbidity, and health care costs resulting from motorcycle crashes.
Design:

A prospective, multicenter study of all eligible motorcycle crash victims.
Setting:

The emergency departments of eight medical centers across the state of Illinois, including representatives from urban, rural, teaching, and community facilities.
Type of participants:

All motorcycle crash victims presenting less than 24 hours after injury for whom helmet information was known. Data were collected from April 1 through October 31, 1988.
Measurements and main results:

Fifty-eight of 398 patients (14.6%) were helmeted, and 340 (85.4%) were not. The nonhelmeted patients had higher Injury Severity Scores (11.9 vs 7.02), sustained head/neck injuries more frequently (41.7 vs 24.1%), and had lower Glasgow Coma Scores (13.73 vs 14.51). Twenty-five of the 26 fatalities were nonhelmeted patients. By logistic regression, the lack of helmet use was found to be a major risk factor for increased severity of injury. A 23% increase in health care costs was demonstrated for nonhelmeted patients (average charges $7, 208 vs $5, 852).
Conclusion:

Helmet use may reduce the overall severity of injury and the incidence of head injuries resulting from motorcycle crashes. A trend toward higher health care costs was demonstrated in the nonhelmeted patients.
Author Keywords

    helmet use, motorcycle;
    motorcycle, trauma

There are no figures or tables for this document.

    Supported by a grant from the Illinois Department of Transportation. Presented at the Illinois ACEP Scientific Assembly in Chicago, March 1989; the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine Annual Meeting in San Diego, May 1989; and the Sixth World Conference on Emergency and Disaster Medicine in Hong Kong, September 1989.

Corresponding author contact information
    Address for reprints: Patrick Kelly, MD, 118 Wentworth Street, Charleston, South Carolina 29401.

Copyright © 1991 Published by Mosby, Inc.

Journal of the American College of Surgeons

Volume 212, Issue 3, March 2011, Pages 295–300
Cover image
Original scientific article
Motorcycle Helmets Associated with Lower Risk of Cervical Spine Injury: Debunking the Myth
Abstract presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma, January 2010, Phoenix, AZ.

    Joseph G. Crompton, MDa, Corresponding author contact information, E-mail the corresponding author,
    Curt Bone, BSb,
    Tolulope Oyetunji, MD, MPHc,
    Keshia M. Pollack, PhD, MPHd,
    Oluwaseyi Bolorunduro, BSc,
    Cassandra Villegas, BA, MPHb,
    Kent Stevens, MD, MPHb,
    Edward E. Cornwell III, MD, FACSc,
    David T. Efron, MD, FACSb,
    Elliott R. Haut, MD, FACSb,
    Adil H. Haider, MD, MPH, FACSb

    a Department of Surgery, University of California-Los Angeles, School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA
    b Department of Surgery, The Johns Hopkins University, School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD
    c Department of Surgery, Howard University College of Medicine, Washington, DC
    d Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Department of Health Policy and Management, Center for Injury Research and Policy, Baltimore, MD

    http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2010.09.032, How to Cite or Link Using DOI

    Permissions & Reprints

View full text
Purchase $31.50

Referred to by

        Barbara Langland-Orban, Lewis Flint
        Another Perspective on Motorcycle Helmet Use
        Journal of the American College of Surgeons, Volume 213, Issue 2, August 2011, Pages 336-337
        PDF (115 K)         

Background

There has been a repeal of the universal helmet law in several states despite definitive evidence that helmets reduce mortality, traumatic brain injury, and hospital expenditures. Opponents of the universal helmet law have successfully claimed that helmets should not be required because of greater torque on the neck, which is thought to increase the likelihood of a cervical spine injury. There is currently insufficient evidence to counter claims that helmets do not increase the risk of cervical spine injury after a motorcycle collision. The objective of this study was to determine the impact of motorcycle helmets on the likelihood of developing a cervical spine injury after a motorcycle collision.
Study Design

We reviewed cases in the National Trauma Databank (NTDB) v7.0 involving motorcycle collisions. Multiple logistic regression was used to analyze the independent effect of helmets on cervical spine injury. Cases were adjusted for age, race, sex, insurance status, anatomic (Injury Severity Score) and physiologic injury severity (systolic blood pressure < 90 mmHg), and head injury (Abbreviated Injury Score > 3).
Results

Between 2002 and 2006, 62,840 cases of motorcycle collision were entered into the NTDB; 40,588 had complete data and were included in the adjusted analysis. Helmeted riders had a lower adjusted odds (0.80 [CI 0.72 to 0.90]) and a lower proportion of cervical spine injury (3.5% vs 4.4%, p < 0.05) compared with nonhelmeted riders.
Conclusions

Helmeted motorcyclists are less likely to suffer a cervical spine injury after a motorcycle collision. This finding challenges a long-standing objection to mandatory helmet use that claims helmets are associated with cervical spine injury. Re-enactment of the universal helmet law should be considered in states where it has been repealed.

Figures and tables from this article:

Full-size image (23 K)

    Figure 1. Patient selection in National Trauma Databank (NTDB).
    Figure options

Full-size image (16 K)

    Figure 2. Unadjusted comparison of mortality, cervical spine injury, and traumatic brain injury in helmeted compared with nonhelmeted motorcycle riders (n = 46,362 p < 0.001). Light bar, helmeted; dark bar, nonhelmeted.


Study objectives:

To document the effect of a reenacted comprehensive helmet use law on injuries and fatalities.
Design:

Retrospective before-and-after analysis.
Setting:

Two urban counties representing 40% of Nebraska's population.
Participants:

Six hundred seventy-one patients reported as injured to the Nebraska Department of Roads in the period from one year before through one year after the reenactment on January 1, 1989.
Results:

The helmet use law was temporally associated with a 26% decrease in the reported rate of motorcycle crashes in Nebraska compared with five other midwestern states. There were sharp declines in the number (and rates) of reported injured, hospital transports, hospital admissions, severe nonhead injuries, severe head injuries, and deaths. Serious head injuries (Abbreviated Injury Score, 3 or higher) decreased 22%. The percentage of injured motorcyclists with serious head injuries was significantly lower among the helmeted motorcyclists (5%) than among the unhelmeted cyclists (14%) for the two years combined.
Conclusion:

The reenactment of a helmet use law resulted in fewer crashes, fatalities, and severe head injuries.
Author Keywords

    motorcycle helmets

There are no figures or tables for this document.

    Presented at the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine Annual Meeting in Washington, DC, May 1991.

"Hm.....still looking for facts to back up my desire to change the law in Vermont."
And I'm still trying to tell you there aren't any.


Cheers,
Brian

[dave500]

umm?lets throw in some varibles,full face/ open and those daft dog bowls that pass as some sort of protection for if a bird #$%*s on your head??do the stats include helmet types?

[74cb750]

Well, if you are going to argue about the 'freedom' of whether or not you get a choice on wearing a helmet why don't you argue against seatbelt laws, drunk driving laws, airbags in newer cars, car seats for babies, lead in paint, lead in gasoline, et al.
I don't hear people arguing against these things, maybe you should take up these causes also.

Whoever says helmet laws infringe on their basic rights is just plain silly.

Why would I want to take up "causes" I care nothing about?
Please do not attempt to paint me into a little box where I'm a person whom objects
to all laws.
I just wanna be free. :-)

Oh, come on! ".....just plain silly"? Really?
If you haven't noticed more and more laws have been passed in Progessive states like Vermont, Mass etc etc
that have been slowly eroding our basic freedoms.
Helmet laws IS one of the basic freedoms infridged upon,
IN MY OPINION.

I appreciate that most members here whom have commented have been civil,
and not personally attacked me, but made your opinions known on the subject.
Although many of you are wrong,
;-)
thanks for keeping to the subject.

peace,
michel

[dave500]

so?do you intend to mention helmet types in your submission?or only include the bird poo deflecting type?you might have to include the type that deflect all sorts of #$%* because thats all this thread is now?

[petercb750]

Dave, you have a different opinion, so you must be wrong, according to michel........
Don't waste your breath (typing fingers).

[Duke McDukiedook]

Sorry, when I see illogical arguments being argued ad nauseum and someone trying to equate helmet laws with the violation of basic civil rights I have to call a duck a duck.
Sorry about that Michel.

[333]

Kudos to Bear for finding the stats that Michel will not like at all.  And BTW, many of us already knew without having to read it. It is just common sense that helmets provide protection that can save lives.  I think we all would like to ride without one, but reality tells us not to.

Another issue that seems to pop up in this thread is the idea that when someone mentions healthcare costs, it is assumed that we're talking about the government having to pay for it, and that is not the case at all.  It certainly is a hot topic in recent years here in the U.S., but the issue in this context has been a problem for many years, and while it could easily be used in the current discussion on government run healthcare, it is not what we're talking about.  At issue is that any unpaid hospital bill adds to the cost of healthcare.  If a hospital gets stiffed, it has to raise the price of all products and services to cover the loss.  This discussion is centered around uninsured or under insured riders, and the affect of wearing/not wearing a helmet has on survival.

[Pinhead]

Well, if you are going to argue about the 'freedom' of whether or not you get a choice on wearing a helmet why don't you argue against seatbelt laws, drunk driving laws, airbags in newer cars, car seats for babies, lead in paint, lead in gasoline, et al.
I don't hear people arguing against these things, maybe you should take up these causes also.

If you don't hear people arguing against these things, I'll proudly be the first you hear. I am vehemently against all victimless crime laws. If there is no victim there should be no crime. PERIOD.

Your other arguments are straw men -- as in the case of air bags, as an example, competition between car companies for safety "awards" was more than enough to make airbags a De-facto standard. In other words, it is completely within peoples' own choice to own a car with or without airbags. The fact that the government forced car companies to install airbags in all new cars is a moot point, as the car companies had already decided to utilize them as a safety feature before the government made it a requirement. This was driven by peoples' free choices rather than government intervention (force).

The abstract "crimes against society" argument is nothing less than collectivism that, when carried out to it's logical conclusion, would eliminate the freedom to even ride a motorcycle. In fact, this argument when carried to it's logical end would eliminate all motor vehicle transport, as more people are killed and maimed in auto accidents than any other "risky" activity.

Whoever says helmet laws infringe on their basic rights is just plain silly.

And whoever says it doesn't infringe on basic rights doesn't know what a right is. This is further illustrated by the collectivist argument that "whoever" made earlier.

Sorry, when I see illogical arguments being argued ad nauseum and someone trying to equate helmet laws with the violation of basic civil rights I have to call a duck a duck.
Sorry about that Michel.

Strange that you're arguing against supposed illogical statements without actually using logic...

Another issue that seems to pop up in this thread is the idea that when someone mentions healthcare costs, it is assumed that we're talking about the government having to pay for it, and that is not the case at all.  It certainly is a hot topic in recent years here in the U.S., but the issue in this context has been a problem for many years, and while it could easily be used in the current discussion on government run healthcare, it is not what we're talking about.  At issue is that any unpaid hospital bill adds to the cost of healthcare.  If a hospital gets stiffed, it has to raise the price of all products and services to cover the loss.  This discussion is centered around uninsured or under insured riders, and the affect of wearing/not wearing a helmet has on survival.

If one were really concerned about healthcare costs, they would do all they can to get government out instead of constantly re-hashing the same old pro-government-coercion arguments that have proven to be dismal failures for the last 50 years. All one would have to do is look at the level of government intervention in the health care sector and plot that data right next to the cost of healthcare over the same time period. Then one would see that increases in costs are directly proportional to increases in government intrusion.

[Gordon]

I find it interesting that instead of following the initial statement:
"Re: Where to get stats to support anit-helmet law intro to state congress"
almost everyone gave their opinions on the subject,
not facts for or against.

Hm.....still looking for facts to back up my desire to change the law in Vermont.

peace,
michel

IMO, it's because you're not going to find any reliable, verifiable statistics or facts that support this issue.  So since we can't provide you with what you're looking for, many of the responses have been on the subject of why you're not going to find this information. 

I wear a full face helmet 99.9% of the time, but I'm still fully in support of not having laws requiring helmet use for adults, because it's a personal choice issue.  I'm also not a big fan of requiring riders who don't wear helmets to have any additional insurance.  That's a slippery slope toward legislating higher and more costly requirements for all different kinds of choices people might make, like choosing to ride a motorcycle.

I support your effort to repeal the helmet law in your state, but I really think you need to approach it from a personal choice standpoint, not safety, because I think you're going to have a very difficult time convincing many people that it's safer to ride without a helmet even if you were able to find statistics that back up that idea.     

[mark]

...the initial statement:
"Re: Where to get stats to support anit-helmet law intro to state congress"
.....

I forget the joke, but the punchline was "Lies, damned lies, and statistics".

As for where to get statistics, why not just pull 'em out of your ass like everyone else does?

[Duke McDukiedook]

I still would like to hear a convincing argument that requiring someone to wear a basic safety device is a great infringement of your basic civil rights.
And just the same old, "Because someone else is telling me to do it and I don't wanna" is not very convincing.

[Retro Rocket]

Well, if you are going to argue about the 'freedom' of whether or not you get a choice on wearing a helmet why don't you argue against seatbelt laws, drunk driving laws, airbags in newer cars, car seats for babies, lead in paint, lead in gasoline, et al.
I don't hear people arguing against these things, maybe you should take up these causes also.

If you don't hear people arguing against these things, I'll proudly be the first you hear. I am vehemently against all victimless crime laws. If there is no victim there should be no crime. PERIOD.

Your other arguments are straw men -- as in the case of air bags, as an example, competition between car companies for safety "awards" was more than enough to make airbags a De-facto standard. In other words, it is completely within peoples' own choice to own a car with or without airbags. The fact that the government forced car companies to install airbags in all new cars is a moot point, as the car companies had already decided to utilize them as a safety feature before the government made it a requirement. This was driven by peoples' free choices rather than government intervention (force).

The abstract "crimes against society" argument is nothing less than collectivism that, when carried out to it's logical conclusion, would eliminate the freedom to even ride a motorcycle. In fact, this argument when carried to it's logical end would eliminate all motor vehicle transport, as more people are killed and maimed in auto accidents than any other "risky" activity.

Whoever says helmet laws infringe on their basic rights is just plain silly.

And whoever says it doesn't infringe on basic rights doesn't know what a right is. This is further illustrated by the collectivist argument that "whoever" made earlier.

Sorry, when I see illogical arguments being argued ad nauseum and someone trying to equate helmet laws with the violation of basic civil rights I have to call a duck a duck.
Sorry about that Michel.

Strange that you're arguing against supposed illogical statements without actually using logic...

Another issue that seems to pop up in this thread is the idea that when someone mentions healthcare costs, it is assumed that we're talking about the government having to pay for it, and that is not the case at all.  It certainly is a hot topic in recent years here in the U.S., but the issue in this context has been a problem for many years, and while it could easily be used in the current discussion on government run healthcare, it is not what we're talking about.  At issue is that any unpaid hospital bill adds to the cost of healthcare.  If a hospital gets stiffed, it has to raise the price of all products and services to cover the loss.  This discussion is centered around uninsured or under insured riders, and the affect of wearing/not wearing a helmet has on survival.

If one were really concerned about healthcare costs, they would do all they can to get government out instead of constantly re-hashing the same old pro-government-coercion arguments that have proven to be dismal failures for the last 50 years. All one would have to do is look at the level of government intervention in the health care sector and plot that data right next to the cost of healthcare over the same time period. Then one would see that increases in costs are directly proportional to increases in government intrusion.

WOW Pinhead, so much of that is bullsh1t, i don't know where to start.....

Explain to me whats wrong with wearing a hard hat on a construction site...? I would be interested to hear how this infringes on your "freedom" ... Thats become the buzz word for America, funny thing is that you are far less "free"  than any of you think and the time wasted on  selfish pursuits leaves the government free to do as it pleases, and i am sure they like that just the way it is....

The main thing i get out of these stupid arguments is selfishness, if you think being a vege and a burden on your loved ones for the rest of your miserable life is victim less, or leaving a wife and kids without a father then you really have no idea.... 8

Here's a forum member that  wasn't wearing a helmet, victim less eh...

http://forums.sohc4.net/index.php?topic=112595.0

[Bob Wessner]

Starting to get a bit heated and personal. Let's dial it back a tad, eh?

[74cb750]

Well, if you are going to argue about the 'freedom' of whether or not you get a choice on wearing a helmet why don't you argue against seatbelt laws, drunk driving laws, airbags in newer cars, car seats for babies, lead in paint, lead in gasoline, et al.
I don't hear people arguing against these things, maybe you should take up these causes also.

If you don't hear people arguing against these things, I'll proudly be the first you hear. I am vehemently against all victimless crime laws. If there is no victim there should be no crime. PERIOD.

Your other arguments are straw men -- as in the case of air bags, as an example, competition between car companies for safety "awards" was more than enough to make airbags a De-facto standard. In other words, it is completely within peoples' own choice to own a car with or without airbags. The fact that the government forced car companies to install airbags in all new cars is a moot point, as the car companies had already decided to utilize them as a safety feature before the government made it a requirement. This was driven by peoples' free choices rather than government intervention (force).

The abstract "crimes against society" argument is nothing less than collectivism that, when carried out to it's logical conclusion, would eliminate the freedom to even ride a motorcycle. In fact, this argument when carried to it's logical end would eliminate all motor vehicle transport, as more people are killed and maimed in auto accidents than any other "risky" activity.

Whoever says helmet laws infringe on their basic rights is just plain silly.

And whoever says it doesn't infringe on basic rights doesn't know what a right is. This is further illustrated by the collectivist argument that "whoever" made earlier.

Sorry, when I see illogical arguments being argued ad nauseum and someone trying to equate helmet laws with the violation of basic civil rights I have to call a duck a duck.
Sorry about that Michel.

Strange that you're arguing against supposed illogical statements without actually using logic...

Another issue that seems to pop up in this thread is the idea that when someone mentions healthcare costs, it is assumed that we're talking about the government having to pay for it, and that is not the case at all.  It certainly is a hot topic in recent years here in the U.S., but the issue in this context has been a problem for many years, and while it could easily be used in the current discussion on government run healthcare, it is not what we're talking about.  At issue is that any unpaid hospital bill adds to the cost of healthcare.  If a hospital gets stiffed, it has to raise the price of all products and services to cover the loss.  This discussion is centered around uninsured or under insured riders, and the affect of wearing/not wearing a helmet has on survival.

If one were really concerned about healthcare costs, they would do all they can to get government out instead of constantly re-hashing the same old pro-government-coercion arguments that have proven to be dismal failures for the last 50 years. All one would have to do is look at the level of government intervention in the health care sector and plot that data right next to the cost of healthcare over the same time period. Then one would see that increases in costs are directly proportional to increases in government intrusion.

Hear ! Hear !

I always love it when someone can put arguments with false premises together to disprove them.

[74cb750]

I find it interesting that instead of following the initial statement:
"Re: Where to get stats to support anit-helmet law intro to state congress"
almost everyone gave their opinions on the subject,
not facts for or against.

Hm.....still looking for facts to back up my desire to change the law in Vermont.

peace,
michel

IMO, it's because you're not going to find any reliable, verifiable statistics or facts that support this issue.  So since we can't provide you with what you're looking for, many of the responses have been on the subject of why you're not going to find this information. 

I wear a full face helmet 99.9% of the time, but I'm still fully in support of not having laws requiring helmet use for adults, because it's a personal choice issue.  I'm also not a big fan of requiring riders who don't wear helmets to have any additional insurance.  That's a slippery slope toward legislating higher and more costly requirements for all different kinds of choices people might make, like choosing to ride a motorcycle.

I support your effort to repeal the helmet law in your state, but I really think you need to approach it from a personal choice standpoint, not safety, because I think you're going to have a very difficult time convincing many people that it's safer to ride without a helmet even if you were able to find statistics that back up that idea.     

You could be right. As Vermont is a very liberal state, it might be easier than in other "up-tight" states.

[333]

Starting to get a bit heated and personal. Let's dial it back a tad, eh?

Saw that coming.