http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2012/...ntcmp=features


Seatbelts save lives, but what about helmets?

A biker group in Michigan says fatalities in the state decreased after a law was enacted this year allowing people to ride motorcycles without protection for their heads, according to The Detroit News.

American Bikers Aiming Toward Education cite Michigan State Police data comparing the first eight months of 2011, to the first half of 2012 and found that the number of fatalities dropped from 89 to 85, despite an increase in motorcycle registrations over the same period.

The group did not provide any information on what percentage of riders are not wearing helmets.

The new law went into effect on April 12, 2012 and requires those who wish to not wear a helmet to be over 21 years old and either have had their license for two years or complete a rider safety course.

Responding to the group’s claim, a AAA of Michigan spokeswoman told the Detroit News that it was based on “very preliminary data,” and that it is too early to reach any conclusions.

“We know by looking at data from every other state that has repealed its helmet law that fatalities and injuries went up,” the spokesperson said.

A study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that only 12 percent of fatal motorcycle accidents nationwide happened in the 20 states that require helmets for all riders.

AAA has forecasted an additional 30 fatalities per year in Michigan as a result of the new law.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2012/...#ixzz28Gc2jWZ2

 

Wearing a helmet is a personal choice. I dont care who wears a helmet and who doesnt but using crappy data to support an argument drives me crazy. There is no way the lack of a helmet law decreased rider deaths. That is the same math that Congress uses. Using arguments like this to support getting rid of helmet makes it harder when the data shows an increase in deaths. It is a personal choice issue not a safety issue.

 

Everyone on this forum would wear a helmet if the absolutely knew they were going to have a wreck. It is a tool to prevent head injury. I don't think that one should be required to wear a helmet when the above posted guidelines are met. I think here in Texas you are required to be 21 and have your own health insurance.

 

How is the data crappy? Your opinion is that there is no way the lack of a helmet decreased motorcycle deaths. You offer no data. I dislike opinions without data. Your opinion carries no more weight on this forum than anyones else's. My opinion is that we could decrease deaths on motorcycles by putting all the newby's with less then ten years of experience on moped's with less then 50cc engines. But I have no data.

 

It's your tax money to pay for people's ER visits.

I don't like the registrations data argument. There's probably an increase in registrations because the non-helmet wearers didn't have anything to legally fear.

 

This article only mentions fatalities and not head and brain injuries. But since every accident is different and cannot be replicated there is no true way to know whether a rider would or would not have sustained a fatal injury in a particular accident with or without a helmet.

 

And what conclusion should we draw?

 

I'm sure wearing a helmet is safer. So is wearing a helmet in my car. So is wearing a helmet walking down the street. So is not riding a motorcycle at all. So?

Being as safe as possible is not my goal in life.

If it's yours, I don't think much of you.

 

I keep hearing this, am I the only one that has paid for his/her own ER bill?
After 40+ years of riding I finely wore a helmet on my last road trip, it wasn't that bad.

 

I hate these threads. They never solve anything.