Recently the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
released two reports. One a study of the results from the 2004 Federal
Highway Administration’s Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS). The
other a study of the effects of the repeal of Florida’s mandatory
helmet law on motorcycle fatality rates.

Taken together these reports paint a disturbing picture for
motorcyclists. The FARS report indicates that nationally motorcycle
fatalities in 2004 increased 7.9% over 2003 and 89% over 1997. Among
other conclusions, the Florida report indicates an 81% increase in
motorcycle fatalities in the three years since the repeal of the
state’s helmet law.

Quoting from the Florida report:

The effects of Florida’s repeal of its all-rider motorcycle helmet use law are
similar to those seen in the other States that have repealed such laws in recent years.
Based on these findings, it is reasonable to conclude that the following are likely
outcomes in a State considering elimination of an all-rider helmet law:

• Helmet use will decline markedly, from virtually full daytime compliance to
  voluntary use by about 50 percent of riders;
• Helmet use likely will decline among all riders regardless of restrictions
  remaining in the law (use required by young riders, those without insurance)
  because of enforceability factors.
• Motorcycle registrations will increase. This, in turn, will contribute to an
  increase in motorcycle crashes of all degrees of severity.
• Motorcyclist fatalities will increase significantly, typically by 50 to 100
  percent comparing the years following the law change with the years
  immediately before repeal. The fatality rate per registered motorcycle will
  also increase.

Already, our friends in Congress have responded by earmarking $3
million to study motorcycle crashes. That’s $750 for each of the 4,008
rider killed in 2004. Something is better than nothing; but $3 million
dollars? In the governmental scope of things this seems an insulting
trifle of money. But I digress…

The conclusions found in these reports will make life very
difficult for helmet law opponents. And perhaps it should. The
statistics don’t support their arguments and, I believe, these groups
paint a picture of motorcyclists being in denial of obvious facts.
Consider the following letter to the editor of USA Today that was
published shortly after a piece about the FARS study:

USA TODAY’s article mentions that Congress has added $3 million
to a federal transportation bill for a study on motorcycle crashes.
Talk about another colossal waste of taxpayers’ money. We already know
the answer: It’s the helmet, stupid.

In just one year after then-governor George W. Bush signed
legislation here in Texas repealing one of the few wise laws we had —
mandating that all motorcycle riders wear a helmet — motorcyclist
fatalities went up.

Motorcycle riders whine about their "freedom," but most of us
are more concerned about not having to pay for the police, fire and
ambulance services that must show up when a motorcyclist isn’t smart
enough to use a simple piece of protective headgear.

Those of us in passenger vehicles are asked to wear seatbelts.
Motorcycle users should be required to wear helmets. That should be the
law.

Those who don’t want to don helmets should stay off
motorcycles. The rest of us are sick and tired of paying for others’
stupidity.

While I don’t consider $3 million to be a "colossal" sum in
government terms, I do believe that letter reflects what is becoming
the prevailing attitude in the non-motorcycling community. Anti-helmet
groups are dangerously close to being percieved as extremists of the
same caliber as the NRA. (Yes, the pun was intended.) The anti-helmet
tactics of denying the statistics, citing spurious reasons for not
wearing helmets and even wrapping themselves in the constitution
further reinforce the perception.

Take the following letter from James "Doc" Reichenbach, President of ABATE of Florida, Inc:

The Declaration of Independence guarantees everyone the right
to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But it seems everyone
wants to take these rights away from motorcyclists.

Many members of my group, American Bikers Aimed Toward
Education, in my home state of Florida are veterans who shed blood for
their country for the cause of freedom. Wearing a helmet is a
freedom-of-choice issue for us. But people want to tell us we can’t
make that choice.

It’s not a matter of feeling the wind through your hair as many
critics say. When you sit at a stoplight in 90-degree temperatures
wearing a full-face helmet, it can be dangerous with the heat radiating
up from the road. You can hardly breathe as it is with the exhaust
coming from the cars. We have had people collapse on their bikes
because of the heat.

I wear glasses. I have a hard time seeing with the helmet on
and I have a hard time hearing. I served three tours in Vietnam and
suffered hearing loss. I certainly don’t want to cause an accident and
I don’t want to be in one.

There’s no proof that helmets save lives. None of the studies
on death rates from motorcycle accidents tells you the exact cause of
death. Someone could be killed because of blunt trauma to the chest or
the aorta coming loose from the heart, neither of which has anything to
do with the helmet. We had a police officer killed here after he struck
a pole; every bone in his body was broken and he had on his helmet.

The studies say the medical costs from treating motorcycle
injuries have gone up. Medical costs in general have escalated so badly
that many people have no medical insurance. That can’t be blamed on
motorcycle riders.

The number of fatalities from motorcycle-related injuries has a
near linear increase each year since 1997. The number of registered
motorcycles has also increased dramatically during the same time
period.

When studies say motorcycle deaths have gone up, you have to
also look at registrations to see if there were more riders. In
Florida, registrations have gone up 111 percent at the same time the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says deaths have gone up
81 percent.

Doing a statistical average, the registrations have more then
kept pace with deaths. With the high cost of gasoline and road
conditions such as congestion, more and more people will be riding
motorcycles.

This is typical of the anti-helmet rhetoric. Flag waving, anecdotal
examples of exceptions, denial and distortion of the statistics. This
is not a reasoned argument. Let’s go point by point.

The Declaration of Independence guarantees everyone the right
to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But it seems everyone
wants to take these rights away from motorcyclists.

Many members of my group, American Bikers Aimed Toward
Education, in my home state of Florida are veterans who shed blood for
their country for the cause of freedom. Wearing a helmet is a
freedom-of-choice issue for us. But people want to tell us we can’t
make that choice.

Wave the flag. Good start. Like the flurry of flag-waving country
music performers that came out of the woodwork after 9/11, waving the
flag sells records and silences critics. After all, how un-American
would I be if I came out against the Declaration of Independence and
denied the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

Obviously Mr. Reichenbach feels that his life, liberty and
pursuit of happiness are somehow diminished by the requirement to wear
a helmet.

It’s not a matter of feeling the wind through your hair as many
critics say. When you sit at a stoplight in 90-degree temperatures
wearing a full-face helmet, it can be dangerous with the heat radiating
up from the road. You can hardly breathe as it is with the exhaust
coming from the cars. We have had people collapse on their bikes
because of the heat.

Spurious argument and anecdotal example time.

So it’s the helmet that makes the heat radiating up from the
road dangerous? If you weren’t wearing the helmet the heat would not be
a problem? And how does wearing a helmet affect the quality of the air
you breath? Where are the reports of riders losing consciousness at
stoplights? Experiencing the elements is part of the motorcycling
experience. If you are unable to remain conscious at a stoplight on a
90 degree day you should not be riding. Take the air-conditioned car.

I wear glasses. I have a hard time seeing with the helmet on
and I have a hard time hearing. I served three tours in Vietnam and
suffered hearing loss. I certainly don’t want to cause an accident and
I don’t want to be in one.

I wear glasses too; sunglasses at least. I don’t have any problem
seeing with my helmet on. In fact, the visor keeps the wind and bugs
out of my eyes helping me to see better. You don’t want to cause an
accident. I can certainly respect that. What about the accident that
you will cause when a bug smacks you in the eye and blinds you?

As for hearing, how well do you think that fellow in the Hummer
can hear with the radio and cell phone going. A motorcyclist is out
there, not surrounded by a glass and metal box. No few pounds of foam
and fiberglass is going to reduce your ability to hear below that of
someone in a car. If your hearing loss is severe, you should not be
driving.

There’s no proof that helmets save lives. None of the studies
on death rates from motorcycle accidents tells you the exact cause of
death. Someone could be killed because of blunt trauma to the chest or
the aorta coming loose from the heart, neither of which has anything to
do with the helmet. We had a police officer killed here after he struck
a pole; every bone in his body was broken and he had on his helmet.

Now we get the denial. Helmets don’t save lives? How about seat
belts? Air bags? Life jackets? Any of those save lives? OK, just for a
minute, let’s say that there is no proof that helmets save lives. There
is certainly proof that not wearing helmets results in increased
fatalities. The NHTSA and state studies make this incontravertible.

And yes, there are lot’s of ways to die. No one is suggesting
that a helmet will prevent every motorcycle fatality. No reasonable
person would consider that realistic. It will improve your odds of
survival. The fact is that the parts of your body below the neck can
sustain significantly more damage than the parts above the neck. You
can survive a lot more trauma to your torso and extremities than to
your head. Wearing a helmet protects that which is most vulnerable to
life-threatening damage.

The studies say the medical costs from treating motorcycle
injuries have gone up. Medical costs in general have escalated so badly
that many people have no medical insurance. That can’t be blamed on
motorcycle riders.

OK, finally some facts. The NHTSA report does indicate that the cost
of treatment for motorcycle injuries has increased and as we all know
the cost of medical services have increased dramatically. But, the
NHTSA statistics take the escalating costs into account and still
conclude that the cost of treating motorcycle injuries in states that
have repealed helmet laws has increased. In fact the total,
inflation-adjusted gross costs of treatment more than doubled after
Florida’s law was repealed. And that was in only 30 months after the
law’s repeal.

Another related idea that is often mentioned is that
motorcyclists should be required to carry additional medical insurance
if they choose to ride without a helmet. This is uneforcable. How would
we identify the haves from the have-nots? Would only those who can
afford the insurance be able to ride? Trauma medicine is not a metered
service. They can’t just stop when they hit the dollar limit of your
coverage.

The number of fatalities from motorcycle-related injuries has a
near linear increase each year since 1997. The number of registered
motorcycles has also increased dramatically during the same time
period.

When studies say motorcycle deaths have gone up, you have to
also look at registrations to see if there were more riders. In
Florida, registrations have gone up 111 percent at the same time the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says deaths have gone up
81 percent.

Doing a statistical average, the registrations have more then
kept pace with deaths. With the high cost of gasoline and road
conditions such as congestion, more and more people will be riding
motorcycles.

Sorry, this is just flat wrong. The NHTSA’s Florida report includes fatality data for the years 1994 through 2003.

Fatalities in 1997, 98 and 99 were actually decreasing. There was
reversal of the trend and large increase in 2000; when the helmet law
was repealed.

Registrations certainly did increase dramatically. However the
NHTSA study adjusts the statistics to account for this. Perhaps the

most telling statistic is the fatality rate per 10,000 registered
vehicles. Note that this figure also jumped dramatically in 2000.

The 81% figure comes from a comparison of the total number of
fatalities in the three years prior to the helmet law repeal (1997,
1998, 1999) to the total number of fatalities in the three years after
the repeal (2001, 2002, 2003). While the NHTSA report does include
motorcycle registration data for 1994 – 2002, it does not include
registrations for 2003. So there is insufficient data to justify the
111% figure.

Still, simply looking at the fatality rate per 10,000 registered motorcycles accounts for the affects of increased ridership.

Quoting from the study:

Motorcycle registrations increased 33.7 percent in the 30
months after repeal of the law compared to the 30 months before the law
change. There was a 55 percent increase in the average number of
motorcyclists killed in Florida in the same time period. The expected
number of motorcycle fatalities as a result of the increase in
registrations was 242. The actual number who died was 301 in 2002, 59
more motorcycle fatalities than expected as a result of increased
registrations alone (a 24 percent increase).

Fatalities in the two years following the law change were 71
percent greater than those that occurred in the two years before,
compared to an increase of 37 percent for the nation as a whole.
Fatalities in Florida per 10,000 registered motorcycles increased 21
percent compared to 13 percent nationally for the two years before and
after the law change. Thus, the increase in registered motorcyclists
alone did not account for the increase in motorcycle fatalities.

So where am I headed with all of this? Simply this, if motorcyclists
want helmet laws repealed it needs to be done with reasoned, factual
arguments and not hyperbole and anecdotes that border on urban legends.
Can such an argument be made? I don’t know. The statistics are very
convincing to me. If I did not choose to always wear a helmet before I
would certainly be convinved to do so after reading the Florida report.
Continuing to argue the case as Mr. Reichenbach does will simply
reinforce the image of anti-helmet motorcyclists as shrill fringe
dwellers to be written off.

I invite your thoughts on this issue in the The Lounge section of the Northwest Cycle News Forums.