I want to start by apologizing for the length of this email but it concerns a lengthy study and I want to share my thoughts about it because I believe that we will see this study quite a bit in the upcoming year. Also please keep in mind that this reflects my opinion on universal helmet laws, not whether you should wear one or not. I believe that should be an individual choice. I have attached a copy should you wish to print this out and read it later (or line a bird cage with it).
As predicted, Michigan’s victory has stirred up the opposition. Since the modification of the Michigan helmet statute we have seen articles, editorials and letters decrying the act and arguing that it will lead to more deaths and increased costs. Last week the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) released a study using 2008 data. Their conclusion was predictably that universal helmet laws save lives and money, and that allowing adults to make their own choices on the subject increases fatalities and public costs. You can read the study for yourself at http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/pdf/mc2012/MotorcycleSafetyBook.pdf
The problem with this study is that it is a collection of conclusions. Many of these conclusions do not make sense when we look at the facts. Other conclusions are not based on sound logic. Finally, others rest upon logic which, if applied to other activities, would justify government regulation that few American citizens would accept because it would then affect them.
The premise of the study is twofold. The first is that states which do not have universal helmet laws have much higher fatality rates. The second is that these states are burdened by higher costs due to un-helmeted motorcycle riders. I would like to analyze these premises.
First we will take fatalities. I have a hard time believing that this was a non-biased study given the way it made the argument that the only proven way to reduce motorcycle fatalities was to strip adults of the right to choose whether or not to wear a helmet. If you think I am exaggerating their stance I would point you to page 5 where the study states the following:
“Helmets are the only safety measure proven to save lives.” (Emphasis added).
Is it the contention of the CDC that rider education is not a safety measure proven to save lives? Can any reasonable person actually think that learning how to control your motorcycle and operate it defensively and responsibly is of no proven safety value? That is utter nonsense. Several years ago the Virginia Coalition of Motorcyclists studied the effectiveness of Virginia’s rider education program. We pulled five years’ worth of motorcycle crash statistics and with the help of the Division of Motor Vehicles broke the crashes down between graduates of Virginia’s rider education program and non-graduates. Graduates were tremendously under-represented in those statistics. Further, there were two out of the five years in which out of all fatalities for that year NONE were graduates of the rider education program. Other states have done the same thing with similar results. Rider education is most certainly a proven safety measure. I would argue that it is the most effective safety measure. Why does every state have an extensive driver’s education program if education is not a safety measure proven to save lives.
The study goes on to point out the rise in motorcycle fatalities over the years and suggests that relaxed motorcycle helmet laws are to blame. It uses Florida as an example. This is not a new argument; however it does ignore some important facts. First it is important to note that upon modification of Florida’s helmet law to allow adults to choose, motorcycle registrations in Florida increased dramatically. According to Florida’s Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles’ report Traffic Safety Facts, October 2010: Motorcycles, between 2000 and 2009 motorcycle fatalities have increased by 63.4% and motorcycle injuries have increased by 62.3% However during that time motorcycle registrations increased by 102.4%. Injuries and fatalities have not kept pace with motorcycle registrations. Secondly, using states such as Florida is very misleading. It is one of the top motorcycle tourist destinations in the United States. It also has a much longer riding season. Additionally, it hosts one of the largest motorcycle events in the country drawing half a million motorcyclists a year from all over the country. (Wikipedia.com) Clearly that number of motorcyclists is going to throw the numbers off.
The CDC study also fails to take into consideration national motorcycle registrations in presenting its statistics. Jeff Hennie, Vice President of Government Relations and Public Affairs with the Motorcycle Riders Foundation did some great work debunking similar claims of motorcycle fatality rates in a recent article. The numbers used by the article are taken from the National Highway Traffic safety Administration (NHTSA). In 1997 there were 2,116 motorcycle fatalities nationwide. In 2010 there were 4,502. The article argued that the rise in fatality rates was greatly due to relaxed motorcycle helmet laws. Jeff pulled the motorcycle registrations nationwide. When applying the motorcycle registration numbers, here is what Jeff discovered. In 1997, there were 2,116 fatalities for 3,826,000 motorcycles registered. That means 0.055% of registered motorcycles were involved in a fatal accident. In 2010, there were 4,502 fatalities for 8,368,000 motorcycles registered. That means 0.053% of registered motorcycles were involved in a fatal accident. Registration rates increased more than fatality rates. Those numbers paint a completely different (and more accurate) picture.
The last thing I will point out is on page six of the study. It reads as follows:
“People who do not wear helmets are more likely to be killed in a crash. Forty-one percent of motorcycle operators and 51% of motorcycle passengers who died in 2008 were not wearing a helmet.”
Not to state the obvious but that would mean that 59% of motorcycle operators and 49% of motorcycle passengers who died in 2008 were wearing a helmet. It would appear that the majority of motorcycle fatality victims were wearing a helmet. Additionally, this statistic does not identify the cause of death in each of these fatalities. For the non-helmeted fatalities that died of trauma to internal organs, the fact that they were not wearing a helmet is irrelevant. For that matter, it is an irrelevant statistic for some who died of a head injury unless you are willing to jump to the conclusion that helmeted riders never die of head injuries. We know that is not the case. In the end this statistic tells us nothing.
The second argument of the CDC study is that forcing all motorcyclists to wear a helmet would save money. This argument is problematic for several reasons. For starters it is not clear from where the study gets its numbers. For instance, the study states that the United States saved nearly 3 billion due to helmet use in 2008 and could have saved an additional 1.3 billion in 2008 if all motorcyclists had worn helmets. How does the CDC come to that conclusion? How did the U.S. save this money? The study does not tell us.
So how do we test the validity of these statements? I would suggest that one way is to look at our friends in the insurance industry. For those of you who have received my prior emails forgive me for plowing old ground here.
If states that allow adults to make their own choice have higher costs we would expect to see that reflected in motor vehicle insurance rates since we know that the costs borne by the insurance industry are passed on to the consumer by way of insurance rates. However, a study of motor vehicle insurance rates do not support the argument that states that allow adult choice incur higher costs as a result. The top five most expensive jurisdictions for motor vehicle insurance in 2012 are Louisiana, Oklahoma, Michigan, West Virginia and Washington DC. (Insure.com) Out of that list only Oklahoma allows riders to choose (Michigan had a mandatory helmet law when the study was conducted so we count them as a universal helmet law state). The other four require the operators and passengers of motorcycles to wear helmets. The five cheapest states are Maine, Iowa, Wisconsin, Idaho and North Carolina. Of those only North Carolina requires riders to wear a helmet. To take it even further, only 2 of the ten cheapest states for motor vehicle insurance have mandatory helmet laws. The other eight either allow adults to choose for themselves or, as in the case of Iowa, simply have no law what so ever.
If you look at the entire list there is no correlation between motor vehicle insurance rates and universal helmet laws. How can that be if the majority of states allow riders to make their own choice and that choice is creating such a public cost? It is because the public cost argument is a myth. According to the US Census Bureau there were 2,035,474 injuries and deaths resulting from motor vehicle crashes 2009. 94,462 of those were related to motorcycle crashes. (http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s1107.pdf). That means that in 2009, only 4.7% of the motor vehicle crash related deaths and injuries involved motorcycles. Statistically, we are not a large enough segment of the population to contribute to the overall cost of motor vehicle related deaths and injuries.
The last point I would make is that we should all beware when the government attempts to restrict people’s freedom to choose for themselves by using the public cost argument. Such an argument must ultimately lead to the conclusion that it is proper for the government to make choices for us in any area where there is a possible public cost. Let’s take head injuries and think it out to its logical conclusion. We will even use the numbers from those who would deny us choice.
According to the CDC study, the United States could have saved 1.3 billion had had all motorcyclists worn helmets. Clearly the 1.3 billion must be costs associated with head injuries being that head injuries are the only injuries helmets are designed to prevent.
In May of 2011 the CDC issued a study on traumatic brain injury related deaths from 1997-2007. (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6005a1.htm?s_cid=ss6005a1_w) According to that study, from 1997 to 2007 the fatality rate due to traumatic brain injuries for motorcyclists was 14,972 per every 100,000 members of the total population. The number for occupants enclosed in a motor vehicle was 87,510 per every 100,000 members of the total population. I recognize that there are more auto drivers than motorcyclists, but if we are merely looking at costs it should not matter. A head injury sustained in a motorcycle accident does not cost any more that the same head injury sustained in an automobile accident. Additionally if you think the head injuries in automobile accidents were due to the victim not wearing a seatbelt, I would challenge you to sit in your car, put on your seatbelt and start knocking your head against the driver side door post. It is very easy to do.
Now let’s take the 1.3 billion that, according to the CDC, the United States could have saved in 2008 had all motorcyclists worn a helmet. Does that mean that since the number of traumatic brain injury deaths is almost 6 times higher in automobile crashes than motorcycle crashes that the United States could have saved almost 7.8 billion dollars a year if all automobile occupants wore helmets? That is a pretty good argument for having the government require that all motor vehicle occupants to wear a helmet. Why should the public be forced to carry the financial burden caused by the automobile driver who carelessly chooses to drive his car without a helmet? Will the public ever accept that argument? Of course they won’t. However many of them want to apply that very logic to us.
I am sure that some would point out that the above argument only applies to deaths. Injuries are what drive costs. The Brain Injury Association of Indiana did a study on the causes of traumatic brain injuries. (http://biausa.fyrian.com/Default.aspx?SiteSearchID=1192&ID=/search-results.htm) Part of the study focused on transportation related brain injuries. The study looked at injuries during 1995-1996 in 14 different states, about half of which allowed freedom of choice at the time of the study. Keep in mind that this association is not friendly to freedom of choice. They also support mandatory helmet laws. That being said, their study showed that 6% of transportation related brain injuries involved motorcyclists. 62% involved standard motor vehicles. That means that 10 times more traumatic brain injuries were caused in automobile accidents than in motorcycle accidents. Using the CDC’s numbers the United States could have saved 13 billion had every occupant in automobiles worn a helmet. The bottom line is that if you are willing to regulate motorcyclists based upon the public cost theory, then you are being hypocritical if you refuse to do the same thing to automobile occupants.
You can even take the public cost argument further. Below is an excerpt from a 2004 CDC report on causes of death in the United States in 2000.
“The leading causes of death in 2000 were tobacco (435 000 deaths; 18.1% of total US deaths), poor diet and physical inactivity (400 000 deaths; 16.6%), and alcohol consumption (85 000 deaths; 3.5%). Other actual causes of death were microbial agents (75 000), toxic agents (55 000), motor vehicle crashes (43 000), incidents involving firearms (29 000), sexual behaviors (20 000), and illicit use of drugs (17 000).”
http://www.doctorslounge.com/primary/articles/obesity_death/
Now according to NHTSA, in 2000 there were 2,897 motorcycle fatalities in the United States. We will assume half of those were not wearing helmets even though that according to the CDC numbers the actual number would be less. For the purposes of this argument we will further assume that every one of those fatalities who were not wearing a helmet would have survived had they worn a helmet. That means that if all motorcyclists had been forced to wear a helmet in 2000 we would have saved 1,449 lives. I rounded up. Why haven’t we made tobacco illegal? We could have saved 435,000 lives doing that. How about restricting the types of foods that restaurants and grocery stores can offer? We could have saved 400,000 lives doing that. Why isn’t alcohol illegal? We could have saved 85,000 lives in 2000 by removing people’s choice as to whether they should consume alcohol. Why don’t we outlaw firearms? That’s another 29,000 lives saved. By removing peoples choices in those areas the government could have saved 949,000 lives. Instead they want to take away our right to choose under the mistaken belief that they could save less than 2,000 lives. The argument is simply void of logic.
When people read the CDC study many will automatically come to the conclusion that universal helmet laws are the solution to motorcycle accident related injuries and fatalities. However, when you analyze the available data, that is simply not the case. You have to make numerous assumptions and ignore facts to come to that conclusion. The government should not restrict the choices of a few adult Americans based upon the logic which is the basis of this study’s conclusions. No American should be in favor of that. If such logic can be used to restrict the rights of a few, it can certainly be used down the road to restrict the rights of the many. Personally I trust individuals to make choices for themselves. I agree with Ronald Reagan when he said the following:
“The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.”
Matt Danielson
McGrath & Danielson
Tom McGrath's Motorcycle Law Group
1-800-321-8968
Motorcyclelawgroup.com