Michigan helmets and injuries merged threadfest

[sib]

From Reuters News:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-helmetlaws-michigan-injury-idUSKBN0UL2JN20160107

"Injuries soar after Michigan stops requiring motorcycle helmets"

[canuck750]

What is amazing that a study is necessary to report the obvious outcome of having ones heads strike the pavement, other vehicles, power poles etc, while not wearing a helmet.

I am not saying that legislation is necessary to force people to wear a helmet, so long as the rider acknowledges that he/she is putting themselves at significant risk of death or brain injury and that the taxpayer should bear no responsibility for contributing to any health care cost resulting from an injury while not wearing a helmet.

I strongly feel the same should apply for any person involved in an accident that results in an injury while under the influence of alcohol or any other recreational drug.

Having the freedom to chose to not wear a helmet must be coupled to the responsibility of not wearing a helmet.

[oldbike54]

 OK , first off , the lead in picture is silly , those types of helmets are almost useless and have very little to do with safety . Second , the findings re alcohol use increasing don't make ant sense . Why would folks prone to drinking and riding drink more because the weren't wearing a helmet ? Seems this research may be highly flawed . Yeah , wearing a helmet is wise , but this sounds more like a crusade than a well documented study .

  Dusty

[pyoungbl]

Dusty, consider the possibility that those non helmeted crash 'subjects' were more prone to take risks....like drinking and riding a motorcycle.  Common sense tells me that it's more risky to ride without a helmet.  For some people the extra risk is, in and of itself, attractive.  Kinda like smoking in spite of all the proof that it's not good for your health.  The study might not be as hairbrained as you think.

Peter Y.

[cloudbase]

"Riders without helmets also drank more alcohol after the law was repealed, based on blood tests at hospital admission."

[oldbike54]

"Riders without helmets also drank more alcohol after the law was repealed, based on blood tests at hospital admission."

 That is misleading .

  Dusty

[Waltr]

One sunny Sunday back in 1980 I was returning home from lunch at Mom's and riding my brand new Tour Glide (I picked it up the day before).  As I was going through a S curve at speed no more than 30 mph a car backed out of a drive and cut off my lane and 1/2 the oncoming lane.  Immediate reaction was to grab front brake but the front tire locked up (did not realize it at the time).  When I scrubbed off enough speed I released the brake and intended to use the far left side of the oncoming lane to ride out of the danger. 

I did not realize until years later the meaning of high-side, and the importance of not letting off the front brake if the ft tire was locked up and skidding.  As I lifted the front brake lever I found my bike went right and I went left.  I was on the ground before I knew it.

I was wearing my Bell open face helmet and when I got home I realized I had a bloody nose. The side of my head with my helmet on hit the pavement hard enough for a nose bleed.  I had thought many times after if I would still be around without that helmet.

[ponti_33609]

This is an odd report for sure.

The drinking increase is a coincidence...do not see how they could add that in as a correlation but...........

off topic -  if I had to choose between being on the road with someone texting while driving versus a drunk driver I might opt for the drunk driver.  Out of the 2, the drunk driver is at least attempting to drive the vehicle.

[Triple Jim]

I did not realize until years later the meaning of high-side, and the importance of not letting off the front brake if the ft tire was locked up and skidding.  As I lifted the front brake lever I found my bike went right and I went left.  I was on the ground before I knew it.

If your front tire skids from over braking, you need to let up enough on the brake lever to get it rolling again immediately.  Make sure it's pointed in your direction of travel when you do that.  From what you described, it was turned to the right, so when it started rolling again, it made the bike go that direction suddenly.

It's the rear wheel that you don't want to get sliding outward in a turn, and then let up the brake and suddenly have it regain traction.  That can cause a high-side.

[stormshearon]

Well the picture at the top of the article is of a bosozuku (just google or bing it) bike and helmets from Japan, so not germane to the article at all. Makes you wonder about the veracity of the rest of it - even though it is pretty hard to debate that no helmet and hard object is just bad all around in a collision. If you can't use pictures from the state in question, what else did the reporter get wrong?

[wrbix]

This is an odd report for sure.

The drinking increase is a coincidence...do not see how they could add that in as a correlation but...........

Dunno.....one of the recurring arguments against helmet laws in SC is that much of the business income from biker rallies would be lost.......have the number of biker rallies in Michigan increased since helmet laws were repealed? They are, after all, drinking events....

[Waltr]

If your front tire skids from over braking, you need to let up enough on the brake lever to get it rolling again immediately.  Make sure it's pointed in your direction of travel when you do that.  From what you described, it was turned to the right, so when it started rolling again, it made the bike go that direction suddenly.

It's the rear wheel that you don't want to get sliding outward in a turn, and then let up the brake and suddenly have it regain traction.  That can cause a high-side.

The front wheel was turned left, when I released the brake bike went left and me right, happened so fast I had no idea the tire was locked.  The tires were super hard compound and lasted 34K. There was no squealing. I am fully aware of what happened now and understand the dynamics of high-siding.

[Sasquatch Jim]

  You should take care that your head does not strike a hard object in the event of a crash.
  If you cannot do that, you should drink before riding as the crash will hurt less that way.
#
#
#
#



 Until later.

[canuguzzi]

The topic of helmet laws carries over into other concerns and issues.

As a society we pay for all kinds of things where people do things that jeopardize their health or safety. To single out those not wearing helmets by choice and then saying they should pay for that choice runs counter to how our society see things.

Consider that the rider who chooses not to wear a helmet gets into a collision. Are going to say that since it was their choice not to wear a helmet that the taxpayer should not take care of them? Aren't we forgetting something in that position?

If the non-helmeted ride was run into through no fault of their own, how do we justify saying that there should be no mechanism to treat their injuries other than their own money if they are unable to do so? Do we also apply that standard to everything else?

Fine then, let's expand that to armored riding gear too. How about the rider who chooses not to wear boots or gloves? It is a very slippery slope.

If the collision causing the accident is not the fault of the non-helmeted rider, which one of us can honestly say there should be no support if the other person is at fault and they cannot or will not provide for the medical treatment?

Do we abandon people who choose for whatever reason, not to wear a seat belt and then deny them any support because they made a bad choice?

It is said full face helmets provide better protection than open face helmets. Do we implement a means or methods test to determine who would receive medical care if the rider can't pay for it?

If the non-helmeted rider gets injured and their insurance runs out but they need continued medical care, how do we justify denying that care when we do not do so for anything else, including negligent behavior?

Isn't that creating a separate and unequal standard that applies only to motorcyclists? If that is the case, then car drivers have the same argument to say that any motorcyclists should not receive any taxpayer benefit for medical care because motorcycles are less protective if the rider than cars are for the driver.

If we accept that, then the days will come when your motorcycle will need an airbag or you will have to wear a balloon suit or something like that, not because of a choice you made other than to ride a motorcycle.

I hope we don't push such an agenda because it is easy to draw others into that while ignoring other things we do with which others do not agree.

[canuck750]

Every motorcycle riders manual I have seen tells me to wear a helmet, boots gloves, a jacket etc. I am instructed to check out my motorcycle before riding, maintain it properly and in bold letters 'not to drink and drive'.

If I was injured in an accident I wonder how far an insurance company would go to deny me coverage if I was found to not be operating the motorcycle in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions, let alone the traffic laws of the land?

I do not feel the state should cover the medical costs of persons who choose to not wear a helmet and incur a head injury as a result of their own actions while riding a motorcycle, why should I as a taxpayer have to support an individual who willingly chooses to not wear a helmet?

If someone wants to be FREE to not wear a helmet then I should be FREE to not pay for their poor decision.

[atavar]

I strongly feel that - completely aside from helmet laws - insurance (including social insurance) should be able to deny claims or service for people without special coverage for injuries that happen while not wearing a helmet.  Yes, that means they should kick the fool out of the emergency room and let them bleed out on the curb. At the very most the hospitals should provide only the minimum care necessary. Harsh I know, but it is a risk the individual chose to make and if they lose the bet they have to pay the price.
The same should apply for 'no seat belt' injuries.
Parents of children injured without safety equipment should be jailed and publicly flogged.
Insurance companies should be able to capitalize with "no helmet" riders at additional cost which could reduce the general cost for the rest of us.
I know this upsets some of you and I am sorry, but we should not all have to pay for the bad choices of a few. 

[George_S]

It'll never fly. A doctor and a hospital has a duty to treat you. They know they'll get paid by somebody, whether it's the patient's insurance, Medicaid, or by all of us in our uninsured motorist part of our insurance premiums.

I strongly feel that - completely aside from helmet laws - insurance (including social insurance) should be able to deny claims or service for people without special coverage for injuries that happen while not wearing a helmet.  Yes, that means they should kick the fool out of the emergency room and let them bleed out on the curb. At the very most the hospitals should provide only the minimum care necessary. Harsh I know, but it is a risk the individual chose to make and if they lose the bet they have to pay the price.
The same should apply for 'no seat belt' injuries.
Parents of children injured without safety equipment should be jailed and publicly flogged.
Insurance companies should be able to capitalize with "no helmet" riders at additional cost which could reduce the general cost for the rest of us.
I know this upsets some of you and I am sorry, but we should not all have to pay for the bad choices of a few.

[canuguzzi]

Plenty of motorcyclists do not carry medical insurance as part of their motorcycle insurance policy. They rely upon their medical insurance. That drives up costs too.

Why should motorcyclists not be required to carry medical insurance on their bike policy since it would reduce the costs to all others and riding a motorcycle is a choice and according to many, a dangerous choice, helmet or not?

My point here is that we already provide benefits to people, regardless of the choices they make. If we want to single out motorcyclists that don't wear helmets, then why nor for every other choice we think is a bad choice? Many sports carry a significant risk, do we simply say no medical benefits if their insurance runs out just because they chose to engage in a dangerous sport?

If the same standard for non helmet wearing motorcyclists isn't applied to all other activities, isn't that hypocritical?

Take the guy who is working on his Moto Guzzi and puts it on the center stand to perform some work. He doesn't tie it down and leans forward a bit and it rolls off the center stand and crushes his arm. His insurance runs out or he didn't have enough to cover the long term care. Do we throw him to the wolves and say he should have known better and since he did not, beat it?

I agree that everyone riding a motorcycle should wear a helmet, I wouldn't without one. But not all states require a rider to wear a helmet. That leaves the choice up to them. No one like to pay for the choices of another but we all share resources of those who disagree with our choices don't we?

If anyone feels so strongly about not paying for the non-helmeted wearing motorcyclists, they too have a choice, to self insure and therefore not be affected by the insurance policy rates. If it is tax money, then there are so many other things we pay for, take medical care for criminals which cost us far more than what helmet less motorcyclists cost society.

If we look at medical benefits or any benefits and decide that no one making choices we think are dangerous should be entitled to them, who among us would be unaffected and not come under that umbrella?

Making motorcyclists the example is justified how? Maybe someone didn't wear a jacket but wire a helmet. Deny them support?

How about the rider who knowing new motorcycles stop much faster (as we have discussed) than old motorcycles decides to ride the older motorcycle anyway and runs into something because he couldn't stop as fast as the new bike? Do we say they should not be able to ride the older bike because that old bike can't stop as fast as the new one?

The above are still choices and that is really what this is all about, the freedom to choose and the acceptance of shared responsibility even when we disagree with those choices. If we throw that out, then who can complain when someone else does it to you?

[atavar]

That is an argument reductio ad absurdium.. 
I am dead set against helmet laws, everyone should have the choice, but in making the choice they need shoulder the burden of their choice. 
The same goes for smokers, the obese, et.al..  insurance companies do charge different rates for those people and that is as it should be.  many insurance policies do have caveats for extreme sports, for example mountain climbing or sky diving or riding rough stock, and people do pay more for riders to cover them in those sports.
If an insurance company can discriminate against people who choose the risk of smoking then they should be able to discriminate against those who choose to participate in sports without safety equipment. 

[canuguzzi]

Were anyone here to get in an accident while not wearing a helmet and the call go out for help,  I see it an unconscionable act that I not help in what way I could or advocate they not get medical care even if they are without the means to pay for it because its their fault they didn't have a helmet on.

[sib]

Irrespective of our views about mandatory helmet laws, the take-home lesson from the article is that when the law was abolished, more people foolishly (depending on your view) didn't wear helmets.  It wasn't getting rid of the law that caused the extra deaths, it was the response to getting rid of the law.

[Dukedesmo]

O/T but (from the article) WTF is a 'Bousouzoku style motorbike'?

[Triple Jim]

O/T but (from the article) WTF is a 'Bousouzoku style motorbike'?

A slightly different spelling, but probably what was meant:  Wikipedia Article "Bōsōzoku"

[sib]

O/T but (from the article) WTF is a 'Bousouzoku style motorbike'?

From Wikipedia:

Bōsōzoku (暴走族?, literally "running-out-of-control (as of a vehicle) tribe") is a Japanese youth subculture associated with customized motorcycles.

[LowRyter]

Interesting tidbit.  The state of Michigan repealed its mandatory helmet law and not unexpectedly, injuries and deaths have gone way up.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/biker-injuries-and-deaths-soar-after-michigan-repeals-helmet-law_568feb56e4b0c8beacf6be7a

Among the accident victims brought to the hospital, the proportion of riders who had not been wearing a helmet rose four-fold, from 7 percent to 28 percent, the researchers found.

About 10 percent of non-helmeted riders brought to the hospital died there, compared to 3 percent of those who had been wearing helmets.

Among riders who died at the crash scene, the proportion not wearing helmets rose from 14 percent before the law was repealed to 68 percent afterward.

[diablo45]

http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2015/04/21/michigan-motorcycle-fatalities-drop/26151543/




Sam

[rocker59]

Interesting tidbit.  The state of Michigan repealed its mandatory helmet law and not unexpectedly, injuries and deaths have gone way up.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/biker-injuries-and-deaths-soar-after-michigan-repeals-helmet-law_568feb56e4b0c8beacf6be7a

Among the accident victims brought to the hospital, the proportion of riders who had not been wearing a helmet rose four-fold, from 7 percent to 28 percent, the researchers found.

About 10 percent of non-helmeted riders brought to the hospital died there, compared to 3 percent of those who had been wearing helmets.

Among riders who died at the crash scene, the proportion not wearing helmets rose from 14 percent before the law was repealed to 68 percent afterward.

"Among those",  and giving a percentage change, but no absolute numbers.

How many before? How many after?

[redrider90]

http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2015/04/21/michigan-motorcycle-fatalities-drop/26151543/

Sam

From the article you linked above. National statistics reveal increased death rate among helmet-less riders.

" Russ Rader, a spokesman for the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, dismissed suggestions that helmet use is not an effective means of boosting safety.

"Wearing a helmet is the most important thing a motorcyclist can do to reduce their risk of serious injury," Rader said.

He cited data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration showing that unhelmeted motorcyclists are three times more likely than helmeted motorcyclists to suffer brain injuries, and the risk of being killed in a crash is 37% lower for motorcyclists who are helmeted.

Rader said that the average insurance payment for injuries to motorcyclists increased by 22% in the wake of the change in the law".

[Joliet Jim]

How does it go? Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

If you believe someone not wearing a helmet should be denied coverage because it's an unnecessary risk then you should also believe anyone riding a motorcycle should be denied coverage for the same reason. Why should anyone have to bear the cost if someone is stupid enough to ride a motorcycle when they could drive a car or take public transport?

[redrider90]

OK , first off , the lead in picture is silly , those types of helmets are almost useless and have very little to do with safety . Second , the findings re alcohol use increasing don't make ant sense . Why would folks prone to drinking and riding drink more because the weren't wearing a helmet ? Seems this research may be highly flawed . Yeah , wearing a helmet is wise , but this sounds more like a crusade than a well documented study .

  Dusty

Dusty,
This is the abstract from the The Journal of Surgery which is a peer reviewed scientific journal. Access to the article is $35 so the best I could find is the abstract.
http://www.americanjournalofsurgery.com/article/S0002-9610%2815%2930005-2/abstract

Abstract
Background

Michigan repealed a 35-year mandatory helmet law in April 2012. We examined the impact of this legislation on a level 1 trauma center.
Methods

A retrospective cohort study comparing the 7-month period before and the 3 motorcycle seasons after the helmet law repeal.
Results

A total of 345 patients were included in the study. Nonhelmeted riders increased from 7% to 28% after the repeal. Nonhelmeted crash scene fatalities were higher after the repeal (14% vs 68%). The nonhelmeted cohort had significantly higher in-patient mortality (10% vs 3%), injury severity score (19 vs 14.5) and abbreviated injury scale head (2.2 vs 1.3). Non-helmeted riders also had increased alcohol use, intensive care unit length of stay and need for mechanical ventilation. The median hospital cost for the non-helmeted cohort was higher (P < .05).
Conclusions

The impact of the Michigan helmet law repeal continues to evolve. Three years after this legislative change, we are now observing increased injury severity score, higher in-patient mortality, and worse neurologic injury.