Michigan helmets and injuries merged threadfest

[redrider90]

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.

That's not true. Hospitals without ERs do not have to accept patients via an emergency because they do not have an emergency room.  They are sent to a trauma center. It's also not true that the hospital will get paid no matter what. I ran a clinic in the level I trauma center with 1000 beds.  Our department was reimbursed (at a lower rate)  by the hospital for non insured patients. The hospital then had to eat the looses and figure out how to make up for it in other ways. Raising charges to the uninsured is about the only way they can get money back. All hospitals negotiate contracts with individual insurance companies so it is not a matter of raising rates on insurance companies. Medicaid sets its own reimbursement rates and they are extremely low.
Many hospitals have closed their ERs so they could control looses by not admitting uninsured people. This happens more in rural areas than large urban areas hence you have a higher rate of dying from say a heart attack in some rural areas due to hospital closures. Politics aside, hospitals wanted the Affordable Health Care act implemented purely on as a business decision. Their looses are far less with more insured people coming through the doors.   

[oldbike54]

 Harv , I understand that crashing W/O a helmet leads to a greater risk of injury . My problem is with the use of a ridiculous photo that has nothing to do with the issue and the misleading or faulty statistic re alcohol use that indicates the repeal of the helmet law led to more alcohol use . A style of sensationalizing one side of an argument that I strongly disagree with . Just give me the straight facts , I don't need a bunch of silly BS .

  Dusty

[redrider90]

Harv , I understand that crashing W/O a helmet leads to a greater risk of injury . My problem is with the use of a ridiculous photo that has nothing to do with the issue and the misleading or faulty statistic re alcohol use that indicates the repeal of the helmet law led to more alcohol use . A style of sensationalizing one side of an argument that I strongly disagree with . Just give me the straight facts , I don't need a bunch of silly BS .

  Dusty

Dusty,
Unfortunately the article posted is not the scientific article. It is a "health care" article written by a layman in a newspaper so they put up photos of stupid helmets. But the scientific article  made note that there was an increase in alcohol content of helmet-less riders. This was a statistical fact that was included in the scientific finds. Did they say the repeal of the helmet law led to more alcohol use? No they did not. At least not in the abstract and I quote " Non-helmeted riders also had increased alcohol use, intensive care unit length of stay and need for mechanical ventilation".
Reading the article in Reuters it says something  different. The Reuters article says "Riders without helmets also drank more alcohol after the law was repealed, based on blood tests at hospital admission". What we do not know is what the Journal of Surgery article said. I am not going to pay $35 for article when I already where a top of the line full face helmet and never drink and drive.
I have published 3 peer reviewed journal articles in my field. I have been interviewed about 6 times for articles written by laymen. I always have to go to great lengths to stress at the beginning of the interview that I have a right to review and ask for changes in  how I am quoted just because so many heath care articles suck and get it wrong. And even then I have been misquoted.  Reuters may very will be misquoting the original paper. There are a lot of lax journalists out there.

[Triple Jim]

Just give me the straight facts , I don't need a bunch of silly BS .

Better stay away from the Harley/Guzzi engine thread then.   

[oldbike54]

Better stay away from the Harley/Guzzi engine thread then.   

 I should have stipulated that silliness in the pursuit of humor is wonderful 

 Now , where is my helmet , I want to bang my head against the computer 


  Dusty

[blackcat]

 Now , where is my helmet , I want to bang my head against the computer 


  Dusty

Hang on, let me find the stat for that before you start banging.

[rocker59]

The lay article/study is great.  Really great.  "among those that I have seen"... 

How many did he see in 2014?  How many did he see in 2015?

If 2014 was 10 helmetless riders admitted with injuries and two died, then he had a 20% loss.

If 2015 was 2 helmetless riders admitted with injuries and one died, then he had a 50% loss.

But, he had a decrease in the real number of losses/deaths.

Extreme example, I know, but articles that don't include hard numbers mean nothing.

Michigan's citizens got the helmet law repealed.  It's thier State and laws like this are the reservation of The States.  One reason given, at the time, was to increase out of State riders coming to Michigan.

So, I'd like to know a few things before I take any study's word for it:

-Number of motorcycle miles ridden in Michigan before the helmet law was repealed.
-Number of motorcycle miles ridden in Michigan after the helmet law was repealed.
-Number of Michigan residents vs out of State residents injured in motorcycle accidents before the law was repealed.
-Number of Michigan residents vs out of State residents injured in motorcycle accidents after the law was repealed.
-accident and death rates compared to number of motorcycle miles ridden before and after the law was repealed.

My guess is that the numbers of riders, both resident and non-resident, have gone up dramatically in Michigan, giving The People there exactly what they wanted with the change in the law.

[redrider90]

This is as comprehensive as you want. If you want to spend the time to read it. I just speed read the first few pages and the detail is considerable.
From the introduction. They are focusing on helmet use specifically to see if it reduces fatalities.

The number of motorcyclist fatalities has climbed 122 percent since 1997, with 4,810 motorcyclists being killed in 2006. Motorcyclists represented more than 11 percent of traffic fatalities in 2006, compared to only 5 percent in 1997. From 1997 through 2006, there were 33,385 motorcyclist fatalities. This report focuses on motorcycle riders because the vast majority of fatal motorcycle crashes involve motorcycles without passengers, only riders. These fatalities include over 25,000 motorcycle riders who have been fatally injured in either single- vehicle motorcycle crashes or two-vehicle crashes between a motorcycle and a passenger vehicle. Given that motorcycle fatalities make up an increasing proportion of total traffic fatalities, our attention turns to methods that might reduce motorcycle fatalities. One method of reducing motorcycle fatalities is through motorcycle helmet use. Thus our report tries to answer the following research question: What factors are most strongly associated with motorcycle helmet use in fatal crashes?
Single-vehicle motorcycle crashes and two-vehicle crashes between a motorcycle and a passenger vehicle were examined separately in this report. This stratification was chosen due to the differing patterns seen between the motorcycle riders in the single-vehicle crashes compared to the riders in the two-vehicle crashes.


An Analysis of Motorcycle Helmet Use In Fatal Crashes 2008
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811011.pdf
I. Executive Summary
II. Introduction
III. Methodology
IV. Results
 Motorcycle Rider and Passenger Vehicle Driver Fatalities, by Year
 Motorcycle Rider Fatalities, by Helmet Use and Year
 Passenger Vehicle Driver Fatalities, by Restraint Use and Year.
Helmet Use.
 Single- and Two-Vehicle Motorcycle Crashes
Single- and Two-Vehicle Motorcycle Crashes, by Year
State Motorcycle Helmet Laws
Motorcycle Engine Size
Time of Day
 Weekday/Weekend Sex
Injury Severity
 Age Group
Number of Motorcyclists per Motorcycle
 Blood Alcohol Concentration
V. Logistic Regression Analysis

[oldbike54]

 Harv , no one is arguing that helmets save lives , only that the Rueters story was faulty . Using flawed studies and reporting to further a cause is always wrong .

  Dusty

[redrider90]

Harv , no one is arguing that helmets save lives , only that the Rueters story was faulty . Using flawed studies and reporting to further a cause is always wrong .

  Dusty

I would agree the Reuters article leaving something to be desired but there is nothing to indicate that the study they quoted is flawed. The problem is we having nothing to base our judgement about the study being flawed because none of us has read it. The abstract is all we have to go on. That and anything that is in "quotation marks" in the news report.

[StuCorpe]

They actually had to run a study to determine this? Common sense has been lost for quite a while now.

[Farmer Dan]

So they are comparing Michigan riders with Japanese gangs?  I think they are fabricating evidence to suite their needs.

[sib]

I still aver that the article wasn't about whether helmets save lives (most sensible people would accept that they do), but whether eliminating a helmet use law causes a decrease in helmet use.  I think the article is convincing on that point.

[oldbike54]

 Nope , what the article proved is

  Dusty

[rocker59]

This is as comprehensive as you want. 

"The number of motorcyclist fatalities has climbed 122 percent since 1997, with 4,810 motorcyclists being killed in 2006. Motorcyclists represented more than 11 percent of traffic fatalities in 2006, compared to only 5 percent in 1997. From 1997 through 2006, there were 33,385 motorcyclist fatalities. "

Yes, but what was the increase in motorcycles on the roads during that time?  What was the increase in motorcycle miles ridden during that time?

It was a huge time of growth in motorcycling.  Millions of motorcycles were sold in The USA during those years.  An increase in accidents and death would not be unexpected.

[canuguzzi]

I still aver that the article wasn't about whether helmets save lives (most sensible people would accept that they do), but whether eliminating a helmet use law causes a decrease in helmet use.  I think the article is convincing on that point.

Articles and studies like this create more questions than they answer.

As you say, helmets can saves lives. However, how many motorcyclists lives would be saved if automobile drivers drive safer and paid more attention to motorcycles. We can of course, agree that the accident would happen anyway and that the question is still focused on the use of helmets but that type of study ignores the root of the problem.

Many studies start looking at a problem from some arbitrary starting poi t in the sequence of events that led to the result.

I can't say for sure but I'm guessing that most motorcycle related fatalities don't happen because the ride fell off the bike but was caused to fall as the result of someone else's actions.

Did the initial cause of the crash become a significant statistic in the study? If crashes where the motorcyclist died was separated according to at fault, no fault or both at fault, might the number of deaths point to the real problem, one which is masked by introducing the helmet as a mitigating factor?

If a majority of the deaths resulted because if the fault of a car or truck driver, then the use of a helmet becomes much less significant because reducing the actual cause of the crash is attainable by better driver training and more public awareness campaigning directed toward car and truck drivers.

I say all this because if a study addresses an arbitrary starting point in a sequence of events and then cites the treatment of a symptom, that seems to be an agenda.

If a significant majority of motorcycle related deaths would not have happened had the crashes where car or truck drivers were at fault not occurred, the use of a helmet is questionable as a way to reduce those deaths. It puts the emphasis on the motorcyclist to prevent something by using a helmet when the solution is actually something else.

Maybe the use of helmets (something I agree with) isn't really that much of a factor if the real cause of the crashes are prevented.

No doubt, it is far easier to blame the non-helmeted wearing motorcycle rider for their own death than blame the driver training and those running into motorcycles.

Maybe we should also blame pedestrians who get killed when run over because they didn't wear a michilein man type bubble suit.

I do support the wearing of helmets while riding a motorcycle but I think maybe motorcyclists are being blamed for their own deaths to push some agenda.

[rocker59]

I can't say for sure but I'm guessing that most motorcycle related fatalities don't happen because the ride fell off the bike but was caused to fall as the result of someone else's actions.
 

In my State, motorcycle crashes and deaths are largely single-vehicle-accidents. Mostly because the new or re-entry rider "failed to negotiate a curve".  Many times, they're at night and alcohol is involved.

Sure, there are many left-turn and rear-end accidents where there is an automobile and driver as the cause, but in the annual report of traffic deaths put out by the state police, those are far fewer than the single-vehicle-accidents.

[atavar]

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?

That is not what I said at all.  I said that people who choose not to wear motorcycles should have to carry insurance specific for that if they want injuries caused while not wearing safety equipment to be covered.  People riding motorcycles are already required to have insurance specific to their mode of transportation.
The levels of coverage and specifics are contained in the contract between each individual and their insurance company.
i could completely see our king doing something like excluding motorcycle injuries from coverage under the Affordable Care Act requiring individuals to have specific coverage.  I am not saying it would be right, just that it could happen.

[oldbike54]

 Two words ,


                                                                    Bob Newhart

 Dusty

[canuguzzi]

In California, it is also reported by the DMV that most accidents involving motorcycles are single vehicle. I don't know where the stats come from, hopefully they would be accurate.

If that is accepted at face value and is representative in all states, it would still seem to point to training as the more important factor in reducing motorcycle crash deaths than relying on the helmet. In other words the emphasis remains on the safety equipment and not the safe riding or driving skills of the people involved.

If those stats are true and.let's say they are, if many if those could be eliminated or prevented through better training, would the use of helmets still be the most significant factor in reducing the deaths which it appears is the conclusion the reports tend to focus on?

I have no idea about that being true or not but since the reports seem to leave that question out of scope, how would we know?

Let's say it is true though, it points a rather big finger at at the lack if rider training as the more important factor in preventing motorcycle rider deaths and that is contrary to the information being put out. Why that might be is another one of those questions not answered for lack of information, as would be the reason that isn't pursued in the studies.

It sure seems like a grant in the waiting to look into that and to approaching motorcycle rider deaths prevention in the direction of training as a fix instead of a commercial one, the selling of helmets.

[Aaron D.]

Wow, I have seen riders planning on denying people medical assistance because they didn't do what the rider thought should be done-and raining the "cost to society" argument.

"I have seen the enemy, and he is us".

[rocker59]

"I have seen the enemy, and he is us".

Yep.

[sib]

I think I've read in an AMA publication that most motorcycle accidents, also most fatal ones, are one-vehicle accidents.  Perhaps in some cases the accident happened because the rider swerved or over-braked to avoid an automobile, but in probably the majority of cases the rider simply lost control of his/her bike.  You can't really blame inattentive car drivers for that.

It's true that better rider training can reduce the number of these accidents, and I note that virtually all rider training courses REQUIRE helmet use.  This could even be considered an important part of the training.

[redrider]

" as a result of their own actions "
Most single vehicle crashes occur in curves. Riders misjudge entry speed, especially the newbies. A bit of training goes a long way. Usually to the first stop sign. I have encountered former students riding helmetless here in SC, which has a Michigan type law. Sure, no one wakes up and decides to crash on any given day. I did not two years ago. My new Vemar was less than 8 hours old. Face plant: scuffed shield, cracked shell and crushed liner at the base of my skull. Lucky.

[canuguzzi]

Its probably difficult to ask the dead motorcycle rider why they crashed it's a one vehicle accident.

Many of us can relate having to take evasive actions to avoid the inattentive actions of others. Sooner or later, your number can come up, how many people would bother to look back or turn back to check on the bike they ran off the road, especially considering they weren't paying attention in the first place?

I think a lot more riders are run off the roads than we might know, who do you ask what happened if the rider is dead and no one else claimed they were the ones crossing a yellow line in a curve?

Cause of death? Motorcycle? Easy, no car driver around to ask? Check the lost control box. Less work, fewer inquires and the is no incentive to say otherwise, crash investigations are costly.

[oldbike54]

 No idea about how hard LEOs work to investigate accident scenes in California . However , I have a good friend here that is a state trooper AND a motorcycle rider , as are lots of LEOs . Riding with him has given me some insight into how thoroughly any accident is investigated . Troopers are held to a high standard in this activity , and at least in Oklahoma are usually brought in to investigate crashes . It is surprising to see how many tools are in their toolbox that allows them to make a determination on  what caused the wreck . Just like with cars , alcohol and a lack of attention to the task at hand are major contributors to MC crashes .

  Dusty

[rocker59]

I think a lot more riders are run off the roads than we might know, who do you ask what happened if the rider is dead and no one else claimed they were the ones crossing a yellow line in a curve?

While I don't doubt that what you suggest occasionally happens, so many motorcyclists ride in pairs and groups that if such a thing happened, it would be reported.

The police reports and news reports usually have "the witnesses reported" comments.  And, I don't recall many reports noting "motorcyclist forced off of the roadway by oncoming vehicle".

I've come up on a bunch of single-vehicle-accidents over the years here in The Ozarks, and the victim's buddies and witnesses are usually parked along the roadside, watching the ambulance crews work.

As far as the riders wrapping themselves around trees at midnight on a Saturday night and returning a BAC over the legal limit?  Well, it's more likely that they just rode off the roadway than were forced off by some random motorist.

In Arkansas, State Police will be called to the scene if it's a State or Federal highway.   

[canuguzzi]

Then there sure is a need for much better training than is being required. I say required because it seems that the skills tests for motorcycle licenses is very lame compared to a car license test which isn't all that great either.

Even some of the MSF training is lacking. I took one not so long ago and on the last day, there were people getting signed off that you'd want to make sure they were headed in the opposite direction.

In the end, if that many motorcycle riders are running off the roads and killing themselves, helmets probably aren't the answer but it could be the easiest one the blame.

Blaming no helmet use is far less expensive and much easier to do than blaming a lack of training and doing something about it. Passing a law that requires wearing a helmet doesn't cost nearly as much as mandating better training and much better licensing tests.

[atavar]

Wow, I have seen riders planning on denying people medical assistance because they didn't do what the rider thought should be done-and raining the "cost to society" argument.

"I have seen the enemy, and he is us".

Wow, I have seen riders stating that anybody should be able to do anything at any cost to society without responsibility for their own actions and we are just supposed to stand quietly and pay the bill.  And we wonder why society is less than loving toward motorcyclists.
Yes, we have seen the enemy and he is us..

[Dilliw]

Late to this party but I think a couple of others have pointed out that any article or study that doesn't state the raw numbers is probably just pushing an agenda.  And any study or article that just uses the raw numbers is probably doing the same thing.

http://www.livingstondaily.com/story/news/local/2015/04/23/mototcycle-helmet-laws-michgian/26251501/

There's so many variables to what causes people to die on motorcycles that you will never be able to make motorcycling safe by addressing just one of them (helmets). You'd have to outlaw the whole concept of motorcycling.  Focusing on just the helmet is just seeing something you don't like and saying "there ought to be a law against that" (James Gregory reference  ). 

Who's the safer rider?  The guy who doesn't wear a helmet but 1) doesn't  drink and drive, 2) doesn't speed, and 3) has taken and advanced safety course, or the guy who wears a helmet, t-shirt, shorts and tennis shoes?  In the end it's up for all of us to decide how we're going to play the game and helmet laws, in my mind, are useless.  Outlaw bunk beds instead...