Nevada Helmet Law Repeal
Helmets are just common sense safety. Helmets save lives. Most states have helmet laws. But the Las Vegas Review Journal reports Nevada helmet laws may be repealed. That is if Sen. Don Gustavson gets his way.
Mimicking the "build it and they will come" line, Gustavson says "Let them take off their helmets, and they will come."
According to 2006 data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 4,810 motorcycle occupants were killed on our nation's roads last year, a 127% increase from 1997. Motorcycle helmets have been shown to save the lives of motorcyclists and prevent serious brain injuries.
Fatalities among motorcycle riders have increased by more than 127% since 1997. (NHTSA, 2007)
In 2006, 65% of fatally injured motorcycle riders were not wearing a helmet in states without all-rider helmet laws, compared with only 13% in states with all-rider helmet laws. (NHTSA, 2007).
So what is the motive to repeal helmet laws? It would be good for business and create jobs! Wow. Has this guy got his priorities mixed up or what?
Hey motorcycle helmets are very important accessories, because it is the only thing which helps you to save your head to get damaged in accidents, and i think everyone should use it compulsorily...
Wear a motorcycle helmet and be the first one on your block to break your neck.
Statistics clearly show that the perceived risk of breaking your neck in a motorcycle accident with a helmet is far outweighed by the benefit of wearing one to avoid head and brain injury.
You lost me on the first statement " most states have helmet laws" in fact most states do not have a helmet law. 30 have no helmet law or modified law allowing adults freedom of choice and 20 states require helmets for all riders. If you take all deaths on motorcycles since 1967 ( when states we given the freedom to decided for themselves ) 51% were wearing helmets and 49% were not a statical tie. How can that be with 20 states mandating helmets? Because helmets do not save lives. What helmet laws do do is bring down the number of riders which in turn brings down the number of motorcycle/car accidents in which 70% the car is at fault and pays out a much bigger settlement compared with car/car accidents. That is what you and insurance companies are trying to do, reduce insurance losses, not save lives
Thanks for your input Mark. Obviously we disagree on the value of wearing motorcycle helmets.
But I do want you to know that your last sentence accuses me of "trying...to reduce insurance losses, not save lives." That is not true at all. \
I represent consumers of motorcycles who are injured due to the fault of others (many times car drivers) or the motorcycle itself (or helmet failure). I fight insurance companies everyday because, like you, I believe they are for profit business that engages in damage control (not paying claims) at every turn.
So while we may disagree on the value of wearing helmets and its impact on consumers, lets not disagree on the negative characteristics of insurance companies.
Tim,that is not what statistics in Colorado say1968 there were 2.0 fatalies per 100 accidents no helmet law,next year with the law there were 2.3 per 100 accidents. I have the stats 1954-1991 very little difference.
Brad
While I am not arguing where you get your statistics from specifically in this comment, I would like to make another point you bring up.
Fatality is obviously the end of the spectrum when it comes to injury form motorcycle accidents. However, along that spectrum are a lot of head and brain injuries that would be reduced or avoided if one were wearing a helmet.
So again, and I think it is a no-brainer (no pun intended) that helmets are the best choice for motorcycle riders.
Tim, you seem to be doing a lot of back peddling when confront with some facts about deaths per 100 accidents and not mentioning that most states do not have helmet laws but as a blogger trying to come across as an expert? Hear is a fact about helmets, to get a DOT sticker it has to pass a stress test of being dropped at 6 feet, which translate to a little over 13 MPH. Read the label inside the helmet it will even say it will not save lives or reduce head injuries in some accidents ( anything over 13 MPH ) that is why no government agency will certify helmets. What you fail to grasp is that how many accidents are avoided because the unhelmeted rider sees and hears better, not to mention heat issues and fatigue issues when wearing a helmet for extend times.
Every state that has a helmet law has a high rate of accidents per 1000 register motorcycles.
Mark
Clearly you will not be persuaded that wearing a helmet is a better choice over not wearing one. I think we can agree to disagree.
In my practice, head injuries in motorcycle accidents are much worse and frequent at lower speeds than in similar car accident cases. A car has more protection for the skull, at least as to the other car in low speed impacts. What's more, wearing a helmet reduces head and brain injury and protects the skull more than not wearing one.
If your experience causes you to want to ride without a helmet than (in state's where helmets are optional) you are free to not wear one. I understand your arguments for not wanting to wear one.
Happy and safe riding.
Tim
Tim,
I goggle Nevada helmet repeal and came across your blog with your stance why Nevada should not repeal it's helmet law. When challenge with reasons why it should be repealed all you mention is brain injury concerns with statistics from a government agency that also says that South Dakota home of the largest motorcycle rally in the world had zero motorcycle miles driven in 2010.
Here's my point, you are clearly a educated man capable of making informed decisions as to weather or not you want to wear a helmet. I consider myself informed with this topic with over 30 years of riding.With your point of view you are taking away my freedom of choice with my point of you you can still wear a helmet. Please don't come back with the old tired excuse of costing you money should I be in a accident unless you are prepared to come with facts on what government spends uninsured motorcyclist compared to what it spends on other segments of the population.
Motor Vehicle, including motorcycle, injury and death carries significant economic costs. Those costs, are frequently passed on to the taxpayer when either the injured person's insurance runs out or does not exist. Therefore taxpaying voters have an interest in reducing those costs by making helmet laws.
Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death among those age 5-34 in the U.S. (CDC. WISQARS (Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System). Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, CDC; 2010. Available at http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars. Accessed October 12, 2010.) More than 2.3 million adult drivers and passengers were treated in emergency departments as the result of being injured in motor vehicle crashes in 2009.(CDC. Vital Signs: Nonfatal, motor vehicle-occupant injuries (2009) and seat belt use (2008) among adults—United States. MMWR 2011; 59.) The economic impact is also notable: the lifetime costs of crash-related deaths and injuries among drivers and passengers were $70 billion in 2005.(Naumann RB, Dellinger AM, Zaloshnja E, Lawrence BA, Miller TR. Incidence and total lifetime costs of motor vehicle-related fatal and nonfatal injury by road user type, United States, 2005. Traffic Inj Prev 2010;11:353-60.)
Tim,
Motorcycle miles driven in the US is less then 1/10th of 1%. Your giving motor vehicle cost which would make my point that you should have to wear a helmet driving a car.
Why do you not address the statement that my way you are free to ride with a helmet but you are not affording me the same right to choose for myself?
By the way, do you ride?
Also if the bottom line out of your wallet is really what bothers you any increase from uninsured riders would be more then offset by the increase of taxes from increased MC registration, new bike sales and increase tourism.Take a look at what helmet repeal has done for Florida in the 10 years since they have allowed adults freedom of choice. Yes the first year they had a increase in deaths but if you compared the 10 year period with a helmet law vs the ten year without, deaths are down but the state took in 300 million more in revenue.
Mark
I have ridden. Do not like wearing a helmet and therefore do not ride. It is too dangerous, in my opinion for myself, to anticipate what other motorists may do. I rode in Tulsa Oklahoma when I was younger and many times would go without a helmet. I fell once on a wet street and was glad I was wearing my helmet. Gave it up though.
You are right: when will the day come when skiers are required to wear helmets. Wearing a helmet 24/7 would lower brain injury, but it is not practical.
As to your right to choose to not wear a helmet or use a seatbelt, I acknowledge that you are losing a that right when helmets are mandated. It is a balancing test: I fall on one side and you on the other. I respect that.
Be well
Timothy R. Titolo
I believe that wearing a helmet is an individual decision. I do not want the government deciding " what is good for me". Having said that, a helmet waiver should be in place, similar to the Texas estatute, where you go through an orientation, sign off as understanding the benefits of wearing a helmet and of the risks if not worn, and then provide insurance so that the state is noy responsible for supportimg you in case of disability.
Increased fatalities after motorcycle helmet law repeal: is it all because of lack of helmets?
O'Keeffe T, Dearwater SR, Gentilello LM, Cohen TM, Wilkinson JD, McKenney MM.
Source
Division of Burn, Trauma and Critical Care, Department of Surgery, University of Texas Southwestern Medical School, Dallas, Texas 75390-9158, USA. terence.okeeffe@utsouthwestern.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND:
During the last 10 years, the number of motorcycle riders in the United States has risen sharply. The corresponding increase in fatalities observed during this time may be because of the increase in riders, or because the number of states that mandate universal helmet use has decreased. We examined the effect of the repeal of Florida's helmet law in July 2000 to test the hypothesis that the increase in fatalities observed after repeal resulted from an increase in the number of motorcycle riders.
METHODS:
We identified all motorcycle fatalities (N = 197) in Miami-Dade county for a 3.5-year period before repeal (prelaw), and a similar period after repeal (postlaw), using police crash reports and medical examiner records. We compared the number of fatalities, frequency of helmet use in fatal crashes, and number of registered motorcycles in the two time periods.
RESULTS:
There was a decrease in helmet use from 80% to 33%, and an increase in motorcycle fatalities after repeal: 72 to 125. However, repeal was also associated with a rise in annual motorcycle registrations from 17,270 to 39,043. Fatality rates adjusted for numbers of registered motorcycles did not change significantly; 11.6 deaths per 10,000 motorcycles prelaw, and 12.5 deaths postlaw.
CONCLUSIONS:
There was a significant rise in motorcycle fatalities after Florida's helmet law repeal, which appears to be associated with an increase in the number of motorcycle riders. Injury prevention efforts focusing on factors other than helmet use should be developed in light of continuing repeal of universal motorcycle helmet laws across the nation.
Tim,
Did you read the USA today newspaper today?
Front page is an article about bus crashes and your beloved National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ( NHTSA ) Once again this department got the numbers wrong when it comes to safety. Quote " The agency failure to track accidents all the accidents has given Congress and the public a false impression that buses are safer then they are ..."
The NHTSA is playing politics with the numbers, Buses they like so they under report, motorcycles they hate so they over report.
Tim this will be my last contact on this site, I have given you third party independent information that helmets do not save lives, given you information that the NHTSA plays with the numbers, and shown you motorcycles deaths are not a financial strain on anyone and given you my 30 plus years knowledge of riding. I would never ask or tell someone not to wear a helmet all I ask is you allow me to be given the choice to wear one or not.
It should be a matter of choice not be forced, next you will be told you have to wear orange soxs to protect your self when walking outside! I would compromize and say 18 and under must wear one since most of them should not be aloud to ride anyway! they are wreckless,and are the ones that give the majority of us a bad rep.and piss off people!
Thanks for the comment. Then there was this sad and ironic story – check it out. http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/07/04/new.york.motorcyclist.death/index.html?&hpt=hp_c2
Great Information... Thanks for Post..