here is the pro helmet case...

OFF THE WIRE
from Big Wayne
----------- ... in mind-numbing detail, brought to us by Christopher A.


Hart, Vice Chairman National Transportation Safety Board
i'd like to wade through this and dispute his "data" . i'm

inviting a little help from you-all, if you please ! . . .

Before The Transporation and Telecommunications Committee Nebraska

Unicameral Legislature on Legislative Bill 52 Repeal of Nebraska's Universal

Helmet Law

Lincoln, Nebraska February 14, 2011

I am here at the invitation of Senator Lathrop, to discuss the National

Transportation Safety Board's recommendation on helmet use laws and

therefore our opposition to Legislative Bill (L.B.) 52, a bill that would

reduce the safety benefits that are now provided by Nebraska's universal

helmet law.

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is an independent federal

agency charged by Congress to investigate transportation accidents,

determine their probable cause, and make recommendations to

prevent their recurrence. The recommendations that arise from our

investigations and safety studies are our most important product.

The NTSB is concerned about the growing number of motorcycle riders that

have been killed or injured in motorcycle crashes. From 1997 through 2008,

the number of motorcycle fatalities nationwide more than doubled from 2,116

to 5,290. Although fatalities among motorcyclists declined in 2009, to

4,462, that is still an average of 12 motorcyclists per day, and an

additional 90,000 were injured. Here in Nebraska, during the same 12-year

period, there were 145 fatalities, an average of 12 deaths per year. Based

upon experience in other states, the number of motorcyclist fatalities and

injuries can be expected to increase if Nebraska enacts L.B. 52.

Motorcycles represent only 3 percent of the 257 million vehicles on our

roads, but they account for 13 percent of highways deaths. In 1997, the

motorcycle fatality rate per 100,000 registered vehicles was 55.30. By 2007,

the rate per 100,000 registered vehicles was 72.48, an increase of 31

percent, with the result that the number of fatalities grew faster than the

number of registered motorcycles.

Recognizing the safety benefits of motorcycle helmets and the effectiveness

of universal helmet laws in increasing helmet use, in October 2007, the NTSB

recommended that the states lacking a universal

helmet law enact legislation to require all motorcycle riders and passengers

to use a helmet that complies with federal standards. We were pleased not to

have to send that recommendation to Nebraska because, it

already had a universal helmet law in 2007.

Helmets Are Effective

Head injury is a leading cause of death in motorcycle crashes. According to

the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the use of a

safety helmet that complies with U.S. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard

(FMVSS) 218 is the "single critical factor in the prevention [and] reduction

of head injury." The function of the helmet is to protect the rider's head,

especially the brain, during a fall or crash.

A helmet that meets the federal safety standard is designed with a hard

outer shell, an impact-attenuating liner, and a retention system to protect

the structure and contents of the head in a wide variety of

impact scenarios.

Helmets can be effective in both low- and high-speed crashes because crash

speed is not directly related to head impact speed. In the only broad study

of motorcycle cause factors (frequently referred to as the Hurt Report), the

severity of head impacts was determined by examining crash-involved helmet

damage. This study found that 90 percent of head impacts were less severe

than the single test impact required in

FMVSS 218. Thus, FMVSS 218-compliant helmets are well designed to protect

the head for the vast majority of motorcycle crashes.

Experience has demonstrated the effectiveness of motorcycle helmets in

preventing and mitigating head injury. The independent Cochrane Review of

published studies found in 2003 that helmets reduced the risk of head injury

and fatality in motorcycle crashes, and found no evidence of an increased

risk of any other types of injury. A 1996 U.S. Department of Transportation

(DOT) report noted that riders not wearing helmets are three times more

likely to suffer brain injury than those riders wearing helmets. According

to another DOT report published in 2004, helmets are 37 percent effective in

preventing fatalities in motorcycle crashes.

David Thom, one of the researchers with the Hurt Report, spoke at the NTSB's

Motorcycle Forum in Sep 2006, about the potential negative effects of

helmets on safety. An active motorcyclist and researcher on motorcycle

safety for three decades, Mr. Thom noted that helmets neither cause nor

prevent neck injuries. A number of studies confirm Mr. Thom's observations.

Similarly, helmets have not been shown to cause problems with vision or

hearing.

Helmets Laws Do Increase Helmet Use

By 1976, following passage of the 1966 National Highway Safety Act, which

withheld federal funding from states that had not enacted mandatory helmet

laws, 47 states, including Nebraska, had mandatory helmet laws that applied

to all motorcycle riders. Since that time, motorcycle groups have argued

against such laws, and restrictions on federal funding contingent on such

laws were removed (in 1976), partially re-enacted (in 1991), and then

removed again (in 1995). Each removal of federal funding restrictions was

followed by repeals of universal helmet laws. Currently, 20 states,

including Nebraska, have universal helmet laws (requiring all riders to wear

a helmet), 27 states have partial laws (requiring minors and/or passengers

to wear such helmets), and 3 states have no helmet laws.

Unfortunately, these repeals have amounted to an experiment affirming the

effectiveness of helmet laws and regulations in reducing death and injury. A

1991 review of studies of helmet use found that

helmet use under universal laws ranges from 92 to 100 percent, while without

a law or under a partial law (requiring only some riders, such as teens or

novice riders, to wear helmets), helmet use generally ranges

from 42 to 59 percent. A 2009 NHTSA research note indicated that helmet use

in states that require all motorcyclists to wear helmets is at 86 percent,

while helmet use in a state without a law or under a partial

law is about 55 percent.

A 1986 study concluded that the repeal of helmet use laws was associated

with a 10.4 to 33.3 percent increase in the fatality rate when calculated

per accident. The study also found that between 158 and 420

fewer motorcycle rider fatalities would have occurred in 1984 had the laws

not been repealed. More recently, studies of states that have repealed their

mandatory helmet laws within the last 10 years have shown similar patterns.

For example, Arkansas repealed its universal helmet law in 1997, and 18

months after repeal, helmet use dropped by two-thirds (from 97 to 30

percent). Arkansas also experienced more than double the number and rate of

unhelmeted crash scene fatalities, and more than double the hospital

admission rate for unhelmeted crash survivors. Associated with this increase

in death and injuries was an increase in the amount of non-reimbursed

charges for initial treatment.
After Texas repealed its universal helmet law in 1997, helmet use fell from

97 to 66 percent. More than 80 additional motorcyclists died in the 2 years

following the law's repeal than in the 2 years preceding it. The

number of unhelmeted riders with traumatic brain injuries increased by a

factor of almost 10 in only 4 years, from 55 in 1997 to 511 in 2001, and the

number of unhelmeted riders who were placed in rehabilitation facilities saw

similar increases, from 9 in 1997 to 90 in 2001. A more recent study

published in the January 2010 edition of the Southern Medical Journal

indicates that in the 7 years since Texas repealed its mandatory motorcycle

law in 1997, fatality rates per vehicle miles traveled increased by roughly

25 percent.

In Kentucky, helmet usage rates fell from 96 to 65 percent following repeal

of the state's universal helmet law in 1998; fatalities increased from 26 in

the year prior to repeal to 42 in the year following repeal.

Accident-involved riders who did not wear helmets in Kentucky were 4 times

more likely to suffer a traumatic brain injury and severe head injury. In

addition, hospital charges alone averaged more than $25,000 more for the

unhelmeted than for the helmeted motorcyclist involved in an accident.

Louisiana saw its helmet usage rate drop from 100 to 52 percent after it

amended its helmet law in 1999 to remove the universal requirement for

helmet use. The fatality rate increased by more than 25 percent following

the repeal, with unhelmeted accident-involved riders experiencing head

injuries at twice the rate of helmeted riders. Nearly 60 more motorcyclists

died in the 2 years following the law's repeal than in the 2 years preceding

it. In spite of their requirement for unhelmeted riders to carry health

insurance, the insurance coverage for unhelmeted riders involved in

accidents actually decreased by half following the change in the law. In

2004, in response to the rise in deaths and injuries, Louisiana reenacted

the universal helmet law and saw the total number of deaths decline in 2004

and 2005.

Florida repealed its universal helmet law in 2000. After the repeal, helmet

wear decreased from 100 to 53 percent, motorcycle deaths increased by almost

50 percent, and the number of brain injuries

doubled. An estimated 117 deaths in Florida could have been avoided from

2001 to 2002 if the universal law had remained in place.

The most recent study examining the results of a helmet law repeal was

completed in 2008 by the University of Pittsburgh. The study looked at

motorcycle injuries and fatalities in Pennsylvania for the 2 years

before and after Pennsylvania limited its law to riders with limited

experience and riders and passengers under age 21. In the 2 years after

Pennsylvania changed its law, the number of non-head injury

deaths increased 25 percent, but the number of head injury deaths increased

by 66 percent. Motorcycle-related head injury hospitalizations increased 78

percent compared to 28 percent for non-head injury hospitalizations. The

increase in the number of head injury deaths or hospitalizations outpaced

the increase in the number of motorcycle registrations. Acute care hospital

charges for motor-cycle related head injuries increased 132 percent, and the

number of head-injured hospitalized motorcyclists requiring additional care

at other facilities, such as rehabilitation or long-term care, increased 87

percent, compared with a 16 increase for non-head injured motorcyclists.

The results of this legislative "experiment" on motorcycle riders are the

same in every state where it has been performed. When universal helmet laws

are repealed, helmet usage rates decrease dramatically, and

motorcycle deaths and injuries increase, even when accounting for the

changes in ridership that may be associated with the repeal of the universal

law. It is likely that hundreds of deaths and thousands of

injuries could have been avoided had the states that recently repealed their

universal helmet laws not done so.

Most states that have repealed universal helmet laws recognize that younger

riders may be unable to make a fully informed decision regarding helmet use.

They have, therefore, required that riders under a certain

age wear helmets. These younger riders are likely to be among the least

experienced riders and are the most likely to engage in risky behaviors,

often with an incomplete understanding of potential consequences.

Unfortunately, it is difficult to ascertain the age of a motorcycle rider

for the purposes of enforcing such a requirement without verifying the

rider's age during a traffic stop. As a result, the young motorcyclist

helmet law becomes unenforceable and helmet usage rates for minors drop

dramatically when universal helmet laws are repealed. Thus, the most

vulnerable and least risk-averse segments of the motorcyclist

population are more likely to be unprotected in the absence of universal

laws. Moreover, motorcyclists under age 21 generally represent less than 10%

of the national fatality total.

A number of motorcycle-related groups, including the National Association of

State Motorcycle Safety Administrators, the Motorcycle Safety Foundation,

and the American Motorcyclist Association, encourage

riders to wear motorcycle helmets, and most do not oppose laws mandating

such use by minors. The National Agenda for Motorcycle Safety (NAMS) report,

which was supported by NHTSA, the Motorcycle Safety Foundation, and

motorcycle manufacturers such as BMW, Ducati, Harley-Davidson, American

Honda Motor Company, Kawasaki, Suzuki, and Yamaha, included a recommendation

to increase the use of FMVSS 218-compliant helmets. A national survey

performed in 2006 by the Scripps Survey Research Center at Ohio University

noted that, even of those individuals who had previously ridden a motorcycle

without a helmet, 61 percent favored state legislation requiring helmet use.

The NTSB recognizes, however, that some motorcyclists and many motorcycling

organizations oppose mandating the use of motorcycle helmets by all riders.

Most do not argue against the safety benefits of

such helmets; instead, they contend that the government has no role in

protecting the individual from foreseeable adverse outcomes if the

individual chooses not to be so protected.

In the 1980s, opponents of seat belt use laws similarly asserted their

personal freedom to drive without wearing seat belts. However, in 1985, the

Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association stated, "the evidence is

clear and dramatic ... safety belt users ... experienced 80 percent fewer

deaths from head injuries." NHTSA estimates that from 1975 through 2005,

seat belts saved more than 211,000 lives nationwide. During that

same period, all states, except New Hampshire, enacted mandatory seat belt

use laws; and usage rates have increased nationwide from about 12 percent in

the early 1970s to 84 percent today. The NTSB is confident

that there is ample evidence that similar life saving results can be

achieved through motorcycle helmet laws that apply to all riders and

passengers.

The argument regarding helmet laws is often framed in terms of personal

choice (for example, "it's my head"). Such an argument typically invokes the

idea that motorcyclists are only hurting themselves by deciding to ride

unprotected. For more than 14 years, the NTSB has been responsible for

assisting families of those killed and injured in transportation accidents.

We do not accept the notion that surviving friends and family are not

affected when riders decide not to wear a helmet and are killed or injured.
Societal Costs

In addition to family and friends, society as a whole pays the

well-documented excess costs for unhelmeted riders: medical care costs and

the potentially even greater costs from productivity losses of individuals

injured, disabled, or killed. Especially tragic are the fatalities and

injuries involving unhelmeted riders in accidents that would have required

only a new helmet and cosmetic repairs to the motorcycle, had the rider been

wearing a protective helmet.
The costs of motorcycle crashes and the effect of helmets on these costs

were presented at the NTSB's 2006 forum by Dr. Ted Miller, Director of the

Public Services Research Institute at the Pacific Institute for

Research and Evaluation. According to Dr. Miller, in 2005, 110,000

motorcyclists were involved in police reported motorcycle crashes, and the

motorcycle crash injuries cost $17.5 billion, including the costs of

medical treatment, lost work, and quality of life. Although unhelmeted

motorcyclists accounted for 36 percent of all motorcycle crashes, they

represented 70 percent of the total cost of those crashes or $12.2

billion. Dr. Miller also estimated the 2005 average cost per crash-involved

motorcyclist as $71,000 for helmeted and $310,000 for unhelmeted

motorcyclists. Thus, in a time of tight public budgets, it would not be

fiscally prudent to create a situation that will foreseeably increase the

need for resources, mostly public resources, to care for injured

motorcyclists and their families.

It is because of the costs to society and survivors that personal freedoms

must be balanced with the need to protect individuals from preventable

illness, injuries, and fatalities. We are likely to hear passionate debate

today about the personal freedom of motorcycle riders to not wear helmets.

However, the effectiveness of universal helmet laws in preventing death and

disability among motorcyclists operating on public roads, particularly in

light of rising rates and total numbers of individuals killed and injured in

motorcycle crashes across our country, is an argument for the adoption and

maintenance of such laws.

Conclusion
L.B. 52 is not good public safety policy. The NTSB opposes its enactment. We

ask the Committee to table this bill. Experience has shown that when

universal helmet laws are weakened, motorcyclist deaths and

injuries rise. The NTSB does not want to see deaths and injuries rising in

Nebraska as we have seen in every state that has taken a repeal action.

the original is at: www.ntsb.gov/speeches/hart/hac110214.html

Big
...freedom isn't free: its price is eternal vigilance . . .
While the NTSB may be experts in airplane crashes and train crashes they are not in motorcycle crashes. I believed that have investigated 6 motorcycles crashes in their history. Investigating 6 crashes do not make you a subject matter expert. I got this number last year during the testimony at the Md. house of delegates subcommittee hearing for our adult choice bill. An NTSB representative was there and testified against adult choice. Afterwards I filed a complaint against him under the Hatch Act, which prohibits government agencies from lobby states. Nothing came of it. If they are so concerned about saving lives they would force people in cars, or at least convertibles, to wear helmets too. And when they talk about how much it is costing taxpayers try to get the correct cost. I tried for 2 weeks before giving up. But, in Maryland they say it is in the millions. But they spend billions on health care for illegal immigrants but that is for humanitarian purposes they say.
I can prove in a simple way that wearing or not wearing a helmet does not make a difference when riding a motorcycle. Here in Maryland we are required to wear helmets. But 2 of our neighboring states, Pa and De, have adult choice. If wearing a helmet was so safe and not wearing a helmet was so dangerous why is motorcycle insurance in Md higher than in Pa and De. Because the actuaries who set the rates determined that it does not matter if you are wearing a helmet or not. If you crash the results are the same.

He states in this letter below “ Similarly, helmets have not been shown to cause problems with vision or hearing.” Well an article sent by someone on this site a few weeks ago stated otherwise. They were developing a helmet that had built in sensors because helmets cause vision and hearing problems.
The people who are pushing this we call safety nannies but that is the wrong name. They are not for safety but control. We, Bikers, are the last group who they can legally discriminate against. Read some of the Civil Rights speeches and substitute Bikers for the other minorities mention and it’s the same thing.


Right on! I was formulating my response while you got yours in. It took me a long time to respond because I had a feeling about this duschbag that I couldn't quite put my finger on. How is it that the government can testify against freedom? I'll be talking to out our Nevada activists to strategize. I'm brand new to the "game" so I have a lot to learn. Thank you for sharing your insights - seems my intuition was on the money. We the People need to put the heat on these guys by exposing them for the law breakers they are.




TigerLily

__._,_.___